The mirage of the loser point, a false dichotomy

[Bench]

I was wondering how long it would take to get this explanation.

It reminds me of the argument that when you finish last in the standings, you are given the #4 pick and you don't actually move down when you get leapfrogged in the draft.

That said, @TheOtherOne made a really great response that went beyond the surface level arguments we usually see. Love to see it.

 

[GMR]

Because I think growing the sport is more important than clinging to "that's the way we've done it before".

Hockey is best when teams try to win, not when they hang back and try not to lose. So remove any incentive to conservative play from the end of regulation onwards. If you'd prefer another means to the same end, that's fine by me. But the NHL needs to stop shooting themselves in the foot, and force teams to showcase what talent and creativity they have, particularly on offense.

At the end of a season, nobody is going to remember who won a game in February and how they did it. But pushing teams towards the up tempo end of the spectrum will draw more fans and generate more revenue.

Teams don't play conservatively, though, on the 3 on 3. Every time I see one, there's plenty of chances. If you get rid of the loser point, teams will play more conservative on the 3 on 3. How does that promote your argument?

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I was wondering how long it would take to get this explanation.

As if it's somehow better that a professional sports league hands out points before the game is over. No matter what mental gymnastics you use, the reality is the team with a recorded loss comes away with a point. There is no tie column on the NHL standings. Only wins, losses and OT/shootout losses.

So a team gets a recorded loss, but also gets a point. Loser point.

And the owners are unlikely to change it because of the false parity it creates. Games are meaningful later into the season as more teams are on the playoff bubble, so tickets sales and viewership will likely also be better.

Ok? And the problem with that is.... what, exactly?

How exactly does this create false parity, when you compare it to the old sudden death OT and tie?

Many of the “loser point” games you bitch about would be ties under the old system. So each team gets a point... exactly like the current rules. You’re basically taking points away from the better teams in the league by subscribing to ties. On a game-in, game-out basis, the better team is usually going to win an OT game in the current stage. Back in the 90s, the better team that could control the flow of the game would muddy it up and hold on to ensure themselves a point.

This is an old man shaking his fist at cloud “problem”. Loser points are a total nonissue, like TheOtherOne’s chart said.

 

[jkutswings]

Teams don't play conservatively, though, on the 3 on 3. Every time I see one, there's plenty of chances. If you get rid of the loser point, teams will play more conservative on the 3 on 3. How does that promote your argument?

That's a relative statement, though. My point was to avoid stagnant play. If 3v3 with the loser point is 9/10 on "the aggressive scale", and 3v3 without it is 7 or 8 out of 10...then all the previous iterations were in the 2 to 4 out of 10 range.

But there's lots of ways to force teams to hit the gas, whether within a given game or with the overall effort of the franchise. My personal favorite would be to adopt the relegation from European soccer, where the worst team in the standings gets dropped to a tier of lower competition (and more importantly, revenue). But I don't think the owners would ever have the intestinal fortitude to adopt that degree of accountability.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Ok? And the problem with that is.... what, exactly?

How exactly does this create false parity, when you compare it to the old sudden death OT and tie?

Many of the “loser point” games you bitch about would be ties under the old system. So each team gets a point... exactly like the current rules. You’re basically taking points away from the better teams in the league by subscribing to ties. On a game-in, game-out basis, the better team is usually going to win an OT game in the current stage. Back in the 90s, the better team that could control the flow of the game would muddy it up and hold on to ensure themselves a point.

This is an old man shaking his fist at cloud “problem”. Loser points are a total nonissue, like TheOtherOne’s chart said.

I'm the one shaking my fist at a cloud? You're the one who sounds angry. I wasn't bitching about anything. Just discussing it.

One problem with your reasoning is assuming that whoever wins the shootout, or even 3 on 3, is the better team. But the bigger problem is that it encourages teams to hang on for dear life to get the loser point, then see if they can pick up the second point in a stripped down version of hockey or a gimmick. In trying to get teams to play less conservatively in the 3rd period the league actually gave them even more incentive to do so. A mediocre team has a better chance at trying not to lose in regulation than they do outright winning it.

