The NHL currently uses the 2 point system. I don't like it. It makes an OT loss look like a tie, which skews the winning percentage. For an extreme example a team could go 0-0-82 and have 82 points for the season (for a "winning" percentage of .500), which would be the same as a team that went 41-41-0, without ever having won a game. What's wrong with that picture.
The NHL currently uses the 2 point system. I don't like it. It makes an OT loss look like a tie, which skews the winning percentage. For an extreme example a team could go 0-0-82 and have 82 points for the season (for a "winning" percentage of .500), which would be the same as a team that went 41-41-0, without ever having won a game. What's wrong with that picture.
What's your take?
BEPF
That's in insane hypothetical that would never, ever happen. Over an 82 game season, the cream rises to the top. The standings always work out the way they should. No need to try and make things more complicated.
I would like 1 point for a win, in regulation. That's it. No points for loss or tie. You win or you don't, period. No overtime, if you couldn't get it done in regulation then you didn't win... no point.
Crankshaft wrote:
That's in insane hypothetical that would never, ever happen. Over an 82 game season, the cream rises to the top. The standings always work out the way they should. No need to try and make things more complicated.
that definitely is a hypo that would never happen BUT let's take a look at the Detroit Red Wings this season who have more OT losses than any other team. they are 19-14-10 so they have 10 points given to them just because they were able to keep it tied at the end of the game. right now they are 4th in the Atlantic but without those "extra 10 points" they'd be fighting Ottawa for 6th.
I say no points for OT/SO losses. maybe teams would try harder to win in regulation that way.
Last edited by shoeshine boy on Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'd prefer 3 points for a regulation win as well. No points for losing in OT. You need a loser point for the SO because you technically tied in hockey, but lost the skills competition. If teams don't like going to the SO they won't play it all that safe in OT.
My only real beef is that not all games are the worth the same. Some games give out 3 points (W + OTL), some just 2. For that reason alone I'd go to the 3 point system:
pcm wrote:My only real beef is that not all games are the worth the same. Some games give out 3 points (W + OTL), some just 2. For that reason alone I'd go to the 3 point system:
W in Reg = 3 pts
W in OT = 2 pts
L in OT = 1 pt
Same. It makes way more sense for all games to be worth the same number of points.
pcm wrote:My only real beef is that not all games are the worth the same. Some games give out 3 points (W + OTL), some just 2. For that reason alone I'd go to the 3 point system:
W in Reg = 3 pts
W in OT = 2 pts
L in OT = 1 pt
Same. It makes way more sense for all games to be worth the same number of points.
My take too. Of the two systems used today, I would prefer if the NHL used the 3 point system. The two point system doesn't reward a win in regulation enough.
pcm wrote:My only real beef is that not all games are the worth the same. Some games give out 3 points (W + OTL), some just 2. For that reason alone I'd go to the 3 point system:
W in Reg = 3 pts
W in OT = 2 pts
L in OT = 1 pt
Same. It makes way more sense for all games to be worth the same number of points.
My take too. Of the two systems used today, I would prefer if the NHL used the 3 point system. The two point system doesn't reward a win in regulation enough.
BEPF
If you do this, then get rid of the shootout. Just use GF or goal differential as the tiebreak. If you keep the shootout, then it should be a 5 point system:
5 - W in regulation
4 - W in OT
3 - W in SO
2 - L in SO
1 - L in OT
0 - L in regulation
just think how confusing it was the first season of the overtime loss point in the standings - they double counted the loss in both the loss column and a separate category in the record for OTL.
I'm fine with having the shootout, but I like the 3 for a win and 2 for a SO/OT win. However, the W/L records being formatted as they are now is absolutely intentional. Ie, a team that is a little below .500 want to look like they are at or above .500 to get some local casual-fan support.
The IHL used to do that. I run the numbers to see if using that system would effect who makes the playoffs, aside from some minor shift in seeds it usually doesn't cause one team to make it and another not.
While we're getting crazy let's go 1 pt for a win and .2 pts x number of minutes left in OT if you win. Loss = 0. Shootout = .01 pt to help you break a tie in the unlikely event you tie in the standings.
Actually, scratch that... BCS rankings for the NHL.
bhaw wrote:While we're getting crazy let's go 1 pt for a win and .2 pts x number of minutes left in OT if you win. Loss = 0. Shootout = .01 pt to help you break a tie in the unlikely event you tie in the standings.
Actually, scratch that... BCS rankings for the NHL.
I see it now...
"The Buffalo Sabres beat the Blackhawks in a shootout, so the Blackhawks fall from #2 to #17, eliminating them from playoff contention because HOW THE HELL DO YOU LOSE TO THE SABRES"
dman66 wrote:
If you do this, then get rid of the shootout. Just use GF or goal differential as the tiebreak. If you keep the shootout, then it should be a 5 point system:
5 - W in regulation
4 - W in OT
3 - W in SO
2 - L in SO
1 - L in OT
0 - L in regulation
Do this. Except:
3 - W in regulation
2 - W in OT
1 - W in SO
0 - L in SO
-1 - L in OT
-2- L in regulation
Mathematically it's the same, but it would be psychologically crushing come the last few weeks of the season. And it would keep points from being astronomical.
When i look at the win loss column in the paper in the morning i used to hate seeing 12-8-3-1 back when OT wins were looked different as Shootout wins. Its just simpler when you see 12-8-4.
I am happy with the way things are now. Even though the 3 pts win has alot of merit and might push teams to try and win the games.
I feel remove the shootout. and after a 5 minute 3 on 3 OT period, if its a tie its a tie. If you lose in OT its 1 point.
W, OTW =2
reg. L = 0
T, OTL = 1
Beveridge wrote:Win Regulation/OT = 2 points
Tie = 1 point
Loss Regulation/OT = 0 points
OT is 10 minutes 4 v 4
I could live with this. 10 minutes seems long though. A few OT games in a row and your star players will need rested and they have more chance at injury.
If you wanted to get real creative have alternating 5 on 3 power plays until one socres and the other doesn't
