The mirage of the loser point, a false dichotomy

[odin1981]

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Getting points for losses creates a false impression that parity is close within the league. When in reality the league's have's and have not's isn't close.

The loser point gives the impression that league's "parity" by rewarding points for losses, to give false reward's to keep fans tuned into the end of the season with hope that a bad team sneaks into the playoffs. And if this does happen, the team is trounced by a actual good team in the first round. Fan's of said team are hopeful and happy via cognitive bias and league wide more people watch games at the end of the season.

The loser point is a illusion. It's meant to strong Fan's along the end of the season. Instead of most of the league tuning out to games 70-82 unless your one of 3-4 bubble team's.

Click to read more...

 

[Shaman464]

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

 

[Henkka]

It's unbelieveable that, here in Finland, we took that 3-2-1-0 points system in use at season 2004-05.

16 years ago.

And NHL is still on the stone age.

 

[Henkka]

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

With 3 point system .500 could mean something real again, like, you have got half of possible points.

Currently it goes somewhere at ~.555

 

[Retire91]

I've always disliked the loser point and think it totally ruined the standings. When you have a few skilled players but a crap team (pretty much the 2012-2016 wings) you can pick up enough loser points in shootouts to bubble into the playoffs. Ties never hurt the sport and I wish the loser point was never a thing. If this was a 12 game a season sport like football I would understand the need for tie breaking but over 82 games there is no need.

You also completely skewed historical records so a team's points in the standings can no longer be compared to teams records of past NHL seasons. That always bugged me too.

 

[odin1981]

It's unbelieveable that, here in Finland, we took that 3-2-1-0 points system in use at season 2004-05.

16 years ago.

And NHL is still on the stone age.

I just don't understand why a overtime loss needs to be rewarded at all. I mean if we still had ties okay I could understand why a tie would be worth a point.

 

[Kronwalled55]

I feel like we can also tie this into a shootout discussion as well. I don't know how you guys feel, but I feel like it lost it's luster approx. 4 years into existence (maybe sooner?). I'm not sure if anyone looks forward to a shootout anymore

But maybe that's because we don't have Datsyuk anymore... and then we acquired Frans Nielsen and he decided to suck at SOs.

 

[Winger98]

I just don't understand why a overtime loss needs to be rewarded at all. I mean if we still had ties okay I could understand why a tie would be worth a point.

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.

I feel like we can also tie this into a shootout discussion as well. I don't know how you guys feel, but I feel like it lost it's luster approx. 4 years into existence (maybe sooner?). I'm not sure if anyone looks forward to a shootout anymore

But maybe that's because we don't have Datsyuk anymore... and then we acquired Frans Nielsen and he decided to suck at SOs.

It's a gimmick. It's gotten old. Without it, they'd almost definitely have to allow ties, which I don't think the league has an interest in.

 

[TheOtherOne]

There are no points awarded for losses. Both teams get a point for a tie, and an extra is given for an OT/SO win. If anything, going back to ties would HELP those teams you're talking about getting "loser points". They'll still get those points, it's just that the teams beating them in OT won't get their bonus.

If you want to get rid of your "illusion of parity" just multiply everything by 10. Tada.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

There are no points awarded for losses. Both teams get a point for a tie, and an extra is given for an OT/SO win. If anything, going back to ties would HELP those teams you're talking about getting "loser points". They'll still get those points, it's just that the teams beating them in OT won't get their bonus.

If you want to get rid of your "illusion of parity" just multiply everything by 10. Tada.

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.

 

[GMR]

I just don't understand why a overtime loss needs to be rewarded at all. I mean if we still had ties okay I could understand why a tie would be worth a point.

Then you have to go back to 4 on 4 OT. Maybe even 5 on 5. Punishing a team for losing a 3 on 3 is stupid. The 3 on 3 is too gimmicky and not indicative of actual game situations. How often do you see a 3 on 3 during real play? Almost never.

I'm OK with removing the loser point, but then the 3 on 3 and the shootout needs to go as well. Have 4 on 4 OTs for 5 minutes. If nobody scores, game ends in a tie. If someone scores, loser gets zero points.

 

[odin1981]

There are no points awarded for losses. Both teams get a point for a tie, and an extra is given for an OT/SO win. If anything, going back to ties would HELP those teams you're talking about getting "loser points". They'll still get those points, it's just that the teams beating them in OT won't get their bonus.

If you want to get rid of your "illusion of parity" just multiply everything by 10. Tada.

Regulation W's are the main determining factor of tie breakers for playoffs. You could award a point for a tie, but it wouldn't go under the RW column there by having no bearing on the factor of getting into the playoffs, because if you tie a team with more RW's you lose out on seeding.

