NHL Gary Bettman doesn't get it

Discussion in 'Sports' started by Jon, Jul 27, 2015.

  1. Jon

    Jon Official Thread Killer Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Posts:
    16,309

    -Return to Top-

    So, new article states that Gary Bettman says the shootout is here to stay because a mjority of the fans approve of it.

    When I saw the headline, I expected some sort of numerical proof because I don't know many NHL fans that think, "I LOVE THE SHOOTOUT!"

    Here's what Bettman says:

    “I think to the extent some people wanted to see fewer shootouts, this will get us there, and that’s fine. The shootout isn’t going anywhere. You go to a building during a shootout, everybody’s on their feet, nobody is leaving, which is what it was designed to do. It’s exciting, it’s fun, it’s entertaining, and so if we’re going to try and reduce the number of shootouts, this may do it.”

    He added, “I think you see some people in the hockey community say they’d rather see fewer shootouts, but this is a sport that had ties for so many years and nobody liked that. And we’re not in the position in the regular season for a whole host of reasons to play games to the end in sudden death the way we do in the playoffs.”

    Is this guy for real? So, standing during a shootout means that fans approve of it? Seriously? If Roger Goodell is the most incompetent commissioner, this guy is a close second. At least Stern/Silver and Selig/Manfred were not total morons. I hated Selig after the fiasco in 2004 (or whenever) with the infamous Tied All Star Game. Making the All Star game count has made it less fun and more unwatchable, but at least it only determines home field in the World Series. Which by all accounts isn't as huge a deal as determining points and standings.

    When you stop awarding points for regulation ties and OT losses, then you can say the shootout is here to stay. 3 points for regulation wins. 2 points for OT wins. 1 point for SO wins. 0 points for losing. Like every other sport (excluding soccer, because it isn't one of the 4 major sports in America).
     
  2. Rick52

    Rick52 ... Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Posts:
    20,642

    -Return to Top-

    Reminder, Goodell has only been terrible for about a decade now, Bettman's been around for 22 years.

    22 long years...

    The whole thing against ties is something that's just never going to go away in American sports, probably; people here just don't want to waste time or money on an event that has no decisive outcome.

    That said I don't have any problems with the shootout as it is. The only problem is how teams are rewarded for reaching and subsequently losing in the shootout (or OT). The loser point has to be killed. My preferred scenario is just 2 pts for a win a 1 pt for a shootout win, with OT returning to some semblance of normalcy because teams don't want to lose a point by going to a shootout so they'll go all out 5-on-5 or 4-on-4 in OT.
     
  3. The Eye in the Sky!

    The Eye in the Sky! That guy eating pie Moderator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2001
    Posts:
    25,005

    -Return to Top-

    I don't like the overtime point. I wish it wasn't there. I watched too many games where they sort of drift for the last part of the 3rd period just to nab a point. It just inflates the standings with teams that really aren't in it. I get that they don't need games going into multiple overtimes but I don't like the shootout.

    I don't really have an answer, though. I love that hockey games are over in less than two and a half hours so I wouldn't want them to drag on through long overtimes but the shootout is cheap. I kinda like your scoring idea, too. Gets teams to fight to win in regulation but also gives them incentive to be aggressive in OT.
     
  4. Jon

    Jon Official Thread Killer Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Posts:
    16,309

    -Return to Top-

    It's true, but I must say that the 10 years of Goodell's terribleness has been far more egregious than Bettman's. Bettman's biggest issue was that he is and was always a basketball guy. He wanted to be the basketball commissioner and when Stern got it instead, Bettman "settled" on NHL commissioner. He's not a hockey guy in my book and never will be.

    I'm one that agrees ties suck, but there are ways around it.

    I don't like the shootout determining the "loser" point. Fact is, it doesn't OT and SO losses do not affect teams. They get a point no matter what. You want to keep the SO? Fine. Get rid of giving points for LOSING A GAME. Is it that difficult? You should earn nothing unless you win.

    How bad is it? Take last year's Bruins. Everyone tries to tell true fans to calm down. That the Bruins are the only team in history to have 96 points and miss the playoffs. That they were not as bad as everyone says. This is a large misunderstanding. The eye test showed that if you watched them. They lost 14 OT or SO games. 14! They only had 37 ROW. That's the equivalent of 74 points. If you give them 8 points for the 4 SO wins they had, they had 82 points, which FAR better shows what that team was. That would have put them as the 7th worst team in the league, and gives them a top 10 pick in a deep draft.

    Thing is, you can easily keep the games at 2.5 hours. It's the point structure that changes. Taking away the loser point solves a lot of the coasting issues.

