Other than their own, two games hold interest for the Kings tonight, as Calgary hosts Colorado and Vancouver hosts Dallas. The rooting interest in the latter is clear, but in the first game, one team’s already-dim playoff hopes would essentially vanish with a regulation loss. A handful of teams — the Kings, Dallas, Phoenix, San Jose — will just be hoping that game ends in regulation and that it’s not a dreaded three-point game. This isn’t anything new, but the three-point game is the bane of scoreboard-watchers everywhere, and Darryl Sutter isn’t a fan of the “bonus’’ point.
SUTTER: “It should just be two (points). You get points for losing, but you’re going to have the fan-friendly shootout.’’
Sutter raised the idea, as many others have, of awarding three points for a regulation win, and indicated that the league sends mixed messages about the importance of the shootout.
SUTTER: “If it’s such a great thing, why don’t they keep stats for it? All I hear, from guys that cover teams and stuff is, `Mike Richards, what’s wrong with Mike Richards? What’s wrong with Jeff Carter?’ Well, they scored the three biggest goals we’ve had (recently, in shootouts). We’re still in the playoff race because of the goals they scored. If it’s so important, why don’t we talk about the goal that Mike Richards scored, or Jeff Carter scored, or Dustin Brown scored?’’
3 points for a win, OT win
2 points for a shootout win
1 point f or a shootout loss
0 points for a real loss.
All games have 3 points divided up. Everyone wins.
I don’t get why this concept is so hard for some people to accept. If the shootout has to stay then this point system would be ideal.
[Reply]
RedBear Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
@mbar, The reason is, this tight playoff race at the end of the season is good for the NHL and they don’t want to change anything, like the point system, that might make for a less tight race.
[Reply]
tkecanuck341 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
@mbar, 2 points for a win, OT win
1 point for a shootout win
0 points for a OT/Shootout/regular loss (you lost!)
This makes people actually play to win rather than play not to lose.
[Reply]
Qmungous Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
@tkecanuck341, i like this idea. Three points for a win is just too much.
[Reply]
mbar Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
@tkecanuck341,
The problem here is that this equates a shootout (i.e. a gimmick) loss as the same thing as a real loss. They are not the same. To lose in actual hockey is much worse (worth less) then tieing your opponent in actual hockey and then losing in a coin toss which is pretty much what shootouts are.
It’s correct that the current system recognizes that a shootout loss is better then losing the game the old fashioned way.
It’s wrong that the current system pretends that winning in a shootout should be the equivalent of beating a team in real hockey. You didn’t actually beat them. You tied. That’s why awarding 2 points for a shootout win and 3 points for a real win is so obvious.
Plus, if there are 3 points at stake for real wins it adds incentive for teams to go for it in regulation and earn real wins and not just to hold on to guarantee their loser point.
I think ties would actually go down.
3 points for a win is not “too much”. We’ve already broken the point system with these stupid three point games. Since we’ve done that, there is no reason not to fix it by going to the 3-2-1-0 system.
[Reply]
tkecanuck341 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
@mbar, Very well…get rid of the shootout and go to a 10-minute overtime. If you win in regulation, 2 points. If you win in overtime, 1 point. If the game ends in a tie or you lose in regulation or overtime 0 points.
This accomplishes the same goal that I was going for, rewarding teams for trying to win and punishing teams for trying not to lose.
Anjin Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
@tkecanuck341, The bad thing about that though is the Kings/Blues game last week.
That would really suck to get a shutout and 0 points along with it.
[Reply]
Froonk Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
@tkecanuck341,
2 points for regulation win, OT win.
1 point OT/shoot out loss.
Now for the shoot out winner: 1 1/2 points, not 2 points like it is now.
[Reply]
tkecanuck341 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
@Froonk, ½ a point? Really?
zulov Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
@tkecanuck341, I was just going to suggest the same thing.
[Reply]
John Paul Kelly Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
@mbar, Makes way too much sense to actually happen.
