Adjust the standings system

[7even]

It's exciting because it creates insnaely back and forth play, but its a joke in that it expediates a result, which is why I'm against it.

Why is expediting a result a joke

Games have to end, and if you can do that in an entertaining way that keeps the spirit of the sport in a way that the shootout can't, why not? Ties suck. I don't understand the nostalgia. They just emotionally blue ball the audience.

 

[93LEAFS]

Why is expediting a result a joke

Games have to end, and if you can do that in an entertaining way that keeps the spirit of the sport in a way that the shootout can't, why not? Ties suck. I don't understand the nostalgia. They just emotionally blue ball the audience.

I don't understand why people can't come to the conclusion that the teams were deserving of an equal result. I guess I grew up with ties, and realize they are reasonable. Expediating a result is a joke because it isn't the game that is played for 60 minutes previously. Some teams may be better at 3 v 3 than they are at 5v5. The game is played at 5v5, why change that just so some people can't handle an equal result.

 

[OneBuffalo]

3 point regulation win, 2 points OT win, 1 point SO win. You shouldn’t get points for a loss

 

[StreetHawk]

3 point regulation win, 2 points OT win, 1 point SO win. You shouldn’t get points for a loss

Should be that simple. But nhl loves to hand out extra points to keep playoff races closer. Not changing.

If other leagues don’t take players off after regulation I don’t see how people can justify that winning 3v3 should be the same as regulation win.

The bs about records is pure bs. You think scoring 3v3 OT is the same as it was in prior decades when it was 5v5 without a guaranteed point. Lose in ot in prior decades you get nothing.

 

[KingsFan7824]

I can't be the only one that hates when the score is tied at the end of the third period, and both teams start playing defensively to protect the score and make sure they secure a point. They should be fighting, whey should play to win the game.

What if we change the point system so that a Regulation win gets you 3 points, an OT/SO win gets you 2 points, an OT/SO loss gets you 1 point and a Regulation loss gets you no point?

Would that make the teams fight more on the ice? Would that be viable? What would be the downsides?

Why would that make teams be less conservative at the near the end of a tied regulation game? You can make a win worth 10 points and it won't mean both teams won't play for the tie. Keep in mind that the 76-77 Canadiens, with the best record of all time, had more ties than losses, and that was when there was no OT at all.

If you want fewer ties, find a way to change the value of a goal. The NBA has a 1, 2, and 3 point shot. The NFL has 1, 2, 3, and 6 point plays. In baseball, you can score 1-4 runs on a single hit. In the NHL, every goal has a value of 1. Doesn't matter when it gets scored, how it gets scored, a goal is always worth just 1 click on the scoreboard. Make a normal goal worth 1, a PP goal worth 1.25, and a SH goal worth 1.5 goals, and tied games will go down. You're down .25 goals with 2 minutes left? There's more desperation everywhere. Of course that would mean refs have even more power over a game, but, you have to break a few eggs and all that.

 

[Harvey Birdman]

I have my gripes with the points system but I’m overall fine with it. I just wish they’d go back to the 1-8 seeding once Seattle joins.

 

[KingsFan7824]

3 point regulation win, 2 points OT win, 1 point SO win. You shouldn’t get points for a loss

No team gets a point for the act of losing.

 

[Butch 19]

3 point regulation win, 2 points OT win, 1 point SO win. You shouldn’t get points for a loss

no team gets a point(s) for a loss

 

[MadLuke]

The game is played at 5v5, why change that just so some people can't handle an equal result.

I imagine it was not a real question ? But if so, it is professional entertainment, not purely a sport, and what people can or cannot handle is really important to the league.

 

[Calendal]

Everytime this thread comes up, someone adjusts the standings the year prior with 3-2-1 and they don't even change. It's something blown way out of proportion.

In all fairness, OP doesn't really care about standings but about how game is played last 5-10 minutes.

...

3v3 is fun sometimes, but it doesn't feel like ice hockey anymore when it's better to bring the puck back to your own end of ice than to give it away. I'm not really a big fan of 2-minute keep-away to get the opposing team tired, which is what overtimes sometimes devolves to.

 

[93LEAFS]

I imagine it was not a real question ? But if so, it is professional entertainment, not purely a sport, and what people can or cannot handle is really important to the league.

No other big 4 professional league alters how a game is decided to the same extent. I'd mock baseball two if they seriously consider that starting people at 2nd base proposal for OT.

 

[Paddyjack]

Why reward teams for a tie?

Well, a tie is till a better performance than a loss in my opinion, and you still get only 33% of total points in such a system, compared to 50% in the current system.

 

[Kamiccolo]

In all fairness, OP doesn't really care about standings but about how game is played last 5-10 minutes.

...

3v3 is fun sometimes, but it doesn't feel like ice hockey anymore when it's better to bring the puck back to your own end of ice than to give it away. I'm not really a big fan of 2-minute keep-away to get the opposing team tired, which is what overtimes sometimes devolves to.

