Sorting teams in the NHL standings

[Narva PSK]

In the NHL, a 13-12 team would be listed ahead of a 12-10 team. But in the NBA or MLB, the 12-10 team would be listed ahead of a 13-12 team. In the NHL, if a 15-10 team lost five games while a 14-11 team doesn't play (I know that's not likely - it's just an illustration), the formerly 15-10 team would still lead the 14-11 team. In the NBA or MLB, if that were to happen, the 15-10 (or now 15-15) team would fall behind the 14-11 team.

Why does the NHL do this differently? It can't be because they have ties (or now overtime losses), as a tie (or now OTL) has the net value of half a win and half a loss. Why not simply use games behind and winning percentage as is used in MLB and the NBA?

Does anyone have an explanation for this?

 

[maddogmark25]

Because the 13-10 team has more points (26), and thus is ahead in the standings of the 12-10 team based on points (24)

 

[NUance]

I guess because it all depend on points rather than W/L percentage. I'd rather have my team sitting at 12-10 than 13-12, even though the 13-12 team is higher (temporarily) in the standings. The 12-10 team could easily end up better than 13-12 in the next three games.

 

[elocomotive]

Does anyone have an explanation for this?

They list it by points. The games at hand might be confusing, but less so than looking at a list that has points all out of order.

 

[Narva PSK]

Because the 13-10 team has more points (26), and thus is ahead in the standings of the 12-10 team based on points (24)

I know they sort by points earned. Why do they sort by points earned and not by percentage or by games above/below .500?

 

[Narva PSK]

They list it by points. The games at hand might be confusing, but less so than looking at a list that has points all out of order.

GIH aren't factored into the standings. Only points. Why does the NHL sort by points earned if more viable methods such as percentage or games above/below .500 are available?

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Points are a more definite way.

Winning % can be skewed by a team losing a couple straight. A team that was on top could actually go down in the standings while the teams behind them don't even play a game.

The NHL considers GIH when doing rankings during the season for teams that are tied in points, always ranking the team with fewer games played above the other team.

In short, GIH mean nothing if you don't win them, so why even account for them.

 

[SLY]

I dunno, doesnt explain much but worth a read.

The Elite Eight: Why The NHL Point System Does Not Need Change | Bleacher Report

 

[SLY]

I like the olympic point system myself. It'll never happen though.

 

[dash]

I know they sort by points earned. Why do they sort by points earned and not by percentage or by games above/below .500?

If you know they sort by points earned, and if you know that the team that loses in OT gets a point while the winning team gets two points, I think you have your answer.

/I smell a rat...

 

[SLY]

If you know they sort by points earned, and if you know that the team that loses in OT gets a point while the winning team gets two points, I think you have your answer.

/I smell a rat...

Bettman, that you?

 

[elocomotive]

GIH aren't factored into the standings. Only points. Why does the NHL sort by points earned if more viable methods such as percentage or games above/below .500 are available?

Because you can't do a straight win percentage when there are 3 possible results for a game, instead of 2. It's how they do it. You don't like it. This is a very strange and combative opening thread.

 

[Narva PSK]

Points are a more definite way.

Winning % can be skewed by a team losing a couple straight. A team that was on top could actually go down in the standings while the teams behind them don't even play a game.

You're suggesting that there be no detriment in the standings sorts for a team which loses a game. Using a points earned system, a regulation loss becomes precisely the same as not playing.

10-9-1 = 21 pts
lose two games and you become 10-11-1 = 21 pts
don't play and you become 10-9-1 = 21 pts
Note that losing two games has precisely the same effect on your points total as not playing.

The NHL considers GIH when doing rankings during the season for teams that are tied in points, always ranking the team with fewer games played above the other team.

A 13-12-0 team would still be listed ahead of a 12-10-0 team.

In short, GIH mean nothing if you don't win them, so why even account for them.

Not even the flawed points earned system accounts for GIH.

 

[dash]

I deleted your GWG thread, this is a warning to tread carefully...