NHL Standings and the Point System

[SandyBeach26]

Anyone else feel the NHL should revamp their point system for their standings?

I like the fact that there are no more ties (everyone would like a game decided after all), but this deal where if a team takes a game into overtime, they GET A POINT in the standings even if they LOSE??

I am not liking this at all. Rewarding a team for losing?? To me it seriously off sets the standings, where teams that don't deserve it would actually finish higher than a better team, simply because they managed to force a bunch of overtime games, or even WORSE, actually BLOW leads that gets them into overtime games..

Think about this as an example....
The LA Kings can go 40 wins, 37 losses, and 5 OT losses (85 points)
The Dallas Stars go 36 wins, 32 losses, and 14 OT losses (86 points)

Does anyone else see the problem here?? Dallas would actually finish AHEAD of LA in the standings, despite having 4 fewer wins...because they played (and LOST) a bunch of overtime games...and worse yet, some people would say "Dallas finished four games over .500, while LA finished 3 games over .500".
Really?? Because a loss is a loss, is a loss.....so factor in the times teams lost in the OT, and you'll see that both teams are indeed BELOW .500, and Dallas would in fact be 10, yes, TEN games under while LA is TWO games under....yet Dallas is ahead in the standings....yea...ok.....

When I was a teen, I remember 100 point seasons being a bit rarer and tougher to achieve...nowadays, with this point system, 100 point seasons are quite common...in fact, you could get 100 points, and finish only 5th or 6th in the overall conference standings....just sayin...
Just way too many fluff points.....

I think the NHL can keep the whole 4 on 4 overtimes, the shoot outs...etc...I am good with all that....but seriously need to do away with rewarding losing.
MLB doesn't reward teams for taking games into extra innings, the NFL doesn't reward teams for playing an extra quarter....so the NHL should get back to pro level and quit rewarding losing efforts.


Discuss.

 

[dash]

Unfortunately, I don't see the NHL point system changing anytime soon Sandy, as the "loser" point keeps teams in the hunt for playoff spots. The NHL relies on gate revenues much more heavily than any of MLB, NFL, or the NBA, ergo, awarding a point for losing in OT enables teams to stay tightly bunched and keeps fans buying tickets.

I've posted this several times previously, but I would like to see the following system implemented which rewards teams for winning in regulation and all games are worth three points:

Regulation win: 3 points
Win in OT/SO: 2 points
Lose in OT/SO: 1 point
Regulation loss: 0 points

I don't hold out much hope for this system, though, because it separates the wheat from the chaff.

 

[SandyBeach26]

Unfortunately, I don't see the NHL point system changing anytime soon Sandy, as the "loser" point keeps teams in the hunt for playoff spots. The NHL relies on gate revenues much more heavily than any of MLB, NFL, or the NBA, ergo, awarding a point for losing in OT enables teams to stay tightly bunched and keeps fans buying tickets.

I've posted this several times previously, but I would like to see the following system implemented which rewards teams for winning in regulation and all games are worth three points:

Regulation win: 3 points
Win in OT/SO: 2 points
Lose in OT/SO: 1 point
Regulation loss: 0 points

I don't hold out much hope for this system, though, because it separates the wheat from the chaff.

Yes, the part highlighted has occured to me as well.

With 3 point games, then OT games being split 2-1 as far as points, it would be fairer than the current system. I still feel quite strongly though about losers not getting anything, however I do see the point from a revenue standpoint.
Still irks me though when some team is 12-6-6, for instance, and fans are all giddy about their team being "six games over .500"...its a joke. That is a .500 record, no matter how you slice it.

 

[rares]

Unfortunately, I don't see the NHL point system changing anytime soon Sandy, as the "loser" point keeps teams in the hunt for playoff spots. The NHL relies on gate revenues much more heavily than any of MLB, NFL, or the NBA, ergo, awarding a point for losing in OT enables teams to stay tightly bunched and keeps fans buying tickets.

I've posted this several times previously, but I would like to see the following system implemented which rewards teams for winning in regulation and all games are worth three points:

Regulation win: 3 points
Win in OT/SO: 2 points
Lose in OT/SO: 1 point
Regulation loss: 0 points

I don't hold out much hope for this system, though, because it separates the wheat from the chaff.

