No more loser point: A proposed standings system

[theslymonkey]

The real problem with the current system is that the game has a noticable gap in it. At about the 53 minute mark the game becomes a recreational free skate until the 60 minute mark, and then the game resumes for 5 minutes before the shoot out finally ends it. The win/loss system would give the fans a true 65 minute game.

[Jay Random]

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.

The OT point was not awarded until 1999. The percentage of games settled in regulation dropped in 1999-2000 when the OT loser point was introduced, and again in 2005-06 when the shootout was introduced. The data is there; you only have to look.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 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?

Playoff success is best predicted by regulation wins. This system devalues regulation play and therefore is a less accurate reflection of how good or bad a team is. 3-2-1 is a better system and I'd argue the current system is better as well.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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

I'd be ticked if they lost any way. If that was the league rule then I'd be fine with it. I agree that shootouts are a lame way to decide a winner, but I don't agree that you should get a point for losing in a shootout. That's part of the game, you lost.

[driveway]

This is the only system that makes sense. Hockey is entertainment, shootouts are entertaining, they are a perfectly valid way of determining a winner; to say nothing of how entertaining they would be when a win is on the line instead of just a point.

As for the (NHL's) argument about points creating parity, it is - as someone said - an illusion.

Based on FanIn80's standings, in the East there are four teams within 2.5 games of the last Wild Card spot. In the West there's only one, but Winnipeg is only 3 games back.

In the current standings there are three Eastern teams within 5 points and two Western teams, but we all know that closing a 5-point gap is harder than closing a 2.5-win gap, due to the unequal distribution of points in games in the NHL.

My other big argument against the 3-point system is aesthetics. Remember how ugly and hard to read the four-column point tables were when the NHL did that? How obtuse it appears to non-hockey fans? If the game is going to grow, it has to appeal to people who are not currently hockey fans. Moving to a perfectly legitimate and sensible win-loss system helps make hockey more approachable. Yes, soccer uses a point system, but no other North American sport does. Every sports fan on the continent is familiar with a win-loss and games-back system.

Best system, only one which should be considered. The only change I would offer is that I think season-series should be the second tiebreaker over goal-differential.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

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:



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.

14% ended in a tie, but 25.6% went to OT.


In 2003-04, there were 1230 NHL games played, 915 ended in regulation (74.4%); 170 ended in a tie (13.8%); and 145 ended with an OT win (11.8%).

Last season, 955 games ended in regulation (77.6%); 168 ended in OT (13.7%); and 107 ended in a shootout (8.7%).

in 2014-15 (before the move to 3-on-3 OT), 924 games ended in regulation (75.1%); 136 ended in OT (11.1%); and 170 ended in a shootout (13.8%).



More games end in regulation now than before the introduction of the shootout. Since going to 3-on-3 OT, more games end in OT than in a shootout.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The OT point was not awarded until 1999. The percentage of games settled in regulation dropped in 1999-2000 when the OT loser point was introduced, and again in 2005-06 when the shootout was introduced. The data is there; you only have to look.

True. However, ties have exists since at least 1921 (where each team would get a point) and overtime was introduced in 1983 (in hopes to reduce the number of ties). The loser point then came in in 1999 (16 years after the reintroduction of overtime).

The fact remains that hockey is inherently a low event game and it's always been more common for games to be tied after regulation in hockey than in basketball or baseball.

Furthermore, because of the low event nature of the sport, it's unrealistic to expect games to just continue on indefinitely until one tea or the other scores. Especially if you were to no longer award any points for losing past regulation, I suspect what you would find is teams playing a much more defensive style of hockey in overtime since 2 points are on the table and the game can end at any moment. In fact, this is exactly what we see currently in the playoffs. As soon as a game goes to overtime, both teams become absurdly defensive in their playing style.

To suggest that hockey operate under a simply W-L record, I believe, would be detrimental to the entertainment value of the sport. In sudden death it becomes a coin flip at best for either team.

[Strange Brew]

I don't have issues with ties but I completely understand those who deplore them.

The NHL is unique in that they have created one set of rules for determing winners and standings in the regular season, and a different set of rules for the playoffs. Other sports don't do this. The NFL extends their OT but that's it.

[Hoop27]

Perhaps something like one 20min OT 3 on 3. If after 20 min OT the game is a tie (1 point each) Keeps it simple with a W-L-T points system. But it would be rare to see a tie game.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I guess my question for the OP is: why switch to win%? Why not just go back to 2 for a win 0 for a loss?

[Strange Brew]

I don't have issues with ties but I completely understand those who deplore them.

The NHL is unique in that they have created one set of rules for determing winners and standings in the regular season, and a different set of rules for the playoffs. Other sports don't do this. The NFL extends their OT but that's it.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Hoop27

Perhaps something like one 20min OT 3 on 3. If after 20 min OT the game is a tie (1 point each) Keeps it simple with a W-L-T points system. But it would be rare to see a tie game.

20 minute 3 on 3 OT would never happen. Players are already too fatigued by having to play a 82 game schedule with a bunch of back to backs. This would make it worse and result in a lot more terrible games.

[Jay Random]

I could see a 10-minute OT.

That was what the league had originally. It was cancelled during World War II because it caused problems with train scheduling. With troop and munition trains criss-crossing the continent on tight schedules, they could not afford to wait if a bunch of hockey players were late getting to the station.

[FireGilbert]

Didn't the NHL try to have a 10 minute OT (5 mins 4 on 4 and 5 mins 3 on 3) but the PA said nope you only get 5 extra minutes a game?

This system is better than the current system but I think the 3 point regulation win system is the best.