Thoughts about the Loser Point

[Chan790]

To me, it's simple. Teams that lose...regulation, OT, shootout...should go home with zero points for losing. Not one. However they want to design the system around that premise is fine with me as long as teams that lose get nothing for losing, regardless when they lose.

If that necessitates the return of the tie, then we'll go back to having ties. I just want the loser-point/tied-after-60 point to go away.

I don't even care about games having different point values, as long as the losing team goes home without a standings point.

 

[Jeebs]

Since Bettman has said they aren't interested in getting rid of the shoot out, I'd go:

3 for a reg win
2 for an OT win
1 for a shootout win

0 for the losing team, regardless of when they lost.

 

[tsanuri]

You can go back 3 seasons here with a few different variations.
https://hockeystandings.info/

 

[Night Shift]

You can go back 3 seasons here with a few different variations.
https://hockeystandings.info/

Props on the site. I started working on 14-15 and there are so many teams that are under .500 (like last year I posted last night) using my formula that I just don't see this as a realistic option that the league would use. My initial idea was if the OT winner was going to gain 1 point over their opponent then why not try it with the formula I came up with, since it seemed simpler. However so many teams (and playoff teams) are under .500 I'm going to scratch it

I think DaBadGuy7 formula with W-L-SOW is the best one and it looks a lot cleaner looking at this site. Any OT win is 2 Pts and the SO winner just gets 1 point. So I'm going to use this formula for my study.

 

[Night Shift]

New formula: Regulation and OT wins 2 points. Any loss 0. Shootout wins 1 point. Here are the results for 2015/16. Last years actual standings https://www.nhl.com/standings/2015.

Philly still misses the playoffs. Colorado makes it over Minnesota. LA Kings win their division. Tampa wins Atlantic. Ottawa still dips. Chicago finishes ahead of STL. Playoff matchups for this system on bottom

ATLANTIC
yTBL 43 36 3 89
xFLA 40 35 7 87
xDET 39 41 2 80
xBOS 38 40 4 80
MTL 33 44 5 71
OTT 32 44 6 70
BUF 33 47 2 68
TOR 23 53 6 52

METROPOLITAN
zWAS 52 26 4 108
xPIT 44 34 4 92
xNYR 43 36 3 89
xNYI 40 37 5 85
PHI 38 41 3 79
NJD 36 44 2 74
CAR 33 47 2 68
CLB 28 48 6 62

CENTRAL
zDAL 48 32 2 98
xCHI 46 35 1 93
xSTL 44 33 5 93
xNSH 37 41 4 78
xCOL 35 43 4 74
MIN 35 44 3 73
WPG 32 47 3 67

PACIFIC
yLAK 46 34 2 94
xANA 43 36 3 89
xSJS 42 36 4 88
ARZ 34 47 1 69
CGY 33 47 2 68
EDM 27 51 4 58
VAN 26 51 5 57

BOS/WSH
NYI/TBL
DET/FLA
NYR/PIT

COL/DAL
NSH/LAK
SJS/ANA
STL/CHI

 

[snag]

164 points should be up for grabs for a team. Period! Not any number between 164 and 246.

The fact that there is a variance no set number of points to be distributed makes it look like NHLers are a bunch of elementary school pansies who need a participatory medal or ribbon to hide the fact that are lost and to prevent them from crying.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

Since Bettman has said they aren't interested in getting rid of the shoot out, I'd go:

3 for a reg win
2 for an OT win
1 for a shootout win

0 for the losing team, regardless of when they lost.

If they insist on keeping the 3 on 3 OT garbage, then I agree with this system. Rewarding losers is never a good idea

 

[The Panther]

2 points for Regulation/OT win
1 point for Shootout win
0 points for any type of loss

Yes, yes, yes.

This is perfect.

I reject any idea of the "3 point win" because (a) it's unnecessary when the loser gets zero points [which is better], and (b) it craps all over the history of the League. A win has always been two points. Let all wins (except shootout wins, which aren't really 'wins') be 2 points.

