No more loser point: A proposed standings system

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

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.

The point system is approximately a century older than the shootout, and therefore did not stem from it.

[Jiggy_12]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The point system is approximately a century older than the shootout, and therefore did not stem from it.

Thanks, I meant the current "need" for it which most people point to the shootout for. But appreciate the history lesson.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

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.

Would you be ticked if it was decided by a home run contest?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

Thanks, I meant the current "need" for it which most people point to the shootout for. But appreciate the history lesson.

The league's rationale for keeping the point system is that they have always done it that way and don't want to break with tradition. They don't point to the shootout one way or the other.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 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.

If the NHL says that a shootout is a valid way to determine a winner, then a shootout win should equal any other win.

If you cannot justify a shootout win as being equally valuable - and I personally fit in this category - then the shootout is illegitimate and should be eliminated. Either go unlimited overtime (3 on 3 won't take too long), or accept that ties are a thing.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'd argue that the current system makes the shootout/3v3 affect the standings more than going to W/L would. The system rewards teams for playing for a tie so that's what they do. It ruins regular season games and is the biggest reason for changing it.

There would be sense in introducing a playin game for the 4 wild card spots at the same time. If a team just loses out due to some bad luck in shoot outs, they'd have a chance to make up for it. The play in game also makes the regular season more exciting, since it makes the top 3 seeds much more important, so gives those teams something to play for and gives a couple extra teams something to play for who'd normally be out of it.

[JerryUnderscore]

The difference between hockey and basketball or baseball is that hockey is inherently a low event sport. Hockey games can easily end 2-1 or 1-0. Whereas basketball is a sport where the team averaging 90-100 points a game. Same with baseball, a game that ends 9-8 isn't abnormally high scoring.

So in both basketball and baseball you can throw in some extra time and have a pretty good chance that the game will end relatively soon. Basketball can usually end after one additional quarter. Baseball might take more than 1 or 2 extra innings, but they go by quickly and scoring can easily happen.

Hockey on the other hand, because it is a low event sport, has the problem of games potentially taking too long. Especially in a sudden death overtime situation, if you kept playing until someone scored, you could get into games that go two or three extra periods. In the playoffs thats' fine, but on a random Tuesday in January, I suspect you would have people start to leave before the game is over.

Furthermore, overtime and extra innings are way more rare in basketball and baseball. Only 6% of basketball games and less than 10% of baseball games go to extra time. Conversely, roughly 24% of hockey games take extra time to solve.

To have a quarter of all games go to extra time and to keep playing until someone wins simply couldn't happen in a physically demanding sport like hockey.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If the NHL says that a shootout is a valid way to determine a winner, then a shootout win should equal any other win.

If you cannot justify a shootout win as being equally valuable - and I personally fit in this category - then the shootout is illegitimate and should be eliminated. Either go unlimited overtime (3 on 3 won't take too long), or accept that ties are a thing.

I agree completely with this.
I never had an issue with ties, but if you want to have very few of them extend 3 on 3 until someone scores.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

The difference between hockey and basketball or baseball is that hockey is inherently a low event sport. Hockey games can easily end 2-1 or 1-0. Whereas basketball is a sport where the team averaging 90-100 points a game. Same with baseball, a game that ends 9-8 isn't abnormally high scoring.

So in both basketball and baseball you can throw in some extra time and have a pretty good chance that the game will end relatively soon. Basketball can usually end after one additional quarter. Baseball might take more than 1 or 2 extra innings, but they go by quickly and scoring can easily happen.

Hockey on the other hand, because it is a low event sport, has the problem of games potentially taking too long. Especially in a sudden death overtime situation, if you kept playing until someone scored, you could get into games that go two or three extra periods. In the playoffs thats' fine, but on a random Tuesday in January, I suspect you would have people start to leave before the game is over.

Furthermore, overtime and extra innings are way more rare in basketball and baseball. Only 6% of basketball games and less than 10% of baseball games go to extra time. Conversely, roughly 24% of hockey games take extra time to solve.

To have a quarter of all games go to extra time and to keep playing until someone wins simply couldn't happen in a physically demanding sport like hockey.

Everything you say is correct and I agree with you for the most part. However, I would argue that the reason 24% of hockey games to go extra time is largely dependent on the fact that you get at least one point if you are tied at the end of regulation. In basketball and baseball, there is no point playing for a tie as only wins and losses matter. If hockey got rid of awarding one point for an OT/SO loss, I'd think the number of games that went to extra time would drop quite a bit.

I've always thought the best way to was just have ties. Play a 5 or 10 minute overtime and if no one scores just call it a tie - I really don't understand why every single regular season game needs a winner.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

I really don't understand why every single regular season game needs a winner.

The league's rationale was that American fans are stupid and don't understand ties. They didn't express it quite that bluntly, but that was approximately the gist.

So to coddle their stupid fans, they instituted a system that is so much more complicated that you can't even tell whether a given team's record is above or below average without looking at the entire standings table and doing a lot of math.

