Head-to-head tiebreaker

[Cap'n Flavour]

I know playoff matchups are set but I had a look at the NHL's third tiebreaker rule after ROW and it seems to be fairly nonsensical:

"The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any "odd" games, shall be used to determine the standing."

At first I read this as 'if the two clubs are tied in points earned head-to-head', otherwise the qualifier is redundant in a tiebreaker rule. Apparently you are meant to read this as dropping the first home game of any season series with an odd number of games. Okay, so imagine this scenario:

Team A wins in regulation on the road (team B home).
Team B wins in regulation on the road (team A home).
Team A wins in overtime on the road (team B home).

If you just go with head-to-head points, Team A gets in with 4 points versus 3.

If you follow what seems to be the accepted interpretation of NHL rules, team B had two home games - both losses - so to mitigate home ice advantage, you drop the first game, and team B gets in with 3 points vs 2 thanks to the ovetime loser point. You get the same result if you switch the arenas for the last two games.

Say what? How does that make any sense? Why do teams get to drop home losses? Am I misunderstanding something?

Click to read more...

 

[Djp]

I understand the logic.....

its an unfair advantage to a team that had more home games. so to even it out you need the extra home game. They decided to say the first one doesnt count they could have said the second one doesnt..

for the sake or arguemnt say Monreal and Columbus had identical records, idetical ROW, Identical overall wins then went to head to head excluding the extra home game by one team then it goes to all games where columbis is limited to just 2 gaems against the atlantic, while montreal is limited to two games against the metropolitan division in compiling overall points.

 

[Lempo]

I know playoff matchups are set but I had a look at the NHL's third tiebreaker rule after ROW and it seems to be fairly nonsensical:

"The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any "odd" games, shall be used to determine the standing."

At first I read this as 'if the two clubs are tied in points earned head-to-head', otherwise the qualifier is redundant in a tiebreaker rule. Apparently you are meant to read this as dropping the first home game of any season series with an odd number of games. Okay, so imagine this scenario:

Team A wins in regulation on the road (team B home).
Team B wins in regulation on the road (team A home).
Team A wins in overtime on the road (team B home).

If you just go with head-to-head points, Team A gets in with 4 points versus 3.

If you follow what seems to be the accepted interpretation of NHL rules, team B had two home games - both losses - so to mitigate home ice advantage, you drop the first game, and team B gets in with 3 points vs 2 thanks to the ovetime loser point. You get the same result if you switch the arenas for the last two games.

Say what? How does that make any sense? Why do teams get to drop home losses? Am I misunderstanding something?

This is exactly how it went between Carolina and Montreal this year. The first CAR win in Montreal didn't count for the tiebreaker.

2018-19 Carolina Hurricanes Schedule Stats | ESPN

In the end CAR finished in WC1 only three points ahead MTL. There was a high possibility for a Montreal Screwjob hockeywise.

It's a rule.

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

I understand the logic.....

its an unfair advantage to a team that had more home games. so to even it out you need the extra home game. They decided to say the first one doesnt count they could have said the second one doesnt.

But it doesn't make sense to compensate for an unfair advantage by penalizing the team that was disadvantaged.

A simple solution would be to throw away the extra home game where the home team earned the most points, or just not throw away any games if the team that played fewer home games had more points anyways.

 

[Djp]

But it doesn't make sense to compensate for an unfair advantage by penalizing the team that was disadvantaged.

A simple solution would be to throw away the extra home game where the home team earned the fewest points, or just not throw away any games if the team that played fewer home games had more points anyways.

it had nothing to do with results

schedule
team A at Team B (does not count in tiebreaker)
team A at team B
team B at team A

to throw out the game where the home team got the fewest points is biased.

a fair system is deciding a rule before any results happen. If you dont you run into a rabbit hole of team A didnt have star player in the second home game so that shouldnt count.

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

Throwing out 1/3 of the games because they were played first isn't fair, it's arbitrary.

 

[tony d]

Not sure I like this eithr. To me all the games should count towards who wins the tiebreaker.

 

[kladorf2005]

Throwing out 1/3 of the games because they were played first isn't fair, it's arbitrary.

It's not entirely arbitrary. The idea is to put more weight (if needed) on the more recent games. I care more about how my team is playing in March than they were in October.

Obviously there are going to be examples to counteract that argument. Injuries to key players being the most obvious one. But honing in on dropping a road victory (possibly in October) is hardly a reason to deem the rule unfair.

It'd be much more unfair to look at the results before deciding which game to throw out as you suggest. The team with the extra home game gets to drop their worst result? Step back and think about that one and tell me that's fair.

 

[Muffin]

I know playoff matchups are set but I had a look at the NHL's third tiebreaker rule after ROW and it seems to be fairly nonsensical:

"The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any "odd" games, shall be used to determine the standing."

