Alternative Point System

[FilTheThrill]

As most of you know the President's Trophy is up for grabs between about 8 teams right now, which is something that I don't remember seeing before, especially this late in the season. Just a few days ago the Bruins sat at number 1 in the league, but they had a huge boost due to them getting 15 extra points for losing in OT/SO. In my opinion, teams should not be rewarded for losing games at all, so I decided to try and create a new points system.

2 points for regulation wins. Nothing changes here, it's been this way for a long time, so I'm cool with it.

2 points for OT wins. I debated whether or not to tweak this to award 1.5 points, but half points would be stupid.

1 point for SO wins. I think that shootouts are clearly a completely different type of competition than 5v5 or 3v3. Some people say to bring back ties if a game isn't decided in OT, but I think ties are stupid. So, if a game goes this far then I think awarding just 1 point to the winner is fair enough so that it is not weighed as heavy as a typical win.

0 points for OT/SO losses. I hate loser points because it causes teams who lose more games than other teams to be ahead in the standings.

This system gets rid of 3 point games, and it makes shootouts only 1 point games. So, you will see lower point totals than we are used to, but it also closer resembles point totals that you might have seen before the 2004 lockout so it's not a gigantic change.

Obviously, there will still be flaws, as there would be with any proposal, but I felt like this one kept things relatively fair by not rewarding teams for losing beyond regulation as well as acknowledging that shootouts are not quite the same as 5v5 or 3v3 OT. I also have thought about the 3-2-1 point system because it seems pretty logical, but at the same time it's hard to wrap my brain around teams routinely having 150+ point seasons, so that's why I kept regulation and OT wins at 2 points.

Oh yeah, I also am an advocate for 1v8 seeding, so I am bringing that back as well.

Here is what the standings would look like as of March 26 using this system:

EASTERN CONFERENCE
NYR- 92
FLA- 90
CAR- 88
BOS- 79
TOR- 75
TBL- 75
DET- 70
NJD- 70
---
PHI- 68
WSH- 66
BUF- 66
NYI- 59
PIT- 58
OTT- 57
MTL- 48
CBJ- 44


WESTERN CONFERENCE
COL- 90
VAN- 90
WPG- 88
DAL- 85
EDM- 82
NSH- 82
LAK- 74
VGK- 74
---
STL- 72
CGY- 66
MIN- 65
ARZ- 56
SEA- 53
ANA- 47
CHI- 39
SJS- 31

Not all teams have played the same number of games, so prorated point totals might see a few teams trade spots, but other than that this is what the playoff picture would look like. Detroit and New Jersey would both leapfrog Philly and Washington, Boston would drop out of the President's Trophy picture as well as Dallas slipping further away. There's still no hope for San Jose though, they are clearly the worst lol.

Click to read more...

 

[Golden_Jet]

Don’t see that ever flying, but interesting.
I’ve been harping for 2-1.5-0.5 for a few years if insisting on loser points.
Probably could have put your suggestion here with the other ones.

If Boston wins the President's trophy, is the point system flawed?

Boston sits #1 in the league right now with 97 pts, but -They have 30 losses (15 in overtime). No other team in the top 11 has more than 29 losses -They're 9th in wins at 41 -They're 9th in goal differential -9th in regulation wins -They have one player in the top 44 via individual pts -9th in...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Just do wins and losses. And if you think that an overtime format is too gimicky to decide the difference between a win and a loss, then that's an argument for having a new overtime format.

 

[ricky0034]

this point system would make sense if overtime was 5 on 5

but with 3 on 3 overtime this would be like 10 times worse than the current system, 3 on 3 is every bit as gimmicky as the shootout

 

[kingsholygrail]

What perceived problem does this actually solve?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

so you continue to reward the 3rd point that you clearly hate to a team for winning a gimmick and not being able to win a hockey game, but punish the other team for not losing a hockey game? yup, typical logic of the "loser points bad" crowd.

yet again, both teams get 1 point when regulation ends in a tie. it is not a loser point. if an asteroid hit the stadium between regulation and OT, both teams would have 1 point in the standings from that game.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

As a former math professor always looking for ways to get students interested in math, I'm consistently fascinated by how much people get into this.

 

[Machinehead]

I'm fine with the way it is.

A win is 2 points. Give the people what they want.

You get a point for losing the gimmicky parts.

What's wrong with it?

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Points system should stay the way it is. Keeps the standings closer.

 

[Coffey]

As a former math professor always looking for ways to get students interested in math

 

[Mattilaus]

3-2-1-0 system makes the most sense. In your system games will still have different point values (some games worth 2 points, some only worth 1 point). Make every game worth 3 points all the time. My biggest issue with the current system is that not all games are worth the same amount of points.

 

[Drake1588]

I haven't liked the changes made in the last 20 years. So I would probably award two points for a regulation win, play five-on-five for five minutes if tied after regulation, and then award two points to an OT winner, no points to an OT loser, or one point each if the game remained tied after 65 minutes. Revert to the system used by the Original 21.

There would be no shootouts, and no three-on-three, both of which I find to be quite gimmicky. I wouldn't say I'm terribly worked up at the current system, but that would be my preference. I never had a problem with the hard-won tie.

