Jump to content
Jays Centre
  • Create Account

Recommended Posts

Posted
Newb question here.

 

Why does hockey use "points" and not "wins"

 

Used to get 2 points for a win, and one each for a tie. Now there are no ties, but they hand out a point to a team that loses in OT or shootout - some fans refer to it as a loser point.

Posted
Newb question here.

 

Why does hockey use "points" and not "wins"

 

Because when hockey was invented, after the team won, Lord Stanley used to stand up and salute them by "pointing" his two abnormally long index fingers straight into the sky and towards God. The players used to remark that it was "nice to be able to get two points tonight from Lord Stanley", which evolved over time to the points system as we know it today. If the event of a tie, the skaters would often remark, "at least one of the points from Lord Stanley was for us tonight", hence the distribution.

Posted
Used to get 2 points for a win, and one each for a tie. Now there are no ties, but they hand out a point to a team that loses in OT or shootout - some fans refer to it as a loser point.

 

This doesn't make sense

Posted
Because when hockey was invented, after the team won, Lord Stanley used to stand up and salute them by "pointing" his two abnormally long index fingers straight into the sky and towards God. The players used to remark that it was "nice to be able to get two points tonight from Lord Stanley", which evolved over time to the points system as we know it today. If the event of a tie, the skaters would often remark, "at least one of the points from Lord Stanley was for us tonight", hence the distribution.

 

This makes perfect sense. Thanks

Posted
This doesn't make sense

 

You're right, many feel that it's a broken system. Back when a game could end in a tie, it made sense that the two teams split the two points in the event of a tie. Now that every game ends with a win, they could ditch the points system.

Posted
You're right, many feel that it's a broken system. Back when a game could end in a tie, it made sense that the two teams split the two points in the event of a tie. Now that every game ends with a win, they could ditch the points system.

 

But there's a difference between losing and losing a little bit later on. Duh!

Posted
This doesn't make sense

 

Nah, 1 point for the tie in regulation, team that wins the game in extra time or shootout gets the W and extra point

 

probably decided to do it this way to increase the possibilities / excitement level during a playoff race

Posted
NHL should do away with the stupid f***ing shootout and bring ties back.

 

Agree with this. 10 minute sudden death overtime, first 5 minutes 4 on 4, 2nd 5 minutes 3 on 3

Posted
Agree with this. 10 minute sudden death overtime, first 5 minutes 4 on 4, 2nd 5 minutes 3 on 3

 

Yeah, not a huge fan of the shootout either. Probably wouldn't add any extra time to the game either.

Posted
That will never happen. Ties are boring as f***, and teams will play very conservatively if ties are brought back. I don't mind killing off shootouts, but if that happens, it will only be in favour of additional OT.
Posted
That will never happen. Ties are boring as f***, and teams will play very conservatively if ties are brought back. I don't mind killing off shootouts, but if that happens, it will only be in favour of additional OT.

 

They may play conservatively in division, but shouldn't otherwise.

Posted
Can someone lend a hand and tell me if the Avalanche going to be good this year? I plan on attending exactly one game this year as I always do, the opener. But if they make the playoffs I'll probably go to some of those too.
Posted
Can someone lend a hand and tell me if the Avalanche going to be good this year? I plan on attending exactly one game this year as I always do, the opener. But if they make the playoffs I'll probably go to some of those too.

 

Hard to say with the NHL. The talent is so flat that any team can emerge as a contender at any time.

Posted
Hard to say with the NHL. The talent is so flat that any team can emerge as a contender at any time.

 

Nice.

 

Good to hear my beloved Sens have a shot at the cup this year.

Posted
Can someone lend a hand and tell me if the Avalanche going to be good this year? I plan on attending exactly one game this year as I always do, the opener. But if they make the playoffs I'll probably go to some of those too.

 

Could really go either way. They aren't a team that I can call a sure contender but they have a lot of quality players. Varlamov has been a big x factor in net so getting Grubauer to supplement was a good idea. They'll need some repeat performances from guys like MacKinnon and Rantanen.

Community Moderator
Posted
Why don't you like shootouts?

 

It isn’t hockey. Awarding a team a point in the standings for winning a competition that doesn’t necessarily reward the same skills as the actual game that’s played in the prior 65 minutes is a random way to allocate a significant number of points in the standings. The NHL loves it because it creates artificial parity, and makes it harder for the best teams to separate themselves from the pack.

Posted
Can someone lend a hand and tell me if the Avalanche going to be good this year? I plan on attending exactly one game this year as I always do, the opener. But if they make the playoffs I'll probably go to some of those too.

 

They should be competitive. They are not a deep team but if the goaltending holds up they are definitely in the mix for a playoff spot. But in the West that same could be said for many teams... Edmonton, Calgary, Dallas... really only two team that would be a shocker to make the playoffs are Phoenix and Vancouver, I also think Chicago is done as a team but they could have a deadcat bounce back year. Everyone else has a good chance of being in the mix. Unlike the East were there are like 5 teams that I'd be shocked if they made it and really probably 4 teams (NJD, Buff, Carolina, Florida) in the mix for the last playoff spot, with the remaining 7 playoff teams from last year all likely to be back.

Posted
It isn’t hockey. Awarding a team a point in the standings for winning a competition that doesn’t necessarily reward the same skills as the actual game that’s played in the prior 65 minutes is a random way to allocate a significant number of points in the standings. The NHL loves it because it creates artificial parity, and makes it harder for the best teams to separate themselves from the pack.

 

Makes sense. I always liked shootouts in soccer and hockey but i don't like those sports. I wouldn't be thrilled if a baseball game tie was decided by a home run derby.

Community Moderator
Posted

https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/1615438?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

So Ottawa waives Zack Smith, who obviously goes unclaimed. Instead of actually sending him to the AHL, which would allow them to at least spin this attempted cost-cutting move as a hockey move, they keep him with the NHL club. Actual NHL General Manager Pierre Dorion's comments on the ordeal:

 

"We knew that if we let the team know we are not going to accept what happened last (season), including how Zack played, that hopefully the message would be passed to the room"

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The Jays Centre Caretaker Fund
The Jays Centre Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Blue Jays community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...