[Reply]
Robb Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
@mbar, +1
[Reply]
Froonk Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
@mbar,
How about:
2 points for regulation win, OT win.
1 point OT/shoot out loss.
Now for the shoot out winner: 1 1/2 points, not 2 points like it is now.
[Reply]
wes Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
@mbar, the only apparent drawback to your suggestion is the complete disconnect from historical points records. but all in all, there are no better alternatives. and i appreciate that you recognize that losing a shootout (an abrupt little skills competition _after_ a hockey game has been discontinued) is NOT equivalent to losing a hockey game. if we have to have the stupid little skills competition, and it seems we do, a shootout loser has to get a point– they only lost a miniature skills competition, they didn’t lose a hockey game, as a hockey game was no longer being played when something rather different was ‘lost.’ which is why there’s a rational tie-breaker to throw out shootout “wins” when push comes to shove.
[Reply]
Michael Clarke Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
@mbar, My thoughts are if they are going to keep the three point system they should not give a point to each team at the end of regulation. Make the team earn the point in OT. At the end of OT each team gets a point and then fight for the second point in the shootout.
[Reply]
DS and I have found a commmon ground to agree on. That and our PP being “awful” (I am sure he is to polite to use the word “sucks”).
[Reply]
They’re never going to the 3-2-1 system. It makes the standings too complicated, which was a complaint with the W-L-T-OTL setup from a few years ago.
In the end, it doesn’t have an affect if you just wins your games. Had the Kings played better the previous 3 months or so, they wouldn’t care about anyone else.
[Reply]
Chris Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
@Sam, Well yeah, you can say that about any team, any season, any night. If this, if that. Of course, if the Kings had played better they’d be higher in the standings… same for a lot of teams.
The point is, the league is awarding teams just for pushing a game to OT. It’s worth discussing.
[Reply]
MindGeyser Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
@Chris, My main issue is that pushing two teams to SO = 1 win and 1 regulation loss. I think the regulation win should be more than just pushing two teams to the Shootout.
[Reply]
CB14 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
@Sam, I agree that they’re never going to a 3-2-1 system, but it’s because Bettman likes the fact that the standings are so close late in the season. Thus more of the games mean something which means more tickets will be sold, more tv’s will be watched, and thus more money will be made. That’s what it’s all about to Gary Bettman, MONEY.
[Reply]
Duncanz Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
@CB14, Of course the Board of Directors (Owners) that hold Mr Bettman’s fortunes in their hands just might have something to do with that philosophy …
In the meantime, he is probably existing on a perfectly decent little salary.
[Reply]
Why any points for a loss? IMO, regulation or overtime losses should not be awarded a point.
Win (OT or regulation) 2 pts.
make it to a shootout, fine, 1 point.
Lose in OT or reg. NO POINTS
[Reply]
DesertKing Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
@Dan,
Something about giving someone for losing does grind on me. It sounds like Little League.
[Reply]
Drop the shootout all together. Play 10 minutes of OT like the old days!
[Reply]
FKA PakiFro Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
@Chris,
4 on 4 I’m assuming? If that’s what you’re getting at, I agree completely. I can’t imagine two teams NOT scoring in 10 minutes of wide open ice.
[Reply]
Ron Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
@FKA PakiFro, St Blues Vs Kings…. you could put them out there for 60 more minutes 4 on 4 and they still might not score.
[Reply]
Sam Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
@FKA PakiFro, I can. I watched the 5 minute overtime. It was all but a tie in most cases unless you had East v. West.
[Reply]
Deke'r Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
@FKA PakiFro, ….and if it still ends in a tie?…
[Reply]
FKA PakiFro Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
@Deke’r,
Then a shoot out. You can’t have ties with the parity in the league. Too many games would end up tied so you need a tie breaker for games.
