Why Are There Still "Loser Points" Awarded?

[LeafalCrusader]

Getting rid of loser points in the current setup increases the importance of shootouts. The league has been trying to deminish their importance with the ROW's and the probable introduction of 3 on 3 OT's.

Ideally I'd like a 3-2-1 system like international hockey uses or else to see the tie brought back. Don't see that ever happening though. League wants to keep shootouts and likes parity.

 

[achtungbaby]

I would like to see a W-L system. Nothing else, you won or lost.

Exactly. We don't really need to award points at all.

 

[ACC1224]

Yah how about that..3pts for a win in regulation and 2pts for a win in OT.

Yes, and 1 for the OTL.
I think a 3 point win would make things very exciting down the stretch, more potential for Teams to catch up, prolong the Playoff race.

I would like to see a W-L system. Nothing else, you won or lost.

Certainly be easier or go by winning percentage.

 

[silentbob37*]

The league likes how close the standings get this time of year because of the extra point.

 

[Thissiteisgarbage]

Not sure of the rest of you, but I was able to get on with life when they still had tie games.

If 10 min OT doesn't solve it, it's tied. Big deal....

 

[Silver91]

I've always thought that getting rid of the loser point and making SO Wins 1 point was the way to go. Encourages teams to win a hockey game, as a shoot out can go either way and even if you win, it's not as valuable. You can also continue to award 2 points for a SOW, and just take them out for tie-breakers...Make the standings tie-breakers:

1- ROW
2- SOL
3- OTL
4- Head-to-Head
5- Goal Differential

Since I wasn't able to expand on this yesterday, this is how the standings would look today with these rules (SO Win = 1 Point)

W - SOW - L - OTL - SOL - Points (Differential from Real Points)

Atlantic Division
Tampa Bay | 45 - 2 - 23 - 2 - 5 - 92 (-9)
Montreal | 41 - 6 - 22 - 5 - 3 - 88 (-14)
Detroit | 37 - 3 - 23 - 3 - 9 - 77 (-15)
Boston | 35 - 3 - 25 - 4 - 9 - 73 (-16)
Ottawa | 32 - 5 - 26 - 6 - 6 - 69 (-17)
Florida | 27 - 8 - 26 - 5 - 10 - 62 (-23)
Toronto | 24 - 4 - 42 - 3 - 3 - 52 (-10)
Buffalo | 13 - 8 - 47 - 3 - 5 - 34 (-16)

Metropolitan Division
NY Rangers | 43 - 4 - 21 - 2 - 5 - 90 (-11)
NY Islanders | 38 - 7 - 27 - 1 - 4 - 83 (-12)
Pittsburgh | 38 - 4 - 23 - 5 - 6 - 80 (-15)
Washington | 37 - 4 - 25 - 6 - 4 - 78 (-14)
Columbus | 29 - 7 - 35 - 2 - 2 - 65 (-9)
New Jersey | 27 - 4 - 33 - 5 - 7 - 58 (-16)
Philadelphia | 27 - 3 - 29 - 7 - 10 - 57 (-20)
Carolina | 24 - 4 - 36 - 4 - 7 - 52 (-15)

Central Division
Nashville | 41 - 6 - 22 - 3 - 5 - 88 (-14)
St. Louis | 37 - 9 - 23 - 3 - 4 - 85 (-14)
Chicago | 37 - 9 - 24 - 3 - 3 - 85 (-13)
Minnesota | 40 - 4 - 25 - 5 - 2 - 84 (-11)
Winnipeg | 32 - 7 - 25 - 7 - 5 - 71 (-19)
Dallas | 33 - 4 - 30 - 7 - 3 - 70 (-14)
Colorado | 26 - 9 - 29 - 8 - 4 - 61 (-21)

Pacific Division
Anaheim | 41 - 8 - 22 - 2 - 5 - 90 (-15)
Vancouver | 40 - 4 - 27 - 3 - 2 - 84 (-9)
Calgary | 38 - 4 - 28 - 4 - 3 - 80 (-11)
Los Angeles | 35 - 2 - 25 - 7 - 7 - 72 (-16)
San Jose | 33 - 4 - 30 - 3 - 6 - 70 (-13)
Edmonton | 18 - 5 - 40 - 6 - 7 - 41 (-18)
Arizona | 18 - 5 - 46 - 3 - 5 - 41 (-13)