At first I read this as 'if the two clubs are tied in points earned head-to-head', otherwise the qualifier is redundant in a tiebreaker rule. Apparently you are meant to read this as dropping the first home game of any season series with an odd number of games. Okay, so imagine this scenario:

Team A wins in regulation on the road (team B home).
Team B wins in regulation on the road (team A home).
Team A wins in overtime on the road (team B home).

If you just go with head-to-head points, Team A gets in with 4 points versus 3.

If you follow what seems to be the accepted interpretation of NHL rules, team B had two home games - both losses - so to mitigate home ice advantage, you drop the first game, and team B gets in with 3 points vs 2 thanks to the ovetime loser point. You get the same result if you switch the arenas for the last two games.

Say what? How does that make any sense? Why do teams get to drop home losses? Am I misunderstanding something?

Literally happened to Colorado/Arizona this season and it could've played a part in who made the playoffs. Luckily it didn't.

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

It's not entirely arbitrary. The idea is to put more weight (if needed) on the more recent games. I care more about how my team is playing in March than they were in October.

Obviously there are going to be examples to counteract that argument. Injuries to key players being the most obvious one. But honing in on dropping a road victory (possibly in October) is hardly a reason to deem the rule unfair.

It'd be much more unfair to look at the results before deciding which game to throw out as you suggest. The team with the extra home game gets to drop their worst result? Step back and think about that one and tell me that's fair.

Why should recency matter? It doesn't anywhere else. Besides, the first of the three games could have been in January or February, not October.

I should have said 'most points', not fewest. If home ice advantage is such an advantage that it's worth throwing out games over, then it doesn't make sense to throw out games where the opposing team overcame the advantage. The team with extra home games shouldn't get to drop a loss.

Any system that can declare a series winner to be a team with a losing record can't possibly be considered fair.

 

[Golden Puppers]

Who cares...this is past being pedantic.

I see what you're saying, the implication in removing that 1st home game is to protect the away team from some unfair advantage. But you want to only exclude that game if the home team actually wins it? That's even worse than the flaw you pointed out.

has a team ever actually missed out of the playoffs because of this tiebreaker? Has a team lost a spot in the playoff standings because of it? legitimately asking

 

[kladorf2005]

Why should recency matter? It doesn't anywhere else. Besides, the first of the three games could have been in January or February, not October.

I should have said 'most points', not fewest. If home ice advantage is such an advantage that it's worth throwing out games over, then it doesn't make sense to throw out games where the opposing team overcame the advantage. The team with extra home games shouldn't get to drop a loss.

Any system that can declare a series winner to be a team with a losing record can't possibly be considered fair.

Recency matters in college sports:

• Team A started 0-10, then went 10-0
• Team B started 10-0, then went 0-10
• Everyone and their mother would rank Team A ahead of Team B after 20 games (assuming similar schedules)

And no one would have any issue with Team A making the playoffs over Team B in that scenario. I realize it's much more extreme, but it illustrates the point.

Again, your proposal is so much less fair than the actual rule. Why should the team with the extra home game, gain the advantage of throwing out their least favorable result?

 

[Djp]

Throwing out 1/3 of the games because they were played first isn't fair, it's arbitrary.

The issue is home ice matters due to line matchups so it’s competivrly unfair if one team plays at home more than the other

In the nfl because teams generally pkay only once that head to head is the first tiebreaker. But in football you don’t have a home field advantage like road team puts pkayers in field thrn home team can match...in the nfl that would be a big advantage to the home team to create matchups.

To balance it out they say first game doesn’t matter. Yes it’s arbitrary where they could have said the last gamedoesnt count. The reason was they tend to play

better later in the season. Yes players could be injured but that’s luck.

 

[WATTAGE4451]

The issue is home ice matters due to line matchups so it’s competivrly unfair if one team plays at home more than the other

In the nfl because teams generally pkay only once that head to head is the first tiebreaker. But in football you don’t have a home field advantage like road team puts pkayers in field thrn home team can match...in the nfl that would be a big advantage to the home team to create matchups.

To balance it out they say first game doesn’t matter. Yes it’s arbitrary where they could have said the last gamedoesnt count. The reason was they tend to play

better later in the season. Yes players could be injured but that’s luck.

The home ice thing is slightly overrated. They should just count all the games played pdd number or not. Thats how they do head to head tiebreakers in all other sports. While football is only one game played, the same system is used for baseball

 

[Djp]

The home ice thing is slightly overrated. They should just count all the games played pdd number or not. Thats how they do head to head tiebreakers in all other sports. While football is only one game played, the same system is used for baseball

home field doesnt have an advantage in Baseball.

switch the rules--road team has final change and see what happens...