0.560 is the new 0.500

[BigBrown]

I strongly feel like the NHL should go to a 3 point system, and have been ever since the introduction of the OT loser point. I actually like the loser point but I hate that some games are worth more in total points than others. The same number of points should be up for grabs in every game, it's just common sense. 3-2-1-0 is the way to go. Or go with 2-0 if you have to. But some games handing out 2 points and others 3 is total crap.

And that's coming from a fan of a team that in the past has benefited from the loser point!

 

[DL44]

When your team misses the playoffs even though they win more games that the 8 seed, you will agree.

My team has.

My point is you are talking about the qualms of being a 9th/8th seeded team playing under a standard, known system equivalent for all teams. There is no scenario at seasons end where a TEAM is like "hey.. wait... wtf! but we have more wins!". FANS on the other hand.

Again - its minuscule issue considering who its effecting.

I really don't believe the 3-2-1-0 system will result in boring games at the end.

Of course you don't. No one who supports the 3-2-1-0 system believes it would have a negative impact on the game. That would be ridiculous.
I also understand what is appealing about 3210 system to some (actually a lot) of fans in theory..

But there is the other side of the coin. the one i laid out... and it's a very real one.

Ask yourself this...
The 3210 system is nothing new, its been around for decades in other sports... why didn't the NHL go to it?

Because they were trying to change the culture of the game at the end of them because coaches/teams were too conservative in not wanting to give the other team 2 points and risk 0. They were more than content with ties. Ties =/= getting fired or missing the playoffs... losing = getting fired or missing the playoffs.

As much as people like to think and dream that teams will now go ALL OUT for the BIG 3 pts in regulation... i can assure based on the history and business of the sport, it will be more OFTEN along the lines of "We better not drop 3 pts to this team and walk away with nothing! lets get the guaranteed 1 pt and take our chances at getting the bonus pt."

Teams were doing that over 2 pts ad nauseum ... imagine 3.

The NHL KNOWS this. They aren't some inept organization going blindly thru life despite what people would have you believe.

There's a reason you never hear about this from GM's or owners or Bettamn or coaches... and rarely from players. Because if was actually better for the game and would result in a superior more exciting product, it would be implemented.. yesterday.

 

[DL44]

I strongly feel like the NHL should go to a 3 point system, and have been ever since the introduction of the OT loser point. I actually like the loser point but I hate that some games are worth more in total points than others. The same number of points should be up for grabs in every game, it's just common sense. 3-2-1-0 is the way to go. Or go with 2-0 if you have to. But some games handing out 2 points and others 3 is total crap.

And that's coming from a fan of a team that in the past has benefited from the loser point!

To be honest... (and i know this comment will seem pretentious and dickish).. But whenever someone refers to the xtra pt as 'loser' pt, i skip over to read the next post or thread.

It points to their level of understanding of the system and whats going on.

Just semantics maybe.. but a pet peeve of mine..

 

[DL44]

When your team misses the playoffs even though they win more games that the 8 seed, you will agree.

If that were the case - the REAL reason your team didn't make the playoffs was because it lost way more in regulation.

(and my team has missed the playoffs with having 1 more win than the 8th seed... but they also lost 4 or 5 times more in regulation.)

Slightly more wins, way more outright losses. Again... a minuscule issue that people like yourself only looks at one side of a coin to make an argument.

 

[BigBrown]

To be honest... (and i know this comment will seem pretentious and dickish).. But whenever someone refers to the xtra pt as 'loser' pt, i skip over to read the next post or thread.

It points to their level of understanding of the system and whats going on.

Just semantics maybe.. but a pet peeve of mine..

It's just what people call it. I honestly have no idea what to refer to it as. The point won by the team that lost the game in overtime or shootout? Rolls off the tongue.

In short, any system other than a 3-2-1-0 system is stupid, unless you want to re-introduce ties at the end of regulation.

 

[DL44]

It's just what people call it. I honestly have no idea what to refer to it as. The point won by the team that lost the game in overtime or shootout? Rolls off the tongue.

a bonus pt?
or extra pt?

Since the teams both bank a single point as soon regulation ends. then they fight for the extra point in the gimmick portion of the game - OT and SO.

They aren't magically awarded a point for losing. They already had it banked prior to the result.

In short, any system other than a 3-2-1-0 system is stupid, unless you want to re-introduce ties at the end of regulation.

Well.. care to explain why the 3210 is superior in your opinion?

I already pointed the the OT records of the 98-99 season to why i don't think it work...