Also doesn't it seem like in a pro sports league, the number of points available in each game should be the same?

Even in the OtherOne's chart, there's several teams flipping places. I think the Islanders dropped out of a playoffs spot (in a normal season). Not too long ago there were a couple seasons where the Wings would've had an easier first round opponent if they were able to win a friggin shootout. And that chart is also based on the assumption that all games would have the same result in a tie system as they would in one with the OT/shootout and loser point.

I prefer a simpler system where if you win the game playing hockey you get 2 points. If you lose the game you get zero.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I'm the one shaking my fist at a cloud? You're the one who sounds angry. I wasn't bitching about anything. Just discussing it.

One problem with your reasoning is assuming that whoever wins the shootout, or even 3 on 3, is the better team. But the bigger problem is that it encourages teams to hang on for dear life to get the loser point, then see if they can pick up the second point in a stripped down version of hockey or a gimmick. In trying to get teams to play less conservatively in the 3rd period the league actually gave them even more incentive to do so. A mediocre team has a better chance at trying not to lose in regulation than they do outright winning it.

Also doesn't it seem like in a pro sports league, the number of points available in each game should be the same?

Even in the OtherOne's chart, there's several teams flipping places. I think the Islanders dropped out of a playoffs spot (in a normal season). Not too long ago there were a couple seasons where the Wings would've had an easier first round opponent if they were able to win a friggin shootout. And that chart is also based on the assumption that all games would have the same result in a tie system as they would in one with the OT/shootout and loser point.

I prefer a simpler system where if you win the game playing hockey you get 2 points. If you lose the game you get zero.

It does flip teams around a few places, absolutely.

The current system starts with whatever ranking teams would have had under a W/L/T system, then gives some teams a small bonus for being really good at OTs and SOs. The bonus usually amounts to a bump of a couple spots maximum.

If you don't like that, then I have no argument with you. That's a valid opinion to have. All I'm saying is that's what the system is designed to do, and it does it. Personally I think it's fine because I like that it eliminates ties, and I like that a team can get only a minor boost from the somewhat gimmicky "endings" that give us satisfying conclusions.

Frankly I see it as an elegant compromise.

 

[MBH]

Loser point not only ruins the standards.
It ruins the way hockey is played - in two ways.

1) Coaches, already conservative, gravitate toward low-event hockey. Why?
Low-event hockey means it's more likely you can tie a superior opponent 1-1 or 2-2, and get to OT and get a point. If you start run and gunning it, you're gonna get your doors blown off, 7-4 and shit like that.
3) The last 4-5 minutes of a game, coaches might take team's foot off the gas in a tie game. Why risk your point?

 

[odin1981]

Loser point not only ruins the standards.
It ruins the way hockey is played - in two ways.

1) Coaches, already conservative, gravitate toward low-event hockey. Why?
Low-event hockey means it's more likely you can tie a superior opponent 1-1 or 2-2, and get to OT and get a point. If you start run and gunning it, you're gonna get your doors blown off, 7-4 and shit like that.
3) The last 4-5 minutes of a game, coaches might take team's foot off the gas in a tie game. Why risk your point?

Yep, playing not to lose, rather than trying to win.

 

[Mlotek]

Since all games now have win/loss outcome, winning percentage should replace points.

That's still not a fair as some games are worth 3 points and others 2.

In my opinion, 3 point games are the way to go.

3 - Regulation win
2 - OT/SO win
1 - OT/SO loss
0 - Regulation loss

That way every game is worth same number of points. If I recall correctly, IIHF uses that for group stage anyhow.

 

[Winger98]

Yep, playing not to lose, rather than trying to win.

