winning percentage or points

[Sens of Anarchy]

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.

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

Extend 3 on 3 OT for another couple of minutes . It ends in a tie its a tie. No shootouts.
2 for a win , 0 for a loss, 1 for a tie.

 

[Langdon Alger]

The league doesn't want ties.

 

[Langdon Alger]

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.

I can't see the league saying "ok, goalies are fair game. When they come out of the crease you can treat them like any other player." I've heard other people make the same argument, and I do understand the argument, I just can't see it happening. It won't result in an injury every time, but some goalies will get hurt over the course of a season, and I'm sure some of those injuries will be concussions. I'm sure you wouldn't like it Anderson got hurt for am extended period because some plug of a player who plays 5 minutes a night took him out.

Playing goalie is hard enough without having to worry about being pasted into the boards when you play the puck behind the net.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

The league doesn't want ties.

Yah and they didn't want so many games being decided by a shootout either. The 3 on 3 helped that ... extending it would reasonably help it some more. I think they did not like so many games ending in a tie. 3 on 3 for 10 minutes and its still tied ... 1 pt each seems fair. It would provide a way to get rid of the loser point, avoid rewarding a win after regulation and o/t based on a shootout and remove the impetus to move towards the 3 pts for a regulation win.

No method is perfect.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Yah and they didn't want so many games being decided by a shootout either. The 3 on 3 helped that ... extending it would reasonably help it some more. I think they did not like so many games ending in a tie. 3 on 3 for 10 minutes and its still tied ... 1 pt each seems fair. It would provide a way to get rid of the loser point, avoid rewarding a win after regulation and o/t based on a shootout and remove the impetus to move towards the 3 pts for a regulation win.

No method is perfect.

Personally, I had no problem with ties. I went to several Sens games over the years that ended in ties and I didn't mind. The league went to 4 on 4 OT to try and have less ties, but it meant that they introduced the overtime loss, which gives you a point for losing in extra time.I hated it when it was introduced, and I still hate it now.

You're right that there is no perfect solution, but I think they had it right with the win, loss, tie system. Just my opinion.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

You're right that there is no perfect solution, but I think they had it right with the win, loss, tie system. Just my opinion.

Ties only work if you can eliminate the desire to "play to not lose". The biggest reason they went to four-on-four, then added the shootout, then went to three-on-three was because teams were playing conservative, defensive, boring hockey, hoping to limp to the barn with a point.

A system that a) rewards winning and only winning and b) gives a reasonable amount of extra time to settle a tie (five minutes isn't nearly enough) can have ties without it being a bad thing. All you need to do is:

a) base the standings on wins, not points. You shouldn't be able to add two ties/OTLs together to make a win like how you can add four quarters together to make a dollar. It's ridiculous.
b) extend overtime to 10 minutes, and call it a tie after that. Make ties the first tiebreaker if two teams are tied for wins, so they still have a little value, but not nearly enough to justify playing crap hockey in an effort to not lose.

 

[Intermission]

Ties only work if you can eliminate the desire to "play to not lose". The biggest reason they went to four-on-four, then added the shootout, then went to three-on-three was because teams were playing conservative, defensive, boring hockey, hoping to limp to the barn with a point.

A system that a) rewards winning and only winning and b) gives a reasonable amount of extra time to settle a tie (five minutes isn't nearly enough) can have ties without it being a bad thing. All you need to do is:

a) base the standings on wins, not points. You shouldn't be able to add two ties/OTLs together to make a win like how you can add four quarters together to make a dollar. It's ridiculous.
b) extend overtime to 10 minutes, and call it a tie after that. Make ties the first tiebreaker if two teams are tied for wins, so they still have a little value, but not nearly enough to justify playing crap hockey in an effort to not lose.

Agree with everything you said except the highlighted part. You didn't do your math. With one point for a tie and no loser points, there is no way two teams can have the same number of wins (and points) and one have more ties.

Fans who have to lug themselves out of the arena after a rare tie game have been compensated with 10 minutes of wide open 3 on 3 hockey.