 

[odin1981]

I

Then you have to go back to 4 on 4 OT. Maybe even 5 on 5. Punishing a team for losing a 3 on 3 is stupid. The 3 on 3 is too gimmicky and not indicative of actual game situations. How often do you see a 3 on 3 during real play? Almost never.

I'm OK with removing the loser point, but then the 3 on 3 and the shootout needs to go as well. Have 4 on 4 OTs for 5 minutes. If nobody scores, game ends in a tie. If someone scores, loser gets zero points.

I'm fine with 4v4 OT. 3v3 can be eliminated. Same with shootouts they can go as well.

 

[GMR]

I


I'm fine with 4v4 OT. 3v3 can be eliminated. Same with shootouts they can go as well.

Which the league won't do because casual fans and the higher ups love 3 on 3 and shootouts.

 

[Oddbob]

With 3 point system .500 could mean something real again, like, you have got half of possible points.

Currently it goes somewhere at ~.555

2 points for a win and 0 for any loss accomplishes the same thing.

 

[Oddbob]

There are no points awarded for losses. Both teams get a point for a tie, and an extra is given for an OT/SO win. If anything, going back to ties would HELP those teams you're talking about getting "loser points". They'll still get those points, it's just that the teams beating them in OT won't get their bonus.

If you want to get rid of your "illusion of parity" just multiply everything by 10. Tada.

That is just semantics though. It may not technically be called a "loser" point, but the only games in which you can get only 1 point is a game in which you lost in OT, or more simply LOST! That makes it a loser point. Winning teams get 2 points not 1 point!

 

[Bondurant]

Bring back the tie. Problem solved. I am a cranky old man.

 

[jkutswings]

Then you have to go back to 4 on 4 OT. Maybe even 5 on 5. Punishing a team for losing a 3 on 3 is stupid. The 3 on 3 is too gimmicky and not indicative of actual game situations. How often do you see a 3 on 3 during real play? Almost never.

With all due respect, I don't understand this logic. It's a single regular season game, which means almost nothing in the grand scheme of things, as opposed to having an entertaining product (which tends to require a decisive outcome).

If you don't want to lose 3 on 3 and get zero points, then play better during regulation.

I'd go even further:
*5 min 1OT as 3v3
*5 min 2OT as 2v2
*5 min 3OT as 1v1
*Repeat 3OT until decided

Every game awards 2 points to the winner and zero to the loser, no matter when the contest is decided. It also forces teams to go for it, rather than hanging back or trapping to get at least a point. More aggressive approach and more entertaining for the casual fans. Then back to regular rules for the playoffs.

 

[Retire91]

If I remember right the problem was that teams went to 100% defensive mode in overtime and overtime almost always guaranteed a tie. But I say so what, its not as bad of a problem as the loser point.

The only people I ever heard say that a game has to have a winner weren't even hockey fans and they were not going to follow the sport if that changed either. So basically the crowd that is like "I won't watch a sport that doesn't guarantee a winner" did not become hockey fans anyway. (at least in my circle of friends)

I just think it was the league trying to fix a non-problem with a poor solution.

 

[TheOtherOne]

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.

It's not mental gymnastics if it's an accurate description of how the standings actually work.
In the entire history of the NHL, any game that was tied after 60 minutes of regulation play would award 1 point to each team. More recently, they started giving an extra point to the team that wins a followup OT or SO.

More importantly since this is a thread about "the illusion of parity", here is the actual points (left) next to what the points would be if games ended in ties and the OT/SO point wasn't awarded (right).

Bos	100	94
StL	94	85
Col	92	87
Tam	92	84
Wsh	90	80
Phi	89	79
Pit	86	75
LV	86	77
Car	81	70
Dal	82	71
NYI	80	69
Edm	83	77
Tor	81	73
Col	81	76
Fla	78	73
Nsh	78	71
Van	78	69
NYR	79	73
Cal	79	68
Win	80	73
Min	77	72
Ari	74	67
Chi	72	63
Mon	71	59
Buf	68	60
NJ	68	62
Ana	67	58
LA	64	56
SJ	63	56
Ott	62	55
Det	39	35

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Which visually looks like this:

Not a very effective "illusion" if you ask me.

By the way for the nerds out there, if you do a linear fit you get slopes of -1.21 (-1.2%) and -1.19 (-1.3%).

 

[odin1981]

It's not mental gymnastics if it's an accurate description of how the standings actually work.
In the entire history of the NHL, any game that was tied after 60 minutes of regulation play would award 1 point to each team. More recently, they started giving an extra point to the team that wins a followup OT or SO.

