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

[supsens]

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.

If you make it the entire seaseon without loosing in regulation you deserve more points. If your playing against your own confrence or division you will not want the other team getting 4 points, zero risks will be taken

 

[Machinehead]

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?

No, but 1999-00 is six years before the shootout.

The mental gymnastics we go through to somehow connect the loser point to the shootout to make it not a loser point are astounding.

 

[SotasicA]

An OT/shootout win should only get you maybe 1.1 pts. So to only act as a tiebreaker in the standings. 2pts is way too much and makes teams play conservative to just get to OT.

 

[goeb]

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)

I fully agree with this.

All the records in today's NHL look embellished. I can't tell what a .500 team looks like anymore because all wins are treated equally when looking at the win column, but all losses are not.

I feel like the extra point is deceptive at times. I can't say that I love hockey games that end in ties either, but it is better than having a so called "Winner"determined in pond hockey or a skills competition which doesn't even test the depth of a team's roster.

I think 5 on 5 hockey for 10 minutes followed by a 5-minute 4 on 4 OT would be preferred. Winner gets 2 points, loser gets none. If no goal is score din OT, then it is a tie. Not an ideal solution but it does feel logical and follows the integrity of the game.

 

[Cor]

Here's current playoff standings with the loser point, versus without: The East there is a decent amount of movement. In the West, no real movement, but the Wildcard race becomes just Arizona on the outside looking in. COL, CHI, EDM, VAN all fall right out due to their loss of loser points.

Atlantic
1. Tampa Bay 104 // Tampa Bay 100
2. Boston 87 // Toronto 80
3. Toronto 84 // Boston 78

Metro
1. Islanders 81 // Islanders 74
2. Washington 81 // Washington 74
3. Carolina 78 // Columbus 72

Wildcard:
1. Pittsburgh 77 // Carolina 72
2. Montreal 77 // Montreal 70
----------------------------------------
3. Columbus 75 // Pittsburgh 68

Central
1. Winnipeg 80 // Winnipeg 76
2. Nashville 79 // Nashville 74
3. St Louis 74 // St Louis 68

Pacific
1. Calgary 89 // Calgary 82
2. San Jose 84 // San Jose 76
3. Vegas 75 // Vegas 70

Wildcard:
1. Dallas 71 // Dallas 66
2. Minnesota 70 // Minnesota 64
----------------------------------------
3. Arizona 68 // Arizona 64
4. Colorado 67 // Colorado 56

 

[Clamshells]

Every team has to play within the same points system, so no matter how it is set up, everyone has the same opportunities to get points.

"But if favours teams who do ______!" Well yeah, if certain teams are able to build and coach their team to maximize points, then hell yeah, they earned it. Too bad for your team for not doing the same. (I say this as a Sens fan whos team seems to do the polar opposite. )

If you're swimming against the current and say "I would have done better if the river was going the other way" you deserve no sympathy.

There is nothing wrong with the 2-1-0 points system.

 

[sting101]

I dont know why every game doesn't have the same value., That is my issue with the point system. Should be 3pts up for grabs any way you slice it.

Unrelated....If you really want to influence the way the game is coached and played go to a 3pts for 4 goal regulation win. When coaches start getting fired for being too conservative instead of rewarded for it by the current system then you will have more entertaining exciting hockey.

 

[Finnish your Czech]

Every team has to play within the same points system, so no matter how it is set up, everyone has the same opportunities to get points.

"But if favours teams who do ______!" Well yeah, if certain teams are able to build and coach their team to maximize points, then hell yeah, they earned it. Too bad for your team for not doing the same. (I say this as a Sens fan whos team seems to do the polar opposite. )

If you're swimming against the current and say "I would have done better if the river was going the other way" you deserve no sympathy.

There is nothing wrong with the 2-1-0 points system.

Except the "________" in this situation is "play defensively/conservatively" which I think most people find less fun.

 

[Individual 1]

Except the "________" in this situation is "play defensively/conservatively" which I think most people find less fun.

Are there numbers that back up defensive/conservative teams are benefiting from the extra point to a noticeably greater extent than offensive/riskier teams?

 

[Kamina]

I remember during the Hamburglar run the Sens went 14-0-1 to make up 14 points in the standings.

Without loser points that's only about 7 games behind. Maybe a team would only need to go on a 11-4 run to make up that gap. Instead it has to be some godlike once-in-a-lifetime thing.

Maybe that would put too much emphasis on 3-on-3 OT, so 3-2-1-0 is the best way. Honestly I would be okay with 2-1-0 too. ROW, OT/SO win, L. No points for a loss. f*** that ish.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

According to Pat Foley and the NHL, the last-place in the Central Blackhawks are a mere two games under .500.

In reality, they're eleven games under .500 but it just took a bit longer than regulation for them to lose nine of their games.

The loser point is just point inflation to give all teams a boost to their record and all in all makes playoff races more static than they would be as regaining lost ground is more difficult.

 

[Clamshells]

Except the "________" in this situation is "play defensively/conservatively" which I think most people find less fun.

Changing the points system won't change defense first mentality across the league.

