AHL- Apolyton Hockey League 07/08: VII Da da da, da da daa, da da da, da daa da daa

[Asher]

Out of curiosity, when did they add the extra point? 1999 ish?

If so my standings hold more sway, since they were the status quo for many decades. "Proper" my ass.

[snoopy369]

OT Loss points came in quite late, before the shootout of course but maybe 1999? I think it was while I was in college anyway.

edit: dans'ed, but you dans'ed to agree with me so

[Asher]

I still think it's more indicative to see who can win in 60. It shows which teams are better fundamental hockey teams to not rely on extra time to win a game.

[snoopy369]

Um, Ben's standings are correct pre-1999 (from 1983 to 1999) while yours would be correct from 1999 to 2006 (or whenever the shootout started). I generally dislike the OT Loss point myself ... no other sport gives you credit of any sort for losing a game in OT, and I'm good with that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Um, Ben's standings are correct pre-1999 (from 1983 to 1999) while yours would be correct from 1999 to 2006 (or whenever the shootout started). I generally dislike the OT Loss point myself ... no other sport gives you credit of any sort for losing a game in OT, and I'm good with that.

No, mine would be correct from the inception of the league until 1983.

On my stats, if you don't win after 60 minutes, you each get 1 point and that's that.

[Ben Kenobi]

1) They're actually not my figures, I got them elsewhere
2) It's exactly as I described it (eg, wins after 60 minutes, eg pre-1983). This is a "proper" job. It's not what you wanted them to be, so you changed them.

I like the system from 1983-2000 before they implemented the loser point for OT.

I have hated the loser point in OT because it messes up all the historical statistics. The addition of shoot out wins adding to goalie wins is another innovation that will muck up all the goaltender statistics and make it harder to make comparisons across different eras of the game.

Pretty soon, we are going to have to convert to win percentage just to make viable arguments.

In all reality, Brodeur did not break the record for wins in a season, and neither did Luongo, as they had access to far more wins.

I would like to see "adjusted" stats since the institution of the shootout, to account for these discreprencies.

[snoopy369]

Ah, sorry, I was thinking of your earlier proposal.

[Ben Kenobi]

On my stats, if you don't win after 60 minutes, you each get 1 point and that's that.

True, but the stats after 1983 are more reliable because in the playoffs you do have overtime, and teams that consistantly lose in 5 minute overtimes aren't going to be more reliable in the playoffs.

Shootouts OTOH are irrelevant.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Calgary is punished with a whopping -7 points as they should be for 7 losses in overtime, which is why Asher excluded OT from his figures.

I don't know if Asher made an error or simply went back to the days before they brought in the overtime in the regular season. I thought he was clear in saying that it was the "after 60" numbers

The error for all of this in making these comparisons, is assuming that games would turn out the same way if you changed how points are awarded . I cannot see how we can make that assumption.

Some teams now "go for it" in the OT when points are awarded 2 and 1 in a way they might not if they could get 0 and had no existing guarantee of 1. Heck I think part of the reason they brought in the shootout was that all or nothing saw teams play kitty bar the door for the OT as well as late regulation. Now teams try to bar the door late and then go for it in OT

PLus I do know that for a long while, the Flames had a huge fear of the shootout arising from their poor record in it. Knowing their record, I am not surprised that they pinch too much trying to win in OT and often lose as a result.

Bottom line is that both sets of stats are interesting but can be misleading. Do we really think that all teams would play the same way late in regulation without OT and the shootout looming. An Edmonton is SO very good in the shootout that I would not be surprised that teams fear them and press too hard late in regulation or the shootout. Conversely, any team that has a great record in the shootout might play to get there, knowing they have a good chance to win and focus on defensive hockey.

Would the play change much ? I don't know and neither do any of you but when I see a goalie pulled in a tie game last night in regulation its easy to see the impact the loser point and shootout CAN have on games. In my view that was only the most obvious example of teams play being different because the loser point is out there.

[Ben Kenobi]

That is always a concern, which is why we can only determine relative strengths and not absolutes over the course of the season.

For example, if I were to ask is this team better then any of Quinn's teams, I couldn't answer that question without going through a few hoops.

You can say that by the regular measure of the season that Calgary is slightly stronger, but because the shootouts are irrelevant to playoff success, they distort the rankings of the teams.

[Asher]

Calgary is a stronger team than Vancouver, shootouts or not.

[Ben Kenobi]

Calgary just lost to a non-playoff eastern team at home.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Calgary just lost to a non-playoff eastern team at home.

On the road-- and while Washington is non-playoff they have been moving up the standings and playing moderately well

I hate that they lost but didn't see the game so cannot really comment further

[Flubber]

and I hate that Toronto won last night-- a phillie win could have ended all the Leafs playoff talk

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Calgary just lost to a non-playoff eastern team at home.

...on a blown call at the end. Kiprusoff was falling down due a crease-crashing Caps player when the puck went in.

And Calgary hasn't won against the Caps in 9 years or something silly.

At least it was a close game, unlike Ana-Van.