 

[KeydGV21]

It isn’t a loser point…It’s a point for being tied at the end of regulation.

 

[ricky0034]

As a former math professor always looking for ways to get students interested in math, I'm consistently fascinated by how much people get into this.

I think there's just a sense that the current system of different games sometimes being worth different amounts of points just kinda intuitively feels "wrong"

I don't actually mind the current system personally speaking but if say you're a fan of a team that is close to two other teams in the standings that are playing each other and you find yourself just hoping it ends in regulation so they don't get 3 combined points between them instead of 2? even as someone that is fine with the current system that still feels a bit off

 

[Toby91ca]

Obviously, this isn't some new discussion and I don't mean to offend, but in my mind, this proposal is non-sensical. 1) You are going to have several game worth only 1 point.....the biggest issue a lot of people have today is that some games are worth 2 points and some are worth 3, your proposal makes some games worth 2 and some worth 1 and 2) a team getting 0 points after being tied after 60 min of regulation play will never make sense. The only way that makes sense is if you keep playing regular hockey.....if there is a need for a winner so we put in gimmicks, you have to award something after 60 min as the rest isn't the same game.

 

[AvroArrow]

3 point system is the best and most logical fix.

 

[StreetHawk]

What perceived problem does this actually solve?

Agreed. If only 1 point for SO win, then each game isn't worth 2 points.
Unless they are all worth the same, no reason to change the current format.

I personally don't view 3on3 wins or SO wins as being true wins Personally. To me, game ended in a tie in regulation and it's an extra point that your team can claim.

But, anyone is free to call it a loser point if they want. Just your POV of whether glass is half full or half empty in essence.

 

[Toby91ca]

3 point system is the best and most logical fix.

Agree, if you think something is broken......I never had a problem with ties though. That said, agree, if you are going to force a winner, by any means, I think 3pt system makes sense. The question will be whether that really changes who finishes where though.....no one will ever know because you can recast standards using a new scoring system, but that's not a fair comparison as the prior games would have been played under a different scoring system and it will most certainly impact how teams play towards the end of the 3rd period.

There will be people that don't like 3pt games due to historical comparability, but what are we evening looking at? How many points a team finishes the year with? Do people really spend any time thinking about that vs. teams of the past? It's already not comparable due to the current scoring system vs. the way is has been in prior years or the number of games played being 82 vs. 80 vs. 84 vs. 70 vs. 50.....why is this a point of contention?

Agreed. If only 1 point for SO win, then each game isn't worth 2 points.
Unless they are all worth the same, no reason to change the current format.

I personally don't view 3on3 wins or SO wins as being true wins Personally. To me, game ended in a tie in regulation and it's an extra point that your team can claim.

But, anyone is free to call it a loser point if they want. Just your POV of whether glass is half full or half empty in essence.

Couldn't agree more....hate reference to "loser point" - comparison I literally just thought of and perhaps it doesn't make sense.....but think about a touchdown in football...you get 6pts and then you go for the extra pt.....if you miss the kick for the extra point, you don't lose the 6pts you earned on the touchdown.

 

[CTHabsfan]

It isn’t a loser point…It’s a point for being tied at the end of regulation.

Ever take a look at NHL standings?

W=wins
L=losses
OTL=overtime losses (not ties)

There is a winner and a loser. It's perfectly fair to refer to it as a "loser point" if a team loses and still receives a point.

 

[Korpse]

bring back ties.

 

[Gunnersaurus Rex]

3-2-1 Best system out there. Would transform the last few minutes of a game with a team potentially able to grain 3 points on their rival.

 

[Toby91ca]

Ever take a look at NHL standings?

W=wins
L=losses
OTL=overtime losses (not ties)

There is a winner and a loser. It's perfectly fair to refer to it as a "loser point" if a team loses and still receives a point.

Except a team gets 0 points for OTL, they get 1pt for regulation tie....standings doesn't show that, but it's there.

bring back ties.

I actually prefer this over a 3pt system.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Agreed. If only 1 point for SO win, then each game isn't worth 2 points.
Unless they are all worth the same, no reason to change the current format.

I personally don't view 3on3 wins or SO wins as being true wins Personally. To me, game ended in a tie in regulation and it's an extra point that your team can claim.

But, anyone is free to call it a loser point if they want. Just your POV of whether glass is half full or half empty in essence.

I think it's perfectly valid to weigh regulation wins as more valuable in tiebreakers which is really where it matters anyway. I would prefer a W-L system and be done with it, really.

 

[KeydGV21]

Ever take a look at NHL standings?

W=wins
L=losses
OTL=overtime losses (not ties)

There is a winner and a loser. It's perfectly fair to refer to it as a "loser point" if a team loses and still receives a point.

it’s wrong to call it that though. It’s a point for being tied at the end of regulation.

Are you old enough to remember when it was instituted?

 

[rojac]

Ever take a look at NHL standings?

W=wins
L=losses
OTL=overtime losses (not ties)

There is a winner and a loser. It's perfectly fair to refer to it as a "loser point" if a team loses and still receives a point.

It's more compact to use overtime losses. You can express records in only 3 numbers. If you actuall expresses it as ties with a bonus point for winning, you'd need four numbers to express it something like W-L-T-OTW.