Chasing a 3 point win while leaving yourself vulnerable to a 0 point loss is not a good way to make up points in the standings. Teams will always take the guaranteed point first.

And by changing to a win/loss only system, it is fundamentally changing the structure of the league and breaking the continuity across the last 100 years.

I remember during the Hamburglar run the Sens went 14-0-1 to make up 14 points in the standings.

Without loser points that's only about 7 games behind. Maybe a team would only need to go on a 11-4 run to make up that gap. Instead it has to be some godlike once-in-a-lifetime thing.

Maybe that would put too much emphasis on 3-on-3 OT, so 3-2-1-0 is the best way. Honestly I would be okay with 2-1-0 too. ROW, OT/SO win, L. No points for a loss. **** that ish.

In a different points system, the Sens wouldn't have been 14 points out that year, they would have been like 20 points out in a 2 pt win - 0 pt loss system. The scale of difficulty to reclaim those points wouldn't change, just the total number at which they have to earn.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

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

Not true. Overtimes used to be 5 on 5 and the losing team got 0.

Once it went to 4 on 4 teams started keeping their point earned for finishing regulation time tied.

 

[Windy River]

The more I’ve seen all the reasoning and debates on this topic, the more I’m in favour of games just ending in ties at the end of regulation. And only having OT in the playoffs as it is.

 

[BruinLVGA]

This old chestnut again. It's been roasted so many times that it's a pile of dust now.
The correct answer to this "dilemma" was, is and will always be the 3-2-1-0 system. It's been in use in the whole world (but for NA...) for team sports for over two decades now: it works much better than the old one.
The NHL should just get on with the times and adopt that. Problem solved.

 

[Garbage Goal]

I used to argue my side of the never ending OT/tie-breaking system. Then I realized it’s a never ending debate with no ideal solution and, in the end, over half the teams make the playoffs so you probably don’t deserve to make them if loser points make or break it.

The standings system definitely needs work though, this one is atrocious. There’s a good chance the three best teams in the East have to face one another by the second round.

 

[Dead Thing]

Although I am old enough to remember that ties(at the end of a regulation 60 minute game) were a perfectly legitimate result, I realize that we will never give up the OT/SO in todays game. My major complaint with the present system(and I don't care if you call it winner, loser or bonus point) is that a team that fails to win in regulation, overtime or the shootout gains a point in the standings. They lost-so why are they reaping a benefit????

My solution is as follows:

Winner in regulation: 3 pts/loser 0 pts.
Winner in overtime: 2 pts/loser 0 pts.
Winner in shootout: 1 pt. /loser o pts.

This system will ensure that teams will play hard for the full 60 minutes of regulation rather than kitty bar the door protecting their 1 pt. and hoping for the bonus pt. It will also eliminate some teams actually playing for the shootout, believing that their skill players are better than the other teams' skill players. It doesn't take a genius to realize that 3 pts is better than 2 let alone 1.

 

[Shaman464]

Easiest way to deal with this is abolish the point system and use winning percentage to rank teams.

 

[Shaman464]

Although I am old enough to remember that ties(at the end of a regulation 60 minute game) were a perfectly legitimate result, I realize that we will never give up the OT/SO in todays game. My major complaint with the present system(and I don't care if you call it winner, loser or bonus point) is that a team that fails to win in regulation, overtime or the shootout gains a point in the standings. They lost-so why are they reaping a benefit????

My solution is as follows:

Winner in regulation: 3 pts/loser 0 pts.
Winner in overtime: 2 pts/loser 0 pts.
Winner in shootout: 1 pt. /loser o pts.

This system will ensure that teams will play hard for the full 60 minutes of regulation rather than kitty bar the door protecting their 1 pt. and hoping for the bonus pt. It will also eliminate some teams actually playing for the shootout, believing that their skill players are better than the other teams' skill players. It doesn't take a genius to realize that 3 pts is better than 2 let alone 1.

A win is a win. Points muddle that. Winning percentage gets rid of complicated point calculus and allows the best teams to have the highest seeds.

 

[Shaman464]

Although I am old enough to remember that ties(at the end of a regulation 60 minute game) were a perfectly legitimate result, I realize that we will never give up the OT/SO in todays game. My major complaint with the present system(and I don't care if you call it winner, loser or bonus point) is that a team that fails to win in regulation, overtime or the shootout gains a point in the standings. They lost-so why are they reaping a benefit????

My solution is as follows:

Winner in regulation: 3 pts/loser 0 pts.
Winner in overtime: 2 pts/loser 0 pts.
Winner in shootout: 1 pt. /loser o pts.

This system will ensure that teams will play hard for the full 60 minutes of regulation rather than kitty bar the door protecting their 1 pt. and hoping for the bonus pt. It will also eliminate some teams actually playing for the shootout, believing that their skill players are better than the other teams' skill players. It doesn't take a genius to realize that 3 pts is better than 2 let alone 1.

The problem with this system (using an absurd example) is that a team with a perfect record (82-0-0) that won 82 games in the shootout would finish below a team that went 28-54.