Standings

[dboy97]

I started to wonder what would the NHL standings look like if all game were worth three points instead of some two and some three. There are a few changes when all games are worth three instead of two. Also some results are just crazy note how far out in front of the western conference Vancouver would be. Three point games can turn things around pretty quick if a team goes a real streak with regulation wins or losses.

Eastern Conference
1. Philadelphia 101
2. Boston 92
3. Tampa Bay 90
4. Pittsburgh 94
5. Washington 85
6. Montreal 83
7. New York R 83
8. Carolina 74
-----
9. Atlanta 72
10. Florida 66
11. Buffalo 65
12. Toronto 60
13. Ottawa 59
14. New Jersey 50
15. New York I 49

Western Conference
1. Vancouver 101
2. Dallas 87
3. Detroit 87
4. Phoenix 82
5. Nashville 82
6. Anaheim 81
7. Chicago 80
8. San Jose 79
-----
9. Minnesota 78
10. Los Angeles 77
11. Colorado 73
12. Calgary 72
13. St. Louis 68
14. Columbus 66
15. Edmonton 50

 

[jstewismybastardson]

I started to wonder what would the NHL standings look like if all game were worth three points instead of some two and some three. There are a few changes when all games are worth three instead of two. Also some results are just crazy note how far out in front of the western conference Vancouver would be. Three point games can turn things around pretty quick if a team goes a real streak with regulation wins or losses.

Eastern Conference
1. Philadelphia 101
2. Boston 92
3. Tampa Bay 90
4. Pittsburgh 94
5. Washington 85
6. Montreal 83
7. New York R 83
8. Carolina 74
-----
9. Atlanta 72
10. Florida 66
11. Buffalo 65
12. Toronto 60
13. Ottawa 59
14. New Jersey 50
15. New York I 49

Western Conference
1. Vancouver 101
2. Dallas 87
3. Detroit 87
4. Phoenix 82
5. Nashville 82
6. Anaheim 81
7. Chicago 80
8. San Jose 79
-----
9. Minnesota 78
10. Los Angeles 77
11. Colorado 73
12. Calgary 72
13. St. Louis 68
14. Columbus 66
15. Edmonton 50

did you do it as
W=3 points
L=0 points or

REGULATION W=3
OT or SO WIN=2
OT or SO LOSS=1
REGULATION LOSS=0

 

[dboy97]

3, 2, 1, and 0

 

[dash]

Thanks for the update, dboy (good stuff). The Flames have been living off the shootout win lately and need to put away teams in 60 minutes.

/Always nice to see Edmonton in last regardless of how points are allocated.

 

[TiLoBrown]

Yay we wouldnt be last!

 

[awaz]

i really think they need to switch to this format.. i'm not sayin it happens all the time, but i think a lot of teams are playing to go into OT.. a la the caps, who have gone past regulation a ridiculous number of times recently.. dont have a stat to back that up, but i've watched a lot of their games recently (roommate is a big caps fan now that i've converted him to a hockey fan)

 

[jstewismybastardson]

i really think they need to switch to this format.. i'm not sayin it happens all the time, but i think a lot of teams are playing to go into OT.. a la the caps, who have gone past regulation a ridiculous number of times recently.. dont have a stat to back that up, but i've watched a lot of their games recently (roommate is a big caps fan now that i've converted him to a hockey fan)

yah its too bad theres really no chance of this happening ... Bettman cant manage games with this point system and alot of teams would be out of the playoff chase alot sooner in the season

 

[BOSSMANPC]

I sill think that if a team losses in OT....too bad, no points. If a team losses in a shootout they should get a point because it's NOT a team activity.

Seems simple to me and if that is not an option then go back to no shootout the score is still tied then both teams get ONE point.

Leta determine a win and loss by the teams and not individual skills compititiom.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

I sill think that if a team losses in OT....too bad, no points. If a team losses in a shootout they should get a point because it's NOT a team activity.

Seems simple to me and if that is not an option then go back to no shootout the score is still tied then both teams get ONE point.

Leta determine a win and loss by the teams and not individual skills compititiom.

Why do you have to make so much fucking sense all the time??

 

[Curtrain]

I sill think that if a team losses in OT....too bad, no points. If a team losses in a shootout they should get a point because it's NOT a team activity.

