Alternative Point System

[Golden_Jet]

But.... what is wrong with a game awarding a winner 2 points and the loser 1 point? Does it make it so that a team deserving to make the playoffs ends up not making the playoff?

If so, what makes a team deserving of making the playoff?

A team with a few more wins but less competitive when they loses?
A team with a few less wins but more competitive when they loses?

There is no right or wrong answer to that and that why i think theres nothing wrong with the current point system and I have yet to see a good argument that explains why its wrong.

lol, I’ve yet to see one why it’s good.
Funny you see nothing wrong with some games worth more than others, guess your in the crowd that like participation ribbons for getting tbr loser point.

 

[Mattilaus]

But.... what is wrong with a game awarding a winner 2 points and the loser 1 point?

Nothing. As long as you award 3 total points for every game.

People always look at it one way and say a team making it to the end of regulation in a tie earn the one point by surviving even if they lose in OT because losing in OT means you kept the game closer and 3v3 and shootouts are gimmicks anyways. Okay, so why shouldn't a team which can win in regulation be rewarded for closing out the game without needing OT?

If the 3v3 and shootout are gimmicks then why does a win during those award the same amount of points as a win in regulation? Shouldn't the team who wins in regulation be rewarded for not needing thr gimmick to get the W?

 

[Golden_Jet]

The funniest post so far has been
1 point for OT/SO win
1 point for OT/SO loss

2 for regulation win

 

[StreetHawk]

Nothing. As long as you award 3 total points for every game.

People always look at it one way and say a team making it to the end of regulation in a tie earn the one point by surviving even if they lose in OT because losing in OT means you kept the game closer and 3v3 and shootouts are gimmicks anyways. Okay, so why shouldn't a team which can win in regulation be rewarded for closing out the game without needing OT?

If the 3v3 and shootout are gimmicks then why does a win during those award the same amount of points as a win in regulation? Shouldn't the team who wins in regulation be rewarded for not needing thr gimmick to get the W?

I’m a math guy and I would prefer the same number of points awarded each season. I believe there are 1260 games played a year. But if you add up each teams points you are well above the 2520. Probably around 2800.

I’ve accepted the current format as this is how teams stay in the races longer.

Just not a fan to ever see a straight W/L record if we are ending games in 3x3 or SO format.

 

[north21]

3 point system or just bring back ties and let it be.

 

[Mattilaus]

I’m a math guy and I would prefer the same number of points awarded each season. I believe there are 1260 games played a year. But if you add up each teams points you are well above the 2520. Probably around 2800.

I’ve accepted the current format as this is how teams stay in the races longer.

Just not a fan to ever see a straight W/L record if we are ending games in 3x3 or SO format.

I agree it keeps teams in the race longer but with 3 points being up for grabs your team could also rally from further back in the standings with a good streak of regulation wins. It could also help to stop the strict D play from both teams when the game is tied with 10 minutes to go. A team further back in the standings might push more to get the extra point from a regulation win.

 

[NikolaTesla]

lol, I’ve yet to see one why it’s good.
Funny you see nothing wrong with some games worth more than others, guess your in the crowd that like participation ribbons for getting tbr loser point.

You tell me what is wrong about it. Go on.

And I'm in the crowd that my fav team is nowhere close to the playoffs in fact losing all their "losers points" would probably give them a top 3 lottery pick. But nice try my friend.

You're in the crowd thats a bunch of sissies like "why does some game gives 2 points and other 3 points? Im so offended by it but i can't explain why. Wahhhhhhhhh!"

 

[Stephen]

Why do people sleep on SO wins? They feel arbitrary and dethatched from the game, but technically a team has to do more work, play 60 minutes of non losing hockey, another 5 minutes of non losing OT, and then beat another team in a different format. If you don't like SO's, just make the 3 on 3's sudden death, no time limit.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

3-2-1-0 system, all games have the same points available. You want the full 3pts? Win in regulation. Similarly, an OT loss gets diminished to 1/3rd of a regulation win instead of 1/2 as it is now.

 

[ItWasJustified]

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

A couple of years ago each 14 teams in the SHL could lose or win one spot in the standings before the second to last game of the season. That's a 3-2-1-0 point system.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

The funniest post so far has been
1 point for OT/SO win
1 point for OT/SO loss

2 for regulation win

Why?

One of the biggest arguments against ties is that not having a winner diminishes the game...this system produces a winner.

One of the biggest arguments against the current system is the creation of 3-point post-regulation games...all games are pointed equally under this system. Another argument heard frequently is that the current system rewards gimmickry in OT/SO. While this system doesn't eliminate the gimmickry of OT/SO, it does reward it far less. Outside of tiebreakers, the only real gain over a OT-SO loss for the post-regulation win is the perception of having a winner.