Jeff_R Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
@Chris, I think the SO is fine. However I think the OT before the shootout should be 10 minutes instead of 5. Whether it is 4 on 4 the whole time or you break it in half the first 5 minutes 4 on 4 and the last 5 minutes 3 on 3. Then the SO. I know it is extra time but still no points for the loser and 2 points if you win in OT and 1 in a SO with 3 in regulation.
[Reply]
Kingsfanone Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
@Jeff_R,
THAT’S an idea I could support. Great idea!
[Reply]
Deathmatch for tied games – 2 go in, 1 comes out. Then we could actually use Westy
[Reply]
Can anyone run a quick simulation on this years standings and tell us where we would be if we had the 3-2-1 system in place ?
[Reply]
Why would the NHL change anything when it leads to this crazy, exciting and nail bitting entertainment? This point system is actually growing the game! I’m nervous as hell, but every game I watch I’m on the edge of my seat, and sometimes it’s not even just for Kings games.
[Reply]
Dooms Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
@Dooms, Also, it bascially extends the playoffs an entire month.
[Reply]
KC23 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
@Dooms, I agree. Why mess with something that has led to perhaps the most exciting regular season in the history of the game … or at least since 69 when I first starting watching. The closest year to being this good imho was last year.
To me it has felt like the playoffs since February.
[Reply]
King John Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
@Dooms, Yup.
It’s good for attendance as well as most teams figure they have an above .500 record and a chance to make it into the playoffs. Who wants to follow a team with a record way below .500? The way it is now makes most teams look decent to their fans, and so it’s a boon to the NHL.
[Reply]
Some number cruncher run the standings in a 3 point system and tell me what it looks like? It sure seems like it’s logical. Where would the standings be sitting today if such a point system was in place?
[Reply]
tkecanuck341 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
@dcaps55,
EAST
Rank – Div – Team – ROW – SOW – SOL/OTL – L (PTS)
1 – A1 – NY Rangers – 45 – 4 – 7 – 21 (150 pts)
2 – N1 – Boston – 37 – 8 – 4 – 28 (131 pts)
3 – S1 – Washington – 36 – 3 – 8 – 31 (122 pts)
4 – A2 – Philadelphia – 41 – 4 – 8 – 24 (139 pts)
5 – A3 – Pittsburgh – 38 – 9 – 6 – 24 (138 pts)
6 – A4 – New Jersey – 32 – 12 – 6 – 28 (126 pts)
7 – N2 – Ottawa – 34 – 5 – 10 – 28 (122 pts)
8 – S2 – Florida – 31 – 6 – 16 – 24 (121 pts)
9 – N3 – Buffalo – 31 – 7 – 10 – 29 (117 pts)
10 – S3 – Winnipeg – 31 – 4 – 8 – 34 (109 pts)
11 – S4 – Carolina – 31 – 0 – 15 – 31 (108 pts)
12 – S5 – Tampa Bay – 32 – 3 – 7 – 35 (106 pts)
13 – N4 – Toronto – 29 – 4 – 9 – 36 (104 pts)
14 – A5 – NY Islanders – 26 – 7 – 11 – 33 (103 pts)
15 – N5 – Montreal – 24 – 5 – 14 – 34 (96 pts)
WEST
Rank – Div – Team – ROW – SOW – SOL/OTL – L (PTS)
1 – C1 – St. Louis – 44 – 4 – 10 – 20 (150 pts)
2 – N1 – Vancouver – 40 – 7 – 9 – 21 (143 pts)
3 – P1 – Dallas – 35 – 7 – 5 – 30 (124 pts)
4 – C2 – Nashville – 40 – 4 – 8 – 25 (136 pts)
5 – C3 – Detroit – 39 – 6 – 5 – 26 (132 pts)
6 – C4 – Chicago – 37 – 6 – 9 – 26 (132 pts)
7 – P2 – Phoenix – 32 – 6 – 13 – 27 (121 pts)
8 – P3 – Los Angeles – 32 – 6 – 12 – 27 (120 pts)
9 – P4 – San Jose – 31 – 8 – 10 – 29 (119 pts)
10 – N2 – Calgary – 32 – 3 – 15 – 28 (117 pts)
11 – N3 – Colorado – 31 – 9 – 6 – 33 (117 pts)
12 – P5 – Anaheim – 30 – 3 – 11 – 33 (107 pts)
13 – N4 – Minnesota – 24 – 8 – 10 – 35 (98 pts)
14 – N5 – Edmonton – 26 – 5 – 9 – 37 (97 pts)
15 – C5 – Columbus – 21 – 4 – 7 – 45 (78 pts)
Rank – Conference Rank
Div – Division Rank
Team – Duh
ROW – Regulation/Overtime Wins
SOW – Shootout Wins
SOL/OTL – Shootout/Overtime Loss
L – Loss
PTS – Points
[Reply]
tkecanuck341 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
@tkecanuck341, Sorry about the formatting…it lined up nicely in my text editor.