 

[Pharrell Williams]

i been a loser my whole life and nobody has given me a point! haha!


i like the current system.

 

[Kane One]

You can go back 3 seasons here with a few different variations.
https://hockeystandings.info/

Props on the site. I started working on 14-15 and there are so many teams that are under .500 (like last year I posted last night) using my formula that I just don't see this as a realistic option that the league would use. My initial idea was if the OT winner was going to gain 1 point over their opponent then why not try it with the formula I came up with, since it seemed simpler. However so many teams (and playoff teams) are under .500 I'm going to scratch it

I think DaBadGuy7 formula with W-L-SOW is the best one and it looks a lot cleaner looking at this site. Any OT win is 2 Pts and the SO winner just gets 1 point. So I'm going to use this formula for my study.

That formula is listed here: https://hockeystandings.info/devaluedsow

 

[Duffman955]

Get rid of this 3 on 3 nonsense. Its not hockey. Back to 5v5 OT

Points:

2 for win
1 for OT/SO win
0 for any loss

It will encourage teams to play for the win and score more goals.

 

[DaBadGuy7]

Get rid of this 3 on 3 nonsense. Its not hockey. Back to 5v5 OT

Points:

2 for win
1 for OT/SO win
0 for any loss

It will encourage teams to play for the win and score more goals.

I would say add an extra 5 minutes of OT at 4v4 and if it's still tied go to shootout, always felt another OT period would be sufficient in order to decide a game before the SO.

 

[Raimo Sillanpää]

Why are ties so horrible to North Americans?
Allowing them would give us 3 possible results, win, lose, tie
2-0-(1-1) as points
Makes betting easier, 3-options not.. um, 8?

Standings seem to be more fair too:

https://hockeystandings.info/afterreg

Boston was probably a better team than Detroit last year. Every team plays by the same rules though. It's not like only teams lower in the standings have the chance to play 3 point games, and get a better chance to catch the teams ahead of them. It's still better to win in regulation than at any other time.

As long as everyone knows what the rules are at the start of the season, it's go and play after that. Nobody surprised Boston on the last day of the year and said we're giving Detroit an extra point from some previous game that no other team gets, because we want more parity.

Look at Detroit and Boston when you allow ties, Detroit is close but loses out because they failed to score that one last goal in 60minutes, so the goal differencial (-13) while not counted now shows its effect.

An average .500 team has no business being in the playoffs.

 

[Night Shift]

2014-15

2014-15. The actual standings vs the SOW theory. The latter bolded

Atlantic Division
yMTL 50-22-10 110
xTBL 50-24-8 108
xDET 43-25-14 100
xOTT 43-26-13 99
BOS 41-27-14 96
FLA 38-29-15 91
TOR 30-44-8 68
BUF 23-51-8 54

Metropolitan Division
zNYR 53-22-7 113
xNYI 47-28-7 101
xWSH 45-26-11 101
xPIT 43-27-12 98
CLB 42-35-5 89
PHI 33-31-18 84
NJD 32-36-14 78
CAR 30-41-11 71

Central Division
ySTL 51-24-7 109
xNSH 47-25-10 104
xCHI 48-28-6 102
xMIN 46-28-8-100
xWPG 43-26-13 99
DAL 41-31-10 92
COL 39-31-12 90

Pacific Division
zANA 51-24-7 109
xVAN 48-29-5 101
xCGY 45-30-7 97
LAK 40-27-15 95
SJS 40-33-9 89
EDM 24-44-14 62
ARZ 24-50-8 56

1st round playoff matchups

East
PIT@NYR
OTT@MTL
WSH@NYI
DET@TBL

West
WPG@ANA
MIN@STL
CGY@VAN
CHI@NSH


ATLANTIC
yTBL 47-32-3 97
xMTL 43-32-7 93
xDET 39-39-4 82
xOTT 37-39-6 80
BOS 37-41-4 78
FLA 30-44-8 68
TOR 25-52-5 55
BUF 15-59-8 38


