Will the NHL ever change this godawful point system?

[driveway]

I started to write a post where I was going to defend my personal preference for point-systems: the straight win-loss system, but I actually came to a completely different conclusion (though I think the should still go to straight win-loss).

The system doesn't really create artificial parity. That parity exists already. Getting into the playoffs - outside of the top few teams - is actually pretty random in the NHL. One of the things the 2 - 0 - 1 point system creates is the illusion of teams being significantly above or below .500

In an 82-game season, winning 60% of your games means 49 wins. Since 2005-06 there have been 51 teams to win 49 games or more. That's 330 team-seasons, for a .600-win rate of 15%. So, expect 4-5 teams each year to be .600 or better. That's a pretty low number of really 'good' sports teams.

Over the same span of time, the NBA, a league with the same number of teams and games-played as the NHL has had 94 50-win teams (.609, but 50-wins is the NBA benchmark for 'good'). That's 28% of teams who could be genuinely considered 'good.'

Conversely, there have been 72 'bad' teams in the NHL over the same time with sub-.400 win-records. 21% of NHL teams are genuinely bad season-to-season, about 6 teams a year, so we're left with the following situation:

Most of the NHL is swimming in mediocrity. There have been 53 teams over that span who have ended within a game of exactly .500. More teams have finished with 40, 41, or 42 wins since 2005-06 than have won 49 or more games.

This means two things are true.
For bubble teams, getting into the playoffs is pretty random. 'Coin flip' shootout wins certainly add to this, but the random nature of so many NHL goals plays - I think - much, much more of a role.

Secondly, due to the overall parity of the league, the war-of-attrition nature of the playoffs, the random influence of injuries, as well as the random nature of goals and events in hockey, the playoff system as it currently stands is unfair to better teams and favours weaker teams in the awarding of the Stanley Cup.

One of the major arguments in favor of changing the point system is that it 'doesn't make much of a difference' to what we currently have. Every argument in favor of either a 3-2-1-0 system or a win-loss system will include a table of previous seasons and an indication that 'most teams don't get moved that much.'

This leads me to a conclusion I did not expect.

The NHL should reduce the number of teams who make the playoffs by half.

Baseball sees a similarly small number of .600+ teams. Fewer than hockey in fact, less than 3 a season on average. Their system of division-winners + wild card teams could work in hockey, though with alignment the way it is right now in the NHL I see no reason why top-2 in each division wouldn't work just fine.

This would reward teams much better for sustaining success, and result in, in my opinion, more deserving Stanley Cup champions. It would also somewhat mitigate the effect of 3 point games between certain teams and not others by significantly lessening the overall value of the 'loser point' in reaching the playoffs.

[N-E-B]

The answer to your question is never. 3 point games keep more teams competitive. The more teams that are competitive, the more fans will show up. The NHL loves parity.

The solution, as I see it, is do it how Baseball and basketball do it. Straight wins and losses. Games back instead of points. But it will never happen.

[FireGilbert]

Yeah the best system in theory is to play OT until someone scores and go straight wins and loses but since I never see that happening the 3-2-1 system is a great solution. It provides a benefit to teams that win in regulation while also providing a reward to teams that make it to OT but lose in a gimmick 3-on-3 or shoot out. I don't see the NHL doing this though, it makes too much sense.

The argument for the current system that really bugs me is that it keeps the standings close. Sure it has the illusion of closeness however due to all the 3 point games it is actually very difficult to move up the standings. Going to the 3-2-1 system at least gives teams a chance to accumulate more points if they can go on a streak of 3 point wins.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I know it's been discussed a million times, but how can the NHL still think it is a good idea to incentivize teams to play for a tie? As the games get more significant at this time of year, it gets even worse. A tied game in the third period is the most boring 20 minutes in sports!

If they're going to stick with this scheme, then at least end the third period when someone ties it up, and go straight to OT and let me go to bed before 1am eastern! Who the hell wants to watch a period of 2 teams playing for a tie and maybe hoping to accidentally score a goal?

Can anyone provide a rational explanation why the league has gone with the worst possible idea for assigning points for so long? The only advantage is that it creates a false sense that the standings are closer than they are. The system is an insult to the intelligence of their fans.

Any system would be better, 3-2-1-0, ending in ties, W-L, anything! It needs to change. This should be an exciting part of the season, and these third periods are just awful to watch, and the fact that it is by design blows my mind.

if nothing else most Calgary fans should quit complaining of other teams having a "fake record" and padding their spot in the standings with loser points.

they can complain about the system, but not how it affects the flames. it's saving their butts right now.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by driveway

The NHL should reduce the number of teams who make the playoffs by half.

Heh, personally I would like the NHL to expand to 32 teams and make the Stanley Cup a completely independent tournament where every team gets to contend, except that the seeding is settled by the league points. That would mean two championships per year, one for the league and one for the cup, and the very best teams could go for the rare double championships.

