If there are no ties, why use points?

[Hoss]

What's the point of this thread?

 

[Tawnos]

So because you're Scottish, the winning percentage method confuses you?

 

[davemess]

So because you're Scottish, the winning percentage method confuses you?

No, because im Scottish the Points system just comes as second nature.

I look at a points table and dont have to study what the overall figures really reflect..... the old brain picks up on it straight away. You spot the teams that have game in hand.

 

[Tawnos]

Ah... well, I'm much more into hockey than anything else... but yes, I see how that would take some adjusting.

But you already like hockey... so if the NHL can make their standings more understandable to the average American... that's what they should do.

 

[BwayBshirt]

Actually, the 8-6-2 team has TWO ties (@ 1/2 a win each), so both teams have effectively the same record (9 wins). This would be dealt with in the tiebreaker rules (IIRC, head-to-head and then most wins), just like in the NHL.

correct...

except head-to-head would only apply if they had the exact same record, so most wins it'd be in this case.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Because the pace is more pertinent than the actual number. Simply put, at the end of the year in terms of standings, does the team with the .515 win% beat the team with the .500 win%?

Who cares ? At the end of the season the team with most wins finish ahead.

The only 2 arguments you pro-win% have been able to bring up is that :

1. NBA, MLB and NFL uses it

So what ? People thought the earth was flat for a thousand years. That doesn't make it right, or better.

2. It's more accurate during the season.

In the middle of the season I'm willing to bet the team with the .500 win% finish ahead of the .515 win% team close to 1 out of 2 times. It's not more accurate or relevant. It's just yet another way to rank teams. There are plenty of situations where I'd rank a team with a worse win% ahead of a team with a better win% and vice versa (see useless exemple below).

I guess it comes down to which you prefer. Going on the assumption that they will have only wins and losses, all counting the same, no ties, consider this example:

Team A has a record of 30-29.
Team B has a record of 31-36.

Which team should be ahead in the standings? By the points system, Team B would be ahead. By the winning percentage/games-back system, Team A would be ahead.

My personal preference would be for Team A to be ahead in the standings. This also has the advantage of being more familiar to the casual fan (and general sports fan), since sports like MLB, etc. use winning % and games back.

This is ridiculous. It never happens. No single team will have 8 games in hand over another one during the regular season.

Besides, if team A truly is that good, as soon as they win their next game and team B doesn't win they jump ahead. It's that simple. If they never win that game, they stay behind, as they should.

I can use ridiculous comparisons that don't mean anything too :

Team A : 10-2
Team B : 2-0

Who's the better team. Who's likely to still be up when team B catches up in games played with team A ?

The win% is all about POTENTIAL to be better. Why not rank teams on ACTUAL accomplishments ?

Anyway, this is really meaningless. I could care less, as long as I can find a website that ranks teams based on actual X in the W column, or a website where I can switch to one or the other.

As far as points are concerned, I really don't give a damn, it's the same as ranking teams by number of wins. Points or win, as long as I have one or the other.

EDIT : Changed round for flat

 

[Cole Caulifield]

But you already like hockey... so if the NHL can make their standings more understandable to the average American... that's what they should do.

That's all it really comes down to. I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

One system is not better than the other. It's all a matter of preference born out of familiarity.

EDIT :

The NHL has been catering to your average American fan's needs for the past decade and a half and see where this has brought us.

It's a moot point anyway because the ranking system won't attract new fans or drive them away either.

 

[PecaFan]

The win% is all about POTENTIAL to be better. Why not rank teams on ACTUAL accomplishments ?

Yup. Ranking by Win% is assuming and guessing. "If X should continue this pace, they will end up ahead in the future".

But standings aren't based on guessing. They're based on actual fact, what has actually transpired so far. When X actually wins those games, they'll get their honoured place in the standings.

I used to feel the other way when watching golf. Some guy would be done at -5, and atop the leader board, meanwhile some other guy is -4 with 5 holes to play. It felt odd that the -5 guy was ahead, until I noticed that the -4 guy often never caught up.

 

[Tawnos]

Actually, the order of the standings is about one thing and one thing only.

If the season ended today, where would "team X" finish.

 

[Montrealer]

I am neither pro-points nor pro-GBL... this was a question that popped in my head when thinking about the NHL's standings next year, without a T or OTL column.

Amazing that people quickly took sides and entrenched themselves, then proceeded to mock the other side. Even more interesting that the "conservative" faction of fans that are against changes are vehemently against using GBL in the standings, as if that would make hockey more like the NBA or MLB.

I think you'll see Points and GBL in some newspapers/websites, because Points are traditional and GBL is easy to add and attractive (and I guess traditionalists can use a marker and scribble that column out).

It'll be interesting to see what the average fan, the one who talks with his/her friends at the water cooler on Mondays, uses when talking about playoff races. That, and that alone, will determine which one is more relevant.

As I said, however, I think we'll end up seeing both columns, simply because there will be space for it.

 

[Yus]

The NHL needs to keep everything as simple as possible. The pre OTL point era was great. The teams were playing for 2 points. The winner gets both, or both teams get a point in a tie. Makes perfect sense. Then OTL came along, and things got more complicated and made less sense. Now the teams were playing for 3 points, but the winner still only gets 2 points, but a magical 3rd point is awarded to the team that loses in a tie.

Now we're complicating OT by quite a bit. I can't wait to explain to people why suddenly there are only 8 people on the ice, then 6, then a shootout happens. The least the NHL could do is make the win/loss issue simpler and make it winner takes all.