NHL Points/Standings System Discussion Thread

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

1000% correct. Give me a winner and a loser.

Risk of injury? Negligible, more guys get hurt in warmups than in non-contact 3 on 3.

Unfair because players will be tired for the next game? Deal with it, every other sport does. And nothing stopping a team from playing more than the same 9 guys in the OT.

I can't stand the argument that a closer loss should be rewarded.

If you feel you must, end it after 20 minutes and call it a tie. Maybe you'd get 2 or 3 of those a year across the whole league.

Yeah, BBall has no extra point and they have a shorter active bench than hockey teams. Baseball teams don’t necessarily work as hard but they have way more games, and they play on and on.

The shootout is a stupid way to end it, as well. At 3 on 3 I doubt any game would go on for more than 20 minutes.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The problem with the 'play for the W' is that there would be no distinction between winning in regulation, and winning in OT. And it rewards teams that are good in 3 on 3.

I still think a better way is the 3-2-1-0 point system. Each outcome has a unique value.

We often hear reluctance for this because it reduces parity (and therefore false hope for bad teams). There are better ways to keep false hope/interest alive.

For 50+ years teams had a 67-76% chance of making the playoffs (4/6, 12/17, 16/21, etc.)

Next year it will be 50/50. It's mind bottling to me why Bettman is against any sort of play-in. The season normally ends on a Sunday with nothing until Wednesday. Why not have a pair of 5v4 single play-in games on those days?


This year, one of NYI, WAS, PIT, PHI, and BOS will miss, and will very likely have a better record (using whatever metric you want) than several playoff teams. Every year there is a division or two like this (the CEN last year).

[GirlySports]

You can't have false hope for everyone every year. It still is a competition. I mean there are some really really bad NFL teams (Jets, Jaguars etc...) and really bad MLB teams with 100+ losses. It doesn't diminish the product.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

1000% correct. Give me a winner and a loser.

Risk of injury? Negligible, more guys get hurt in warmups than in non-contact 3 on 3.

Unfair because players will be tired for the next game? Deal with it, every other sport does. And nothing stopping a team from playing more than the same 9 guys in the OT.

I can't stand the argument that a closer loss should be rewarded.

If you feel you must, end it after 20 minutes and call it a tie. Maybe you'd get 2 or 3 of those a year across the whole league.

Make it any kind of win or loss. Watching sports is about emotion. Nothing worse than leaving a game thinking oh well, at least we got a point. Give me a heart crushing loss where we up 3-2 with 30 seconds to go and lose in shoot out. If you don't want to leave it up to a shoot out, when sooner.

Ironically, the current system puts more reward on how well a team does in 3v3 and shoot outs. By making games going past regulation worth 3 points, there is a huge incentive to play for a tie. This makes for boring ends of games, and also means way more games go to ot and shoot outs, and the shoot out/otw points are more prevalent in the standings than if there wasn't a loser point.

I read an article once that theorized that the current system is sticking around because it is the worst possible system. Every proposed point system is obviously better, but because they are all better, no one can agree which to go with.

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think it would have to be regulation wins vs. regulation losses. Treat anything OT and beyond as a tie for sake of this discussion.

Yeah, that would be a good way to do it.

Regulation W - Regulation L - OT

Sorting by regulation wins, regardless of GP, we would have.

Edmonton 17 - 12 - 1
Toronto 16 - 9 - 5
Winnipeg 12 - 8 - 7
Montreal 12 - 8 - 7
Calgary 11 - 12 - 4
Vancouver 11 - 16 - 4
Ottawa 6 - 20 - 5

Interesting how that gives Winnipeg and Montreal the same record. Winnipeg's 5 OT wins really inflates their point percentage.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The problem with the 'play for the W' is that there would be no distinction between winning in regulation, and winning in OT. And it rewards teams that are good in 3 on 3.

I still think a better way is the 3-2-1-0 point system. Each outcome has a unique value.

I used to be purely W-L system, OTL be damned, but honestly with the nature of hockey in how often it can go to OT, and its different rules, I've come around to a 3-2-1-0 system. Therefore no matter what, 3 points are allocated, and no phantom point appears. It gives incentive to win in regulation to get the full 3 points, and some form of penalization for making the game to OT, thus having to adjust the rules/play.

[Purpdust]

I am also a fan of the 3-2-1-0 Point system. I was fine with a tie, in the past, but it seems that some fans or teams want a winner and a loser.

