| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| ryan93 |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 17:55:31
How about this run the Red Wings are on right now! They are going for their 21st straight win at home tonight, which would set an NHL record. Late in the 2nd period, they have a 2-0 lead on the Dallas Stars. It amazes me how good this team is year after year. |
| 17 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 21:01:42
quote:
Originally posted by ryan93
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
not to put a damper on the achievement...but they are also under .500 away from home, which isn't great for them...
Looking at the standings, the Canucks are really the only team in the West that has an impressive road record.
My point wasn't so much to having an impressive road record, but simply that good teams should be able to hold a .500-or-better record on the road as well as home, and the difference should not be as much as it is for DET. I would much rather have a lesser overall record but perform roughly the same on the road as at home - teams like NYR, BOS, VAN, even NJ and PIT seem to be consistent no matter where they play. |
| ryan93 |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 09:29:44
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
not to put a damper on the achievement...but they are also under .500 away from home, which isn't great for them...
Looking at the standings, the Canucks are really the only team in the West that has an impressive road record. |
| Guest0342 |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 17:54:21
                    |
| Guest4875 |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 16:35:19
I completely agree that the record should be an unbeaten streak which is still very impressive.
What is ironic is that the new system of shootouts cost the Flyers their at home win streak to the Red Wings but it also surely will preserve their 35 game unbeaten streak. Without games allowed to stay tied i am sure that record will never be broken!! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 10:07:36
I too understand there are changes to the game, rules, equipment, etc and as different "eras" come and go, things will change. I don't so much mean there should actually be an * in the record book, but i use it as a figure of speech, just like many other records. IF the * was actually used, there'd be tons of records which would require it!
Technically as the rule stands, it's a winning streak. Put it back in the day, it's an unbeaten streak. |
| simleung |
Posted - 02/16/2012 : 09:49:16
There's no denying that it's a great accomplishment any way you slice it. However, like Slozo, I also feel that since ties are no longer a possible outcome, the record itself isn't quite the same as it otherwise would be. Let's face it: there used to be three possible outcomes to a game, and now there are two. Of COURSE a long streak of either of the remaining two are more likely to happen. That's just simple statistics.
Again, it's still an amazing streak nonetheless. |
| ryan93 |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 15:27:45
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
Originally posted by ryan93
If a team loses in overtime, they still get a point too slozo
In the old days (when dinosaurs still lived in zoos, and slozo was just a teen
haha I loved this!! |
| Guest8875 |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 14:12:13
I'm in agreement with Fat Elvis. To think anything else would just certify you as a hater |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 14:05:23
I have to disagree that this record needs to 'watered down', in any way, shape or form. It's an outstanding achievement, garnered under the structures of the rules as they are, period. To start defining what is 'true' hockey, IMO, gets convoluted quickly if we start to try and compare apples to apples, impossible.
What we 'oldtimers', have seen through the years, has been a constant revamping of the game, to allow it to evolve to what the powers that be, deem a better product today, and it is a disservice to discredit today's game and rules, to not only today's NHL, but younger fans, who have no reference to what we think of as 'true' hockey.
There would have to asterisks beside every record set since about 1917, as the number of games in a season has changed so many times since then, More asterisks as the league expanded as pointed out. More asterisks as the EurAsian influence of players started becoming prevalent. More asterisks as rules changed, equipment changed, etc.
Why not just recognize it for what it is, a great team, achieving a remarkable record, no asterisk.
Unless of course, some of you are adamant that they are too old to be that good! |
| n/a |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 11:00:28
quote:
Originally posted by ryan93
If a team loses in overtime, they still get a point too slozo
And the reason for that is, under the current system, it's 4 on 4 hockey - not TRUE hockey, the way it was designed to be played. The way it is played in the playoffs.
In the old days (when dinosaurs still lived in zoos, and slozo was just a teen), an overtime victory only meant you scored in the 5 minute overtime, playing under normal 5 on 5 rules. So, no extra point for a losing team, fair is fair.
So yes, the whole system is an asterisk as far as I am concerned, comparing modern day records to old ones. We have to compare apples to apples . . . and even if it's old apples to new apples, let's keep it to the same kind of fruit.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 09:32:27
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I look at this as an ASTERISK record. 3 shootout wins here . . . and they compare the record to actual juggernaut teams that could have had the streak end in ties.
To me, the streak of however many wins in a row or losses in a row a team has at this point ENDS at the shootout. If it makes it to a shootout, it would have been a tie.
I mean, if the NHL really wants to give a shootout win the FULL VALIDITY of a true win . . . why does it give the other team a point? Why? Because it's not a "true" win through playing true hockey . . . it's decided by a gimmick, a crowd pleaser.
Nothing against the Red Wings here - very good team and all - but you do not have the record in my eyes.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Perhaps we should put asterisks beside every Stanley Cup won before 1967. I mean, how hard was it for teams to win when there were only 6 teams, playing only 70 games a year? Every team had a 1-in-6 chance, way easier than today...
Guys - the game changes and evolves over time. Records that were once considered unachievable will be broken in the future. Conversely, records that were easily achieved before may never be touched again. Do we want to have "records per era", or just wipe the slate clean every time a significant change or expansion happens? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 08:02:16
I agree with Slozo. In fact, i'd consider this more of an "unbeaten streak" than a "winning streak". |
| Guest5744 |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 08:01:47
this just makes me glad all the red wing fans trying to sell howard as a vezina candidate.... definitely not. joey macdonald has won with the team and had great numbers. |
| ryan93 |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 06:31:12
If a team loses in overtime, they still get a point too slozo
|
| n/a |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 06:00:39
I look at this as an ASTERISK record. 3 shootout wins here . . . and they compare the record to actual juggernaut teams that could have had the streak end in ties.
To me, the streak of however many wins in a row or losses in a row a team has at this point ENDS at the shootout. If it makes it to a shootout, it would have been a tie.
I mean, if the NHL really wants to give a shootout win the FULL VALIDITY of a true win . . . why does it give the other team a point? Why? Because it's not a "true" win through playing true hockey . . . it's decided by a gimmick, a crowd pleaser.
Nothing against the Red Wings here - very good team and all - but you do not have the record in my eyes.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| foolpittier |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 01:57:38
they are awesome
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 17:58:27
not to put a damper on the achievement...but they are also under .500 away from home, which isn't great for them... |
|
|