Wild Card Picture East
Washington | 37 - 4 - 25 - 6 - 4 - 78 (-14)
Boston | 35 - 3 - 25 - 4 - 9 - 73 (-16)
Ottawa | 32 - 5 - 26 - 6 - 6 - 69 (-17)
Columbus | 29 - 7 - 35 - 2 - 2 - 65 (-9)

Wild Card Picture West
Minnesota | 40 - 4 - 25 - 5 - 2 - 84 (-11)
Los Angeles | 35 - 2 - 25 - 7 - 7 - 72 (-16)
Winnipeg | 32 - 7 - 25 - 7 - 5 - 71 (-19)
San Jose | 33 - 4 - 30 - 3 - 6 - 70 (-13)
Dallas | 33 - 4 - 30 - 7 - 3 - 70 (-14)

There's a lot of movement with this point system implemented, changing things a lot in the Eastern divisions, and really changing the Wild Card race in the West. Also, puts a lot more distance between teams at the bottom of the standings...

 

[daveleaf]

Go back to the old system. If the game ends in a tie after 60mins than it is a tie. Get rid of overtime and the shootout.

 

[Swarez]

I would like to see a W-L system. Nothing else, you won or lost.

+1

Just make it simple, every game has an out come. Just have a winner and a loser. The other big NA leagues don't care if you win in OT or regulation, that's the lead the NHL should be following.

 

[hoglund]

Should be 3 points for a regulation win.

Or, better still, GET RID OF THE DAMN SHOOTOUT!

this

 

[hoglund]

How come the Leafs are still never invited to the party?

they were invited in 2013.

 

[BurnsBlue]

I'd prefer they went to the 3 point system. If you can't be arsed to win in regulation then no full points for you.

I agree with 3 pts for a regulation win and 2 for the OT. It makes absolutely no sense that some games are worth 2 total points and some 3 points. In theory teams with less actual wins can beat out teams that won more because of loser points. If there is a loser point. There should be a winner point for winning properly.

 

[BurnsBlue]

In addition. Imagine if the playoffs followed the same format. You lose the first 2 games in OT and win game 3 in regulation. Technically if your playing first to 8 points (4 wins) your now tied at 4 points after 3 games. This would be dumb. Therefore, so is the regular season version.

 

[hoglund]

I agree with 3 pts for a regulation win and 2 for the OT. It makes absolutely no sense that some games are worth 2 total points and some 3 points. In theory teams with less actual wins can beat out teams that won more because of loser points. If there is a loser point. There should be a winner point for winning properly.

the winner point would be 3 points for a regulation win and only 2 points for a ot win and 1 for ot loss. This does makes sense and is fair, if you can't win in regulation then you shouldn't get as many points if it took you ot or worse yet a shoot out.

 

[tokyoite]

0 point for loss (including OT)

 

[hoglund]

0 point for loss (including OT)

that would be ok if 2 points for ot win and 3 for a REAL win (regulation time), an ot or shoot out win should NOT be worth as much as a real win.

 

[deletethis]

A bunch of talk about nothing in the end. Go back and review the standings for the past decade. The finishes of almost every team don't change significantly applying other methods of awarding points.

 

[hoglund]

A bunch of talk about nothing in the end. Go back and review the standings for the past decade. The finishes of almost every team don't change significantly applying other methods of awarding points.

The first 2 seasons when the shootouts started, the Leafs missed the playoffs because of the shootout, they sucked at it and never got the extra point, those 2 seasons the Leafs missed by 1 point, that system DID cost them 2 playoffs years. Edmonton sucked during the 05 season, but were great in the shootout, and made the playoffs and went all the way to the finals with a team similar to the Leafs, look it up. Also this year Montreal had a good October, but more than half of their "wins" happened after regulation, the old way the Habs would have about 15 fewer points than they do now.

 

[ACC1224]

I've thought this myself, but when you apply this format to current league standings it makes surprisingly little difference.

Edit:

Just did some checking. If you apply this formula to the current standings (ROW*3 + Wins-ROW*2 + OTL):

In the East, Tampa Bay would pass Montreal, Washington would pass the Islanders, Philadelphia would be ahead of Florida, and NJ would be ahead of Columbus.

In the West, Minnesota would pass be ahead of both Chicago and St. Louis, LA would pass Calgary, and Dallas would pass Winnipeg.

More changes to the standings than I would have thought.

