mythbusting... the 'loser point' and chasing the playoffs

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

so weve all heard someone complain why does the nhl award loser points for reaching the end of regulation play tied but then losing overtime? and weve heard everyone and their dog say how hard it makes it for a team to catch up a playoff spot when they trail

hell we may even have bought into this complaint ourselves..

but... what is the truth?

so once upon a time {yes I am that old} the nhl used to have tie games. it was mostly for tv. the ratings are not popular enough on most tv to warrant running over into the news broadcast in local markets. it was extremely important to have the game over within its 3 hour tv block.

but ties suck.

when teams tied both teams got a point... this was the way it was for like 80ish years... it was tradition

ties suck… so the league wanted to introduce overtime for the fans. the problem is the ot needed to be done within the 3 hour tv window. it couldn't be sudden death. there had to be someway to finish the game in the allowed time.

so the shootout was invented. it was done for the fun of the fans. but, it couldn't really TAKE AWAY THE POINT THAT WAS FAIRLY WON UNDER THE HISTORICAL RULES OF THE NHL.

the new point that is awarded is NOT a 'loser point' but rather the new point is a reward to teams that can win in ot/shootouts

now... lets look at the myth that 3 point games reward a team that is clinging to a playoff spot and stops the 9th place team from catching them... that is the bill of goods we are being sold...

so for example, I just saw on hockey central that tampa is a league best 6-1 in shootouts this year. that means they have 6 extra points. but no one is trying to catch them.

the teams that are trying to catch a playoff spot are 9th place teams
Columbus is currently 9th in east... Pittsburgh in 8th has 1 more shootout point than Columbus has

in the west Colorado and minny are tied for 8th... both have 1 shootout point... Arizona is chasing and has 4 shootout points

the three point game is actually keeping Arizona closer to the playoffs... they are benefitting more than the teams ahead of them

the REAL REASON teams have a hard time catching the clubs above them is that THE CLUBS ABOVE THEM ARE BETTER!!!

saying that three point games make it hard to catch anyone is total crap. good teams win games and collect points. even under the old system.

if you look at the standings you will find some top teams with good ot records... and some bad teams... theres no rhyme or reason. the system doesn't favor 1 type of team getting the extra points.

ot is a skill competition... bad teams have every bit as much chance of getting extra points if they go out and get themselves some shootout specialists. its not real hockey.

if anything... the ot extra point makes it more possible for CRAPPY TEAMS THAT CANT PLAY REAL HOCKEY to get competitive.

but ultimately, only 8 teams make the playoffs... the teams deserve to be there. under this new point system or the old one... the best teams will still get the best results in regulation and that tie point was ALWAYS AWARDED

Click to read more...

 

[Gobben]

It is not about any of those things.

The point was also - as far as I can understand - NOT given for an overtime loss until 1999. In other words, the NHL actually did take away points compared to before the reintroduction of overtime.

The real argument is this. If you play 82 games and win 50 % and lose the rest in regular time, you will get 82 points. If you do the same once you have hit overtime, you will get 123.

Any coach with even a tiny bit of brain understands that it is better to have a larger number - I mean it is Sesame street level.

As a result, we will see defensive hockey.

Increasing the number of points for a win will have effects on game plans. Here is an example. In a system with 4 points for a win, and 1 point for a tie, the team that wins 50 % and loses 50 % will have 164 points, and the team that ties all matches will have 82. Such a system will automatically lead to game plans with a higher variance.

So, it is meaningless to just convert one table to another, because another system can create hockey with more goals.

 

[Just Linda]

Yeah, people know that the loser point isn't actually a loser point, they aren't happy about it because it makes mediocre teams look better. The reward exists for playing more conservative hockey whereas without it, teams would feel more compelled to play to win.

 

[ole ole]

It is not about any of those things.

The point was also - as far as I can understand - NOT given for an overtime loss until 1999. In other words, the NHL actually did take away points compared to before the reintroduction of overtime.
.

A point was always given to the losing team in OT.

 

[Gobben]

A point was always given to the losing team in OT.

So I am quoting from wiki.

"A team losing in overtime would get no points. This rule remained in effect until the 1999–2000 season, where a team losing in overtime was awarded 1 point. "

This is from the 1983–84 NHL season - Wikipedia

Is wiki wrong?

 

[txpd]

As a result, we will see defensive hockey.

Increasing the number of points for a win will have effects on game plans. Here is an example. In a system with 4 points for a win, and 1 point for a tie.

You think that making a divisional/conference game an 8pt swing is going to discourage defense first hockey? OMG....

 

[ole ole]

So I am quoting from wiki.

"A team losing in overtime would get no points. This rule remained in effect until the 1999–2000 season, where a team losing in overtime was awarded 1 point. "

This is from the 1983–84 NHL season - Wikipedia

Is wiki wrong?

Ya it's right. My bad.

