Idea for new standings system (no more points!)

[FanIn80]

I've put a lot of work into this, and I think it should be pretty straightforward for most people here, so I'm just going to provide super-brief details for now with some side-by-side comparisons at the end. I can respond to questions, discussion etc and perhaps flesh it out a bit more if things are brought up.

Summary Details
- Teams are no longer rewarded for losing a game. Period.
- Teams no longer earn points.
- Teams are ranked using a formula that rewards winning.
- Any game that goes to a shootout is now just simply called a "Tie"
- Teams get a full win for winning in regulation or in overtime.
- Teams get a half win for a tie (a game that goes to a shootout)
- Teams do not get any wins for winning a shootout.
- Shootout wins are now the primary tiebreaker.
- Abbreviations: ROW = Regulation and OT Wins, T = Ties, GP = Games Played

Rankings formula
(T / 2 + ROW) / GP

Side-by-side comparisons (right: current, left: suggested)
[Divisional Standings]

Spoiler!

[Conference Standings]

Spoiler!

[League Standings]

Spoiler!

[Playoff Seeds]

Spoiler!

[scotty2hotty]

I like it!
(Thor gif if I had more time)

[FlamingHomer]

Any system that would have had us playing Arizona in the first round instead of Colorado is OK by me.

Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

[The Cobra]

So, this is the same as 2 points for a win in regulation or OT, 1 point for a tie, and shootouts are only used to determine tie breakers.

Shoot outs have become virtually worthless.

Using a % basis instead of points would make it very difficult to figure out quickly how far teams are apart and gain no useful utility for doing so. At the end of the day, giving 2 points for a win and 1 for a tie gives the exact same finish and is easier to figure out. What is the advantage of using the winning percentage basis?

Teams in OT would play cautiously to ensure getting at least one point. It’s the reason the loser point exists.

The far better and fairer method is 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT or SO win, and 1 point for an OT or SO loss.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Yrebmi]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

So, this is the same as 2 points for a win in regulation or OT, 1 point for a tie, and shootouts are only used to determine tie breakers.

Shoot outs have become virtually worthless.

Using a % basis instead of points would make it very difficult to figure out quickly how far teams are apart and gain no useful utility for doing so. At the end of the day, giving 2 points for a win and 1 for a tie gives the exact same finish and is easier to figure out. What is the advantage of using the winning percentage basis?

Teams in OT would play cautiously to ensure getting at least one point. It’s the reason the loser point exists.

The far better and fairer method is 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT or SO win, and 1 point for an OT or SO loss.

So instead now teams play cautiously in the final 5 min to ensure they get at least one point. Nothing is gained imo.
Scrap the loser point.
The percentage based system is better at showing which team is really in the lead when there is a disparity on games played.

[getbak]

This is basically the same system that existed in the 80s & 90s except using point % rather than points, plus throwing in a shootout to use as a tiebreaker.

[JTech780]

The answer to this is much more simple than this.

Since every game ends in a winner and a loser, you just go wins and loses, using ROW as the tie breaker.

Then you go to a 1 vs 8 in each conference playoff format and everything is good with the world.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Yrebmi

So instead now teams play cautiously in the final 5 min to ensure they get at least one point. Nothing is gained imo.

Scrap the loser point.

The percentage based system is better at showing which team is really in the lead when there is a disparity on games played.

I agree the percentage system is better to show who is leading when games played are different, but it’s hard for the average fan to understand readily to see how far behind they are. Based is based on winning percentage, but they include a “ games behind” feature to make it easy to see how far behind you are.

The percentage way is better at showing who is really leading, but it’s no user friendly, so will never become popular.

I always, when I look at standings, use “ games above .500” to determine who’s truly got a better record. It’s not perfect, but better than points.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[getbak]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I agree the percentage system is better to show who is leading when games played are different, but it’s hard for the average fan to understand readily to see how far behind they are. Based is based on winning percentage, but they include a “ games behind” feature to make it easy to see how far behind you are.

The percentage way is better at showing who is really leading, but it’s no user friendly, so will never become popular.

Baseball, basketball, and the NFL all use a percentage/games back structure for their standings.

I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't work in hockey when hockey is the only major league sport in the States that doesn't already use that format.

[FanIn80]

Here are side-by-side comparisons at the All-Star break (to get a sense of how this would better reflect actual team performance during the season):

[Divisional standings]

Spoiler!

[Conference standings]

Spoiler!

[League standings]

Spoiler!

[Playoff seeds]

Spoiler!

[FanIn80]

Further clarity (if needed):

• Game ends in regulation: Winning team gets a win (ROW), losing team gets nothing.
• Game ends in OT: Winning team gets a win (ROW), losing team gets nothing.
• Game goes to a shootout:
  • Game ends in a tie (T)
  • Each team gets half a win
  • Fans get to watch a shootout
  • Shootout winner gets a Shootout Win (SOW), which is used as the primary tiebreaker in the standings.

Benefits:

• Teams are no longer rewarded for losing the game in OT
• Shootouts have a lesser impact on the standings
• Tiebreakers become less complicated, as there is a significantly less chance of teams having the same % and SOWs

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by getbak

Baseball, basketball, and the NFL all use a percentage/games back structure for their standings.



I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't work in hockey when hockey is the only major league sport in the States that doesn't already use that format.

They also use a “games behind” in the standings for content.

Management likes the current situation where the vast majority of teams appear to be over .500.

Using percentages doesn’t really change anything, as at the end of the season the teams are actually ranked by percentages, as there is zero difference once everyone plays the same number of games.

The only change that was really being made was no loser point and basically discounting completely the value of shoot outs. If they are only going to be used as a tie breaker, it would be considered a waste of energy.

I have no real problem with using percentages, as it really makes no difference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[N-E-B]

Just use wins and losses and use games back like MLB and the NBA. Eliminate the shootout and use unlimited 3on3 for OT. This is a decent idea but I think it makes things more complicated than they need to be.

I think having a shootout purely for a tie breaker is a bad idea. What excitement is there with that? The shootout is bad enough as it is but at least it means something.