Why does Colorado take the tie break with Arizona

[JackIsBack]

This makes no sense to me... remember in the good old days when WINS meant something.


Here are the records:
Colorado:
G 74

W 33

L 29

OT 12

PTS 78

ROW 32


Arizona:
G 74

W 36

L 32

OT 6

PTS 78

ROW 32


The NHL's current tie break formula:

1. The fewer number of games played (i.e., superior points percentage).
2. The greater number of games won, excluding games won in the Shootout. This figure is reflected in the ROW column.
3. The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any "odd" games, shall be used to determine the standing.
4. The greater differential between goals for and against for the entire regular season. NOTE: In standings a victory in a shootout counts as one goal for, while a shootout loss counts as one goal against.

I don't mind using ROW as #2.... but #3 is just way too complicated for being at #3 when a team clearly has more WINS. They should add:

Number #3 should be: The team with the greater number of WINS.

and push the current #3 and #4 down one spot. Could you imagine losing a playoff spot when you have an equal ROW and more WINS then the team that made it in.

[JackIsBack]

Oh.... and to state the obvious, #1 goes out the window at the end of the season, since every team has played 82.

[dissentowner]

The whole current format is broken. When teams can have more points than other teams and still miss the playoffs simply because of what division they compete in that is broken.

[Strange Brew]

But those extra wins are just shootout wins which shouldn’t count for jack IMO.

[RatherDashing]

The season series seems like a far better decider than shootout wins. I'm glad the league has tried to minimize the effect of the shootout.

[sureLoss]

Yeah the current rules are to minimize the impact of shootout wins.

Should the Coyotes be in the playoffs over Colorado because winning the shootout gave them 3 more "wins"?

[PeteMoss]

If you are going to use ROW as a tiebreaker - they should split it out to be:
ROW - actual regulation wins
ROW + OT = regulation wins + OT wins

So good 3 on 3 teams are rewarded over 5 on 5 teams.


That does make no difference here though as they are tied in both. Colorado just sucks at 3 on 3 (2-11 in overtime).


Then you can decide if you want shootout wins to be a tiebreaker - since that is where the 3 win difference comes here - 4 for Arizona, 1 for Colorado.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The whole current format is broken. When teams can have more points than other teams and still miss the playoffs simply because of what division they compete in that is broken.

So you would go straight 1-16 - no conferences or divisions?

Going by conference is the big difference this year - Philly and Columbus (even Florida is tied) are both out of the playoffs now and ahead of Colorado/Arizona.

1-16 would add Columbus to the playoffs and eliminate Colorado right now

The division difference requires a division to really tank (like the Pacific did the year the Flames played the Canucks in round 1) so its rarer than the conferences causing the issue.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

But those extra wins are just shootout wins which shouldn’t count for jack IMO.

Good point.... but the current #3 is really no better - can you imagine winning in blowout in your home building in the first of 5 meetings and having that game tossed out in #3 only because it was first game (to other 4 games were split).

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Yeah the current rules are to minimize the impact of shootout wins.

But that doesn't work.... suppose a team has just 1 more point than the other team... but got an extra (let say 5 points) from shootout victories... the only time the NHL would consider shootout wins is if you're unlucky enough to be tied with a team with less shootout victories.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

But that doesn't work.... suppose a team has just 1 more point than the other team... but got an extra (let say 5 points) from shootout victories... the only time the NHL would consider shootout wins is if you're unlucky enough to be tied with a team with less shootout victories.

No one said the system is perfect, but in the tie breaking procedure this is why total wins aren't considered.

The shootout point is and will always be a controversial part of the standings.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

But that doesn't work.... suppose a team has just 1 more point than the other team... but got an extra (let say 5 points) from shootout victories... the only time the NHL would consider shootout wins is if you're unlucky enough to be tied with a team with less shootout victories.

I'm honestly not following this last scenario (likely my fault).

The NHL has basically said, Shootout wins count for nothing but the point you get for it. Points are still the most valuable thing you can acquire, so they carry significant weight. It's just when you end up tied with a team in points, the NHL tie break system reduces the value you get from shootout wins, and breaks the ties based on wins outside of shootout and head to head first. I think that is perfectly fair.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by JackIsBack

Oh.... and to state the obvious, #1 goes out the window at the end of the season, since every team has played 82.

