Moderator: LGB Mods
JesusNEVERexisted wrote:The Hawks play Minny tonight. Kane has started taking slapshots and Q has hinted he could be back for round 1. Nothing official but Hawks nation is buzzing about it.
That would be pretty amazing if he did because he wasn't projected to come back till round 3.
I apologize. Martin Jones got the start. Here's Sutter's excuse:Toasted Oates wrote:Can't find a quote from Sutter but I agree. Whether or not you're giving Quick a breather for the Calgary game or Bernier should be able to handle the Oilers, your money goalie has to start in a game like that.cardsfan04 wrote:Quick didn't play tonight?!!?!?! Is he hurt? That's the only viable explanation Sutter could give. You have to use Quick in a must win game.
Best way to 'tank' a game would be to bring up a new goalie from your farm system and start him. Also maybe a few other kids as the D-men, basically giving the game away without being obvious. I believe the NHL should change the rules to avoid teams from wanting to lose to get the best draft pick. Draft order should be a lottery system like the NBA whereby the lowest ranking teams gets the most 'balls' in the pot while other non-playoff teams get a ball(s) as well. I remember when Orlando had only 1 ball in the pot and it came up and they got the first round pick - this was about 20 years ago.WaukeeBlues wrote: This is one of those rare times I might go in as a GM or owner into the locker room before the next game, shut off all recording devices, have all my guys sign confidentiality agreements and order them "DO NOT WIN THIS GAME. I will do anything legal I possibly can to ruin you if you blow it."
I'm still not convinced that tanking is actually a problem. But, somebody here a year or two ago came up with an interesting idea to counter it. Once a team is eliminated, they start accumulating points toward draft position. So, if a team is eliminated on March 20th, every point from March 21st til the end of the season, counts toward their draft position. The weaker teams have an advantage of more games to get the most points, but they have incentive to win instead of tank.Kerfuffle wrote:Best way to 'tank' a game would be to bring up a new goalie from your farm system and start him. Also maybe a few other kids as the D-men, basically giving the game away without being obvious. I believe the NHL should change the rules to avoid teams from wanting to lose to get the best draft pick. Draft order should be a lottery system like the NBA whereby the lowest ranking teams gets the most 'balls' in the pot while other non-playoff teams get a ball(s) as well. I remember when Orlando had only 1 ball in the pot and it came up and they got the first round pick - this was about 20 years ago.WaukeeBlues wrote: This is one of those rare times I might go in as a GM or owner into the locker room before the next game, shut off all recording devices, have all my guys sign confidentiality agreements and order them "DO NOT WIN THIS GAME. I will do anything legal I possibly can to ruin you if you blow it."
That was Winning Unlimited who came up with that. I think he actually used it as the basis for his Master's Thesis or something similar. It was a very well-organized theory and framework.cardsfan04 wrote:I'm still not convinced that tanking is actually a problem. But, somebody here a year or two ago came up with an interesting idea to counter it. Once a team is eliminated, they start accumulating points toward draft position. So, if a team is eliminated on March 20th, every point from March 21st til the end of the season, counts toward their draft position. The weaker teams have an advantage of more games to get the most points, but they have incentive to win instead of tank.Kerfuffle wrote:Best way to 'tank' a game would be to bring up a new goalie from your farm system and start him. Also maybe a few other kids as the D-men, basically giving the game away without being obvious. I believe the NHL should change the rules to avoid teams from wanting to lose to get the best draft pick. Draft order should be a lottery system like the NBA whereby the lowest ranking teams gets the most 'balls' in the pot while other non-playoff teams get a ball(s) as well. I remember when Orlando had only 1 ball in the pot and it came up and they got the first round pick - this was about 20 years ago.WaukeeBlues wrote: This is one of those rare times I might go in as a GM or owner into the locker room before the next game, shut off all recording devices, have all my guys sign confidentiality agreements and order them "DO NOT WIN THIS GAME. I will do anything legal I possibly can to ruin you if you blow it."
I think that's an interesting way to address it, but as I said, I"m not sure it's an actual problem.
That's exactly what the NHL IS doing and the final step in the 3(?) year process kicks in next season. As it sits, there is a VERY real possibility that the last overall team doesn't get the first overall pick (80% odds they don't) but the kicker is that you can't drop more than one spot in the draft. So in other words, the first overall is up for grabs but everything else is allocated to ranking. In the very rare situation like we have this season where the top TWO guys are generational players, the only way to guarantee you snag one is to finish dead last.Kerfuffle wrote:Best way to 'tank' a game would be to bring up a new goalie from your farm system and start him. Also maybe a few other kids as the D-men, basically giving the game away without being obvious. I believe the NHL should change the rules to avoid teams from wanting to lose to get the best draft pick. Draft order should be a lottery system like the NBA whereby the lowest ranking teams gets the most 'balls' in the pot while other non-playoff teams get a ball(s) as well. I remember when Orlando had only 1 ball in the pot and it came up and they got the first round pick - this was about 20 years ago.WaukeeBlues wrote: This is one of those rare times I might go in as a GM or owner into the locker room before the next game, shut off all recording devices, have all my guys sign confidentiality agreements and order them "DO NOT WIN THIS GAME. I will do anything legal I possibly can to ruin you if you blow it."