[Reply]
Duncanz Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
@tkecanuck341, Wow, look at the striking contrast between that method and the actual standings!
tkecanuck341 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
@Duncanz, Someone asked…and I was bored. So I obliged.
Duncanz Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
@tkecanuck341, No! I’m glad you did. It makes a pretty big statement, and I was simply echoing that.
Thanks for your diligence!
tkecanuck341 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
@dcaps55, Now for my 2 point system:
2 points for a win, OT win
1 point for a shootout win
0 points for a OT/Shootout/regular loss (you lost!)
EAST
Rank – Div – Team – ROW – SOW – L (PTS)
1 – A1 – NY Rangers – 45 – 4 – 28 (94 pts)
2 – N1 – Boston – 37 – 8 – 32 (82 pts)
3 – S1 – Washington – 36 – 3 – 39 (75 pts)
4 – A2 – Philadelphia – 41 – 4 – 32 (86 pts)
5 – A3 – Pittsburgh – 38 – 9 – 30 (85 pts)
6 – A4 – New Jersey – 32 – 12 – 34 (76 pts)
7 – N2 – Ottawa – 34 – 5 – 38 (73 pts)
8 – N3 – Buffalo – 31 – 7 – 39 (69 pts)
9 – S2 – Florida – 31 – 6 – 40 (68 pts)
10 – S3 – Tampa Bay – 32 – 3 – 42 (67 pts)
11 – S4 – Winnipeg – 31 – 4 – 42 (66 pts)
12 – S5 – Carolina – 31 – 0 – 46 (62 pts)
13 – N4 – Toronto – 29 – 4 – 45 (62 pts)
14 – A5 – NY Islanders – 26 – 7 – 44 (59 pts)
15 – N5 – Montreal – 24 – 5 – 48 (53 pts)
WEST
Rank – Div – Team – ROW – SOW – L (PTS)
1 – C1 – St. Louis – 44 – 4 – 30 (92 pts)
2 – N1 – Vancouver – 40 – 7 – 30 (87 pts)
3 – P1 – Dallas – 35 – 7 – 35 (77 pts)
4 – C2 – Nashville – 40 – 4 – 33 (84 pts)
5 – C3 – Detroit – 39 – 6 – 31 (84 pts)
6 – C4 – Chicago – 37 – 6 – 35 (80 pts)
7 – N2 – Colorado – 31 – 9 – 39 (71 pts)
8 – P2 – Los Angeles – 32 – 6 – 39 (70 pts)
9 – P3 – Phoenix – 32 – 6 – 40 (70 pts)
10 – P4 – San Jose – 31 – 8 – 39 (70 pts)
11 – N3 – Calgary – 32 – 3 – 43 (67 pts)
12 – P5 – Anaheim – 30 – 3 – 44 (63 pts)
13 – N4 – Edmonton – 26 – 5 – 46 (57 pts)
14 – N5 – Minnesota – 24 – 8 – 45 (56 pts)
15 – C5 – Columbus – 21 – 4 – 52 (46 pts)
Rank – Conference Rank
Div – Division Rank
Team – Duh
ROW – Regulation/Overtime Wins
SOW – Shootout Wins
L – Loss (Including Shootout/Overtime)
PTS – Points
[Reply]
tkecanuck341 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
@tkecanuck341, I’m sure Colorado hopes to holy hell that they implement this system.