A bunch of talk about nothing in the end. Go back and review the standings for the past decade. The finishes of almost every team don't change significantly applying other methods of awarding points.

It seems it would have had an impact on this season. Are you guessing there would be no change or do you have proof and this season is just an different?

 

[CalgaryLeaf*]

The NHL came up with the loser points to help the lesser teams stay in the playoff race longer.

It was also about money and fan support...Take a look at the standings at any point of the year and a team that is essentially below .500 looks better to a fan becuse of the OTL column...I've NEVER bought into that slight of hand by the NHL.

I've always looked at it as Wins or losses....An OTL is still a LOSS.

Fans will continue to support the team at the gate if their team is still in the playoff race.

This was put in basically to help the US based teams...Canadians will support their teams no matter what.

 

[Pucker77]

If you take away the "loser point" there is no need for a point system. Because only points awarded are to the winners.

I'm ok with any 3 variations.
1) go to a strict W-L record
2) go with 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT/SO win, and 1 for an OT/SO loss.
3) I don't know if anyone else has thought of this but get rid of the point for OTL. Only give a point to a SOL. Losing during team play like regulation (5-on-5) or OT (4-on-4) counts the same at 0 points. However, losing in a "skills competition" like a shootout makes no sense to hinder the entire team for a 1-on-1 showdown.

 

[hoglund]

The NHL came up with the loser points to help the lesser teams stay in the playoff race longer.

It was also about money and fan support...Take a look at the standings at any point of the year and a team that is essentially below .500 looks better to a fan becuse of the OTL column...I've NEVER bought into that slight of hand by the NHL.

I've always looked at it as Wins or losses....An OTL is still a LOSS.

Fans will continue to support the team at the gate if their team is still in the playoff race.

This was put in basically to help the US based teams...Canadians will support their teams no matter what.

This is not even nearly close to what it is. There is no such thing as a "loser point". When overtime was introduced into the regular season, it was said that after regulation time both teams are tied and given a point and would be given 5 minutes to play for a bonus point (ot win). The flaw with this is that those games become 3 point games meaning 3 points are awarded, this is why they need to award 3 points for a real (regulation time) win and none for a loss, this way ALL games are worth the same and if you can't win in regulation do you really deserve the same as a team that could?

 

[CalgaryLeaf*]

This is not even nearly close to what it is. There is no such thing as a "loser point". When overtime was introduced into the regular season, it was said that after regulation time both teams are tied and given a point and would be given 5 minutes to play for a bonus point (ot win). The flaw with this is that those games become 3 point games meaning 3 points are awarded, this is why they need to award 3 points for a real (regulation time) win and none for a loss, this way ALL games are worth the same and if you can't win in regulation do you really deserve the same as a team that could?

It's exactly what I said it was. The winner of the OT is the winner of the game period...The loser is awarded points...Hence the term loser points.

Shootouts were introduced because they didn't want ties or unlimited Overtimes periods.

If they want to have one point ties I'm fine with that...Just add a tie colum..I hate the OTL column.

 

[King Mapes]

I hate that column too. I didn't mind ties. It's better than having a skills comp at the end.

 

[achtungbaby]

This is not even nearly close to what it is. There is no such thing as a "loser point". When overtime was introduced into the regular season, it was said that after regulation time both teams are tied and given a point and would be given 5 minutes to play for a bonus point (ot win). The flaw with this is that those games become 3 point games meaning 3 points are awarded, this is why they need to award 3 points for a real (regulation time) win and none for a loss, this way ALL games are worth the same and if you can't win in regulation do you really deserve the same as a team that could?

Which team? The losing team?? All that really matters is which team won the game that night in that building. What happens in other rinks around the league the same night doesn't have anything to do with it.

 

[Preisst*]

This is not even nearly close to what it is. There is no such thing as a "loser point". When overtime was introduced into the regular season, it was said that after regulation time both teams are tied and given a point and would be given 5 minutes to play for a bonus point (ot win). The flaw with this is that those games become 3 point games meaning 3 points are awarded, this is why they need to award 3 points for a real (regulation time) win and none for a loss, this way ALL games are worth the same and if you can't win in regulation do you really deserve the same as a team that could?

So what it really works out to is that both teams get a LOSER POINT for their inability to win a game.

Then they both try to get a "bonus point" for whoever wins the little contest within a contest once the actual real hockey game isn't decided.

I guess it's kind of cute in it's own way. Certainly not for all.