NHL Standings and the Point System

[rares]

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.

As long as the total number of combined points awarded at the end of each game is constant (3, not "sometimes 2, sometimes 3"), that'd be fine...

 

[dash]

I'm fine with 46n2 points system as well...

Just curious regarding changing the 4-on-3 in OT rto 5-on-4, do you think it's too punitive to the team being assessed the penalty?

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I'm fine with 46n2 points system as well...

Just curious regarding changing the 4-on-3 in OT rto 5-on-4, do you think it's too punitive to the team being assessed the penalty?

Yeah, at least that is my perception of it. I don't know the stats but there is a lot of ice out there for three guys to cover.

 

[Darkstone42]

Yeah, at least that is my perception of it. I don't know the stats but there is a lot of ice out there for three guys to cover.

I like the idea in principle, but what would the logistics be of going back to 4-on-4 after the penalty expires?

 

[SLY]

Lot of ice to cover for 3 guys...? So don't get penalized.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I like the idea in principle, but what would the logistics be of going back to 4-on-4 after the penalty expires?

Next stoppage. I have never really liked the 4 on 4 anyway.

 

[Darkstone42]

Next stoppage. I have never really liked the 4 on 4 anyway.

I figured that would be it. And I don't like it, either, but I understand why they use it.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Lot of ice to cover for 3 guys...? So don't get penalized.

To me, overtime should be a short extension of the game, not a new game all together, which is how it feels with the 4-4 game, and ESPECIALLY how it feels on a power play. Just play 5 more minutes of hockey, it doesn't need tweaking...

 

[forty_three]

I have a detailed plan to address it. Please pay attention as it could get kinda complicated.


Step 1 - Win: 2 points.
Step 2 - Man up nancies and play until it's decided.

*whew* That took a lot out of me.

 

[juliansteed]

As long as the total number of combined points awarded at the end of each game is constant (3, not "sometimes 2, sometimes 3"), that'd be fine...

Exactly! There are some suggestions I might like a bit more than others, but as long all games are worth the same amount of points then I would consider it a major improvement over what we have now. How can any rational thinking human being think it's logical to give 1 team full credit for a victory while saying the loser didn't really lose and should therefore get 1 point?

 

[4thstreet]

I have a detailed plan to address it. Please pay attention as it could get kinda complicated.


Step 1 - Win: 2 points.
Step 2 - Man up nancies and play until it's decided.

*whew* That took a lot out of me.

Now you're just making too much sense.As i said earlier,as of now you have 3
tries to get 2 pts either in regulation,overtime or shootout.

If the league is going to reward teams that fail,why not go all out?

regulation win-6 pts
regulation loss-5 pts
overtime win-4 pts
overtime loss-3 pts
shootout win-2 pts
shootout loss-1 pt

Yea it seems fucking stupid,but at least all the points are awarded accordingly.

 

[rares]

If the league is going to reward teams that fail,why not go all out?

regulation win by 3+ goals-7 pts
regulation win-6 pts
regulation loss-5 pts
overtime win-4 pts
overtime loss-3 pts
shootout win-2 pts
shootout loss-1 pt
failed to score 1 goal-0 pts

Yea it seems fucking stupid,but at least all the points are awarded accordingly.

FTFY! Betterer this way... :p

 

[davnlaguna]

I saw an article, message board post, blog (i don't remember which) last year in which they took the 3 point system and applied it to the teams for last season. While a couple of teams moved up or down one spot there was no major difference.
Ok here is a fun one
3 points regulation win
2 points overtime win
1 point shotout win
0 points for a loss no matter when it happens. And no penalty for pulling the goalie in ot

 

[Vadered]

Now you're just making too much sense.As i said earlier,as of now you have 3
tries to get 2 pts either in regulation,overtime or shootout.

If the league is going to reward teams that fail,why not go all out?

regulation win-6 pts
regulation loss-5 pts
overtime win-4 pts
overtime loss-3 pts
shootout win-2 pts
shootout loss-1 pt

Yea it seems fucking stupid,but at least all the points are awarded accordingly.

Yeah, that'd be freaking hilarious. Team A is two points above Team B for the final playoff spot going into the last game of the season. The fans tense as the ref goes to drop the puck. Team A wins the faceoff, skates straight backwards, and shoots the puck into their own net. Repeat. Team A loses in regulation by 97 goals and makes the playoffs.

It gets worse if they play each other, as Team B cannot make the playoffs no matter what.

 

[Ties5o11]

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)

You must be an Eastern Conference fan because each of these teams would finish 10 points out of the playoffs.

 

[Ties5o11]

Dash's pt system is spot on.

I agree it is the "fairest", but there is one major problem to it: the standing will have 4 columns.

Imagine this conversation:

"Hey Steve, how are the Flyers doing this year"
"Uh, they are 24-16-8-11"
"soooo.... how are they doing?"

Another benefit of the current system for the NHL is that, at any given time, 2/3 of the NHL can say they are "over .500". For example, a team that is 40-38-5 is currently called "an over .500 team", even though they have lost 3 more games than they have won.

Both of those reasons seem small, but in an NHL league that seems too eager to propagate its product- they are real factors. Add in the fact the current system makes it harder for the good teams to put real separation from the bad, and keeps the bad teams in the race longer- you have a system that will not change.

 

[SandyBeach26]

Gee SJSharks....
that's why I used the Dallas - LA record as an EXAMPLE to make a point....what that has to do with being an Eastern Conference fan or not, I have no idea...

Oh, and your big "revelation" that the standings would have 4 columns has already been mentioned.

Now, can you actually ADD anything here? Thanks.

 

[Darkstone42]

Play nice, children.

 

[Ties5o11]

Gee SJSharks....
that's why I used the Dallas - LA record as an EXAMPLE to make a point....what that has to do with being an Eastern Conference fan or not, I have no idea...

Oh, and your big "revelation" that the standings would have 4 columns has already been mentioned.

Now, can you actually ADD anything here? Thanks.

Relax it was a joke.

And yes, the fact that .500 is cheapened I think is a real factor that nobody else brought up. You will notice that the NHL / NHL media will go out of its way to call teams that are under .500, "over .500 teams" when a handful of their losses are "overtime losses". This cheapens the term that is "over .500", as ".500" now becomes below average, and a team that is "over .500" is in reality "above below average"- but the perception is that they are "above average". The difference is subtle, but real for the NHL.

But, at the end of the day, the #1 factor is keeping the standings close as others have pointed out.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I have a detailed plan to address it. Please pay attention as it could get kinda complicated.


Step 1 - Win: 2 points.
Step 2 - Man up nancies and play until it's decided.

*whew* That took a lot out of me.

Or another radical, complicated idea:
Step 1 - Win 2 points.
Step 2 - Each team gets 1 point if they're tied after 5 minutes of overtime.
Step 3 - Game over. Period.