To Make The Playoffs, Hockey Teams Play Not To Win

[chemgear]

Maybe kinda obviously but I thought the stats/analysis was neat to see.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...ay-not-to-win/

But more overtime leads to a radically different game. For starters, the number of overtime games increases as the season advances; the postseason chase makes teams desperate to take advantage of the extra point available.

The data shows that, during tied games, teams’ expected goals are higher during conference games than out-of-conference ones. The largest differences in aggressiveness between in-conference and out-of-conference games occur at the end of tied games, when overtime is imminent. This suggests that teams are satisfied to receive at least one point when playing a nonconference opponent but are more likely to try to win in regulation against a team with whom they are competing for a playoff spot.

If you corner people who work in the NHL, they’ll admit that teams cater their behavior and offensive aggressiveness based on a variety of seemingly unintended incentives. “There is a lot more strategy at the end of the games than I remember,” Reirden said.5 The game is changing — but is it for the better?

[FanIn80]

I would argue that they don't play "not to win," rather, they play "not to lose."

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The 3-2-1 point system fixes this basically overnight.

[Coach]

I don't think it's evidence that teams are playing for OT out of conference as much as it is that teams push harder to keep points away from teams competing for playoffs. It makes perfect sense that they wouldn't be so hard pressed to keep a point away from an out of conference team vs how hard they try to keep it away from in-conference.

Take away points for losing (OT or SO) and this goes away.

[Vulcan]

I've brought this up before and I'm sure others have as well. Jacques Lemaire did well playing the trap the whole game instead of just trying to protect a lead. This way of playing for the tie from the start, he could count on at least one point and a 50/50 chance at two points. This could give him a 66% point success and a playoff spot.

The shootout and three point games are lowering scoring. The solution is to get rid of the shootout, get rid of three point games or make all games three pointers.

Myself, I've never had any problem with games ending in a tie. It's often the fair result.

[AcGold]

I say just takeaway the loser point. If you lose you lose, overtime is for ending games, not for rewarding an extra point. Then you go by wins and losses

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I say just takeaway the loser point. If you lose you lose, overtime is for ending games, not for rewarding an extra point. Then you go by wins and losses

I think it is the best, and most entertaining option. It reduces the impact of Shootouts because far less games would go to shoot outs. It makes .500 mean something, and makes standing much readable.

Going back to a tie and no OTL would be my second choice.

3-2-1-0 would be far better than what we have now.

It is so obvious that teams would play for a tie, when they give such a strong incentive to. I read an article once that said the only reason it hasn't changed is because all the options are better than what we currently have, so no one can agree on a replacement.

It's always been my fantasy to get rich and buy a hockey team and use a 6 fat guys in goal strategy until the Shoutout and runaway with the president's cup to demonstrate how awful the system is and how it has ruined 3rd periods of regular season games.

[May 25, 1989]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I think it is the best, and most entertaining option. It reduces the impact of Shootouts because far less games would go to shoot outs. It makes .500 mean something, and makes standing much readable.

Going back to a tie and no OTL would be my second choice.

3-2-1-0 would be far better than what we have now.

It is so obvious that teams would play for a tie, when they give such a strong incentive to. I read an article once that said the only reason it hasn't changed is because all the options are better than what we currently have, so no one can agree on a replacement.

It's always been my fantasy to get rich and buy a hockey team and use a 6 fat guys in goal strategy until the Shoutout and runaway with the president's cup to demonstrate how awful the system is and how it has ruined 3rd periods of regular season games.

Sorry to ruin your fantasy but someone had the same thought so they made a rule against it already


"It's quite common for NHL teams to change goaltenders during a game, but at least once a team got away with employing two goaltenders at the same time. At the turn of the century, a coach of a team from Kenora (then known as Rat Portage) unveiled a unique strategy against the powerful Ottawa club in a Stanley Cup match. He benched one of his forwards and inserted a second goalie in his team's net. There was no rule against it at the time, and the coach thought two goalies would make scoring almost impossible. He was wrong. The goalies stumbled into each other and left enough openings for the Ottawa boys to score and the strategy was quickly abandoned.
A rule was soon adopted preventing repetition of the ploy"

https://www.hhof.com/htmlFaceOff/humour4.shtml

[GGG]

On the other hand playoff races have never been tigher and all teams but the oilers have shots at the playoffs going into the last 4 weeks of the year.

That artificially tight playoff race is brought to you by the loser point. That's the main reason it won't be eliminated on favour of a 3-2-1-0 point system.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by GGG

That artificially tight playoff race is brought to you by the loser point. That's the main reason it won't be eliminated on favour of a 3-2-1-0 point system.

I've heard this a number of times; has it been strongly established or is it a belief kind of thing? (just asking)

Wouldn't the three point wins give teams that are behind (or out of the race) going into the final stretch, a better chance of catching up? Maybe really strong teams wouldn't be affected as much by this but is it possible that it could open up the race for the final few playoff spots?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by D as in David

I've heard this a number of times; has it been strongly established or is it a belief kind of thing? (just asking)

Wouldn't the three point wins give teams that are behind (or out of the race) going into the final stretch, a better chance of catching up? Maybe really strong teams wouldn't be affected as much by this but is it possible that it could open up the race for the final few playoff spots?