Seems simple to me and if that is not an option then go back to no shootout the score is still tied then both teams get ONE point.

Leta determine a win and loss by the teams and not individual skills compititiom.

I think you have a good point. On the other hand, what would you award the team that won in sudden death? Would they get 3 points instead of 2? I am assuming we are still talking about the 3 2 1 0 point system where every game has a combined total of 3 points.

 

[Curtrain]

I really like the 3 point system. Too me, a win in regulation means more than a win in sudden death. Scoring first in OT does not mean you were the better team. But the game has to end some time, so it is a good compromise to award the team 2 points instead of 3.

EDIT: Athough I am not entirely comfortable awarding the other team with the loser point, the 3 point system makes the loser point mean a lot less in the standings.

 

[BOSSMANPC]

I really like the 3 point system. Too me, a win in regulation means more than a win in sudden death. Scoring first in OT does not mean you were the better team. But the game has to end some time, so it is a good compromise to award the team 2 points instead of 3.

EDIT: Athough I am not entirely comfortable awarding the other team with the loser point, the 3 point system makes the loser point mean a lot less in the standings.

I agree with most of what you said. However, I do not think a team should get a point for losing in what amounts to a skills contest when over 40 players are sitting on the bench as spectator's.

In OT at least the teams have the same number of players on the ice (barring a penalty). So we can comprise there.

Also winning or scoring first in any game "does not mean you were the better team". That's how it goes in sports.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I sill think that if a team losses in OT....too bad, no points. If a team losses in a shootout they should get a point because it's NOT a team activity.

Seems simple to me and if that is not an option then go back to no shootout the score is still tied then both teams get ONE point.

Leta determine a win and loss by the teams and not individual skills compititiom.

I agree with you on the principle.

However, as we saw before the SO came in, neither team went for it in OT because they were afraid of losing their point that they'd get for a tie.

I think if they drop the loser point for OT, the teams would drop into a shell and play for the SO all the time, rather than going for the W in OT.

/would rather just go back to allowing ties.

 

[Eddie_Shack]

Part of me kind of wants to go no points for a loss, whether it's in OT, SO, or regulation...

 

[Curtrain]

If a team losses in a shootout they should get a point because it's NOT a team activity.

However, I do not think a team should get a point for losing in what amounts to a skills contest when over 40 players are sitting on the bench as spectator's.

Ok, I think I misunderstood your first post. You meant to say "shoudn't get a point because it's NOT a team activity." I thought you were differentiating between a loss in sudden death and a loss in a shootout.

I agree for the most part. But I also agree with sabresfaninthesouth. Some teams are content with splitting the two points. This happens often when you have teams from different conferences or divisons play each other, and it makes the game much more boring to watch. But when you consider all the pros and cons... going back to using ties may be the best system.

Assuming that shootouts are here to stay, would you still have a problem with the loser point? As you said, a skills competition is not a team activity. This means that the team itself didn't really lose... A 3 point system would make the most sense in this case.

 

[Bizzle McDizzle]

so who's gonna do the yearly "if all games were still worth 2 points and there was no shootout" standings?

I'm way to lazy

 

[elocomotive]

i really think they need to switch to this format.. i'm not sayin it happens all the time, but i think a lot of teams are playing to go into OT.. a la the caps, who have gone past regulation a ridiculous number of times recently.. dont have a stat to back that up, but i've watched a lot of their games recently (roommate is a big caps fan now that i've converted him to a hockey fan)

We're not playing well. That doesn't mean we're TRYING to go into OT. Believe me, with 8 OT/SO losses in a row, I'm sure nobody on that bench wants to go to OT.

 

[Slimpikins]

so who's gonna do the yearly "if all games were still worth 2 points and there was no shootout" standings?

I'm way to lazy

I can tell, you couldn't even put the second 'o' in the word 'too'. :p

 

[TheRobotDevil]

If all the games were worth two points we would be in first overall. Nevermind I was reading the standings backwards again

 

[Bizzle McDizzle]

I can tell, you couldn't even put the second 'o' in the word 'too'. :p

meh
'tis what happens when big fat fingers meet tiny netbook 85% size keyboard.