why hockey is dumb - Page 7

ThaSaltCracka · #61 10-18-2007, 07:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
couldn't the two teams just do nothing for 3 periods then guarentee themselves at least 1 point. seems dumb that teams are wasting all their energy to go for 2 or 0 points alot of the time when they can have 2 or 1.

[/ QUOTE ]LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, I HATE HOCKEY BUT I THINK THIS IS SO STUPID. What would happen if every team played for a tie? What would happen if every game ended in a tie? I can't possibly fathom why anyone would play for A WIN!

jessica1994 · #62 10-18-2007, 08:00 PM

obviously not EVERY team is going to do this. since no one is now, if group of like 5 teams in each conference decided that when they played any other team in this group, they would play like this (they could still play real hockey for the first two periods to impress fans but just make sure its tied after 3), then those 10 teams would have an advantage over the rest of the league.

plus they could have games when they played other be like 7-7, 11-11 after regulation which would also bring more fans in cause scoring is fun to watch and 2-1 games are boring as [censored].

also,

"What would happen if every game ended in a tie?"

i don't know if you follow hockey but games don't end in ties anymore.

DaExMan · #63 10-18-2007, 08:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are obviously numerous -EV reasons why OP's idea doesn't work. First off it's a disadvantage to the better team. Second it obviously makes no sense in divisional games (and there are 32 of those). Lastly giving that free point to the other guy can come back to haunt you later in the year, when home ice for the cup is still decided by overall points. Bottom line it'll never make sense to do this, UNLESS both teams need exactly one point to make the playoffs in the final game, and happen to be in opposite conferences. But those games are never scheduled for the end, so it wouldn't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

the better team playing the stupid way (the way they play now) would have to average like over 1.5+ points/game vs. the other team to want to play the dumb way. If they just stall until overtime, they will have 1.5 point on average if they are the same skill, but since you said they are better, they will automatically average 1.5+ points per game. Not many games happen where one team has an average points of over 1.5.

Second, how are they giving up free points? They are GUARENTEEING AT LEAST 1 POINT, and AVERAGING 1.5 if both teams are of the same skill.

In 2006, the BEST TEAM averaged only 1.38 points for game. So yeah, if you did this all season, I don't see how you will be "haunted" rofl

[/ QUOTE ]

If the team was alot better, say ottawa vs atlanta and they played each other 82 times Ottawa would average more than 1.38 points per game.

WFDeac · #64 10-18-2007, 08:22 PM

Wow, Jessica is taking WAYYYY too much heat here. The basic premise she makes has value.

It is very possible that late in the season, very late in a game, in an game between an Eastern and Western conference teams, that the coaches could agree to tell their players to play it cool until overtime if the game is tied.

In fact, I bet something similar to this has happened before.

jessica1994 · #65 10-18-2007, 08:23 PM

yes ok sure, maybe the 5% of games where one team will average more than 1.5 a game they should just try to win in reg. even so, if they go to overtime, they have the advantage so they will still average like 1.55-1.6 playing to win in overtime.

DonkeyKongSr · #66 10-18-2007, 08:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, Jessica is taking WAYYYY too much heat here. The basic premise she makes has value.

It is very possible that late in the season, very late in a game, in an game between an Eastern and Western conference teams, that the coaches could agree to tell their players to play it cool until overtime if the game is tied.

In fact, I bet something similar to this has happened before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Her premise makes sense if teams only concern was making the most EV point decision every game and not taking into other things like umm, actually playing a game for more than a 5 minute OT every night. The fact that she calls the sport and it's teams dumb because they actually play the sport instead of looking for some completely retarded loophole like not even playing the game is why she is getting heat. It's a similar idea to the "false start every down" concepts in the football threads which is another "why even play the game?" loophole. It'll work, but why the [censored] would you do it? And why is a professional sport dumb because it has an insane loophole like this that no one would ever take advantage of for reasons outlined earlier?

WFDeac · #67 10-18-2007, 08:38 PM

1. Do you honestly think the scenario I outlined has never/will never happen?

2. Shouldn't a change be made?

DonkeyKongSr · #68 10-18-2007, 08:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1. Do you honestly think the scenario I outlined has never/will never happen?

2. Shouldn't a change be made?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your scenario can happen, the same way two teams in any single sport can have a game on the last day of the season that gets one team in the playoffs with a win and means nothing to the other team. What is stopping them from agreeing on the outcome of the game? Or what's stopping teams from intentionally tanking games for higher draft picks? [censored] like this happens in every sport to some degree. If the governing body of whatever sport ever feels like a team is abusing the rules in one of these situations, I'm pretty sure they can levee fines and suspensions at will. Which is exactly what the NHL would do if two teams didn't play hockey for 60 minutes.

bluef0x · #69 10-18-2007, 10:16 PM

WFDeac & Jessica,

Do you understand basic logic?
Yeah, you make the agreement.... then with 2 minutes left and you get a power play. Why the [censored] would you keep the agreement? Also, since there's a chance the opponent may break the offer late in the 3rd, you have to play for the win as well. Seriously, go look up game theory and cartels/prisoner dilemmas like another poster suggested.

You also can't just hold a lead or keep a tie whenever you want. It's not that [censored] easy, get it through your thick skulls. I bet you two watch every sport where Team A is in the lead and then begin to swear at the TV when they blow the lead... 'cuz OMG WHY DIDNT THEY JUST HOLD THE LEAD?!@?

ahmngrn30 · #70 10-19-2007, 12:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
WFDeac & Jessica,

Do you understand basic logic?
Yeah, you make the agreement.... then with 2 minutes left and you get a power play. Why the [censored] would you keep the agreement? Also, since there's a chance the opponent may break the offer late in the 3rd, you have to play for the win as well. Seriously, go look up game theory and cartels/prisoner dilemmas like another poster suggested.

You also can't just hold a lead or keep a tie whenever you want. It's not that [censored] easy, get it through your thick skulls. I bet you two watch every sport where Team A is in the lead and then begin to swear at the TV when they blow the lead... 'cuz OMG WHY DIDNT THEY JUST HOLD THE LEAD?!@?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol at everyone with a hockey avatar getting pissed off at this