    In fact, now I'm curious. I'm going to work on what it would look like last year if the point structure was that of what Rick said (because it's easier to determine; while I like my structure because it incentivizes winning in regulation, it'd take more time than I want on this).
     
  5. The Eye in the Sky!

    The Eye in the Sky! That guy eating pie Moderator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2001
    Posts:
    25,005

    -Return to Top-

    I think they like in the league because it makes it look like more teams are contending. It looks nice in the standings for middle of the road team to be only 10 points behind the division leader but that 10 points is so incredibly hard to make up because of that stupid loser point.
     
  6. Jon

    Jon Official Thread Killer Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Posts:
    16,309

    -Return to Top-

    W L OT PTS ROW
    ADJ PTS
    p - NY Rangers 53 22 7 113 49
    106
    z - Anaheim 51 24 7 109 43
    102
    y - St. Louis 51 24 7 109 42
    102
    x - Tampa Bay 50 24 8 108 47
    100
    y - Montréal 50 22 10 110 43
    100
    x - Vancouver 48 29 5 101 42
    96
    x - Chicago 48 28 6 102 39
    96
    x - Nashville 47 25 10 104 41
    94
    x - NY Islanders 47 28 7 101 40
    94
    x - Minnesota 46 28 8 100 42
    92
    x - Calgary 45 30 7 97 41
    90
    x - Washington 45 26 11 101 40
    90
    x - Detroit 43 25 14 100 39
    86
    x - Pittsburgh 43 27 12 98 39
    86
    x - Ottawa 43 26 13 99 37
    86
    x - Winnipeg 43 26 13 99 36
    86
    Columbus 42 35 5 89 33
    84
    Boston 41 27 14 96 37
    82
    Dallas 41 31 10 92 37
    82
    Los Angeles 40 27 15 95 38
    80
    San Jose 40 33 9 89 36
    80
    Colorado 39 31 12 90 29
    78
    Florida 38 29 15 91 30
    76
    Philadelphia 33 31 18 84 30
    66
    New Jersey 32 36 14 78 27
    64
    Carolina 30 41 11 71 25
    60
    Toronto 30 44 8 68 25
    60
    Edmonton 24 44 14 62 19
    48
    Arizona 24 50 8 56 19
    48
    Buffalo 23 51 8 54 15
    46

    Easy enough to understand. The number under each is the adjusted points total. Teams are reordered to that. Largest difference is Philadelphia who would lose 18 points. Smallest change is Columbus with 5 points. 306 total extra points awarded, with an average change of 10.2 points per team. Largest standings drop belongs to Montreal and Florida who would drop 3 spots. Largest increase is Columbus who improves 6 spots (Calgary improves 5). While the overall standings do not change a whole lot, seedings in the playoffs would have been altered drastically.
     
  7. Rick52

    Rick52 ... Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Posts:
    20,642

    -Return to Top-

    I've done some research on points standings in the past.

    Here's a fun fact! Remember how early Columbus was "eliminated" from playoff contention last season because they just fell back too many points from everyone else?

    Columbus went superhot to end the year and finished last season with 42 wins (that includes SO wins but whatever). Detroit, Ottawa and Pittsburgh all had 43 wins. If wins had been the only indicator of postseason spots, Blue Jacket fans would've been treated to a last second playoff rush by the Blue Jackets as they tried to catch everyone else in the standings but falling just short at the end.

    But no, that didn't happen. Columbus only had 5 OT losses, compared to Pittsburgh (12), Ottawa (13) and Detroit (14). Columbus had ONE MORE WIN than Boston, but was SEVEN full points behind them in the standings (Boston had 14 OT losses), so it was the Bruins who had the last-day heartbreak and not the Blue Jackets. Parity, my ass.

    There's also the infamous case of 2012 where the LA Kings had fewer wins (40) than both Colorado (41) and Dallas (42), but because they had way more OT losses (15) to Colorado (6) or Dallas (5), the Kings got the 8th seed in the West and the other two missed the playoffs (they both ended up behind Calgary that year even though Calgary had just 37 wins, since the Flames had 16 OT losses). The Kings would, of course, dominate the postseason and win the Stanley Cup, but they only had the chance because they lost enough times "in the clutch" for them to sneak ahead of teams that actually won more games.

    I'm surprised owners of the affected teams haven't raised a storm about this, but if it happens to a few more teams (or, maybe, the Leafs/Habs), then maybe something will happen.
     
  8. Jon

    Jon Official Thread Killer Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Posts:
    16,309

    -Return to Top-

    It's going to take one of those teams missing out on the playoffs because the teams above them had double or triple the SO losses. Why is it a hard concept to eliminate points for losses altogether? It's really not that hard a concept. You win, you improve. You lose, you don't . This is the only sport where you can lose consistently and actually IMPROVE...