With all post-regulation games being worth a single point regardless of outcome and with regulation wins being worth twice the points, this system should greatly increase the incentives for teams to win in regulation...lessoning the impact of the gimmickry of post-regulation play on the overall standings.

 

[bobholly39]

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.

I know this isn't necessarily the main point of your post, and ill also say I'm a HUGE Boston hater before defending them but....

In my opinion - change the point system anyway you want, and top teams will remain top teams. I say this because it was striking to see Boston down to 79 points in your model. Had your point system been in effect this year - I'm extremely confident Boston would be much higher than 79 points because they'd simply have adjusted accordingly.

As to the idea of a point system change - id be for it. I've actually suggested something very similar to you often before which would be:

3 points for regulation win
2 points for OT win
1 point for SO win
0 points for loss

That way you get 0 points for any kind of loss, and you also get the most points for the earlier you win. So no more sitting on a tie/being complacent, teams would "go for it" more when tied late in games.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Why?

One of the biggest arguments against ties is that not having a winner diminishes the game...this system produces a winner.

One of the biggest arguments against the current system is the creation of 3-point post-regulation games...all games are pointed equally under this system. Another argument heard frequently is that the current system rewards gimmickry in OT/SO. While this system doesn't eliminate the gimmickry of OT/SO, it does reward it far less. Outside of tiebreakers, the only real gain over a OT-SO loss for the post-regulation win is the perception of having a winner.

With all post-regulation games being worth a single point regardless of outcome and with regulation wins being worth twice the points, this system should greatly increase the incentives for teams to win in regulation...lessoning the impact of the gimmickry of post-regulation play on the overall standings.

Because the players won’t let the rule pass, they’ll just say, we’re not playing 5 minutes of OT and a shootout when they know the the outcome before they play, One point each, regardless of who wins.

 

[Toby91ca]

I've come to the conclusion that this is basically an impossible issue to solve.

1 - Even going to a 3-2-1 point system isn't going to make a lot of people happy, there will still be a lot complaining about "loser points" - the same people don't complain about 2pts for a shootout win being the same as winning in regulation though...which makes almost just as much no sense. At least this would fix that item.

2 - Have the league get comfortable with ties, it is what it is. There are two problems with this 1) not me, but there are a lot of people that simply think you need a resolution, you need a winner....ties can't happen....I get that and 2) Game play will absolutely be impacted near the end of the game....teams will be playing not to lose so they can at least get 1 point (there is argument for that now, but this would be worse).

3 - The best actual outcome would be to simply play with something closing resembling actual game action until you have a winner. I think 4 vs. 4 would be fine, but not the 3 v 3 we have now. The major problem with this, of course, is games that do not end quickly enough....interfering with TV, travel, etc.....which is almost impossible to deal with in the regular season. It works in NBA because far less games go to OT (simply due to scoring levels) and when they do, unlikely it goes too long. It works in MLB as well (again, higher scoring) because you don't have the same travel issues (generally)

 

[Lt Dan]

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.

Why not just wins and losses? No points needed just keep it as easy as possible

No other sport in the "big 4" has a point system

 

[Toby91ca]

I know this isn't necessarily the main point of your post, and ill also say I'm a HUGE Boston hater before defending them but....

In my opinion - change the point system anyway you want, and top teams will remain top teams. I say this because it was striking to see Boston down to 79 points in your model. Had your point system been in effect this year - I'm extremely confident Boston would be much higher than 79 points because they'd simply have adjusted accordingly.

As to the idea of a point system change - id be for it. I've actually suggested something very similar to you often before which would be:

3 points for regulation win
2 points for OT win
1 point for SO win
0 points for loss

That way you get 0 points for any kind of loss, and you also get the most points for the earlier you win. So no more sitting on a tie/being complacent, teams would "go for it" more when tied late in games.

This makes almost the least sense, other than the one where you get 1 pt whether you win or lose in OT and SO. In this case you are suggesting some games are worth 3pts and some worth 1? I know there are some people that don't like the point system because it's not a fair picture of ranking teams. I suspect that crowd is in the minority though. I do agree with you that the good teams will be the good teams regardless of point system.

The most vocal issues seem to stem from "loser points"....which admittedly you don't have and different games being worth different points....which your suggestion makes it worse.

Why not just wins and losses? No points needed just keep it as easy as possible

No other sport in the "big 4" has a point system

What other sport is comparable to hockey whereby you can have a fair win/loss standings?

 

[Golden_Jet]

I've come to the conclusion that this is basically an impossible issue to solve.

