I am so tired of almost 50% of broadcasts where the announcers will say during an OT of a team in the West vs a team in the East "Since they are in the other conference they will open it up because they dont care if the other team gets the point"
How dumb is that? Once you are in OT it shouldnt matter what division or conference your opponent is in. If THEY get the extra point than you don't. Why would you take extra risks or play looser in OT against them? You either win or lose or go to the shootout.
I know it used to be said when East vs West played when they still awarded ties and ot losses, thats when it actually was ok to say "Go for it, take a chance to get that 2nd point because it wont hurt you if the other team gets it" meaning, if you tie or lose its the same difference.
I can see in the last 5 mins of regulation that a team will play more cautious to get to OT against an opponent from a different conference because you dont care if they get a point for GETTING to OT, but not winning it.
I don't really think it matters whether they are from the other conference or not. I'm personally not too upset if my team wins or loses in OT against a divisional foe - at least we got a point.
I am so tired of almost 50% of broadcasts where the announcers will say during an OT of a team in the West vs a team in the East "Since they are in the other conference they will open it up because they dont care if the other team gets the point"
How dumb is that? Once you are in OT it shouldnt matter what division or conference your opponent is in. If THEY get the extra point than you don't. Why would you take extra risks or play looser in OT against them? You either win or lose or go to the shootout.
I know it used to be said when East vs West played when they still awarded ties and ot losses, thats when it actually was ok to say "Go for it, take a chance to get that 2nd point because it wont hurt you if the other team gets it" meaning, if you tie or lose its the same difference.
I can see in the last 5 mins of regulation that a team will play more cautious to get to OT against an opponent from a different conference because you dont care if they get a point for GETTING to OT, but not winning it.
Anyone with me on this?
The problem here seems to be the announcers... not the system. Players are going to try to win no matter who they are playing. I think you are misinterpreting what they are saying.
Well, to be fair, giving an OT point to an out of conference is doesn't matter at all. Giving an OT point to a team in your own conference has an aggregate cost of 1/14th of a point. That is, 14 OT/SO wins will net each opposing team 1 point. Of course, it's a little more complicated than that since, for example, Pittsburgh probably doesn't care if the Islanders get an extra point or not, while it may become important if it's Washington.
I don't really think it matters whether they are from the other conference or not. I'm personally not too upset if my team wins or loses in OT against a divisional foe - at least we got a point.
Which is certainly a failing of the point system.
Agreed, The extra point makes the a fan like me at least satisfied that they got a point when my team loses. That should not happen.
the way the point system is set up right now, the announcers are right. If you go intto OT against a non-conference team, that extra point means a whole lot less than it would against someone against whom you could be fighting for a playoff spot. Thats the way the game is set up right now, for better or worse.
__________________ “I'm happy it was Fisher, because he's pretty good-looking.” - Daniel Alfredsson
the way the point system is set up right now, the announcers are right. If you go intto OT against a non-conference team, that extra point means a whole lot less than it would against someone against whom you could be fighting for a playoff spot. Thats the way the game is set up right now, for better or worse.
No, there is 1 extra point awarded. Its yours or theirs, thats what I mean. Why would you take more chances than normal, either way the 1 point is awarded so play like you normally would.
The announcers are right. The value of giving up an extra point to a team from another conference is less valuable then giving up an extra point to a team from the same conference or division.
No, there is 1 extra point awarded. Its yours or theirs, thats what I mean. Why would you take more chances than normal, either way the 1 point is awarded so play like you normally would.
If you earn the extra point, the value of that point is the same no matter what team you play. But giving up the point is a different situation.
Teams may open up the game to try and give themselves a better chance to win the game and earn the extra point knowing that giving up the point to a non-conference team doesn't affect your team as much.
A sports economist looked at the incentives of the extra point a while back, if I can find the article again, I'll post it. It was good.
The basic results were that he found that teams play softer against in conference opponents than out of conference, when in OT and more East/West games go to OT controlling than West/West or East/East.
I think it does matter, but not enough to make a noticeable difference, if I'm willing to give each other a point if I know giving that club a pt won't hurt me at all.
But I might try to push a little so my opponent doesn't get that 1 pt that my screw me later on.
Some of you just dont get what I am saying. You BOTH have 1 point already. there will be 1 more point given, so why would you do something different to risk losing the point? If you dont get it, it hurts you.
The winners just don't care if the other team gets a point too if they lose in overtime if they are from the other conference.
But if you play in the same conference, and you more or less give them a point when you would be better off to steal all points from them, it's worse for the winning team.
It's not meant the way, that they don't care whether the other team gets 1 or 2 points, but if they win in OT, it's better if you win against a team of the other conference than not.
I know it used to be said when East vs West played when they still awarded ties and ot losses, thats when it actually was ok to say "Go for it, take a chance to get that 2nd point because it wont hurt you if the other team gets it" meaning, if you tie or lose its the same difference.
This is where it started and they just kept saying it ever since, regardless of whether or not it actually holds water now.
I'm sure it makes a difference when you get towards the end of regulation. But as far as OT goes, there shouldn't be an incentive to play differently. People may, but that's not based on rationality.
We're talking about a binary outcome. That is, either you win or you don't, there's no such thing as a tie. Winning is the better outcome, so whatever maximizes your chance of winning should be the correct strategy. If you change your style because you're playing an out of conference team makes no sense as that actually decreases your chance of winning.
We're talking about a binary outcome. That is, either you win or you don't, there's no such thing as a tie. Winning is the better outcome, so whatever maximizes your chance of winning should be the correct strategy. If you change your style because you're playing an out of conference team makes no sense as that actually decreases your chance of winning.
I disagree that it's a binary outcome. If you lose against an inconference opponent, then they gain a point against you in the standings for the playoffs, but that isn't the case in the out of conference opponent.
If you go to OT with an out of conference opponent, you have netted 1 point against all your conference opponents in the standings. But if you go to OT against an in conference opponent, then you have net 1 point against everyone but the specific opponent.
Winning should be the most important aspect, but in reality it is the points game. And if a rest in OT, maybe sit a player in an east/west game so they don't get injured but you'd keep them playing in west/west, as that extra point is more important.
I disagree that it's a binary outcome. If you lose against an inconference opponent, then they gain a point against you in the standings for the playoffs, but that isn't the case in the out of conference opponent.
If you go to OT with an out of conference opponent, you have netted 1 point against all your conference opponents in the standings. But if you go to OT against an in conference opponent, then you have net 1 point against everyone but the specific opponent.
Winning should be the most important aspect, but in reality it is the points game. And if a rest in OT, maybe sit a player in an east/west game so they don't get injured but you'd keep them playing in west/west, as that extra point is more important.
It's still a binary outcome. Well, each game is. If it's inside the conference, you can think of a win as 1 point and a loss as 0 points. While if it's outside the conference, a win is still 1 point, but the loss is, say, 0.5 point. Sill the strategy that maximizes the outcome in the first case also maximizes the outcome of the second case.