Well even that doesn't make sense outside of a small number of scenarios. For the vast majority of the games, and especially if you are against a team you are competing against for a playoff spot.. Unless you NEED the 3 points to make it, the smarter play is to take the game to OT so that you guarantee a point for yourself and don't give the other team 3 points.

Them being 1 point better than you > them being 3 because you pushed too hard.

 

[MadLuke]

No other big 4 professional league alters how a game is decided to the same extent. I'd mock baseball two if they seriously consider that starting people at 2nd base proposal for OT.

None have much tie either, there was one tie game in the nfl last season, 0 the season before.

NFL did for a while had a radically different overtime when you had a sudden death in a multiple point system game, and is still quite the kicking game.
MLB is a league that sometime play 2 game in the same days, the consequence of a long game is quite different, the season is built travel wise in a way to make very long game more manageable I think.
By is high scoring nature, NBA overtime rarely get long (the all time record is 73 minutes I think)

The NHL was the only one (can be wrong there) with many tie is low scoring with overtime that can go really long with the possible scenario of a team playing on the next coast the next day.

I feel like :

) It either get mocked for tie by the fanbase used to the 3 other major pro league in NA, annoying a large potential fanbase for little reason
) Change the way the schedule is made to make very long possible overtime, team playing series for example like in baseball or hockey playoff.
) Have the current system of forcing goals, to make possible to always have win and stay in a manageable way, that annoy purist used to the ties, but those have a greater chance to still watch, than the casual annoyed to pay a ticket with a game that end without a winner.

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

Quick reminder about how the creation of the OTL points has created more conservative play than ties could ever do.

At a Loss

Also the argument that the current point system is "fine" because if you used another system it gave you a similar results in league standings is lazy at best or disingenuous at worst. The criticism of the current point system isn't about creating different end results, it's about creating incentives that ensure teams actually try to win games in the final 10-15 minutes of tied games instead of slowing the game to a crawl until the clock runs out and we move on to gimmick hockey.

 

[93LEAFS]

None have much tie either, there was one tie game in the nfl last season, 0 the season before.

NFL did for a while had a radically different overtime when you had a sudden death in a multiple point system game, and is still quite the kicking game.
MLB is a league that sometime play 2 game in the same days, the consequence of a long game is quite different, the season is built travel wise in a way to make very long game more manageable I think.
By is high scoring nature, NBA overtime rarely get long (the all time record is 73 minutes I think)

The NHL was the only one (can be wrong there) with many tie is low scoring with overtime that can go really long with the possible scenario of a team playing on the next coast the next day.

I feel like :

) It either get mocked for tie by the fanbase used to the 3 other major pro league in NA, annoying a large potential fanbase for little reason
) Change the way the schedule is made to make very long possible overtime, team playing series for example like in baseball or hockey playoff.
) Have the current system of forcing goals, to make possible to always have win and stay in a manageable way, that annoy purist used to the ties, but those have a greater chance to still watch, than the casual annoyed to pay a ticket with a game that end without a winner.

If the most followed league in the world can have ties (EPL) I don’t believe in dumbing down the product to create forced results.

 

[DL44]

I can't be the only one that hates when the score is tied at the end of the third period, and both teams start playing defensively to protect the score and make sure they secure a point. They should be fighting, whey should play to win the game.

What if we change the point system so that a Regulation win gets you 3 points, an OT/SO win gets you 2 points, an OT/SO loss gets you 1 point and a Regulation loss gets you no point?

Would that make the teams fight more on the ice? Would that be viable? What would be the downsides?

Mainly because if you were tied late in the third with the potential of losing 3 pts on your opponent by making a late game mistake and losing and earning nothing - you will not be "going for it" late in third periods of tied games...

Like it or not... increasing the punishment of a reg loss would have a more negative outcome despite the equally increased reward of the win.

That's why overtimes opened up and became fun to watch when they introduced the regulation tie point. Prior to 4on4 OT, teams would just skate around with the puck to kill 5 mins of OT and bank a point instead of risk losing 2 to the opponent and getting nothing.
Coaches have always and will always try to limit the potential damage to their team's place in the standings by being conservative.

 

[King'sPawn]

I frankly just think all regular season games should have the same value. I think it's silly some are worth 2 when a team wins in regulation and others are worth 3.

All playoff games have an equal weight relative to each other. So should regular season games.

 

[Clamshells]

The best thing would be 5 points for a regulation win, 4 points for a overtime win, 3 points for a shoot out win, 2 points for a shoot out loss, 1 point for a overtime loss and 0 points for a regulation loss. That way teams would be extra motivated with the big 5 point price for winning a game in regulation.

No way dude, we gotta dive deeper into what makes a win more important than another win. We all know that ES goals are better than PP goals when it comes to evaluating on-ice performance, so why are we rewarding teams for scoring on crummy power plays over clearly superior ES scoring teams?