[Reply]
tkecanuck341 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
@tkecanuck341, Dallas would also have a much more comfortable lock on the Pacific division title.
[Reply]
CB14 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
@tkecanuck341, I think that’s the way it should be, they deserve it since they did most of their work in regulation and ot.
P.S. I like the 3 point system myself only because I think each game should be worth the same amount of points.
tkecanuck341 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
@tkecanuck341, I just don’t like that the current system rewards teams for trying “not to lose” rather than trying to win. I feel that with this system, teams would now try to win in regulation/overtime, rather than being satisfied extending the game to shootouts. If you don’t win the game as a team, and have to resort to a breakaway contest to decide the victor, you shouldn’t get as many points. If you lose…you should get 0 points. Just my opinion.
BarMade Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
@tkecanuck341, especially on the road, tough opponent, preserve the tie, get that point, maybe steal the bonus in SO.
tkecanuck341 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
@tkecanuck341, Washington has a lock on the division as well…and they are currently on the outside looking in thanks to Florida’s 16 shootout/overtime losses.
[Reply]
PRMan Reply:
March 31st, 2012 at 6:40 am
@dcaps55, 8th?!? On second thought, I like the current system.
[Reply]
One bad thing about the current system is if you get too far behind it is very hard to get back in it because of all the 3 pt games. Look at the Ducks this year and New Jersey last season, they made valiant attempts to get back in it only to fall short. I still think a team that loses should not get ANY points, even in OT or SO. Rewarding losing as someone said is like Little League. It makes the NHL look like a kiddy league. You want the NHL to get back to being a top sport and bring in more fans don’t reward losing.
[Reply]
MindGeyser Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
@Jeff_R, I disagree, mainly because awarding no points for a loss in any phase of the game fails to accurately reflect the events on the ice. Losing by shootout is a different beast, and mostly irrelevant in the playoffs. Counting a loss there the same as a loss in OT, a 6-5 slugfest, or a 7-1 drubbing would in all likelyhood not send the best 16 teams to the playoffs or give the worst teams the best chance at the lottery.
I’d rather have that than the phantom extra point, though.
[Reply]
Jeff_R Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
@MindGeyser, But My point system would make what you said not so. As if you win in Regulation you would get 3 points, in OT 2 and SO 1. A loss no matter what is 0. So if it is a slug fest and goes into OT the winning team would still get points just not the same as say a drubbing in regulation. So I have the same 3-2-1 point system as others just adding that the losing team gets 0.
[Reply]
Duncanz Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
@Jeff_R, Lol. Before you get too senimemtal for the Devils and the rubber Ducks, you might remember that they didn’t begin the season with like 35 point handicaps.
They lost a ton of games outright and GOT THEMSELVES into those quagmires !
Not an example that convinces this sunuffagun!
rogiesbackup Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
@Jeff_R, NHL/Bettman doesn’t care how league “looks,” it’s always about money!!
[Reply]
Sutter is asking for Stats????? Say it isn’t so.
GKG
[Reply]
Kingsfanone Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
@Lake Forest,
It isn’t so……
[Reply]
Duncanz Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
@Lake Forest, He seems to be garbling his arguments – starting in with the agenda of defending his ailing superstars’ lack of 60 (+5) minute scoring production.
In fact, he seems to be arguing with himself – not a new phenomenen, lol.
Does he realize that without the shootout, there would be less still to praise some of his guys for?!