 

[Killemdeader]

Ask yourself this...
The 3210 system is nothing new, its been around for decades in other sports... why didn't the NHL go to it?

Because they were trying to change the culture of the game at the end of them because coaches/teams were too conservative in not wanting to give the other team 2 points and risk 0. They were more than content with ties. Ties =/= getting fired or missing the playoffs... losing = getting fired or missing the playoffs.

As much as people like to think and dream that teams will now go ALL OUT for the BIG 3 pts in regulation... i can assure based on the history and business of the sport, it will be more OFTEN along the lines of "We better not drop 3 pts to this team and walk away with nothing! lets get the guaranteed 1 pt and take our chances at getting the bonus pt."

Teams were doing that over 2 pts ad nauseum ... imagine 3.

The NHL KNOWS this. They aren't some inept organization going blindly thru life despite what people would have you believe.

There's a reason you never hear about this from GM's or owners or Bettamn or coaches... and rarely from players. Because if was actually better for the game and would result in a superior more exciting product, it would be implemented.. yesterday.

Eh, I don't think its as simple as that the "best" system was chosen, because its the best. I think it's reasonable to assume that the 2-1-0 system was chosen, not because its the best, but because it is a smaller change than going to a 3-2-1-0 system.

Going to a shootout with overtime points keeps the balance for getting to the end of regulation tied, the SAME as it was before; 1/2 the points of a win for each side, and keeps teams having the chance to still get a full amount of points for a win, that they did during regulation.

The 3-2-1-0 changes the way the game is played; as soon as the game goes to OT, your team effectively loses the opportunity to get full points, regardless of the outcome of the OT/Shootout. So, it does in fact, incentivize your team to compete harder to win in regulation, because you LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET FULL POINTS AS SOON AS REGULATION ENDS. I don't see how that would increase the likelihood that teams stall for OT, since the 3-2-1-0 devalues overtime loss points, devalues overtime wins, and increases the value of a regulation win to more than an OT/SO win. The system is better because it makes players want to play for the regulation win, because it is more important, and makes the ends of games during the regular season more exciting.

 

[DL44]

Eh, I don't think its as simple as that the "best" system was chosen, because its the best. I think it's reasonable to assume that the 2-1-0 system was chosen, not because its the best, but because it is a smaller change than going to a 3-2-1-0 system.

How is that reasonable to assume?
Here they are revamping the OT by dropping a player... and then also again with adding shootout to eliminate ties.
Far more extreme changes than changing the pt system.
You're excluding the radical idea that perhaps the NHL actually put some thought into their intentions with the changes they made...

... and their intention was to increase the quality of the product - that is not assumed, its a fact. Something that was obviously lacking when you see OT records like 1-2-18.

Going to a shootout with overtime points keeps the balance for getting to the end of regulation tied, the SAME as it was before; 1/2 the points of a win for each side, and keeps teams having the chance to still get a full amount of points for a win, that they did during regulation.

The 3-2-1-0 changes the way the game is played; as soon as the game goes to OT, your team effectively loses the opportunity to get full points, regardless of the outcome of the OT/Shootout. So, it does in fact, incentivize your team to compete harder to win in regulation, because you LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET FULL POINTS AS SOON AS REGULATION ENDS. I don't see how that would increase the likelihood that teams stall for OT, since the 3-2-1-0 devalues overtime loss points, devalues overtime wins, and increases the value of a regulation win to more than an OT/SO win. The system is better because it makes players want to play for the regulation win, because it is more important, and makes the ends of games during the regular season more exciting.

Which all fine and dandy... and in theory sounds great.

All i'm talking about is accounting for the flip side of the coin... it makes players and coaches play to NOT LOSE 3 points in regulation.

and as history has shown... that just may take precedent over teams playing high risk hockey to go for it.

Remember.. not only is the win devalued - but so is the amount of separation from your opposition in case you lose. ie. losing 3 pts to the team vs just 1 pt to the team and gaining one yourself.

so just as you LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET FULL POINTS AS SOON AS REGULATION ENDS..
you also Lose the opportunity to lose full points as soon as regulation ends... (sorry for the caps.. i cut n pasted from your post)

Don't get me wrong... i'm not saying i favor this train of thought... but its the more likely response from coaches who are fighting to keep their careers.

 

[hockeyr5]

There are currently 15 teams about .560 and 15 teams under so thats a pretty good job mate!

 

[Mc5RingsAndABeer]

and to take it a step further, in the 10-0-72 scenario above, those 10 wins could be all via shootout.

