Stephen A. Smith Is A Blithering Idiot

[supraman]

Besides you point, they don't compare because we are not comparing win streaks. The Hawks' win streak is 9 and the Heats' win streak is 15. 15 is more impressive than 9.



What is comparable is unbeaten in regulation, the Hawks' unbeaten streak in regulation 22, the Heats unbeaten streak in regulation 15. 22 is more impressive than 15.



There's merit to both sides of the argument and Steven is an idiot because he Steven, Steven isn't an idiot because he thinks the Heats' streak is more impressive....period.

Again you cant simply compare the win streak numbers and say which is more impressive. Like I said it is much harder to tie in basketball than hockey, if basketball games were 3-2 affairs you'd probably see ties or something like the NHL has but they don't so just because 15 is greater than 9 doesn't equate. That isn't even taking into consideration difficulty of opponents either. The two sports aren't comparable at all

 

[winos5]

Puck Daddy had a nice rant aboot this.

 

[dlrob315]

Again you cant simply compare the win streak numbers and say which is more impressive. Like I said it is much harder to tie in basketball than hockey, if basketball games were 3-2 affairs you'd probably see ties or something like the NHL has but they don't so just because 15 is greater than 9 doesn't equate. That isn't even taking into consideration difficulty of opponents either. The two sports aren't comparable at all

That's too deep for the casual fan and yes I understand where you are going and I appreciate the Hawks streak with the utmost respect.

 

[LordKOTL]

Fair is fair though...if we want to compare to the "tie era" streaks, we have to treat the shootout, win or loss, as a tie.



That puts the 'hawks at 16-0-6. Still fucking impressive nonetheless.

**** his condescending speech about a sport much tougher then basketball. A sport more team oriented then basketball. A game more fluid and faster then a stop every five seconds game of basketball.



However, I agree with him in some respects. Mainly the points. I agree that teams should (and I 100% agree that they do) hit the ice wanting the win. However the sport, since the NHL has been around, has had ties. Like it or not, that's the way it is. You can have virtually unlimited basketball OT's but not in hockey. One of the great things about playoff hockey is full, commercial free hockey. Guys giving everything just to get the win. And he really showed how uninformed he is about hockey and the NHL. He, dupa, there hasn't been a tie in the NHL in pert near 8 years. Also, yes, there is a team in Columbus. Maybe if you, a SPORTSCASTER, would report on, oh I dunno, sports, you would know about the 30 teams that comprise the NHL. Maybe if your terrible "sports" network did what it was sposeda do, then maybe you would know.



I agree though....get rid of the loser point. I've heard people say make it 3 points. I say no, make it 2 for a win, 0 for a loss.

I actually had a thought on this:



I think we should go back to the win/loss/tie format for points



OT is 5 mins 4-4, you lose, 0 points, you win, 2



Then you go to the shootout, both teams get 1 point



Then, the winner of the shootout just gets a shootout win.



They only matter as far as tiebreaking is concerened:



1st who has the most points

(1a) Less games played if the season isn't over

2nd, who has the most wins

then, somwehere beneath most wins and above goal differential, you slot shootout wins as a standings tiebreaker. You get a "winner of the game", but since they didn't lose, nor couldn't put it away in regulation, both teams only get a point.



Comments? Death threats?

 

[Ton]

Fair is fair though...if we want to compare to the "tie era" streaks, we have to treat the shootout, win or loss, as a tie.



That puts the 'hawks at 16-0-6. Still fucking impressive nonetheless.







I actually had a thought on this:



I think we should go back to the win/loss/tie format for points



OT is 5 mins 4-4, you lose, 0 points, you win, 2



Then you go to the shootout, both teams get 1 point



Then, the winner of the shootout just gets a shootout win.



They only matter as far as tiebreaking is concerened:



1st who has the most points

(1a) Less games played if the season isn't over

2nd, who has the most wins

then, somwehere beneath most wins and above goal differential, you slot shootout wins as a standings tiebreaker. You get a "winner of the game", but since they didn't lose, nor couldn't put it away in regulation, both teams only get a point.



Comments? Death threats?

Can we fire Bettman and hire you?

 

[LordKOTL]

Can we fire Bettman and hire you?

I appreciate the vote of confidence

, but there are many on this board who I think would make a far better commish than I would.

 

[supraman]

Just use the 3 pt system. 3 for a win, 1 for a OT loss, 2 for an OT win

 

[jakobeast]

Fair is fair though...if we want to compare to the "tie era" streaks, we have to treat the shootout, win or loss, as a tie.



That puts the 'hawks at 16-0-6. Still fucking impressive nonetheless.







I actually had a thought on this:



I think we should go back to the win/loss/tie format for points



OT is 5 mins 4-4, you lose, 0 points, you win, 2



Then you go to the shootout, both teams get 1 point



Then, the winner of the shootout just gets a shootout win.



They only matter as far as tiebreaking is concerened:



1st who has the most points

(1a) Less games played if the season isn't over

2nd, who has the most wins

then, somwehere beneath most wins and above goal differential, you slot shootout wins as a standings tiebreaker. You get a "winner of the game", but since they didn't lose, nor couldn't put it away in regulation, both teams only get a point.



Comments? Death threats?

I like it. That way of doing it, IN THEORY, makes the teams want to win in the 5 minutes of overtime. There is an incentive to win. Deny your opponent any points.