[Reply]
3 points for Regulation Wins
2 points for Overtime Wins
1 Point for Shoot Out Wins
0 Points for any type of loss
A loss is loss and it should NOT be rewarded!!
[Reply]
Pili Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
@Luis, I agree except I’d go with 2 points for either regulation or overtime win.
[Reply]
CB14 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
@Luis, I think the reason why people want a change is because it doesn’t make sense to give out 2 points in one game, and 3 points in another. So 3 points in one game, and 1 point in another wouldn’t help.
[Reply]
Luis Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
@CB14, What about something like the soccer points system. It would also separate the contenders from the pretenders.
3 points for a win.
1 for overtime/shoot out win
0 points for loss.
Would that make it more appealing to the league?
[Reply]
wes Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
losing a hockey game is losing a hockey GAME. losing a miniature skills competition is losing a miniature skills competition. losing a hockey _game_ is NOT equivalent to losing a truncated little skills competition.
[Reply]
I keep hearing how the fans love the shoot out—do they? I know I hate it. Most of what I read or hear from the league on the subject points to the fact that they believe just because the entire arena is on their feet to watch it, we fans must love it. I doubt it is as favorable as they think it is. I think the primary reason the fans are standing is not because they love the shoot out, but rather the game has an immediate forthcoming ending—they are standing for finality. Do you love the shoot out? Is that why you stand? Or do you stand because you know the game has reached its end?
[Reply]
Dooms Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
@Kris, It’s exciting! That is why I stand, but we are aware of the end as well.
It’s not perfect, and the NHL will never have it perfect, but the NHL is a business and they are trying to make the game as entertaining as possible. They are always adapting to new times and that is what makes them, and will continue to make the NHL entertaining.
[Reply]
Stackhouse Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
@Kris, I stand because the people in front of me stand and block my view of the net that the Kings are shooting at during the shootout. If they stayed in their seats, I would too.
[Reply]
Dooms Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
@Stackhouse, Liar.
[Reply]
Duncanz Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
@Dooms, Awesome.
+1 very much today.
Scoring a goal in the shoot out..
Should count in personel stats…
Doesn’t the NHL want to see more goals scored?
They win games, Right?
[Reply]
Dooms Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
@SLIM, NO…if anything it could be kept as a separate stat and an award called the Stolly Snipe could be given to the leader at the end of the year.
[Reply]
King John Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
@Dooms, made me smile
[Reply]
2 pts win in reg/ot
1 pt ot loss
1 pt tie
No need for shootouts!!!! Takes team aspect away and makes it an individual play
[Reply]
Here’s where the 6 teams still fighting for the last 3 playoff spots would sit if they used a 3 point system: (3 points for a ROW, 2 points for a SHO win, 1 point for a SHO loss)
Team – current point system – 3 point scoring system
DAL – 89 – 123 points
PHO – 89 – 118 points
LAK – 88 – 115 points
SJS – 88 – 114 points
COL – 86 – 113 points
CAL – 85 – 111 points
These are my calculations, so they might be wrong. Obviously it rewards teams who win more games in regulation and ot, like Dallas.
[Reply]
MindGeyser Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
@CB14, Interesting. When I think of the most dangerous teams of the six, they break down in that exact order.
[Reply]
CB14 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
And they are wrong, LOL. Just look at @thecanuck341 breakdown higher on this page, that guy did some work.
[Reply]
tkecanuck341 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
@CB14, Yea I get bored at work sometimes
[Reply]
Duncanz Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
@tkecanuck341, I want your job!
tkecanuck341 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
@Duncanz, Go to school for 7 years, rack up $100k+ worth of student loan debt and then it’s on to easy street….at least until you have to start paying those loans back.
The NHL record for goals allowed in an 82 game season is 164. Looks like the Blues are going to break that record. The Kings now have allowed 165 with 6 to go. Pretty darn impressive. Looking like we’ll end up allowing under 180 which is pretty darn impressive. The best defensive season we every had was 74-75 when the Kings allowed 185 goals in an 80 game season.
