Another L.P. that I am not associated with (thank God) - the NHL's L.P.
Well, the NHL's version of the All-Star week-end is over and people are finally coming to relaize that what they THOUGHT was hockey all year long... the last few decades... heck, all their lives... was nothing but sheer senseless brutality on ice!
The All-Star skills competitions, 3-on-3 rookie play and the actual All-Star game - now THAT was hockey! The object of the game is to match SKILL and APTITUDE in order to insert a rubber puck into the opposing net - THAT is the object of the game!
The spectacle of the game is to see as many goals as can be inserted get to be shot past the defense and goaltending of the other team - in a heated and close competition devoid of cheap hits, mindless violence and any dirty tricks usually employed by lesser talented competitors anyhow!
Alas, game "purists" -such as TSN's Pierre McGuire- believe that NOT to be real hockey at all. Purists such as he want a "real hockey game" with tons of bodychecks and much less goal-scoring involved - and that is definitely against the basic definition of the damn game! Maybe these purists, who know the game better than anybody else, truly don't know squat after all? Hey - if it works for Bible exegets, why not also for something as trivial as a "hockey (hokey?) expert" - eh?
Another type of purist and expert is the one who holds the old NHL status quo almost sacrosanct and cries "blasphemy" at some of the new rules in place...
One such purist is The Hockey Network's own Edward Fraser. Can I call him Eddie?
Eddie Fraser is no Eddie Shore, that is for sure!
Why in blue blazes is he such a traditionalist then - eh?
You don't find him lamenting the fact that the newest sheer torture in the modern (and P.C.) NHL is to have played well enough (and have been lucky enough also) to keep it close and then wind up with nothing at all still - if you lose by one goal in REGULATION. INSTEAD... he decries the very existence of what he calls "the loser point" in the standings. A point obtained each time you make it to O.T. even if you wind up losing once there - of course.
Fortunately, the NHL powers-that-be made it so that, if you can keep the pace into overtime, you will be rewarded at least for the effort (and show of good fortune) with AT LEAST one point in the standings. The rules make it so that, now, in the "new NHL" as it is, playing for the "extra point" is then what it is truly ALL about. I find it to actually be a WONDERFUL concept - and much better than that expression some neanderthal on a high came up with when his brain was overloaded with euphoria and he exclaimed "winning isn't everything; it's the only thing." HA. If you're a coach and your job is on the line, maybe! In any other instances, the athletic performance is what matters. PARTICIPATION is the essential thing, as the venerable Pierre de Coubertin used to say (I paraphrase) and overemphasizing upon winning is not only unhealthy - it is obtuse!
The NHL hasn't done ENOUGH actually! They should reward teams with points for having kept it close for three periods! Why should only overtime losers get a point in the standings? Regulation time losers deserve (and NEED) points too! If the score is 3-2 after 60 minutes of play, give the loser a point for keeping it so close, will you?!? Heck - there should be points awarded PER PERIOD! That way, most coaches' jobs would be half-done already; their team would KNOW they have to focus on each play, each shift, each minute, each period and NOT LOOK TOO FAR AHEAD -and certainly not past any opponent!
Evidently, I am diametrically opposed to Eddie Fraser's point of view too - and vote NAY to any return to the "good ol' days" - ever! As for Pierre McGuire's dream of a "real hockey game" that caters to the mercenary side of hockey players (with incentives such as cold hard cash for the players on the winning team - or home ice advantage "throughout the playoffs" as he put it on January 28th, the day after the All-Star game, on TSN. Excuse me, Pierre, but maybe you had a Molson Ex too many at the All-Star post-game party yesterday... You must have meant home ice advantage IN THE STANLEY CUP FINALS - right?)
Well, Pierre, when the All-Star game is played in Montreal next year - I hope none of your dream has come true! ;)
My point of contention today is the "loser point" though - so, in closing...
It's enough that worthy teams will be left with NOTHING AT ALL at the end of double or triple overtime losses in the PLAYOFFS.
No need to taste that sour bitterness in the regular season as well.
On top of that, Eddie made a booboo!
In his standings, he has these numbers:
7 Islanders 24 19 6 54
8 Boston 24 19 5 53
The CORRECT numbers have Boston sitting in seventh place instead - with 25 wins, 55 points. The 25th came against the Islanders, ironically - the team he has in front of the B's! And the final score in that one was 4-1. No loser points allowed there.
This editorial appears also on ArmChairGM.com - thank you!
posted by Luminous (\ô/) Luciano™ at
6:04 PM
2 Comments:
Just for posterity and clarity's sake, here is the THN article that made my blood boil... or just simmer, yeah! I am lukewarm about all this stuff, deep down, really!
Thus, I won't be found bothering with McGuire's words in writ!
But here are the other guy's...