I really think it's more a question of optics. IIRC, it pretty much always works out to the same standings at the end of the day - just that the standings are much closer with the current system than with 3-2-1. The current also skews the notion of a .500 team. The Flyers are 30-29-17, so they appear to be a game over .500 if a casual fan looks at it that way.
In reality, they have won 30 and lost 46.
The current system keeps fans of 'losing teams' more interested, imo, and that is good for business.

[Ace]

^ the standings are the 'same', but if you have a different point system it changes the way the games are played and therefor presumably different results.

[driveway]

I'm opposed to the 3-2-1-0 system aesthetically. I recall the four-column standings days of 1999-2004 and simply loathed the look of them. I think it makes it extremely difficult for casual fans to easily understand who is doing well.

I never watch NCAA basketball, but if I flip open the paper and take a look at the rankings I can see Kentucky is 33-0 and Wisconsin is 30-3 and instantly I know what that means.

A person who is not specifically a hockey fan, but is happy to follow the sport from a distance because they are a sports fan, or maybe they live in an NHL city and the team starts doing well shouldn't have to do any math when they look at the standings.

Imagine the case of someone in Nashville. They aren't a hockey fan, but they know about the Predators and then, as the team and this new kid Forsberg start having success they start paying attention because they're a sports fan and are perfectly willing to give hockey a chance. They understand the season is almost over and they look at the paper and they see this:

Nashville 41-6-22-9 144pts
St. Louis 37-9-23-7 136 pts
Chicago___37-9-24-6 135 pts

Now what the heck is that poor sports fan supposed to make of those standings? We're eight points up on St. Louis ... but ... how many points is a game worth? And what's ... four columns? What he hell... I thought I heard that hockey didn't have ties? Didn't that game I go to end with a shootout or something. Stupid Canadian sport anyway, I'm gonna watch March Madness!!

I've always, and will always prefer a straight win-loss system. I understand some people hate the shootout. Their arguments don't hold any water for me, I think they are silly and facetious arguments.


St. Louis 46-30 .605
Chicago___46-30 .605
Nashville 47-31 .602

That is clear as day, immediately understandable to any sports fan anywhere in the world, regardless of if they've ever even seen a game of hockey played or not.

Also, in a straight win-loss system, the Flames would be three games above Winnipeg and five clear of LA, San Jose, and Dallas.

Simpler is better.

[GirlySports]

I'm opposed to it too, teams will defend 3 points in the 3rd period more than they defend 2 points.

TRAP!

Just go W-L. Solves everything.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I'm opposed to it too, teams will defend 3 points in the 3rd period more than they defend 2 points.

The current system is extremely favourable for the team in lead, if you don't care about the other teams points.

If the opponent does not tie, the game ends in regulation.
If they tie, the game continues giving you a second chance to get that 2nd point. It doesn't even matter for the tiebreakers.

If the NHL does not want to go for a 3 point regulation win, they should at least make the tiebreaker just regulation wins. The difference in standings tables would be minimal. I also think RW instead of ROW as the tiebreaker is actually more intuitive for the casual fan.

[gargamel]

We could potentially have a situation going into our last game where an overtime game would guarantee both Calgary and Winnipeg playoff spots, but a regulation win for either team could allow LA to catch the other team if they beat San Jose.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Itse

The current system is extremely favourable for the team in lead, if you don't care about the other teams points.

If the opponent does not tie, the game ends in regulation.
If they tie, the game continues giving you a second chance to get that 2nd point. It doesn't even matter for the tiebreakers.

If the NHL does not want to go for a 3 point regulation win, they should at least make the tiebreaker just regulation wins. The difference in standings tables would be minimal. I also think RW instead of ROW as the tiebreaker is actually more intuitive for the casual fan.

If the NHL is going to embrace the shootout then embrace it. Make a shootout win the same as a 10-0 win. Have it W-L. Or else bring back ties. Arguing that the shootout is great but then trying to prevent getting to it (via 4-on-4 or 3-on-3) is silly.

Having different types of wins worth different types of point is silly too. Why not give a team a bonus points for scoring 6 goals in regulation?

[mrkajz44]

W-L is the way to go; so much easier to understand.

I'd like to see regular season OT like the playoffs, game doesn't end until someone scores. Seems to work for NBA and MLB (playing OT or extra innings until there is a winner, even if this means playing ALOT more in some games). Why not NHL?

[Iggy Snipe]

I would love to see the standings if the 3-2-1 point system was used this season. Where would the Flames be? I bet even better off than we are now, and a lot of other teams would be out of it.

[Philly06Cup]

Why the loser point is crap:

By Game Theory, two teams should sit on their hands for 60 minutes and do nothing. This would increase their expected points from ~1 to ~1.5. What we are seeing is a very weak version of this.