At bottom, it really is just a case of magical thinking. ‘MLB doesn't have ties, so if we abolish ties, we will be as rich and popular as they are!’ At one time, someone actually proposed to abolish periods and divide hockey games into quarters, because football and basketball have quarters, and if only hockey had quarters, it would be just as popular as football and basketball.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by 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.

3-2-1 system is problematic, because Snek.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

Everything you say is correct and I agree with you for the most part. However, I would argue that the reason 24% of hockey games to go extra time is largely dependent on the fact that you get at least one point if you are tied at the end of regulation. In basketball and baseball, there is no point playing for a tie as only wins and losses matter. If hockey got rid of awarding one point for an OT/SO loss, I'd think the number of games that went to extra time would drop quite a bit.

I've always thought the best way to was just have ties. Play a 5 or 10 minute overtime and if no one scores just call it a tie - I really don't understand why every single regular season game needs a winner.

That argument can be made, but I suspect it's a non-falsifiable assertion. Do more hockey games go to overtime because of the loser point or is the loser point necessary because 24% already go to overtime? It's tough to say without more data and since the NHL has always (to the best of my knowledge) award a point for overtime, I'm not sure if we can ever truly know.

This is why I support the 3-2-1 system. It would give teams something to push for in those final 10 minutes. Sure you can go to overtime and still get something for your effort, but I suspect a lot more teams would be pushing for that regulation win. Especially teams that are lower in the standings later in the season. Minnesota, Chicago or Washington might be okay to skate through the final few minutes and get into overtime, but any teams on the bubble would have a very vested interest in procuring that third point.

[Beninho]

How would the leafs make the playoffs then?

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

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.

The NBA and MLB have the same rules in OT/extra innings as they do when the game starts, in terms of number of players, penalties, scoring plays, etc. In the NFL it's slightly different if the 1st score is not a TD, but games can end in a tie. It's not comparable to the NHL where they go from 5 on 5, to 3 on 3, to a shootout. It is unreasonable to have a regular season NHL game go until a winner is decided with regulation rules. If you don't want to end the game Ina tie, which I wouldn't mind, then a 3-2-1-0 point system makes the most sense. The winning team is rewarded more for winning earlier, and games are all worth the same amount of points.

I think a team should be rewarded for finishing regulation if they aren't behind. It doesn't bother me the Flames have less points but more ROWs, because that's the system everyone has and plans for. It's like blaming Trump for winning the election but losing the popular vote. And in no way am I a trump supporter.

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by 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.

You've identified the flaw in the "parity" argument - it is just an illusion.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by 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.

If the powers that be are so concerned about preserving the historical aspect of the standings (BS IMHO) they could just go 2 - 1.5 - 0.5 - 0

Regulation Win = 2 / Regulation Loss = 0
OT/SO Win = 1.5 / OT/SO loss = 0.5

Therefore all games are still worth 2 points and it won't mess with the history. I'd keep ROW as the 1st tie breaker.

[Vinny01]

Big NO to bringing back ties that would be the worst thing the league could do. I don't want to go to a game and not see a winner.

The proposed system is not better than what they have today. I am all for increasing 3 on 3 to 10-20min to pretty much end the shootout but there should be a winner at the end of the night.

I am open to 3-2-1 but in now way should a SO win be the equivalent of a regulation win.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I am open to 3-2-1 but in now way should a SO win be the equivalent of a regulation win.

If both teams understand what the rules are before the game begins, then a win is a win, shootout or otherwise. If a team doesn't want to lose in a shootout, they should take care of that in 65 minutes. Otherwise shut up and score some goals on consecutive breakaways.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

That argument can be made, but I suspect it's a non-falsifiable assertion. Do more hockey games go to overtime because of the loser point or is the loser point necessary because 24% already go to overtime? It's tough to say without more data and since the NHL has always (to the best of my knowledge) award a point for overtime, I'm not sure if we can ever truly know.

This is why I support the 3-2-1 system. It would give teams something to push for in those final 10 minutes. Sure you can go to overtime and still get something for your effort, but I suspect a lot more teams would be pushing for that regulation win. Especially teams that are lower in the standings later in the season. Minnesota, Chicago or Washington might be okay to skate through the final few minutes and get into overtime, but any teams on the bubble would have a very vested interest in procuring that third point.

Yeah, I hard time finding data that goes back that far (who knew the shoot out was 12 years old??). I did manage to dig up the press release from the NHL when they put in the shootout and here is a quote:

Fourteen per cent of all NHL regular-season games in the 2003-04 regular season ended in a tie (170 games of 1,230).

Now I know that is only one season, but the jump from 14% to numbers around 22 - 24% seem to indicate to me that more teams are playing to get the "non-regulation loss" point than they did when points were awarded for ties.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

If both teams understand what the rules are before the game begins, then a win is a win, shootout or otherwise. If a team doesn't want to lose in a shootout, they should take care of that in 65 minutes. Otherwise shut up and score some goals on consecutive breakaways.

And teams start dressing shootout specialists who will replace goons on the roster. Joe Colborne might be able to prolong his career beyond one more year if these rules happened. While we are at it let's have shootouts in the playoffs as well. It is the exact same thing as winning in regulation!