More fans would see their teams win something sometimes.

Obviously never going to happen though.

[Zulu29]

Hate loser points. Lose in OT, no points for you. Should be 10 min OT 3 on 3 and if that solves nothing then both teams get a point.

[Lubicon]

I'm on the 3-2-1-0 wagon, it seems to make the most sense to me. Rewards all winning teams but gives more weight to those that win in regulation. I'm seeing some minor hockey leagues move to this system and it makes a pretty dramatic difference based on what I see. Teams that win in regulation can build pretty large leads in the standings very quickly and separate themselves from the pack. Teams that go to OT more often stay much closer together in the standings, which seems to make sense to me.

[Corral]

The loser point is a holdover from traditionalists who believe an NHL game should be decided 5 on 5 - whether in regular time or in OT. When a regular season game ended tied - each team got a point. Still do. Obviously, tradition still rules absolutely in the playoffs where you must win 5 on 5.

The traditionalists compromised for the regular season and allowed an NHL game to be decided in a situation other than 5 on 5, but that compromise came with the deal that a team that played to a tie after regular time - still gets a point.

Nowadays we call it the loser point - but a traditionalists perspective would focus on the 'extra' bonus point for a win that occurs during 3 on 3 or the SO - and say that is perhaps the problem here - not the point earned in regular time.

I don't know if i agree with this perspective or not - but its interesting that these discussions tend to focus on whether the point earned in regulation time is the problem - IMO that point will never be taken away - at least not until the last of tradition is gone from the debate.

Personally - i prefer a straight winning percentage like MLB or the NBA - then perhaps use regulation wins as a tie-breaker.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by driveway

Most of the NHL is swimming in mediocrity. There have been 53 teams over that span who have ended within a game of exactly .500. More teams have finished with 40, 41, or 42 wins since 2005-06 than have won 49 or more games.

I'd disagree with that. The appearance of mediocrity comes because their is so much parity. You have the top teams, then a huge selection of everyone else battling it out in very tight competition, and teams like the Oilers.

[Steve Bozek]

The present system rewards regulation ties, and means that a tie game influences the standings more than a regulation win. Makes no sense.

[FlamesAddiction]

As a fan, I don't care a lot about standings parity. I understand the business desire for it, but as a fan, it does nothing for me.

I think "parity" should just mean an even playing field for all markets to draft, sign, and hold on to talent. The salary cap and free agency rules pretty much accomplish that. Teams with bad management will still suck and it will reflect in the standings as much, or likely more. It's the same reason I think the draft lottery weighting should go away. Let all teams have equal chances of winning regardless of how good or bad their management is.

Standings parity is just an illusion.

I would like a point system where it is 2 for a win or OT win, and 1 point for a shootout win, and no points for the loser.

[dissentowner]

The point system is not nearly the failure that is the seeding system. You can miss the playoffs because of your geographic location? Wtf is that! The whole 2 plays 3 and wildcard thing is stupid and ridiculous! Go back to 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The point system is not nearly the failure that is the seeding system. You can miss the playoffs because of your geographic location? Wtf is that! The whole 2 plays 3 and wildcard thing is stupid and ridiculous! Go back to 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5.

The wild card is intended to only be temporary. (At least it should be) Once Seattle joins the league, there will be a balance of 32 teams. With that, the first two rounds would be divisional playoffs (1 vs 4, 2 v 3 -> div final), and then it would be divisional champs taking on one another. Would be interesting if they do it as a conference final, or you could take on any division champ based on seeding strength.

[genetic_phreek]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Hate loser points. Lose in OT, no points for you. Should be 10 min OT 3 on 3 and if that solves nothing then both teams get a point.

Agree with losses getting nothing but what I would do is this:

Win in regulation - 2 points
Win in 3 on 3 OT - 2 points (still 5 minutes)
Win in shootout - 1 point
Lose - 0 points

OT becomes exactly that except more wide open. This would prevent teams from waiting to get to OT to "secure" a point or being conservative in OT because winning in a shootout would only give you 1 point.

[jammies]

Encourage more goals: 5 points for any win, 0 for a loss, 1 point for every goal scored.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by jammies

Encourage more goals: 5 points for any win, 0 for a loss, 1 point for every goal scored.

In before teams agree to play without a goalie.

[1qqaaz]

I think the current point system and seeding system are both fine.
I like the parity, and I like how a lot of the teams make the playoffs.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

I think the current point system and seeding system are both fine.
I like the parity, and I like how a lot of the teams make the playoffs.

So if the Flames were to miss the playoffs because they play in the Pacific you would be ok with that? You really think a team missing the playoffs even though they have more points than other teams is ok?

[Azure]

Have the amounts of shootouts gone done since they moved to 3 on 3 OT?

Because if so I don't think its necessary to change anything. The 3 on 3 OT is super exciting and worth the price of admission all by itself.