+1

Makes too much sense; would never happen.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Dash's pt system is spot on.

 

[Darkstone42]

Yes, the part highlighted has occured to me as well.

With 3 point games, then OT games being split 2-1 as far as points, it would be fairer than the current system. I still feel quite strongly though about losers not getting anything, however I do see the point from a revenue standpoint.
Still irks me though when some team is 12-6-6, for instance, and fans are all giddy about their team being "six games over .500"...its a joke. That is a .500 record, no matter how you slice it.

I have no problem with the "loser point" specifically, because overtime is 4-on-4, so it's not being played under the same conditions as the rest of the game, and the shootout is especially not played under the same conditions of the game. I think the loser point is valid because the teams lost under varied circumstances of hockey, as opposed to losing in the "standard" conditions.

However, as dash indicated, making all games 3 points would be preferable to the current system in which not all games count equally. Rewarding a team extra for closing it out in regulation makes a great deal of sense to me. I would also be in favor of making OT 5-on-5 again, and not awarding a loser point for OT, but then going to a shootout and making it impossible to get the full 3 points for not beating the other team at "hockey proper."

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Unfortunately, I don't see the NHL point system changing anytime soon Sandy, as the "loser" point keeps teams in the hunt for playoff spots. The NHL relies on gate revenues much more heavily than any of MLB, NFL, or the NBA, ergo, awarding a point for losing in OT enables teams to stay tightly bunched and keeps fans buying tickets.

I've posted this several times previously, but I would like to see the following system implemented which rewards teams for winning in regulation and all games are worth three points:

Regulation win: 3 points
Win in OT/SO: 2 points
Lose in OT/SO: 1 point
Regulation loss: 0 points

I don't hold out much hope for this system, though, because it separates the wheat from the chaff.

a big THIS^

Bettman wants parity ... He wants to manufacture a sense of hope to make the playoffs for every teams fanbase

 

[Darkstone42]

The LA Kings can go 40 wins, 37 losses, and 5 OT losses (85 points)
The Dallas Stars go 36 wins, 32 losses, and 14 OT losses (86 points)

Let's go ahead and use dash's point system on the above. I will assume that exactly 3/4 of each team's wins were in regulation:

Kings: 30 W, 10 OTW, 37 L, 5 OTL (115 points)
Stars: 27 W, 9 OTW, 32 L, 14 OTL (113 points)

So now the two teams are ranked accordingly.

I would also like to mention that I think .500 in hockey should be decided in terms of percentage of available points earned. In the current system, a team can earn a maximum of 162 points, so the Kings in the above example would be .518 and the Stars would be .524. In the proposed system, there would be a total of 246 points available, so the Kings would be .467 and the Stars would be .459. So this new points system would, indeed, correct the issue you have with teams claiming they're above .500 despite losing more games than they've won.

 

[SandyBeach26]

Dash's pt system is spot on.

Well, the system does have its merits...and its one that has been bandied about before....this certainly isn't the first I've heard of it...but still, if the purpose of the "loser" point is to keep non deserving teams in contention, then this 3 pt system pushes them apart even further, I think...

Hence, why I still feel best about the "loser gets nothing" deal.

Heck, why even HAVE a point system. It made sense when we had ties, but now since that is no longer a the case, you can just go to a straight up "games behind" system as well. Pure wins and losses.....teams being x amount of games behind others etc...

While I do like the 3 pt system better than the current one, all it really does is make win-losses unnecessarily complicated...i.e. trying to read from the standings who got how many points in how many games...you'd have to have FOUR columns (W-L-OTW-OTL) for win loss recording on standings...that's just a bit too much IMO

 

[SLY]

OUT WITH BETTMAN! DASH IN!

 

[4thstreet]

I may be old school,but remember when?
win-2pts
tie-1 pt each
lose-0 pts

Overtime in the regular season sucks as well as shootouts.
It's real simple-PLAY TO WIN.

Rewarding points for overtime and shootout loses are a goddamn embarrassment,and as Sandy Beach showed in her example Dallas ends up with more points than L.A? because of losing in ot or shootouts.