I don’t even understand why that condition is there since standings are meaningless until the 82 game mark.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

No one said the system is perfect, but in the tie breaking procedure this is why total wins aren't considered.

The shootout point is and will always be a controversial part of the standings.

Oh... I agree with you... was just playing the other side.


They went from 4 on 4 in overtime (something that does happen in games) to 3 on 3 (something that rarely happens in games, if at all - can it happen??? I think in staggered penalty situations) to a shootout (something that happens in a penalty shot - but not really part of the game)...



Example: Edmonton sucks... but 3 on 3... with McDavid, they are pretty deadly. Does 3 on 3 give an honest representation of the Oilers as a team? Calgary sucks in shootouts, does this record reflect them as a team... I'd say that 3 on 3... since it involves actual team effort, is a better indicator than the shootout is, which really settles NOTHING (about the team).


If all that makes sense... sort of, maybe!?!?



I like 3 on 3.... I find it exciting to watch, but maybe the league should start with 4 on 4 for 5 minutes and reduce it to 3 on 3 after the first whistle passed the 5 minute mark for 3 on 3 hockey for a total of 10 minutes of overtime before going to a shootout.

[JackIsBack]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I'm honestly not following this last scenario (likely my fault).

The NHL has basically said, Shootout wins count for nothing but the point you get for it. Points are still the most valuable thing you can acquire, so they carry significant weight. It's just when you end up tied with a team in points, the NHL tie break system reduces the value you get from shootout wins, and breaks the ties based on wins outside of shootout and head to head first. I think that is perfectly fair.

I get your point... again, I was just playing on the fact that the league tries to reduce the meaning of shootout points (ummm wins), but only when a tie occurs... if those wins are less valuable when there is a tie... why aren't they less valuable to determining the overall standings when ties are not a factor.


This is easily fixed... but the league just won't go there.... other leagues have done it, all games get awarded 3 points - it just makes sense. Now.... we can debate when a team gets 3 points (including overtime or not)... but an outright win gets you 3 points, a win in overtime (or shootout - whichever they decide) gets you 2 points, a loss in overtime and/or shootout gets you 1 point, and an outright loss gets you NOTHING.

[TheIronMaiden]

How often does a tie breaker determine who makes the playoffs or not? and on that note, how often does it make it past ROW?

[Bunk]

Past ROW as a tiebreaker, they should just have a one game playoff if it's for the last spot.

[Jiggy_12]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Past ROW as a tiebreaker, they should just have a one game playoff if it's for the last spot.

This.

If the tie determines the difference between a team making the playoffs and not making it, I believe there's a good enough justification there for a play-in game.

It's one area the MLB actually gets right, and I'd like to see the NHL figure it out too.

[JackIsBack]

3 points per game (Overtime win is worth 2)
1) Winnipeg 128
2) Nashville 127
3) St. Louis 120

1) Calgary 140
2) San Jose 130
3) Vegas 127

W1) Dallas 114
W2) Colorado 109

9) Arizona 109
10) Minnesota 108
11) Vancouver 99
12) Chicago 98
13) Edmonton 98
14) Anaheim 95
15) Los Angeles 81

3 points per game.... (Overtime win consider a outright win)
1) Winnipeg 131
2) Nashville 124
3) St. Louis 118

1) Calgary 142
2) San Jose 132
3) Vegas 125

W1) Dallas 115
W2) Arizona 105

9) Minnesota 105
10) Colorado 99
11) Edmonton 98
12) Vancouver 97
13) Chicago 95
14) Anaheim 89
15) Los Angeles 79


FYI: I didn't apply the tie-breaker rules

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

This.

If the tie determines the difference between a team making the playoffs and not making it, I believe there's a good enough justification there for a play-in game.

It's one area the MLB actually gets right, and I'd like to see the NHL figure it out too.

Completely different game.

They beat the hell out of each other for an extra game and then are expected to take on the #1 seed? It’s a ridiculous idea.