More importantly since this is a thread about "the illusion of parity", here is the actual points (left) next to what the points would be if games ended in ties and the OT/SO point wasn't awarded (right).

Bos	100	94
StL	94	85
Col	92	87
Tam	92	84
Wsh	90	80
Phi	89	79
Pit	86	75
LV	86	77
Car	81	70
Dal	82	71
NYI	80	69
Edm	83	77
Tor	81	73
Col	81	76
Fla	78	73
Nsh	78	71
Van	78	69
NYR	79	73
Cal	79	68
Win	80	73
Min	77	72
Ari	74	67
Chi	72	63
Mon	71	59
Buf	68	60
NJ	68	62
Ana	67	58
LA	64	56
SJ	63	56
Ott	62	55
Det	39	35

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Which visually looks like this:
View attachment 352800
Not a very effective "illusion" if you ask me.

The illusion is that it pads point totals for losses, which to me as a athlete in my youth is abhorrent. The loser points give the illusion of better record's than the teams have. Like the slow slip of the declining wings before are fall into the cesspit where we would actually have a below .500 record but be a bubble team do to overtime losses. Yet we would have fans claiming hey we are on the bubble we have a chance.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It's not mental gymnastics if it's an accurate description of how the standings actually work.
In the entire history of the NHL, any game that was tied after 60 minutes of regulation play would award 1 point to each team. More recently, they started giving an extra point to the team that wins a followup OT or SO.

That's not true.

The NHL had a 10 minute overtime up until 1942 when they got rid of it during WWII. In the 1983-4 season, the NHL re-implemented OT with a 5 minute sudden death period. If a team scored in OT, that team was awarded the full 2 points with the losing team getting no points. It no one scored in OT, THEN both teams were awarded a point for the tie.

In 1999 the league implemented the loser point when they started playing 4 on 4 overtime, so it became 2 points for a regulation or OT win, and 1 point for an OT loss.

 

[TheOtherOne]

The illusion is that it pads point totals for losses, which to me as a athlete in my youth is abhorrent. The loser points give the illusion of better record's than the teams have. Like the slow slip of the declining wings before are fall into the cesspit where we would actually have a below .500 record but be a bubble team do to overtime losses. Yet we would have fans claiming hey we are on the bubble we have a chance.

...There is no illusion. This is absurd. The graph I posted proves this.

Nobody gives a shit if your record is .490 or .510. That's simply not relevant. All anyone cares about is your relation to other teams. We're in 16th place. We're in 14th place. If every team gets an extra 4-9 points all it does is artificially shove the curve up a little as I showed. It's irrelevant. Meaningless.

It more or less acts as a standings "tiebreaker" where two teams are nearly as successful but one gets bumped up because of a few extra OT wins. That's all.

That's not true.

The NHL had a 10 minute overtime up until 1942 when they got rid of it during WWII. In the 1983-4 season, the NHL re-implemented OT with a 5 minute sudden death period. If a team scored in OT, that team was awarded the full 2 points with the losing team getting no points. It no one scored in OT, THEN both teams were awarded a point for the tie.

In 1999 the league implemented the loser point when they started playing 4 on 4 overtime, so it became 2 points for a regulation or OT win, and 1 point for an OT loss.

Thanks for the clarification. Details are important. But my overall point remains the same.

 

[GMR]

With all due respect, I don't understand this logic. It's a single regular season game, which means almost nothing in the grand scheme of things, as opposed to having an entertaining product (which tends to require a decisive outcome).

If you don't want to lose 3 on 3 and get zero points, then play better during regulation.

I'd go even further:
*5 min 1OT as 3v3
*5 min 2OT as 2v2
*5 min 3OT as 1v1
*Repeat 3OT until decided

Every game awards 2 points to the winner and zero to the loser, no matter when the contest is decided. It also forces teams to go for it, rather than hanging back or trapping to get at least a point. More aggressive approach and more entertaining for the casual fans. Then back to regular rules for the playoffs.

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

If I remember right the problem was that teams went to 100% defensive mode in overtime and overtime almost always guaranteed a tie. But I say so what, its not as bad of a problem as the loser point.

The only people I ever heard say that a game has to have a winner weren't even hockey fans and they were not going to follow the sport if that changed either. So basically the crowd that is like "I won't watch a sport that doesn't guarantee a winner" did not become hockey fans anyway. (at least in my circle of friends)

I just think it was the league trying to fix a non-problem with a poor solution.

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.

 

[jkutswings]

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.

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.