I'd say we need at least a 15 point system to make a proper and fair standings system.

 

[Langdon Alger]

My solution is no point system. Just wins and losses. A team who is 20-13-7 is really 20-20, which is how it should be. Baseball, basketball and football do it, why not hockey? Do we really need a point system?

 

[triggrman]

Man is it already Thanksgiving?

 

[DL44]

Quick reminder about how the creation of the OTL points has created more conservative play than ties could ever do.

At a Loss

Also the argument that the current point system is "fine" because if you used another system it gave you a similar results in league standings is lazy at best or disingenuous at worst. The criticism of the current point system isn't about creating different end results, it's about creating incentives that ensure teams actually try to win games in the final 10-15 minutes of tied games instead of slowing the game to a crawl until the clock runs out and we move on to gimmick hockey.

More conservative play with OTL's than with ties?
No way... before the OTL, there would dreadful ends to games with teams playing for the tie... If you were to go back and look at the Overtime records of teams in the final yr or two prior to OTL's coming in... they are ridiculous... (its been yrs since i looked)... but I remember seeing some teams with almost a 1/4 of their season going into OT. teams would have OT records of 2-1-15 or 2-2-18... could you imagine watching that? Was that 2 teams battling for 2 pts? or was that actually 2 teams content on not letting the other team get 2 points. EVERY 4 OR 5 GMS you get to watch this unfold. no thanks.


as for the article's solution of zero pts for all losses and 2 pts for all wins... problem with that is you are equating a shootout win the same a regulation one.

If your problem with the current point system is the loser bonus point, then you should favor a:
2 pts reg win
1 pt OT/SO win
0 for all losses.

It would be a weird pill to swallow or fans... your elite teams would be like 85-90 pt teams.

End of the day tho... I love the current system and the compression of the standings it creates. You feel like your team is a lot closer than it actually is.. helps keep fan interest longer - helps revenue - healthier league. I understand why they wouldn't change that because some are offended by a "loser" point.


EDIT:

97-98 season
NHL.com - Stats

Some fun OT records:
Red Wings: 0-0-15... Fun! 2 team's - just going for it... but goalies must of hot.. 18% of the season
Rangers 2-4-18... 24/82 gms
Pens 3-2-18... 23/84

Anyways...

 

[dortt]

I see many still call the one point a "loser point"

It is NOT a loser point. If you "lose" after regulation, you are NOT credited with a loss in the standings.

That 1 point is the point for TYING after 60 minutes.

The NHL merely got people to believe ties went away. Great marketing gimmick

 

[StreetHawk]

I frankly just think all regular season games should have the same value. I think it's silly some are worth 2 when a team wins in regulation and others are worth 3.

All playoff games have an equal weight relative to each other. So should regular season games.

I last saw that there are 1260 regular season games. So it should either be 2520 points or 3780 points awarded a year. Not 2780 or 2802, or 2718 year to year.

Maximum a team can earn right now is 164 points. But that 164 might be out of 2780 or 2748 or 2716 total points awarded.

It’s also show the difference in how you view results. Carolina won their first 3 games post regulation. So they got 6/6 points. But if it’s a 3 point game they end up with 6/9 points.

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

More conservative play with OTL's than with ties?
No way... before the OTL, there would dreadful ends to games with teams playing for the tie... If you were to go back and look at the Overtime records of teams in the final yr or two prior to OTL's coming in... they are ridiculous... (its been yrs since i looked)... but I remember seeing some teams with almost a 1/4 of their season going into OT. teams would have OT records of 2-1-15 or 2-2-18... could you imagine watching that? Was that 2 teams battling for 2 pts? or was that actually 2 teams content on not letting the other team get 2 points. EVERY 4 OR 5 GMS you get to watch this unfold. no thanks.


as for the article's solution of zero pts for all losses and 2 pts for all wins... problem with that is you are equating a shootout win the same a regulation one.

If your problem with the current point system is the loser bonus point, then you should favor a:
2 pts reg win
1 pt OT/SO win
0 for all losses.

It would be a weird pill to swallow or fans... your elite teams would be like 85-90 pt teams.

End of the day tho... I love the current system and the compression of the standings it creates. You feel like your team is a lot closer than it actually is.. helps keep fan interest longer - helps revenue - healthier league. I understand why they wouldn't change that because some are offended by a "loser" point.

Those dreadful games still happen by the truckload in the final 10-15 minutes of regulation time, both teams are content with letting the clock run out in the third period without trying to win the game in regulation time and have it decided. The current point system rewards you if you can take games to overtime, it explains the increase in games going to overtine after the OTL is implemented, something that you completely ignored from the article for whatever reason.

I don't agree with equating shootout losses to regulation losses either, but the current system equates regulation wins and shootout wins already. Why does the league believe that all wins are equal but all losses are unequal? Isn't that an indictment of the current system by your logic?