1 - Even going to a 3-2-1 point system isn't going to make a lot of people happy, there will still be a lot complaining about "loser points" - the same people don't complain about 2pts for a shootout win being the same as winning in regulation though...which makes almost just as much no sense. At least this would fix that item.

2 - Have the league get comfortable with ties, it is what it is. There are two problems with this 1) not me, but there are a lot of people that simply think you need a resolution, you need a winner....ties can't happen....I get that and 2) Game play will absolutely be impacted near the end of the game....teams will be playing not to lose so they can at least get 1 point (there is argument for that now, but this would be worse).

3 - The best actual outcome would be to simply play with something closing resembling actual game action until you have a winner. I think 4 vs. 4 would be fine, but not the 3 v 3 we have now. The major problem with this, of course, is games that do not end quickly enough....interfering with TV, travel, etc.....which is almost impossible to deal with in the regular season. It works in NBA because far less games go to OT (simply due to scoring levels) and when they do, unlikely it goes too long. It works in MLB as well (again, higher scoring) because you don't have the same travel issues (generally)

It also works in MLB because they start a runner at second base to get a quicker result.

I don’t think a 3-2-2 people would complain because all games are equal value.
I’d prefer a 2-1.5-0.5 if sticking with a poo system, to keep some semblance to history.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

What other sport is comparable to hockey whereby you can have a fair win/loss standings?

What's so unfair about it?

 

[Golden_Jet]

What's so unfair about it?

Don’t think that needs to be said for the 100th time.

 

[Lt Dan]

What other sport is comparable to hockey whereby you can have a fair win/loss standings?

I don't think I understand your question.

Each sport is unique and that is why they are all separate sports.
But the purpose of all sport is to have a winner of an individual game and ultimately a championship.

Standings should only be wins and losses. There is no need to make the standings anymore complicated , especially for casual and new fans

 

[doublechili]

The 3 point system sounds good in theory, but wait until the end of a season where some team pulls their goalie at the end of regulation looking for an extra point, and the other team scores an ENG to get 3 points and they knock some other team out of the playoffs as a result. Then there will be a new thread searching for a new system.

 

[Toby91ca]

It also works in MLB because they start a runner at deco base to get a quicker result.

I don’t think a 3-2-2 people would complain because all games are equal value.
I’d prefer a 2-1.5-0.5 if sticking with a poo system, to keep some semblance to history.

Yes, the alternative point system deals with every game being worth the same, which will make a lot of people happier, but there will still be a lot that simply feel if you lose, regardless of how, you should get 0 pts.

What's so unfair about it?

What's so unfair about losing a SO being the same as losing an actual hockey game? If you don't feel that is unfair, no explanation I can give is going to change your mind.

 

[Toby91ca]

I don't think I understand your question.

Each sport is unique and that is why they are all separate sports.
But the purpose of all sport is to have a winner of an individual game and ultimately a championship.

Standings should only be wins and losses. There is no need to make the standings anymore complicated , especially for casual and new fans

I agree, each sport is unique, the comment was that every other sport just has wins losses, why can't the NHL. That isn't true of course, soccer has ties (the closest sport I'd say to hockey...low scoring). But anyway, that's why I suggested, what comparable sport just has wins and losses that are determined fairly. In my mind, it wouldn't be fair at all to simply have wins and losses as your standings if those wins and losses are determined based on 3 vs 3 OT and SO's.

 

[Lt Dan]

I agree, each sport is unique, the comment was that every other sport just has wins losses, why can't the NHL. That isn't true of course, soccer has ties (the closest sport I'd say to hockey...low scoring). But anyway, that's why I suggested, what comparable sport just has wins and losses that are determined fairly. In my mind, it wouldn't be fair at all to simply have wins and losses as your standings if those wins and losses are determined based on 3 vs 3 OT and SO's.

f*** soccer


Back to hockey... at the end of the day a loss is a loss.

When and the situation that the team loses the game should not have any consideration , IMO.
Also note that teams don't get partial wins for losing on overtime in the playoffs.

It can also be argued that the loser point creates more overtimes because both teams don't push as hard in the final minutes to win the game, not wanting to lose the loser point.
A W-L system would very likely result in less overtimes and shootouts

 

[StreetHawk]

234 of the 1097 games, as there are 163 games remaining, have gone into extra time.

So, call it 21% of games go to extra time. Prorated over the full 1260 total games played that would be 268. Is going to straight W/L really going to drop that by 1/3 or something to get us to like 180 games?

I'm sure MLB tracks it too, but many Extra Inning games do they have nowadays? As they put that new rule with runner on 2nd and 1 out to try to end games sooner and not have teams exhaust their bullpen for 1 game. I doubt it's anywhere close to 20% that the NHL has for extra time.