why hockey is dumb

[RedRover]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't follow the NHL at all but I don't get the hate for the OP if that's actually how it works. It makes sense to play for the tie unless you have a certain % chance of beating the opponent in regulation. Collusion wouldn't really be necessary cause you could just play a defensive game and never try to score.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is just a modified prisoners dilemma problem and it's pretty easy to see why it's best to choose to defect.

[ahmngrn30]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't follow the NHL at all but I don't get the hate for the OP if that's actually how it works. It makes sense to play for the tie unless you have a certain % chance of beating the opponent in regulation. Collusion wouldn't really be necessary cause you could just play a defensive game and never try to score.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is just a modified prisoners dilemma problem and it's pretty easy to see why it's best to choose to defect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well as soon as it becomes clear that the other team isn't taking part in the stall until overtime thing then the deal is over. Not really the same thing.

[DonkeyKongSr]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't follow the NHL at all but I don't get the hate for the OP if that's actually how it works. It makes sense to play for the tie unless you have a certain % chance of beating the opponent in regulation. Collusion wouldn't really be necessary cause you could just play a defensive game and never try to score.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main point is that professional sports are played first and foremost for entertainment of their fans. You bore them to death, you have no fans, and your sport doesn't exist. If hockey was 0-0 for 60 minutes every night with no offensive action, absolutely no one would watch.

[ahmngrn30]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't follow the NHL at all but I don't get the hate for the OP if that's actually how it works. It makes sense to play for the tie unless you have a certain % chance of beating the opponent in regulation. Collusion wouldn't really be necessary cause you could just play a defensive game and never try to score.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main point is that professional sports are played first and foremost for entertainment of their fans. You bore them to death, you have no fans, and your sport doesn't exist. If hockey was 0-0 for 60 minutes every night with no offensive action, absolutely no one would watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's obviously why they don't do it but lets say theres 5 minutes left in the game and it's tied. Don't both teams end up trying to just stall? I'd be pissed if my team didn't.

[DonkeyKongSr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't follow the NHL at all but I don't get the hate for the OP if that's actually how it works. It makes sense to play for the tie unless you have a certain % chance of beating the opponent in regulation. Collusion wouldn't really be necessary cause you could just play a defensive game and never try to score.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main point is that professional sports are played first and foremost for entertainment of their fans. You bore them to death, you have no fans, and your sport doesn't exist. If hockey was 0-0 for 60 minutes every night with no offensive action, absolutely no one would watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's obviously why they don't do it but lets say theres 5 minutes left in the game and it's tied. Don't both teams end up trying to just stall? I'd be pissed if my team didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

That happens. Plus, there are times one team does the No-Offense thing when they get a lead. The typical way is "The Neutral Zone Trap" defense that lots of old timey coaches like to pull out that will bore the pants off of you. If you ever see a Minnesota game or New Jersey game (to a lesser extent these days) and they get a 1 goal lead, you might as well turn off the TV, because that game is going on lockdown. Thankfully rule changes and coaching changes have reduced this greatly.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
The main point is that professional sports are played first and foremost for entertainment of their fans.

[/ QUOTE ]

wishful thinking imo. as fans we would like to think this, but i don't think it's true. it would be hard for a league to get by w/o doing this, but i don't believe this is their primary goal. i imagine most professional athletes would rank the fans third next to playing b/c they enjoy it and playing to support themselves.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't follow the NHL at all but I don't get the hate for the OP if that's actually how it works. It makes sense to play for the tie unless you have a certain % chance of beating the opponent in regulation. Collusion wouldn't really be necessary cause you could just play a defensive game and never try to score.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main point is that professional sports are played first and foremost for entertainment of their fans. You bore them to death, you have no fans, and your sport doesn't exist. If hockey was 0-0 for 60 minutes every night with no offensive action, absolutely no one would watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's obviously why they don't do it but lets say theres 5 minutes left in the game and it's tied. Don't both teams end up trying to just stall? I'd be pissed if my team didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

That happens. Plus, there are times one team does the No-Offense thing when they get a lead. The typical way is "The Neutral Zone Trap" defense that lots of old timey coaches like to pull out that will bore the pants off of you. If you ever see a Minnesota game or New Jersey game (to a lesser extent these days) and they get a 1 goal lead, you might as well turn off the TV, because that game is going on lockdown. Thankfully rule changes and coaching changes have reduced this greatly.

[/ QUOTE ]

i see someone doesn't watch the ducks very often.

or hasn't watched the devils this year at all.

[bravos1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't follow the NHL at all but I don't get the hate for the OP if that's actually how it works. It makes sense to play for the tie unless you have a certain % chance of beating the opponent in regulation. Collusion wouldn't really be necessary cause you could just play a defensive game and never try to score.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main point is that professional sports are played first and foremost for entertainment of their fans. You bore them to death, you have no fans, and your sport doesn't exist. If hockey was 0-0 for 60 minutes every night with no offensive action, absolutely no one would watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's obviously why they don't do it but lets say theres 5 minutes left in the game and it's tied. Don't both teams end up trying to just stall? I'd be pissed if my team didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

The team that is worse typically does... sometimes you will see both do it, not not usually. I would actually be pissed if I was watching the Sharks just dink the puck around for 5 minutes instead of attacking for the win.

[bravos1]

oh and I like the 3-2-1 points option.

One of my grips though is indeed related to OT. If they are going to have OT, fine... but don't change the rules of OT between the reg season and the post-season.

[vin17]

Another one to ponder: On the penalty kill, when the penalized team has puck possession in their end and is relatively free from fore checking pressure, why don't they just skate around their own net a few times, pass it back and forth, etc instead of skating up with it and dumping it in?

I think this would apply more to 5 v 4.