 

[Gobben]

You think that making a divisional/conference game an 8pt swing is going to discourage defense first hockey? OMG....

No I don't. Perhaps you can quote something where I have said that?

I have - of course - a real answer to your question, and I am happy to tell you, if you can perhaps describe the situation as such.

 

[SladeWilson23]

I've been saying this all along. The problem is not the regulation tie point that screws everything up. It's the way the records get displayed and what we call a win and a loss. Winning in OT or shootouts is NOT a true win.

OT in today's NHL is NOT to determine a winner or loser. OT is nothing more than just a bonus round to give one team one extra point for being successful in OT and or the shootout. Any team that wins in the 3 on 3 OT or shootout didn't actually "beat" their opponent.

My solution is to display only the regulation record in tv graphics, and then show the OT records separately in parenthesis or something, or just show the number of OT/SO wins in parenthesis.

For example, the Devils record would look like this......

21-32-12 (4-8)

OR

21-32-12 (+4)

 

[Anglesmith]

So I am quoting from wiki.

"A team losing in overtime would get no points. This rule remained in effect until the 1999–2000 season, where a team losing in overtime was awarded 1 point. "

This is from the 1983–84 NHL season - Wikipedia

Is wiki wrong?

You are correct. This prior form of overtime was 5-on-5.

 

[txpd]

No I don't. Perhaps you can quote something where I have said that?

I have - of course - a real answer to your question, and I am happy to tell you, if you can perhaps describe the situation as such.

You said that increasing points for a win will change game plans. That's true. Unless I read you wrong, you believe the change will be toward more aggressive attempts to win rather than defense first.

Did I get that wrong?

 

[Gobben]

You said that increasing points for a win will change game plans. That's true. Unless I read you wrong, you believe the change will be toward more aggressive attempts to win rather than defense first.

Did I get that wrong?

So all your emojis turn out to be, That's true.

When you actually find something to disagree about, feel free to write.

 

[Hire Sather]

We have no idea how games would be played if the point system was different.

You cannot dimply just start altering records and saying if this if that.

If the rules are different, everything is different.

 

[stampedingviking]

so weve all heard someone complain why does the nhl award loser points for reaching the end of regulation play tied but then losing overtime? and weve heard everyone and their dog say how hard it makes it for a team to catch up a playoff spot when they trail

hell we may even have bought into this complaint ourselves..

but... what is the truth?

so once upon a time {yes I am that old} the nhl used to have tie games. it was mostly for tv. the ratings are not popular enough on most tv to warrant running over into the news broadcast in local markets. it was extremely important to have the game over within its 3 hour tv block.

but ties suck.

when teams tied both teams got a point... this was the way it was for like 80ish years... it was tradition

ties suck… so the league wanted to introduce overtime for the fans. the problem is the ot needed to be done within the 3 hour tv window. it couldn't be sudden death. there had to be someway to finish the game in the allowed time.

so the shootout was invented. it was done for the fun of the fans. but, it couldn't really TAKE AWAY THE POINT THAT WAS FAIRLY WON UNDER THE HISTORICAL RULES OF THE NHL.

the new point that is awarded is NOT a 'loser point' but rather the new point is a reward to teams that can win in ot/shootouts

now... lets look at the myth that 3 point games reward a team that is clinging to a playoff spot and stops the 9th place team from catching them... that is the bill of goods we are being sold...

so for example, I just saw on hockey central that tampa is a league best 6-1 in shootouts this year. that means they have 6 extra points. but no one is trying to catch them.

the teams that are trying to catch a playoff spot are 9th place teams
Columbus is currently 9th in east... Pittsburgh in 8th has 1 more shootout point than Columbus has

in the west Colorado and minny are tied for 8th... both have 1 shootout point... Arizona is chasing and has 4 shootout points

the three point game is actually keeping Arizona closer to the playoffs... they are benefitting more than the teams ahead of them

the REAL REASON teams have a hard time catching the clubs above them is that THE CLUBS ABOVE THEM ARE BETTER!!!

saying that three point games make it hard to catch anyone is total crap. good teams win games and collect points. even under the old system.

if you look at the standings you will find some top teams with good ot records... and some bad teams... theres no rhyme or reason. the system doesn't favor 1 type of team getting the extra points.

ot is a skill competition... bad teams have every bit as much chance of getting extra points if they go out and get themselves some shootout specialists. its not real hockey.

if anything... the ot extra point makes it more possible for CRAPPY TEAMS THAT CANT PLAY REAL HOCKEY to get competitive.

but ultimately, only 8 teams make the playoffs... the teams deserve to be there. under this new point system or the old one... the best teams will still get the best results in regulation and that tie point was ALWAYS AWARDED

You keep saying ties suck, but why? It's a legitimate outcome of a game.