I say shoot the fucker that brought in the shootouts.(Bettman and his stooges)

 

[rares]

The biggest problem I have is with the loser point... It happens WAY too often that I think "oh, great, my team worked hard to get this regulation win and grab the 2 points and... oh shit, these two other division foes are playing each other and they're going to OT now? that blows! "

 

[lasgop8]

OUT WITH BETTMAN! DASH IN!

I walked right by Gary Bettman yesterday on the street and boy is he a small mother jumper.

 

[elocomotive]

Regulation win: 3 points
Win in OT/SO: 2 points
Lose in OT/SO: 1 point
Regulation loss: 0 points

Games worth the same value? What a crazy concept!

You guys gotta give Shanahan a little time. He can't revamp ALL the departments at once.

 

[SandyBeach26]

I may be old school,but remember when?
win-2pts
tie-1 pt each
lose-0 pts

Overtime in the regular season sucks as well as shootouts.
It's real simple-PLAY TO WIN.

Rewarding points for overtime and shootout loses are a goddamn embarrassment,and as Sandy Beach showed in her example Dallas ends up with more points than L.A? because of losing in ot or shootouts.

I say shoot the fucker that brought in the shootouts.(Bettman and his stooges)

And that's really all I want to see in the NHL...and to the victor the spoils.
Now that 3 pt game idea has merit like I said...sort of like a compromise, if you will.
It's not a new idea...been around for a bit..its been bandied around from "pro sites" to message boards just like this one and while, as I mentioned, kinda complicates figuring out standings, I'd prefer that to what is currently on offer.

Regarding the revenue by keeping teams close...well, that may well be ...but thing is, there are many in North America who already think the NHL is a second tier league as it is....heck, even the whole 8 team playoff format has been criticized.....and allowing losing teams to "stay in the hunt" really doesn't help the general perception of the NHL. And if the general perception of the NHL is that it is a Mickey Mouse league, then THAT more than taking away a "loser" point hurts the league as whole most of all.

 

[elocomotive]

I walked right by Gary Bettman yesterday on the street and boy is he a small mother jumper.

Holy rep points! haha.

 

[SandyBeach26]

Games worth the same value? What a crazy concept!

You guys gotta give Shanahan a little time. He can't revamp ALL the departments at once.

Does Shanahan even have sway over things like this?
I thought he was League Disciplinarian.

 

[4thstreet]

The biggest problem I have is with the loser point... It happens WAY too often that I think "oh, great, my team worked hard to get this regulation win and grab the 2 points and... oh shit, these two other division foes are playing each other and they're going to OT now? that blows! "

Right on.
I use to like it when if your team had a 4 point edge on a rival and they had 2 games in hand,they had to win the game in regulation,and not be given 2 more chances in the same fucking game to grab 2 points.

 

[elocomotive]

Does Shanahan even have sway over things like this?
I thought he was League Disciplinarian.

He is. Just a commentary on how quickly and effectively he has righted the ship with the discipline department. Maybe he can work on something else too. His title is pretty broad I believe.

And there is nothing wrong with ties. Kissing your sister is the only option available in parts of Appalachia and/or Utah.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Unfortunately, I don't see the NHL point system changing anytime soon Sandy, as the "loser" point keeps teams in the hunt for playoff spots. The NHL relies on gate revenues much more heavily than any of MLB, NFL, or the NBA, ergo, awarding a point for losing in OT enables teams to stay tightly bunched and keeps fans buying tickets.

I've posted this several times previously, but I would like to see the following system implemented which rewards teams for winning in regulation and all games are worth three points:

Regulation win: 3 points
Win in OT/SO: 2 points
Lose in OT/SO: 1 point
Regulation loss: 0 points

I don't hold out much hope for this system, though, because it separates the wheat from the chaff.

I would slightly alter this:

Regulation Win/OT Win: 3pts
Shootout Win: 2pts
Shootout Loss: 1pt

A win while playing hockey, whether it be in 60 or 65 points deserves full win points, in my book. In addition, I would change power plays to 5-4 in OT, not 4-3.