winning percentage or points

[Samboni]

There was an article on The Score that suggested 3 rule changes i.e. remove the trapezoid, smaller goalie equipment, and use winning percentage instead of points to determine the standings. IMO, the first 2 suggestions are no brainers and I like the idea of winning percentage instead of points. In this scenario, an overtime loss is a loss. I think this may make teams play with more urgency. On the downside, teams will be eliminated from playoff contention much sooner which may not bode well for attendance in some markets.

Click to read more...

 

[BonkTastic]

There was an article on The Score that suggested 3 rule changes i.e. remove the trapezoid, smaller goalie equipment, and use winning percentage instead of points to determine the standings. IMO, the first 2 suggestions are no brainers

I absolutely don't think they should remove the trapezoid. I think that is one of the few times the NHL has made a rule change and absolutely knocked it out of the park.

I think if you get rid of the trapezoid without instituting a replacement rule that has the same effect, boring-ass trap hockey comes back in full force, in your face, to the detriment of the league.

I think it's one of those "necessary evils".

 

[Samboni]

Why penalize the goalie for playing the puck?

 

[BonkTastic]

Why penalize the goalie for playing the puck?

Because allowing the goalies to play pucks out of the corners hugely facilitates trap hockey.

I feel bad for the goalies, but the trapezoid is BY FAR the lesser of two evils here.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Why penalize the goalie for playing the puck?

makes it more difficult for teams to clear the puck out of the defensive end and makes it easier for the offense to maintain pressure on the defenders.

At first I didn't like the introduction of the rule as I felt it penalized goal tenders that had good puck skills, which was an important skill goal tenders worked on. On the other side it benefited goal tenders with poorer puck skills as it leveled the playing field.

To promote offensive zone time , I can see the benefits and theoretically that should lead to more offense.

 

[starling]

There was an article on The Score that suggested 3 rule changes i.e. remove the trapezoid, smaller goalie equipment, and use winning percentage instead of points to determine the standings. IMO, the first 2 suggestions are no brainers and I like the idea of winning percentage instead of points. In this scenario, an overtime loss is a loss. I think this may make teams play with more urgency. On the downside, teams will be eliminated from playoff contention much sooner which may not bode well for attendance in some markets.

Shootout win shouldn't count as a W either and should be just used as a first tie-breaker. So essentially both teams lose if they fail to score in OT.

 

[Lenny the Lynx]

To me this standings issue always comes back to one obvious solution: give 3 points for regulation win, 2 points for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss.

Or go back to ties, the shootout blows anyway

 

[thinkwild]

Solution to what exactly though? I remember some interesting threads here where they redid the standings for a few years and didn’t allocate the shootout bonus points, rather just counting those games as ties as always done. And quite surprisingly to me, there were very few standings changes, or even tighter standings. One or maybe two teams would have made the playoffs that otherwise wouldn’t have over the years because they had really strong shootout records. Not sure that really makes them less worthy than had they gotten in because of more ties.


All the ideas put forth in previous lockouts to open up the game, improve scoring, and make things more exciting again. And it seems one by one, the desire is being expressed to roll back each and every one of them in an effort to make hockey great again. Shouldnt Bettman have to be fired if that course is taken?

I too was a little curious about the trapezoid when it was first introduced. For the vast majority of goalies, my pet peeve was that they thought they could handle the puck. They would stray out of their net, and then would weakly telegraph their pass that more often than not was intercepted. It would drive me crazy, I still hate when goalies want to pass the puck instead of leaving it for their dman. Hear that Anderson? Stop it.

But when you had goalies like Brodeur and Turco, in front of great stand-up-at-the-blue-line defences, it became almost impossible to establish a forecheck. Although many fans lately criticize coaches when the puck isnt carried in every time.

I’m a little torn on it still. I think part of what the great eras of hockey had was that there were so many mistakes made, and allowing goalies to handle the puck allowed for many turnovers. But I have to admit, the trapezoid has achieved what it was designed to do, one of the few rule changes that seems to have worked as hoped.