METROPOLITAN
zNYR 49-29-4 102
xNYI 40-35-7 87
xWSH 40-37-5 85
xPIT 39-39-4 82
CLB 33-40-9 75
PHI 30-49-3 63
NJD 27-50-5 59
CAR 25-52-5 55

CENTRAL
ySTL 42-31-9 93
xMIN 42-36-4 88
xNSH 41-35-6 88
xCHI 39-34-9 87
xWPG 36-39-7 79
DAL 37-41-4 78
COL 29-43-10 68

PACIFIC
zANA 43-31-8 94
xVAN 42-34-6 90
xCGY 41-37-4 86
LAK 38-42-2 78
SJS 36-42-4 76
EDM 19-58-5 43
ARZ 19-58-5 43


1st round playoff matchups

EAST
OTT@NYR
PIT@TBL
WSH@NYI
DET@MTL

WEST
WPG@ANA
CHI@STL
NSH@MIN
CGY@VAN

 

[Night Shift]

Why are ties so horrible to North Americans?
Allowing them would give us 3 possible results, win, lose, tie
2-0-(1-1) as points
Makes betting easier, 3-options not.. um, 8?

As I said in my original post I'd prefer the old way but the NHL will never go back to it. But I think the W-L-SOW is about as close to that as we'd get and I could see the NHL adopting it.

 

[team_alex]

All games should be worth the same point value. The current set up of some games being worth 50% more than regulation games punishes teams that are not playing in the three point game.

Nothing will be done about it, but the current set up is an embarrassment to the sport.

 

[Thanatos]

Just play 5-on-5 overtime until somebody scores.
It works during the playoffs...it would work during the regular season as well. If teams want to let games go into multiple overtimes, let them.

No more goofy 4-on-4 play...no more foolish shootouts...just play hockey until the game is settled.

 

[Doctor No]

Travel schedules would make that difficult in the regular season.

 

[Thanatos]

Outside of the strange, it shouldn't be an issue. If a team knows that they're facing a potential bind due to scheduling, travel or any other issue, they can adjust their coaching and play to maximize their potential for winning within whatever a reasonable timeframe might be.

Coach/play high-risk, high-reward hockey when the circumstances and the timing require it, which will most likely result in someone scoring sooner, rather than later... and coach/play more cautiously, allowing for multiple periods of overtime if and when a more defensive, drawn-out style of play might be more appropriate to the time restraints/situation at hand.

 

[Blueshirts 94]

3 for win
2 for SO/OT win
1 for SO/OT loss

I've always liked this idea. Makes all games worth the same, but still rewards teams losing in OT and punishes teams needing OT to win.

 

[KingsFan7824]

An average .500 team has no business being in the playoffs.

That's an issue with the number of teams making the playoffs then, not the point system. However you determine the definition of .500, with 16 of 30 teams in the playoffs, average teams have to make the playoffs. Just like below average teams made the playoffs for decades, especially in the 80's.

All games should be worth the same point value. The current set up of some games being worth 50% more than regulation games punishes teams that are not playing in the three point game.

Nothing will be done about it, but the current set up is an embarrassment to the sport.

It punishes teams that lose in regulation more than anyone else.

Any team can play in a 3 point game at any time during the season, so most of the time it's all going to cancel out. The league doesn't say in the last 2 months of the year, any game involving any team outside of the playoffs will be a possible 3 point game, and only those teams outside of the playoffs can potentially get the extra point. Something like that would be punishing teams. That would certainly be artificial parity.

As has been the case forever, if you win your games, you don't have to worry about what other teams do. Even with random 3 point results, it still comes down to that very basic concept of competition. If you're in a position where OT/SO points determine your season, you simply haven't won enough.

 

[McDonald19]

I still hate it. It only accomplishes one thing: the illusion of parity and more teams with a shot at the playoffs. It's nothing more than an attempt to reinvent the wheel.

2 points for a win
0 points for a loss

That's fine as long as overtime is 5 on 5.