What I do not understand is why the NHL is not for it.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

You can't have false hope for everyone every year. It still is a competition. I mean there are some really really bad NFL teams (Jets, Jaguars etc...) and really bad MLB teams with 100+ losses. It doesn't diminish the product.

The very bottom always have the draft.

I’d be fine with separating the wheat from the chaffe (sp?), but I’m just proposing a solution that makes the league money and represents everyone’s interests


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Should be W/L like every other sport. NHL trying to manufacture parity. Scrap the shootout. Play 3 on 3 indefinitely.

Players Association would never agree to this. I’d love to see this however. And go to a 3-2-1 system

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Players Association would never agree to this. I’d love to see this however. And go to a 3-2-1 system

Trade it for something the union wants.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

People shouldn't have to specify - it is always obvious which way they mean: Flames beat MTL and their record goes to 12-12-2. Someone says ".500!" Obviously they meant in points percentage. And anyone who brings up winning percentage at that point is either an asshat or a troll.

Yes it’s obvious they mean points percentage, what isn’t obvious is why anyone should care.

Bringing up or discussing a .500 point percentage is a waste of time.

[Macindoc]

Time to get rid of boring "playing to preserve the point" hockey in the last five minutes of a tie game. If we don't want tie games and we do want to make the end of games more exciting, and considering that not all games are worth two points anyway, let's adopt a system to introduce urgency for both teams at every stage of the game. Three points for a regulation win, two for an overtime win, one for a shootout win, and no points for any kind of loss (seriously, why are we rewarding losses?).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I read an article once that theorized that the current system is sticking around because it is the worst possible system. Every proposed point system is obviously better, but because they are all better, no one can agree which to go with.

Are you sure that wasn't about first past the post elections?

[Mathgod]

It needs to be either 3 points for a regulation win, or just go with a MLB/NBA style system where you either win or you lose and that's it. I'd be happy with either of those systems.

The current system is hilariously bad, especially so when all the teams play within the division all year.

[stang]

Anyone know the records if it was 3-2-1?

I imagine the Canadians would drop hard.

[powderjunkie]

[QUOTE=stang;7791610]Anyone know the records if it was 3-2-1?


This is head math so might be wrong:


TOR 56 in 31
EDM 59 in 33
WPG 50 in 30
MTL 48 in 30
CGY 46 in 31
VAN 45 in 34
OTT 29 in 33

Of course, game strategies might be different.

[stang]

[QUOTE=powderjunkie;7791628]

Originally Posted by stang

Anyone know the records if it was 3-2-1?


This is head math so might be wrong:


TOR 56 in 31
EDM 59 in 33
WPG 50 in 30
MTL 48 in 30
CGY 46 in 31
VAN 45 in 34
OTT 29 in 33

Of course, game strategies might be different.

I’d have thought for sure Montreal would be second last.

[powderjunkie]

They haven't won any games in overtime, so their regulation wins are just worth a bit more. The Jets have 6 OT wins; the Habs and Flames actually have 13 reg. wins compared to WPG's 12.

My calcs don't include yesterdays games...must've had an old hockey-ref link open or something.

[stang]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

They haven't won any games in overtime, so their regulation wins are just worth a bit more. The Jets have 6 OT wins; the Habs and Flames actually have 13 reg. wins compared to WPG's 12.

My calcs don't include yesterdays games...must've had an old hockey-ref link open or something.

Those 9 ot losses just jump out like crazy.


I’d be ok with 2 points for a win in reg or OT. 0 for a loss. Go to a shootout and winner gets 1 point.

I hate the loser point

[getbak]

A 3-2-1 points system would just be the current points plus one extra point per regulation win. Since that's now a separate column on the standings list, it's pretty easy to just add the two together...

EDM: 42 pts + 20 RW = 62
TOR: 42 pts + 17 RW = 59
MTL: 37 pts + 13 RW = 50
WPG: 38 pts + 12 RW = 50
CGY: 33 pts + 13 RW = 46
VAN: 35 pts + 11 RW = 46
OTT: 23 pts + 06 RW = 29

It doesn't really do anything to punish teams for losing in OT. It rewards teams for winning in regulation.

----------

If your goal was to punish teams for losing, even in OT or SO, and reward teams for winning in regulation, the previously-mentioned 3 RW, 2 OTW, 1 SOW system with 0 points for any loss would be the way to go.

Under that system, the North standings would look like...

EDM 62
TOR 57
WPG 48
CGY 42
MTL 40
VAN 40
OTT 24