The entire system is ludicrous because the purpose of the regular season is there to decide the playoffs; whom makes it and which ranks. Yet the playoffs do not have loser points and shootouts. Yet every year we see teams in/out of the playoffs and having higher/lower seeds due to shootouts and loser points.


NBA: exact same tie breaking format for regular season and playoffs and no convoluted points system
MLB: see NBA
NFL: pretty much the same other than the fact that ties are allowed but appropriately scored as half a win.

Hockey has much less scoring than those games, so the likely hood of a tie is much, much greater.

You can't just keep having teams playing endless OT in the regular season like the playoffs.

 

[Killemdeader]

Which all fine and dandy... and in theory sounds great.

All i'm talking about is accounting for the flip side of the coin... it makes players and coaches play to NOT LOSE 3 points in regulation.

and as history has shown... that just may take precedent over teams playing high risk hockey to go for it.

Remember.. not only is the win devalued - but so is the amount of separation from your opposition in case you lose. ie. losing 3 pts to the team vs just 1 pt to the team and gaining one yourself.

so just as you LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET FULL POINTS AS SOON AS REGULATION ENDS..
you also Lose the opportunity to lose full points as soon as regulation ends... (sorry for the caps.. i cut n pasted from your post)

Don't get me wrong... i'm not saying i favor this train of thought... but its the more likely response from coaches who are fighting to keep their careers.

Uhh... ok. So what happens when you lose in regulation now? YOU COME OUT WITH 0 POINTS. EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN A 3-2-1-0. Except, in the current system, if you hold out for overtime and don't take risks, you get significantly more points in OT than in a 3-2-1-0. In the current system, you automatically come away with 50% of the points of a win. If you look at the probability, if you throw in 50% extra points in a game that goes to OT (2 points and the 1 for the loser rather than just 2 points), both teams come away with significantly better odds of improving their standing if they are involved in a game that goes to OT. The overall combined win percentage of every OT game is .750, why is that less incentivizing than changing to a 3-2-1-0 where the combined win % of every OT game is the same as a regulation game, .500

 

[SmellOfVictory]

This horsecrap could've been avoided if they'd just made a win worth 3 points. It's ridiculous to just add on extra points to a game as soon as it hits OT.

 

[DL44]

Uhh... ok. So what happens when you lose in regulation now? YOU COME OUT WITH 0 POINTS. EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN A 3-2-1-0. Except, in the current system, if you hold out for overtime and don't take risks, you get significantly more points in OT than in a 3-2-1-0. In the current system, you automatically come away with 50% of the points of a win. If you look at the probability, if you throw in 50% extra points in a game that goes to OT (2 points and the 1 for the loser rather than just 2 points), both teams come away with significantly better odds of improving their standing if they are involved in a game that goes to OT. The overall combined win percentage of every OT game is .750, why is that less incentivizing than changing to a 3-2-1-0 where the combined win % of every OT game is the same as a regulation game, .500

The OT scenario is the same in both systems for a loss - you get 1 out of the 3pts handed out that night. Only difference now is you risk giving up more to your opponent during regulation - 3 vs 2 to zero.

All i'm saying is... there are 2 sides of the argument here. 2 different philosophies that are in play and could possibly dominate. One is positive for the game, one negative.

I think, and history supports, that teams would default to the conservative side of play (the negative) rather than playing higher risk and going for the win (the positive) while risking a greater amount of points to the opponent.

I just think pro 3-2-1-0 people are too focused on the potential positives of the system while ignoring the high potential of it having a negative impact on the product on the ice.

Its why I'm sure we don't have the system in place presently and why i'm almost certain we never will.

I'll just leave it at that... there isn't much more i can say on the topic than i have in my last 10 posts in this thread.

I'll just agree to disagree.

 

[fastvoteman]

I have thought of a different way to do point percentage calculations. You could add up the total points available in games played and add up points earned. You would then divide points available by points earned.

Points available = total points given out in games, regulation game = 2, ot or so = 3
Points earned = 0, 1 or 2

regulation game: winner = 2/2, loser = 0/2
So or ot game: winner = 2/3, loser = 1/3 BUT you would have to make each game worth the same so you would have to make the winner 1.33/2 and the loser 0.67/2

Example: team is 10-5-4 with 7 so/ot wins

They earn 3x2pts for regulation wins
They earn 7x1.33pts for so/ot wins
They earn 4x0.67pts for so/ot losses
They earn 0 pts for regulation losses

In total they have earned 17.99 pts out of 38 with a point percentage of .473

Example: team is 10-5-4 with 1 so/ot win

They earn 9x2pts for regulation wins
They earn 1x1.33pts for so/ot wins
They earn 4x0.67pts for so/ot losses
They earn 0pts for regulation losses

In total they have earned 22.01 out of 38 with a point percentage of .579

Hopefully you guys understand my system. It basically gives teams 2/3 of a win for extra time victories and teams 1/3 of a win for losing in extra time. Teams need to be penalized in some sort of way for not winning in regulation and for giving their opponents a point. 2 identical records yet one is above .500 and one is below.