Interesting - I wasn't aware the NHL was changing it but I like that. Games should always be on the up and up. The team that has tanked most obviously this season to me would be the Arizona Coyotes. They weren't that bad a team before the fire sale took place.WaukeeBlues wrote: That's exactly what the NHL IS doing and the final step in the 3(?) year process kicks in next season. As it sits, there is a VERY real possibility that the last overall team doesn't get the first overall pick (80% odds they don't) but the kicker is that you can't drop more than one spot in the draft. So in other words, the first overall is up for grabs but everything else is allocated to ranking. In the very rare situation like we have this season where the top TWO guys are generational players, the only way to guarantee you snag one is to finish dead last.
Next season that goes away and the top THREE picks are subject to the lottery. So starting next season you can finish dead last in the NHL and conceivably not draft until 4th overall. Goes to what you're talking about: taking away the incentive to lose at the end of the year. This year is about the last time a team can "tank" and benefit from it.
Clicky!
I was looking at the possibility for 1st overall in the West this morning since the Ducks lost last night. With a win tonight, we will tie them for ROW's but the tie breaking procedure is still unclear to me. Does the next tie breaker category fall to who won the most games between the two clubs? ...if so, we lose that tie breaker and must win out and hope they falter.gaijin wrote:3 games last night (Wednesday, Apr 8th), 3 shutouts:
Columbus 5, Toronto 0
Washington 3, Boston 0
Dallas 4, Anaheim 0
Glad the Ducks lost. 1st Place in the West is still possible.
We can't win a tiebreaker against the Ducks. 1st tiebreaker is ROWs. We're down 42-40 in ROWs, so we'd have to win out (w/o a SO win) and they'd have to win game 82 in a shootout for us to tie in both points and ROWs. But, next tiebreaker is H2H and they have 4 points to our 2.The Flake wrote:I was looking at the possibility for 1st overall in the West this morning since the Ducks lost last night. With a win tonight, we will tie them for ROW's but the tie breaking procedure is still unclear to me. Does the next tie breaker category fall to who won the most games between the two clubs? ...if so, we lose that tie breaker and must win out and hope they falter.gaijin wrote:3 games last night (Wednesday, Apr 8th), 3 shutouts:
Columbus 5, Toronto 0
Washington 3, Boston 0
Dallas 4, Anaheim 0
Glad the Ducks lost. 1st Place in the West is still possible.
Here's the offical rules for Tie Breakers:The Flake wrote:I was looking at the possibility for 1st overall in the West this morning since the Ducks lost last night. With a win tonight, we will tie them for ROW's but the tie breaking procedure is still unclear to me. Does the next tie breaker category fall to who won the most games between the two clubs? ...if so, we lose that tie breaker and must win out and hope they falter.
My ONLY critique of the tie-breaking system (because I generally like it) is how "Goals for" could conceivably come into play. Granted, it's probably extremely rare for a tie-breaking procedure to get to #4 but still, it encourages a team to run up the score on a blowout. I think it should just be goals against that are calculated.Kerfuffle wrote:Here's the offical rules for Tie Breakers:The Flake wrote:I was looking at the possibility for 1st overall in the West this morning since the Ducks lost last night. With a win tonight, we will tie them for ROW's but the tie breaking procedure is still unclear to me. Does the next tie breaker category fall to who won the most games between the two clubs? ...if so, we lose that tie breaker and must win out and hope they falter.
If two or more clubs are tied in points during the regular season, the standing of the clubs is determined in the following order:
1. The fewer number of games played (i.e., superior points percentage).
2. The greater number of games won, excluding games won in the Shootout (NEW for 2010-11). This figure is reflected in the ROW column.
3. The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any "odd" games, shall be used to determine the standing.
4. The greater differential between goals for and against for the entire regular season.
I don't mind goal differential, because it makes you accountable for every single goal (for or against) when it comes down to it at the end of the season. It's what most soccer leagues/tournaments use and it's perfect. On the flip side, if you are getting trounced, scoring those late meaningless goals aren't so meaningless. Just gives teams an incentive to play out the entire game, regardless of how lopsided the score is.WaukeeBlues wrote:My ONLY critique of the tie-breaking system (because I generally like it) is how "Goals for" could conceivably come into play. Granted, it's probably extremely rare for a tie-breaking procedure to get to #4 but still, it encourages a team to run up the score on a blowout. I think it should just be goals against that are calculated.Kerfuffle wrote:Here's the offical rules for Tie Breakers:The Flake wrote:I was looking at the possibility for 1st overall in the West this morning since the Ducks lost last night. With a win tonight, we will tie them for ROW's but the tie breaking procedure is still unclear to me. Does the next tie breaker category fall to who won the most games between the two clubs? ...if so, we lose that tie breaker and must win out and hope they falter.
If two or more clubs are tied in points during the regular season, the standing of the clubs is determined in the following order:
1. The fewer number of games played (i.e., superior points percentage).
2. The greater number of games won, excluding games won in the Shootout (NEW for 2010-11). This figure is reflected in the ROW column.
3. The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any "odd" games, shall be used to determine the standing.
4. The greater differential between goals for and against for the entire regular season.
You're up 5-1 against a team in the 3rd period, middle of the season, you as coach have no idea what could possibly happen at the end of the season, "Hey boys, go for it! Score another one! Two if you can!"
I doubt it probably happens but it's a rule-based reason for a coach to run up the score. Just sayin
) and Nashville loses in regulation to Minnesota.
) and Chicago loses their last game, they would be tied for points, but Minny has the ROW tiebreaker- they would be 3rd in the Division.