 

[Video Nasty]

It’s all designed to give the facade that 25 or so teams are in the race until the final couple of weeks.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

You keep saying ties suck, but why? It's a legitimate outcome of a game.

personally im fine with ties... I also don't mind second place in a 30 person race

but most people say ties are like kissing your sister. theres a strong bias against ties in sports

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

It is not about any of those things.

The point was also - as far as I can understand - NOT given for an overtime loss until 1999. In other words, the NHL actually did take away points compared to before the reintroduction of overtime.

The real argument is this. If you play 82 games and win 50 % and lose the rest in regular time, you will get 82 points. If you do the same once you have hit overtime, you will get 123.

Any coach with even a tiny bit of brain understands that it is better to have a larger number - I mean it is Sesame street level.

As a result, we will see defensive hockey.

Increasing the number of points for a win will have effects on game plans. Here is an example. In a system with 4 points for a win, and 1 point for a tie, the team that wins 50 % and loses 50 % will have 164 points, and the team that ties all matches will have 82. Such a system will automatically lead to game plans with a higher variance.

So, it is meaningless to just convert one table to another, because another system can create hockey with more goals.

I guess the points stayed 2 if the game was decided in a regular style of play... even in ot…
is no decision was reached in ot both teams still got the point

so this wasn't what im talking about at all... right?

its when they decided that a circuis skill event would decide games that the point system was changed. until that point games that stayed tied until the end of play awared each team 1 point. if you reached the end of 5-0n-5 hockey and were tied you got a point

then they decided no more ties... shootout will end the game... and then they further changed things with 3-0n-3

at this point the way they end games has very little to do with traditional hockey or the point being awarded for ending the game tie scored

 

[Sega Dreamcast]

ties suck… so the league wanted to introduce overtime for the fans. the problem is the ot needed to be done within the 3 hour tv window. it couldn't be sudden death. there had to be someway to finish the game in the allowed time.

so the shootout was invented.

You skipped the almost 25 year period where there was overtime but no shootout.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

You skipped the almost 25 year period where there was overtime but no shootout.

no... those games were played under the same rules as regulation... and they still often finished in ties. if those games finished in ties the points awared were still 1 and 1

its when they decided all games had to have a 'winner' and they decided to use artificial means to determin that winner is when the 'controversy' started and people coined the term 'loser point'

that other 25 year period you mention has zero relevance for my argument... didn't skip it, just wasn't relevent

 

[Semantics]

There's no such thing as a loser point. The teams both get a point for the tie, then a bonus point is awarded. It's a "winner point" if anything.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

The biggest myth of them all is that a lot of teams just defend to get a point. Does it happen sometimes? Im sure it does in certain situations. But no one plays the game to just get a point. Sitting back and defending, being afraid of making mistakes happens in elimination games as well. There's a game in the game itself that happens and often the game just changes in the 3rd period when you get closer to the end, it's just human nature to be more careful when you've gotten that far in the game tied and you don't want to let it slip away.

What comes to the OT/SO winner point, it is sort of unfair system not because of the principle of giving an extra point to the winner, but because points are needed to make the playoffs - where there is literally no 3on3 or shootouts. It's like you're going to a singing competition where they're trying to find a pop singer and you advance because you can rap as well.

But i understand everything can't be perfect. It's a business and there's a lot of things involved. I don't care if they have just ties or OT/SO's but i can see why a fan who pays good money to go to a game would get pissed off.

 

[Akustiikka]

There is nothing wrong with loser getting 1 point in ot, but the European system, where winner in regulation time gets 3, winner in ot gets 2, and loser in ot gets 1, is much better. NHL system discourage teams to look for the win in regulation time. And it also oddly gives this extra point to share. If you think about it, most of time it would actually be in both teams interest to not try to win it at all in regulation time, but just wait for the time to pass, and settle it in ot.

 

[JeremyTB]

If you take away the loser point you have to go back to 5 on 5 ot. People say it's unfair to get a point for losing the game but they may not lose that game if it was played like regulation. It would be more unfair to get nothing, all because of 3 on 3 or 4 on 4 which was not the way the game was played for the 1st 60 minutes.

 

[Jackson14]

You keep saying ties suck, but why? It's a legitimate outcome of a game.

There is nothing more anticlimactic than a tie. If you have a big regular season game against a rival, let's say you're close in the standings, if it's a tie it's like you might as well have not played at all. Nothing was proven, nothing changed, just a big waste of time.

Now I also hate the shootout and understand that regular season games can't go on forever so it puts the NHL in a tough spot. The format right now with 3-3 before a shootout isn't perfect but a lot more games are ending before they get to a shootout, which is a bonus, and it eliminates the threat of a double-triple overtime regular season game, which would be bound to happen eventually even with 3 on 3 play.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

My opinion...either go back to ties or institute playoff style continuous overtime during the regular season and let teams and coaches decide on playing strategies that will ultimately determine a winner.

Take the gimmickry out of the game and replace it with strong hockey play and strong coaching choices.