There used to be an old saying in hockey that you play for the tie on the road and the win at home. Then when they brought in 4 on 4 OT, the fear was that teams would just play it safe and continue going for the tie. But we have seen many 60 min snorefests followed by 5 mins of cant-sit-down overtime. To the point where people suggest why not play the whole game that way. So the bonus point generates much more excitement for fans with the tie point guaranteed. And the bonus point seems to have no detrimental effect on standings or owner profits or total attendance. Its just that what we used call the most exciting play in hockey, a true test of skill, is deciding a game that would otherwise be a tie in the regular season only. Pretty idealistic complaining perhaps.

 

[Hutz]

There was an article on The Score that suggested 3 rule changes i.e. remove the trapezoid, smaller goalie equipment, and use winning percentage instead of points to determine the standings. IMO, the first 2 suggestions are no brainers and I like the idea of winning percentage instead of points. In this scenario, an overtime loss is a loss. I think this may make teams play with more urgency. On the downside, teams will be eliminated from playoff contention much sooner which may not bode well for attendance in some markets.

The winning percentage thing would be the same as eliminating the loser points in OT which has come up as a suggestion quite often. The issue I'd have wit that is how much weight it gives the shootout. If there's an issue in the standings that needs to be fixed I'd still be more in favour of the 3 point system (W-3, OTW-2, OTL-1, L-0)

 

[dumbdick]

2 points for a win in regulation or overtime. 1 point for a so win. No loser points.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Remove the point system altogether. Just go wins and losses. A loss in overtime or shootout is still a loss.

 

[Stylizer1]

2 points for a win in regulation or overtime. 1 point for a so win. No loser points.

Would makes teams go for it or sacrifice a point. The problem with that is that the league wants the crappy teams to still be in the playoff race with a month left in the season.(or at least look like they have the chance) Parity.

 

[Hutz]

Remove the point system altogether. Just go wins and losses. A loss in overtime or shootout is still a loss.

If they were going to do this (and I hope they don't) I'd also hope they expand the shootout to minimum 5 rounds to at least make it a bit more representative of the team.

 

[tony d]

As I've always said the points system should be 2 pts. for a win, 0 pts. for a regulation or overtime loss but 1 point for a shootout loss.

 

[NyQuil]

If you're going to remove the trapezoid, you have to be allowed to hit goalies in the corners.

But they aren't protected against hitting, which is why allowing them to play the puck while being invulnerable to contact is a bad idea.

I've seen goalies turn their backs to the incoming forechecker and essentially run a pick because they obstructed his path.

 

[Flamingo]

I agree with NyQuil, let goalies play the puck, and let players hit them.

Goalies will skating and puck-handling skills will try, but will have to be cautious.

The dump-and-chase game that thrives with the trapezoid is boring as hell too.

 

[Langdon Alger]

I agree with NyQuil, let goalies play the puck, and let players hit them.

Goalies will skating and puck-handling skills will try, but will have to be cautious.

The dump-and-chase game that thrives with the trapezoid is boring as hell too.

Great idea, let's have more concussions in a league where there are already too many. This whole goalies should be fair game is a stupid idea, but even if I believed for a moment it was a good idea, the league will never allow it.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I agree with NyQuil, let goalies play the puck, and let players hit them.

Goalies will skating and puck-handling skills will try, but will have to be cautious.

The dump-and-chase game that thrives with the trapezoid is boring as hell too.

Don't think so. Should not happen and will not happen.

 

[Hutz]

What if we got rid of the trapezoid, but then tethered the goalies with an elastic band attached to the ice in the middle of the crease so that the further they went to play the puck, the harder it would be? As a bonus, it would make some hilarious blooper reels!

 

[saskriders]

I would like to see:

4 points for a win
3 points for an OT win
2 points for a tie
1 point for an OT loss


Knowing they won't ever bring back ties:

3 points for a win
2 points for an OT/SO win
1 point for an OT/SO loss

 

[Stylizer1]

I would like to see:

4 points for a win
3 points for an OT win
2 points for a tie
1 point for an OT loss


Knowing they won't ever bring back ties:

3 points for a win
2 points for an OT/SO win
1 point for an OT/SO loss

I don't know if you ever been to a game that ended in a tie but it sucks. There should be no tie's in any sport. Just think how many more columns there would be in the standings. Also if 1 team goes on a 5 game winning streak and another goes on a 5 game loosing stream that is a difference of 20 points. If you really want to discourage fans of bad teams from going to games this would be it.