I don't think you're going to get rid of that regardless of the system you choose. Well, maybe if they did away with OT entirely and just gave no one a point unless there was a winner. I'm not even sure how much blame goes on coaches. It's not like the players aren't aware of how much time is on the clock and what is at stake if they cough up a goal late. I'm betting a lot of players just naturally play a bit more conservative at moments where their mistakes can be magnified.

 

[Reno]

I propose giving teams tied at the end of the second period a half point.

 

[odin1981]

I don't think you're going to get rid of that regardless of the system you choose. Well, maybe if they did away with OT entirely and just gave no one a point unless there was a winner. I'm not even sure how much blame goes on coaches. It's not like the players aren't aware of how much time is on the clock and what is at stake if they cough up a goal late. I'm betting a lot of players just naturally play a bit more conservative at moments where their mistakes can be magnified.

With ties only giving one point but regulation wins being the sole tie breaker unless a tie in RW's. It would force teams to proactively try to score/win instead of being 5-10 minutes out of the third period and both teams just locking it down for a point a piece at bare minimum.

The second tiebreaker could be OT victories. That way they only way you get edge's is winning game's. Ties aren't a bad thing, and you get a point. But it isn't a reward. And it is much better than the stupid notion of rewarding otl's.

 

[Ghost of Ethan Hunt]

Oh, so now we're just gonna pretend it's "dicotomy" & not dichotomy (rolls eyes).

 

[odin1981]

Oh, so now we're just gonna pretend it's "dicotomy" & not dichotomy (rolls eyes).

Happy?

 

[Ghost of Ethan Hunt]

Happy?

I was initially joking, really. It's 3:30am here, so I'm crackin myself up. 22 days til puck drop. 5 more days til 1st camps open. I'll be relieved when they're awarding the cup to TBL/NYI/NYR. Even SJ (Joe's elusive cup)/WSH (Ovi/Backstrom/Kuzy/Carlson Cup 2.0, could win. STL vs. TBL/BOS. Bolts in 7.

 

[kliq]

I think most people just don't like ties, especially folks who aren't actual fans and watch the game flipping through channels or whatever. They don't like investing 3 hours watching a game to not get a decisive outcome. I'd be fine with ties. Maybe bring back but play a whole 20 minutes w/o commercial timeouts.

This.

Not to mention, the NHL wants those fans paying to come see games in person, I can tell you from speaking with this type of fan, there is nothing more they hate then leaving a game they paid to watch and not even seeing a winner. They feel cheated.

 

[odin1981]

I was initially joking, really. It's 3:30am here, so I'm crackin myself up. 22 days til puck drop. 5 more days til 1st camps open. I'll be relieved when they're awarding the cup to TBL/NYI/NYR. Even SJ (Joe's elusive cup)/WSH (Ovi/Backstrom/Kuzy/Carlson Cup 2.0, could win. STL vs. TBL/BOS. Bolts in 7.

I blame lack of coffee. I made thread like 10 minutes after I got up yesterday.

 

[kliq]

You can't be serious? Why not just award it to the team with the largest average stick size?


If neither team is good enough to win, neither team should win. No reason to create gimmicks just to award an extra point. Nothing wrong with ties in hockey or soccer. There's even ties in football, though rare. Not every sport is the same.

To hardcore soccer fans sure, but there are reasons why nobody cares about soccer in North America.

 

[odin1981]

This.

Not to mention, the NHL wants those fans paying to come see games in person, I can tell you from speaking with this type of fan, there is nothing more they hate then leaving a game they paid to watch and not even seeing a winner. They feel cheated.

Personally on a off-topic related note, I feel this deals with oversize modern goalie equipment. It's just too big/wide. I have no problem with it's depth. But I strongly feel the gear maximum's should be recalibrated so that scoring goes up.

 

[jkutswings]

I don't think you're going to get rid of that regardless of the system you choose. Well, maybe if they did away with OT entirely and just gave no one a point unless there was a winner. I'm not even sure how much blame goes on coaches. It's not like the players aren't aware of how much time is on the clock and what is at stake if they cough up a goal late. I'm betting a lot of players just naturally play a bit more conservative at moments where their mistakes can be magnified.