In short, we are likely going to break an all time King’s record for goals allowed in a season.
As bad as we’ve been offensively this is still not even our 2nd worst year offensively.
Interesting to note that the year the Kings went to the finals was one of our all time worst defensive years in King’s history allowing 340 goals.
[Reply]
Kingsfanone Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
@KC23,
Which may be why the Habs beat them that year in the Finals?
[Reply]
Jeff_R Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
@Kingsfanone, Not really as 3 of the 4 wins were in OT including the famous Mcsorley illegal stick. Still pisses me off to this day.
[Reply]
Kingsfanone Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
@Jeff_R,
You and me both. brother!
rogiesbackup Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
@Jeff_R, Habs diverse what they’re going through today!!! That call, was the cheapest of all cheapshot calls.
I think that’s the last time the Canadiens won the cup. Hope more decades of the Canadiens being Cup Challenged!!!!
rogiesbackup Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
@Jeff_R, *deserves*
CB14 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
@KC23, I read somewhere the other day that in the history of the award for the best goaltending tandem, sorry I forget the name of the award, no teammates had ever finished with a combined GAA of under 2.00 . When I read that stat, St. Louis’ 2 goalies had a combined GAA of 1.69 . UNREAL.
[Reply]
Duncanz Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:40 pm
@CB14, It’s because pall bearers have the Blues!
(thanks @Stuey)
[Reply]
By my quick figuring, using 3 pts for a reg win, 2 pts for any other win, 1 pt for OT/SO loss, 0 pts for a reg loss (so all games are 3 pts): the standings would be as such:
team—- RW — OTW— OTL —SOW—SOL– pts (current pts)
————————————————————
ST L —-41——3——1——4—–9—147 (106)
VAN —–34——6——2——7—–7—137 (103)
DALL—–31——4——1——7—–4—121 (89)
DET——36——3——3——7—–2—133 (97)
NASH—–37——3——3——4—–5—133 (96)
CHI——33——4——4——6—–5—128 (95)
PHO——29——3——3——6—-10—118 (89)
LA——-29——3——5——6—–7—117 (88)
SJ——-29——2——5——8—–5—117 (88)
COLOR—-24——7——4——9—–2—110 (86)
CALG—–30——2——6——3—–9—115 (85)
ANAH—–29——1——5——3—–6—106 (77)
MINN—–22——2——2——8—–8—-96 (74)
EDMON—-24——2——2——5—–7—-95 (71)
COLUM—-19——2——2——4—–5—-76 (57)
It really doesnt change much, other than dropping Colorado further out of contention (due to 7 OT wins and 9 SO wins) and bringing Calg a little closer to the playoff bubble.
[Reply]
bbb7 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
@bbb7, Interesting to compare this to CB14s results using a different 3-2-1 system… tho not any major changes either way, and both are more complicated to present in standings. Foir example, look at the standings for the KHL, which uses a 3-2-1 system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_KHL_season#Final_standings
[Reply]
vplaza Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
@bbb7,
Funny, so if this is the case, this is all much ado about nothing.
[Reply]
Duncanz Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
@vplaza, … a mid-season night’s’ dream, if you will.
[Reply]
It’s parity that has everyone so close not the point system. Teams are more evenly matched than before the overtimes have increased because of this and not because the point system has changed,.
[Reply]
If you’re going to have SO then I think the guy who wins the shootout should get a GWG to his credit and a goal to his stats. Same thing with the goalie. Going back to the st. Louis How do you have two shutouts and zero recorded goals. That makes no sense to me. Something needs to be figured out there.
[Reply]
trwnclick Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
@Kings x, Also if you are in the penalty box at the end of the ot you shouldn’t beable to be in the shootouct.
[Reply]
An interesting note. In our head to heads with the Oilers this year so far JJ was -5. No other King was worse than -1.
