2008 Washington Capitals thread

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

And yet I'm sure their coaches would still feel pretty confident sending a threesome of Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Lidstrom or Alfredsson, Heatley, and Spezza against anybody's top three in a shootout.

I bet the coaches would rather see them play 4 on 4 against them like they do in OT. They have a better chance of winning than leaving it to the shootout.

Patrick Kane is best in the league statistically in the shootout going 7 for 9

He has 18 goals and 48 assists in regular play

Joe Pavelski is #2, going 7 for 11, and he has 18 goals and 20 assists for 38 points on the season

Henrik Zetterberg is 47th, going 3 for 10 in the shootout this year, and has 41 goals with 49 assists for 90 points

Daniel Alfredson is 71st in the shootout, going 2 for 7, and has 40 goals, 47 assists for 87 points.

Kane is 92nd in the league in GWG, a 91 place drop, and isn't even first on his own team

Pavelski is 90th in the league in GWG, an 88 place drop, and is 4th on his own team

Zetterberg is 21st in the league in GWG, a 26 place improvement

Alfredson is 37th in the league in GWG, a 34 place improvement.

You still want to argue that the shootout is the best way to go for skill guys.

They are skill guys because they have great instinct and talent that comes together in the flow of the game, and can catch anyone unawares.

In the shootout, the goalie has a 50% chance of guessing the right or wrong way. It makes it much easier for him.

Again, the teams in the middle and lower end of the pack, are still leading the league in wins and losses

The teams with the "skill guys" show their stats are demonstratably worse than an in game situation.

Why don't you give up the ghosts of your logic now and call it a day

[chippa13 1844]

You guys have fun watching checking lines take over the overtime session.

[Penguinsfanatic 0]

I'm pretty sure that what I was proposing would make players play harder in OT because the coaches wouldn't want to put a possible 2 points in the fate of the shootout

[chippa13 1844]

Shootout puts everyone even, no worries about giving up a 2-1 that costs you a chance at any points.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

You guys have fun watching checking lines take over the overtime session.

That is your counterpoint.

You start by saying if there were no points awarded for a loss, the skill teams would just hold off and take no chances until the shootout.

Then when you are shown the skill teams don't statistically dominate the shootout outside of your own head, you say the coaches would still feel better sending out zetterberg/alfie etc

Then when you are shown that those guys are statistically better in actual game situations than shootouts, you say it will mean checking lines taking over.

The checking lines taking over would be exactly what would happen under your scenario.

Send out the grinders, keep it scoreless and unimaginative and then send the skill guys on for the shootout.

You really are a walking contradiction with this you know

[chippa13 1844]

Can you give up an odd man rush that costs you 2 points in a shootout?

[Penguinsfanatic 0]

But you could give up 3 "breakaways" to cost you 2 points??

[Fire0nIce228 1]

Thats part of hockey! You make no sense what so ever Chippa. 2 on 1's and 3 on 2s are what lead to the scoring opportunities in this game, always have and always should!

What do you want them to do, not play hockey during the hockey game?

[chippa13 1844]

But you could give up 3 "breakaways" to cost you 2 points??

And you get 3 breakaways to gain you 2 points.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

But you could give up 3 "breakaways" to cost you 2 points??

And you get 3 breakaways to gain you 2 points.

So the game becomes irrelevant. Try not to play for 5 minutes, then let an individual skills competition decide a teams fate.

I take it you are not much for the tradition of the game then so

[Penguinsfanatic 0]

Yeah but your opposition still has the same amount of chances so why would you want that? I would rather my players put it away in OT rather than wait for a shootout where the game is solely on the goalies shoulders.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

I dont think giving each team 3 free shots to decide the game is hockey.

The game should be decided the way it was meant to be, with a line of 5 on the ice working as one to attack and defend. Thats hockey! If you lose a game, whether it be over time or not, for 1 point or 100, it should be AS A TEAM, not as 3 guys and a goalie. Thats not right in my mind..