Institute a shot clock with 5 minutes left in regulation, with a delay of game penalty if it reaches zero.

 

[Henkka]

Personally on a off-topic related note, I feel this deals with oversize modern goalie equipment. It's just too big/wide. I have no problem with it's depth. But I strongly feel the gear maximum's should be recalibrated so that scoring goes up.

It was already done 3 seasons ago.

Save percentages have been going down and scoring has been going up, thanks to that.

 

[Henkka]

This.

Not to mention, the NHL wants those fans paying to come see games in person, I can tell you from speaking with this type of fan, there is nothing more they hate then leaving a game they paid to watch and not even seeing a winner. They feel cheated.

This is a thing. Especially, in American culture, people like to see a winner. Ties are more of European thing, because that has been normal in soccer, our biggest sports in here.

That 3-2-1-0 system sill keeps the excitement. 3 point win is a reward of clear 60min win, like bigger win than 2-point win. That's important for coaches, that they know their 5-on-5 hockey is working. Because regular season is preparing for playoff hockey, and there, only 5-on-5 hockey matters. Historical records can be adjusted, internet is full of guys who do these, like The Athletic writers. There was already that comparison for Tampa -19 record season vs. Red Wings -96 season vs. Montreal's -77 season.

But for fan excitement, overtimes are fine. It's obvious. There you can fight for that extra point, if every game would distribute 3 points.

Biggest flaw is to have 2-point games and 3-point games happening under same League. It's moronic. Every year this will cost a playoff spot for some team, who was able to win more on regular time, but some lesser team collected more points from overtime with inflated points.

There is also the standings thing, and how everybody would look close thing, but it's still moronic.

 

[Retire91]

This is a thing. Especially, in American culture, people like to see a winner. Ties are more of European thing, because that has been normal in soccer, our biggest sports in here.

That 3-2-1-0 system sill keeps the excitement. 3 point win is a reward of clear 60min win, like bigger win than 2-point win. That's important for coaches, that they know their 5-on-5 hockey is working. Because regular season is preparing for playoff hockey, and there, only 5-on-5 hockey matters. Historical records can be adjusted, internet is full of guys who do these, like The Athletic writers. There was already that comparison for Tampa -19 record season vs. Red Wings -96 season vs. Montreal's -77 season.

But for fan excitement, overtimes are fine. It's obvious. There you can fight for that extra point, if every game would distribute 3 points.

Biggest flaw is to have 2-point games and 3-point games happening under same League. It's moronic. Every year this will cost a playoff spot for some team, who was able to win more on regular time, but some lesser team collected more points from overtime with inflated points.

There is also the standings thing, and how everybody would look close thing, but it's still moronic.

I can agree with that, it does still bother me that they messed with the point system at all, but now that they have I like the 3 point system. It should mean more to win in regulation and not be able to gimmick you way up the standings.

 

[GMR]

To hardcore soccer fans sure, but there are reasons why nobody cares about soccer in North America.

That's not true. There's tons of kids playing soccer now. When I was in high school 20 years ago, we could barely field a complete team. The sport is growing fast among youths. Meaning, when those youths grow up and the present day good ole boys become old men, soccer will become more popular among middle aged people. For the last 10 years or so, they televise international games from the English league, German league, etc. Something that 15 or 20 years ago, you wouldn't find on sports channels in the U.S.

So your statement would be true if this was 2000. It's not however. The amount of kids playing the sport and the TV coverage of foreign leagues has grown exponentially.

 

[kliq]

Personally on a off-topic related note, I feel this deals with oversize modern goalie equipment. It's just too big/wide. I have no problem with it's depth. But I strongly feel the gear maximum's should be recalibrated so that scoring goes up.

I think this is connected to a degree. I would have to imagine that if scoring is up, tie's are less likely. OT alone is more likely to end if scoring is up.
One thing I always thought as well is that OT should be 10min rather then 5min.