[Reply]
CB14 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
@KC23, Looked to me like he was only a -1. Did I miss a game?
[Reply]
KC23 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:53 pm
@CB14, Going by this:
[Reply]
KC23 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:53 pm
@KC23, opps … this http://www.nhl.com/ice/preview.htm?id=2011021167&navid=sb:preview
KC23 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
@CB14, Upon closer inspection … it showed JJ has 4 games against the oilers so that preview must of included JJ’s Columbus game against Edmonton.
[Reply]
KC23 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
@CB14, Yeah, JJ was a -4 against the Oilers in one of his BJ games against the Oilers.
[Reply]
CB14 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
@KC23, That explains it. Damn, -4 in one game, even for JJ that’s pretty bad.
3pts, 2pts, SOW, whatever, win your bloody games in regulation and you don’t need to worry about three point games. If you’re an elite team, you don’t worry about that stuff. Seems like the marginal playoff teams, such as the Kings, are the ones who have to even think about it.
Bottom line is, no one solution will make everyone happy. So, win your games and let the bottom dwellers sort the rest. If you don’t, then get in line to gripe about the latest solution because someone will complain about it regardless of what it is.
[Reply]
bbb7 Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
@vplaza, I agree it seems to make little difference. The only scenario I see causing an uproar is if 3 teams are tied and in the final game of the last day two of them play each other, if they both play ultra-conservative in the 3rd period and the game goes into OT then both teams will get at least a point and eliminate the third team by backing both teams in (you need an extra-large garage to back in TWO teams.)
[Reply]
Duncanz Reply:
March 30th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
@bbb7, Lol, another nice analysis.
[Reply]
When i win the 640 million dollar lotto tonight, no worries bout parise being a king next yr
[Reply]
Like most, these 3 pt games also give me fits when it comes down to the wire. BUT, it also keeps the buildings full longer. Just look at our own division. If I’m not mistaken, all Pac teams, save the Ucks, have been in 1st place alone at some time in the past week! Insanity! Take care of bidness Kings, and we’ll be on top at the end, when it counts.
Go Kings
[Reply]
I’m not much of a fan of it either. At the same time though, we wouldn’t have these exciting playoff races without them
[Reply]
I’d like to see the Kings try to acquire Pjaarvi during the off season…….he’s in / out of NHL. Maybe he wants out of the Oils….He’s pretty good skater!!!
[Reply]
How about using the system used in football (soccer) since hockey is based on the game.
3 points for a win
1 point for a draw
o points for a loss
This system seems to have worked without a problem for decades.
Too simple perhaps!
[Reply]
kushmoke Reply:
April 4th, 2012 at 12:47 am
@UKKING, Uhh, I’m pretty sure Hockey was not based on soccer… Other than a goal and net there are basically no similarities. Just sayin.
How about this ground-breaking idea?
Win: You get 2 points
Lose: You get 0 points
This stops the stupidity of OT/SO’s in that they aren’t worth much. Teams simply try to make it to OT, then don’t try nearly as hard cause “at least we got out point”. This takes away a lot of competition that could be there!
Think about it; if the result of a SO loss is that you get absolutely ZERO points, don’t you think it’ll matter a little more, and stop seeming like a gimmick? Then teams will actually practice this element and it’ll be important… Right now SO’s are completely superfluous, as is the 3rd point.
[Reply]
kushmoke Reply:
April 4th, 2012 at 12:52 am
@kushmoke, As a matter of fact, I think point systems are kind of inherently flawed. They are designed to give credit for non-victories. Why not just do it like every other pro (USA) sport, with a clean W/L column, and go by win percentage? I mean in the MLB if you go to 18 innings and lose, you don’t get a damn thing. That’s why it’s so much more exciting. Same with the NBA and triple-OT games. It makes the clutch, well, clutch. It’d make the NHL look a hell of a lot cleaner, that’s for sure.
[Reply]