 

[MountainHawk]

Loser point is such a misnomer. You get a point for tying the hockey game, not for losing the gimmick afterwards. It is the 'winner point' that is the problem, if you want it to match the playoffs. Personally, I don't really like it and would prefer 3-2-1-0 or W-L-T, but the truth is that this works best for the NHL in terms of putting out an entertaining product. Having ties makes the last 5 minutes + OT a conservative bore fest, and 3-2-1-0 would see teams shut down for the last 5-10 of the third in tie games to make sure the gap is 1 point instead of 3.

 

[MountainHawk]

I have thought of a different way to do point percentage calculations. You could add up the total points available in games played and add up points earned. You would then divide points available by points earned.

Points available = total points given out in games, regulation game = 2, ot or so = 3
Points earned = 0, 1 or 2

regulation game: winner = 2/2, loser = 0/2
So or ot game: winner = 2/3, loser = 1/3 BUT you would have to make each game worth the same so you would have to make the winner 1.33/2 and the loser 0.67/2

Example: team is 10-5-4 with 7 so/ot wins

They earn 3x2pts for regulation wins
They earn 7x1.33pts for so/ot wins
They earn 4x0.67pts for so/ot losses
They earn 0 pts for regulation losses

In total they have earned 17.99 pts out of 38 with a point percentage of .473

Example: team is 10-5-4 with 1 so/ot win

They earn 9x2pts for regulation wins
They earn 1x1.33pts for so/ot wins
They earn 4x0.67pts for so/ot losses
They earn 0pts for regulation losses

In total they have earned 22.01 out of 38 with a point percentage of .579

Hopefully you guys understand my system. It basically gives teams 2/3 of a win for extra time victories and teams 1/3 of a win for losing in extra time. Teams need to be penalized in some sort of way for not winning in regulation and for giving their opponents a point. 2 identical records yet one is above .500 and one is below.

That might be adjusted win percentage, but it is NOT point percentage. Point percentage is points/games, and points are well defined by the NHL

 

[JumboThornton92]

W - L/OTL/SOL = Greater than or equal to 1 is the new .500

 

[bumperkisser]

My team has.

My point is you are talking about the qualms of being a 9th/8th seeded team playing under a standard, known system equivalent for all teams. There is no scenario at seasons end where a TEAM is like "hey.. wait... wtf! but we have more wins!". FANS on the other hand.

Again - its minuscule issue considering who its effecting.




Of course you don't. No one who supports the 3-2-1-0 system believes it would have a negative impact on the game. That would be ridiculous.
I also understand what is appealing about 3210 system to some (actually a lot) of fans in theory..

But there is the other side of the coin. the one i laid out... and it's a very real one.

Ask yourself this...
The 3210 system is nothing new, its been around for decades in other sports... why didn't the NHL go to it?

Because they were trying to change the culture of the game at the end of them because coaches/teams were too conservative in not wanting to give the other team 2 points and risk 0. They were more than content with ties. Ties =/= getting fired or missing the playoffs... losing = getting fired or missing the playoffs.

As much as people like to think and dream that teams will now go ALL OUT for the BIG 3 pts in regulation... i can assure based on the history and business of the sport, it will be more OFTEN along the lines of "We better not drop 3 pts to this team and walk away with nothing! lets get the guaranteed 1 pt and take our chances at getting the bonus pt."

Teams were doing that over 2 pts ad nauseum ... imagine 3.

The NHL KNOWS this. They aren't some inept organization going blindly thru life despite what people would have you believe.

There's a reason you never hear about this from GM's or owners or Bettamn or coaches... and rarely from players. Because if was actually better for the game and would result in a superior more exciting product, it would be implemented.. yesterday.

ok. lets say that teams aren't willing to lose 3 points and get nothing. maybe the last 5 minutes of the period would be boring. but how is that really different than right now? especially down the stretch when points are crucial you see teams really tighten it down defensively so they can get that extra point...

the point of the 3-2-1-0 system is so that EVERY GAME IS WORTH AN EQUAL AMOUNT. you dont have some games being worth 2 and some games being worth 3.
and I personally believe that with the 3-2-1-0 system you will see better action down the last month or month and a half down the stretch when the teams from 6-10th really need those 3 points and stop the opposing team from picking up points. its a larger incentive, because they know if they let it get to OT, then they could LOSE ground on people above them because they only get 2 pts for the OTW isntead of a regulation W

 

[Czech Your Math]

How do you think teams would act when they are risking losing 3 pts in the standings late in a game? Hint : it would NOT be the magical barn burning hockey affair some people expect to be produced... the opposite.