[chippa13 1844]

Yeah but your opposition still has the same amount of chances so why would you want that? I would rather my players put it away in OT rather than wait for a shootout where the game is solely on the goalies shoulders.

Coaches don't coach to win, they coach not to lose.

[Penguinsfanatic 0]

Hmmm....so they would coach to lose in a shootout?

[chippa13 1844]

Yeah but your opposition still has the same amount of chances so why would you want that? I would rather my players put it away in OT rather than wait for a shootout where the game is solely on the goalies shoulders.

Coaches don't coach to win, they coach not to lose.

[Penguinsfanatic 0]

That doesn't make any sense with what you are trying to argue. Coaches coach not to lose, so why would they want to go to a shootout? Where they have absolutely no control of the out come of the game. I don't really see to much coaching going on during a shootout

[chippa13 1844]

That doesn't make any sense with what you are trying to argue. Coaches coach not to lose, so why would they want to go to a shootout? Where they have absolutely no control of the out come of the game. I don't really see to much coaching going on during a shootout

Because a defensive lapse or broken stick or errant pass won't lead to the losing goal in a shootout.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

Yeah but your opposition still has the same amount of chances so why would you want that? I would rather my players put it away in OT rather than wait for a shootout where the game is solely on the goalies shoulders.

Coaches don't coach to win, they coach not to lose.

Is that why Philly pulled the goalie in a tied game this season.

Is that why Ovechkin is put out double and triple shifts in OT

What you should say is...

Claude Julien does not coach to win, he coaches not to lose.

That is not how all coaches are

[chippa13 1844]

Yeah but your opposition still has the same amount of chances so why would you want that? I would rather my players put it away in OT rather than wait for a shootout where the game is solely on the goalies shoulders.

Coaches don't coach to win, they coach not to lose.

Is that why Philly pulled the goalie in a tied game this season.

Is that why Ovechkin is put out double and triple shifts in OT

What you should say is...

Claude Julien does not coach to win, he coaches not to lose.

That is not how all coaches are

And guess what, as it currently stands the Caps already have a point in the bank when Ovechkin is playing in OT. You do recall that this whole discussion started with the idea that teams should get no points for a loss.

[Penguinsfanatic 0]

Yeah because there is no way that any teams can jump over one another with these 3 point nights.

[chippa13 1844]

I guess a team should have played better in October and November.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

I guess a team should have played better in October and November.

Exactly.

I know why the discussion started, that doesn't mean I think there should be 3 point games.

I don't see what the point in awarding losing is anyway.

Theoretically, a team could take 82 games to the shootout, and win 12 of those, and lose the rest.

That would give them are record of 12-0-70.

Good for 94 points, and likely a playoff spot.

Why?

Because this league rewards losing.

[Chadd 916]

Because this league rewards losing.

Close, it just doesn't reward winning as much as it should.

If they're going to give out three points in a game that goes to OT, they should give out three points when the game ends in regulation.

[chippa13 1844]

Because this league rewards losing.

Close, it just doesn't reward winning as much as it should.

If they're going to give out three points in a game that goes to OT, they should give out three points when the game ends in regulation.

I think you'll have a hard time selling a 4th column in the standings.

[Chadd 916]

Because this league rewards losing.

Close, it just doesn't reward winning as much as it should.

If they're going to give out three points in a game that goes to OT, they should give out three points when the game ends in regulation.

I think you'll have a hard time selling a 4th column in the standings.

I couldn't care less about the number of columns in the standings. TSN and ESPN already list a dozen different fields in their standings, it's not like people can't handle information. That said, having W-OTW-OTL-L doesn't require a PHD to figure out. 3 for the W, 2 for the OTW, 1 for the OTL and 0 for the L. Hell even listing it as wins with the OT number in parentheses would be fine. Read it like a boxer's knockout stats 40(5)-15-5 would be 40 wins, 5 in OT, 15 loses and 5 loses in OT.

I'm all for getting rid of the point for losing in OT in the first place, I just don't expect the NHL to do that. I just think giving a third point is more likely than giving only two.