2 points for a win in regulation or overtime
1 point for a shootout win
0 points for a loss

The goal of the team is to win in regulation. To try and speed up the process in the event of a tie at the end of regulation you open up the ice and take 1 player off the ice. Guaranteeing a team a point for just getting to overtime makes teams sit back in the final minutes so they don't jeopardize the loss. Once the team portion of the game is over both teams are penalized 1 point in the standings seeing as the game is going to go to a shootout. This would lead to less shootouts because they are worth less. You should not be rewarded for not winning. This also makes the standings a lot simpler to follow. This would replace the OTL and ROW columns with just a shootout win column. Also get rid of the wild card. 8 best teams from each conference make it in with the division winners getting the top two seeds regardless of points. A team with 100 points shouldn't be seeded behind a team with 93.

 

[saskriders]

Just think how many more columns there would be in the standings.

2 points for a win in regulation or overtime, 1 point for a shootout win, 0 points for a loss.

The goal of the team is to win in regulation. To try and speed up the process in the event of a tie at the end of regulation you open up the ice and take 1 player off the ice. Guaranteeing a team a point for just getting to overtime makes teams sit back in the final minutes so they don't jeopardize the loss. Once the team portion of the game is over both teams are penalized 1 point in the standings seeing as the game is going to go to a shootout. This would lead to less shootouts because they are worth less. You should not be rewarded for not winning. This also makes the standings a lot simpler to follow. This would replace the OTL and ROW columns with just a shootout win column. Also get rid of the wild card. 8 best teams from each conference make it in with the division winners getting the top two seeds regardless of points. A team with 100 points shouldn't be seeded behind a team with 93.

Who cares about how many columns there are in the standings? Unless there is a tie at the end of the season the only important one is points (and with more columns it is less likely there is a tie, and more options to break it)

All games should award the same number of points. There shouldn't be scenarios where some games give out more points than others because it wrecks the integrity of the standings.

Yes, the goal should be to win in regulation. But we shouldn't ignore that not losing in regulation is something too. A hockey game is three periods, and if a team didn't lose in that time an eventual OT loss should not be seen as equal to a a regulation loss.

 

[Hutz]

Who cares about how many columns there are in the standings? Unless there is a tie at the end of the season the only important one is points (and with more columns it is less likely there is a tie, and more options to break it)

All games should award the same number of points. There shouldn't be scenarios where some games give out more points than others because it wrecks the integrity of the standings.

Yes, the goal should be to win in regulation. But we shouldn't ignore that not losing in regulation is something too. A hockey game is three periods, and if a team didn't lose in that time an eventual OT loss should not be seen as equal to a a regulation loss.

This is my biggest problem with the status quo. It seems like a bit of a petty concern, but it does bother me that some games are worth 2 points and others 3. I've come to terms with it in the last 20 years or whatever it is now, but if we're seriously looking into changing points/standings, that's the #1 issue I'd like to address.

 

[Flamingo]

Great idea, let's have more concussions in a league where there are already too many. This whole goalies should be fair game is a stupid idea, but even if I believed for a moment it was a good idea, the league will never allow it.

You have no imagination. A goalie that wants to play the puck would have to have different equipment to protect them from hits. The concussion concern is a good point, but defensemen already get hit by forecheckers, so tightening up rules around charging and head hits would be a good idea.

The real problem is that any nudge of a goalie is immediately reacted to with all-out melee.

People are complaining about goalies being too effective these days. Add another dimension to their game like playing the puck, an you'll probably see a bit of innovation on how the position is played.

 

[Stylizer1]

Who cares about how many columns there are in the standings? Unless there is a tie at the end of the season the only important one is points (and with more columns it is less likely there is a tie, and more options to break it)

All games should award the same number of points. There shouldn't be scenarios where some games give out more points than others because it wrecks the integrity of the standings.

Yes, the goal should be to win in regulation. But we shouldn't ignore that not losing in regulation is something too. A hockey game is three periods, and if a team didn't lose in that time an eventual OT loss should not be seen as equal to a a regulation loss.

I Disagree. The goal is to determine a winner . by going to overtime you are giving both teams a better chance of winning by removing a player. A loss is a loss no matter how you get there. If we are talking about kids then okay, make everyone feel better by giving points for almost winning. These are men who bleed to win, not to tie.

I can't understand the logic o your post.

4,3,2,1,0, points would make the standing a hot mess.