THN.com Blog: The irritating loser point
25/01/2008 11:00:01 AM
Early in the season, the NHL standings wouldn't have changed much without the loser point, so how different would they be on the eve of the All-Star break?
by Edward Fraser
Back in early December, I wrote a blog entry on how I detest the "loser point" to the core of my being and provided how the standings would look if the NHL used a straight "two points for a win, none for a loss" system.
To save you having to click, the conclusion was, using either system, little changed in the standings.
A few readers, however, suggested comparing the systems so early in the season didn't provide enough time for discrepancies to occur.
So with that in mind, here are the standings - not including Wednesday's games - without the loser point. Division leaders are ranked 1-2-3.
CURRENT NHL STANDINGS
EASTERN W L OTL Pts - WESTERN W L OTL Pts
1 Ottawa 30 15 4 64 Detroit 36 10 4 76
2 New Jersey 28 17 3 59 Dallas 28 19 5 61
3 Carolina 24 24 4 52 Calgary 25 17 8 58
4 Pittsburgh 27 17 4 58 Anaheim 27 18 6 60
5 Montreal 25 15 8 58 San Jose 26 15 7 59
6 Philadelphia 26 16 5 57 Minnesota 27 19 3 57
7 Islanders 24 19 6 54 Colorado 26 19 4 56
8 Boston 24 19 5 53 Vancouver 25 19 5 55
9 Rangers 23 21 6 52 Nashville 25 20 4 54
10 Washington 22 21 5 49 Columbus 24 20 6 54
11 Atlanta 23 25 3 49 Phoenix 25 21 2 52
12 Florida 22 24 4 48 St. Louis 22 18 6 50
13 Buffalo 20 21 6 46 Chicago 23 22 4 50
14 Toronto 19 22 8 46 Edmonton 22 24 5 49
15 Tampa Bay 20 24 5 45 Los Angeles 19 29 2 40
NHL STANDINGS W/O OTL
EASTERN W L Pts. - WESTERN W L Pts.
1 Ottawa 30 19 60 Detroit 36 14 72
2 New Jersey 28 20 56 Dallas 28 24 56
3 Carolina 24 28 48 Minnesota 27 22 54
4 Pittsburgh 27 21 54 Anaheim 27 24 54
5 Philadelphia 26 21 52 San Jose 26 22 52
6 Montreal 25 23 50 Colorado 26 23 52
7 Boston 24 24 48 Phoenix 25 23 50
8 Islanders 24 25 48 Nashville 25 24 50
9 Rangers 23 27 46 Vancouver 25 24 50
10 Atlanta 23 28 46 Calgary 25 25 50
11 Washington 22 26 44 Columbus 24 26 48
12 Florida 22 28 44 Chicago 23 26 46
13 Buffalo 20 27 40 St. Louis 22 24 44
14 Tampa Bay 20 29 40 Edmonton 22 29 44
15 Toronto 19 30 38 Los Angeles 19 31 38
As you can see, little changes.
In the East, the division leaders stay the same and no team moves up or down more than one spot.
In the West, Minnesota overtakes Calgary (who would drop to 10th) in the Northwest to take the No. 3 spot and Phoenix goes from 11th to seventh. Other than that, no team moves two spots higher or lower.
But math aside, the aspect of the "loser point" that irritates me the most - though needing a quantum physics degree to figure out the standings is perturbing in and of itself - is the very fact we need to reward losers in the first place.
This is a philosophy that, in theory, coddles teams and their fans by providing them with falsified above-.500 records and a supposed "it's OK that we lost, we still got a point" attitudes.
In the same breath, teams can easily achieve extended winning streaks with overtime wins included, but losing streaks are a thing of the past, replaced by winless stretches (a.k.a. "We haven't won a game in three weeks, but we do have points in seven of our last 12").
It's insulting, really.
Whether in regulation, OT or the shootout, a win is a win and a loss is a loss.
Anything else is just pseudo-P.C. pandering.
Edward Fraser is the editor of thehockeynews.com. His blog appears Thursdays.
For more great profiles, news and views from the world of hockey, Subscribe to The Hockey News magazine.
By
Luminous (\ô/) Luciano™, at 10:16 PM
I'm not helping my own cause here - but gee... Eddie Fraser is not helping his own case for the abolition of the loser point by COMPLETELY MISSING the huge ramifications it would have for teams such as PHOENIX and NASHVILLE in the West - changing back to the old formula would be the difference between making it to the playoffs and not making the grade!
Especially PHOENIX - man alive, did you see that leap from 11th to 7th spot?!?
Now the so-called "Great One" (Wayne You Know Who) will be campaigning for this too - in support of Fraser's anti-loser point point, I'm sure!
*lol*
By
Luminous (\ô/) Luciano™, at 10:24 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home