No more loser point: A proposed standings system

[FanIn80]

Here are today's standings, reorganized using proposed system:


Notes
- No more getting points for losing in OT or a shootout. You either win or lose a game. Winning = good, not winning = not good.
- In fact, there are no points for anything. Your place in the standings is based on a percentage of how many games you've won vs how many games you played (Winning %).
- If a game goes to OT, you are encouraged to win because your W% will increase if you win, and decrease if you lose. You are also encouraged to win in OT vs SO, because winning in a shootout won't help your tiebreakers.
- Ties in the standings are decided first by regulation/OT wins (ROW), second by goal differential (DIF) and third by season series vs team(s) your tied with, fourth by goal differential in those season series. Winning in regulation or OT bumps your W% and your tiebreakers. Winning in a shootout only bumps your W%. Goal differential is also big, so blowouts and solid defence are encouraged.

Benefits
- Winners are rewarded, losers are not rewarded.
- Standings are much more simple and, more importantly, much more reflective of how good or bad teams actually are at any point in the season.


Thoughts?

[N-E-B]

I agree with this 99%, the one change I'd make would be to use "games back" instead of win percentage. The standings wouldn't change much, it's just easier to read and figure out how far back you are. Also doesn't devalue a win.

Points are stupid and flawed and should disappear forever.

[squiggs96]

I just don't see how you can justify that a shootout win is worth the same as a regulation win. If the NHL is intent on keeping the shootout, I'd prefer going to the 3-2-1-0 system.

In the current format, it's not a loser point. The point is for finishing regulation tied. Both teams get one. The extra point is for winning in OT or a SO. You aren't getting a point taken away for losing nor are you being rewarded for losing. You've already gotten your point for being tied after 60 minutes.

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I agree with this 99%, the one change I'd make would be to use "games back" instead of win percentage. The standings wouldn't change much, it's just easier to read and figure out how far back you are. Also doesn't devalue a win.

Points are stupid and flawed and should disappear forever.

Just like the greatest sport in the world, Baseball

[JiriHrdina]

If my team lost in a shootout and didn't a single point out of it - I would be ticked.

[FanIn80]

The only purpose for a shootout is to eliminate tie games without taking all night to do it. It's just something you have to do in order to win a game if you didn't win in regulation or OT.

And the loser point is a loser point. Who gets two points? The team that wins. Who gets one point? The team that loses.

I'd maybe consider doing away with ROW as a tiebreaker, thereby making shootout wins the same value as reg/OT wins, but that's it. If you lose a game, it's because you didn't win the game. How you lost doesn't matter.

[The Yen Man]

I think the NHL is happy with the current system as it creates a ton of parity due to the loser point. You have several teams battling down to the wire for spots, and that's what the NHL has always wanted. I just don't see them making changes to it TBH.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

If my team lost in a shootout and didn't a single point out of it - I would be ticked.

You should be ticked that the Flames have won more games than the Oilers and Ducks and still trail them in the standings. A loss is a loss. Points are stupid.

[PepsiFree]

From everything I've seen, no matter how you split the points (no loser point, 3-2-1-0, etc) the standings remain very close to the same as they are now.

The biggest difference is the illusion of parity, which is at it's near-best in the current point system. I think the NHL wants to hold on to that the most.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

Points are stupid.

Billions of soccer fans disagree.

[FanIn80]

Look at the Central division. Right now, in the current system, a 32-35 team is in 3rd place, while a 33-32 team is in the final WC spot. Why? Because Nashville is better at losing games than St. Louis is.

[Jiggy_12]

This is absolutely how the system should be.

Being awarded a point for losing makes no sense.

Wins and losses are all that should matter. Shootouts, overtime, 3 on 3 - whatever you have to do to end a game, but the wins and losses are all that should matter.

[EldrickOnIce]

Battle through 65 minutes and come away with no points based on the outcome of a sideshow gimmick. No thanks

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

This is absolutely how the system should be.

Being awarded a point for losing makes no sense.

Wins and losses are all that should matter. Shootouts, overtime, 3 on 3 - whatever you have to do to end a game, but the wins and losses are all that should matter.

You could look at it this way - you are awarded a point by not losing in regulation. The point is awarded before a winner is determined in O/T, so the point is not awarded for losing.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by troutman

You could look at it this way - you are awarded a point by not losing in regulation. The point is awarded before a winner is determined in O/T, so the point is not awarded for losing.

I'm old and remember ties, so that's how I always looked at it - a point for a tie, and an extra point for OT. I always figured a team was deserving of a point for fighting out a draw after 60.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The biggest difference is the illusion of parity, which is at it's near-best in the current point system. I think the NHL wants to hold on to that the most.

This is exactly it. While a 3-2-1 system would be better than what we have (and I would say better than a simple W-L system), the league wants as many teams making a push for the playoffs as possible each year. The delusion of parity that the current system brings creates that.

Also, going on the way to the shootout and leaving empty handed is crazy. Might as well just flip a coin at that point.

[Jiggy_12]

Originally Posted by troutman

You could look at it this way - you are awarded a point by not losing in regulation. The point is awarded before a winner is determined in O/T, so the point is not awarded for losing.

Yeah I guess so, but why should a team be awarded for that to begin with?

In the other 3 major NA sports, baseball, football, basketball - they all have overtime (or extra innings) in which there is still the same total amount of credit for the win handed out, and zero credit for the loss.

I don't know why the NHL is compelled to complicate it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

Yeah I guess so, but why should a team be awarded for that to begin with?

In the other 4 major NA sports, baseball, football, basketball - they all have overtime (or extra innings) in which there is still the same total amount of credit for the win handed out, and zero credit for the loss.

I don't know why the NHL is compelled to complicate it.

In baseball and basketball, they play normal rules, though, no gimmicks.

The NFL system is flawed IMO.

[Jiggy_12]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

In baseball and basketball, they play normal rules, though, no gimmicks.

The NFL system is flawed IMO.

Agreed on the NFL.

The need for the "point" system stems from the shootout, which is a ridiculous way to end a game but I find it personally more ridiculous to have the loser walk away with credit.

If the NHL is admitting the absurdity of the shootout by requiring 3 point games, then they are solving their problem with another problem IMO.

Play 3 on 3 OT for 10 mins and if that's it, then the game ends in a tie. I would have no issues with this.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

If my team lost in a shootout and didn't a single point out of it - I would be ticked.

Just like I'm ticked when the Angels lose in the 15th inning, but at the end of the day they lost and shouldn't get squat.