Take a look at the the OT records of teams in the 98-99 season for fun..
imagine being a flyers fans of that team and sitting thru 19 ties watching 2 teams playing catch with the puck for 5 mins of OT plus whatever portion of the 3rd.

In 2000, Boston had 19 ties... so how did this change things for the better?

In the three seasons from '97 to '99, the % of OT games was 20.0-20.5%. In the 12 seasons since, only one season was below 22.0% OT games ('01 at 20.4%), and there's been an average of ~24% OT games in the past 9 seasons. The "extra point" didn't significantly reduce ties, but did substantially increase the number of OT games. Essentially, it exchanged regulation decisions for OT (and now also shootout) decisions.

This is completely logical and predictable, given the extra incentive for teams to reach OT. Given that even more games are going to OT, it seems to follow that teams are likely playing even more conservatively as they near the end of regulation.

 

[BenchBrawl]

If you eliminate ties , might as well eliminate points.Just count the wins , top 8 teams in each conference with the most wins makes the playoff.Then you take goals-for as a tie break to encourage offense and not sitting on leads.

 

[DL44]

In 2000, Boston had 19 ties... so how did this change things for the better?

In the three seasons from '97 to '99, the % of OT games was 20.0-20.5%. In the 12 seasons since, only one season was below 22.0% OT games ('01 at 20.4%), and there's been an average of ~24% OT games in the past 9 seasons. The "extra point" didn't significantly reduce ties, but did substantially increase the number of OT games. Essentially, it exchanged regulation decisions for OT (and now also shootout) decisions.
.

or was it increased parity?

And the point of the system change was to stimulate more decisions which it did... It wasn't the ties that was issue, it was the actual w/l ratio vs ties. Take a look at the rest of the records and compare pre and post OT structure change. It did it's job.

 

[SlapJack]

The current system is fine, if you take the standings and readjust them to reflect a 3-2-1-0 system, it won't change much at all. And I agree 100% that is not a loser point, it's a bonus point...take that away, the standings are still similar for the most part but the games are far more boring.

What I find interesting is how you get situations where both teams announcers can say before a game that both teams had a 2-1-1 record against the other last year, then claim that one or the other had the advantage in the season series. Really?

 

[Sixbladeknife]

Example: team is 10-5-4 with 7 so/ot wins

They earn 3x2pts for regulation wins
They earn 7x1.33pts for so/ot wins
They earn 4x0.67pts for so/ot losses
They earn 0 pts for regulation losses

In total they have earned 17.99 pts out of 38 with a point percentage of .473

Example: team is 10-5-4 with 1 so/ot win

They earn 9x2pts for regulation wins
They earn 1x1.33pts for so/ot wins
They earn 4x0.67pts for so/ot losses
They earn 0pts for regulation losses

In total they have earned 22.01 out of 38 with a point percentage of .579

Hopefully you guys understand my system. It basically gives teams 2/3 of a win for extra time victories and teams 1/3 of a win for losing in extra time. Teams need to be penalized in some sort of way for not winning in regulation and for giving their opponents a point. 2 identical records yet one is above .500 and one is below.

This may look different than, but is in effect exactly the same thing as the 3-2-1-0. Why not just adopt the system that achieves the same outcome without the need for fractions and percentages?

 

[MasterofGrond]

The current system is fine, if you take the standings and readjust them to reflect a 3-2-1-0 system, it won't change much at all. And I agree 100% that is not a loser point, it's a bonus point...take that away, the standings are still similar for the most part but the games are far more boring.

What I find interesting is how you get situations where both teams announcers can say before a game that both teams had a 2-1-1 record against the other last year, then claim that one or the other had the advantage in the season series. Really?

It's a point awarded to the losing team. It's a loser point.

It's asinine to award additional points depending on game state. Does any other major professional league do this? You don't encourage teams to go for it by offering them a positive incentive for playing it safe at the end of games, you do it by offering a negative incentive for taking it to the shootout.

 

[DL44]

It's a point awarded to the losing team. It's a loser point.

So teams don't get a point each as soon as regulation ends for achieving a tie after 60 mins?