 

[Stylizer1]

Ties only work if you can eliminate the desire to "play to not lose". The biggest reason they went to four-on-four, then added the shootout, then went to three-on-three was because teams were playing conservative, defensive, boring hockey, hoping to limp to the barn with a point.

A system that a) rewards winning and only winning and b) gives a reasonable amount of extra time to settle a tie (five minutes isn't nearly enough) can have ties without it being a bad thing. All you need to do is:

a) base the standings on wins, not points. You shouldn't be able to add two ties/OTLs together to make a win like how you can add four quarters together to make a dollar. It's ridiculous.
b) extend overtime to 10 minutes, and call it a tie after that. Make ties the first tiebreaker if two teams are tied for wins, so they still have a little value, but not nearly enough to justify playing crap hockey in an effort to not lose.

No, No, No. No one wants tie's. They suck. I saw a game Ottawa vs Pittsburgh and it ended in a 3 -3 tie and it sucked. Left the game feeling like it was a waste.

 

[Intermission]

Ties only work if you can eliminate the desire to "play to not lose". The biggest reason they went to four-on-four, then added the shootout, then went to three-on-three was because teams were playing conservative, defensive, boring hockey, hoping to limp to the barn with a point.

A system that a) rewards winning and only winning and b) gives a reasonable amount of extra time to settle a tie (five minutes isn't nearly enough) can have ties without it being a bad thing. All you need to do is:

a) base the standings on wins, not points. You shouldn't be able to add two ties/OTLs together to make a win like how you can add four quarters together to make a dollar. It's ridiculous.
b) extend overtime to 10 minutes, and call it a tie after that. Make ties the first tiebreaker if two teams are tied for wins, so they still have a little value, but not nearly enough to justify playing crap hockey in an effort to not lose.

I overlooked this part of your post. But your scenario would then give no points to either team for a tie if the standings were based solely on wins, which is dumb.

 

[Langdon Alger]

No, No, No. No one wants tie's. They suck. I saw a game Ottawa vs Pittsburgh and it ended in a 3 -3 tie and it sucked. Left the game feeling like it was a waste.

I'm so sorry you had to attend an nhl hockey game and watch professional athletes play for 65 minutes. Your life must be rough.

 

[Stylizer1]

I'm so sorry you had to attend an nhl hockey game and watch professional athletes play for 65 minutes. Your life must be rough.

It's okay. Thanks for your concern.

 

[thinkwild]

I don’t know why you’d choose to see it as a 'loser point'. The point comes because the teams ended regulation in a tie. This hasn’t changed in nearly a 100 years. What was changed was the addition of a new 'winner' point.

It’s the bonus point instead of ending in a tie, during the regular season, that is the new fix. Cause as in the playoffs, there are no ties in hockey, just tie points .

Most expressed reasons for “getting rid of the loser point” seem designed to incent teams not to play for a tie toward the end of regulation, to take away the reward from defensive coaches. But this is exactly what the OT bonus point does. The point for the tie is already in the bank, so coaches don’t focus on defense for 5 mins. And the hockey is great isn’t it? Exactly what all the other proposed scoring systems say they want to achieve. And surely we don’t want to take away their point for the tie because they didn’t win a skills competition?

The point that there is no perfect system I think is a good one. The main objection I hear for the current one is that there is a perceived loser point, generating a feeling that something must be wrong here. Well stop perceiving it that way! It isn’t a loser point.

And this bonus point in the end doesn’t seem to really affect the standings as we would have thought, so changing it wont really change anything except make some endings less exciting. No system is perfect, but this one I think is going to be hard to improve on.

 

[Hutz]

I don’t know why you’d choose to see it as a 'loser point'. The point comes because the teams ended regulation in a tie. This hasn’t changed in nearly a 100 years. What was changed was the addition of a new 'winner' point.

It’s the bonus point instead of ending in a tie, during the regular season, that is the new fix. Cause as in the playoffs, there are no ties in hockey, just tie points .

Most expressed reasons for “getting rid of the loser point†seem designed to incent teams not to play for a tie toward the end of regulation, to take away the reward from defensive coaches. But this is exactly what the OT bonus point does. The point for the tie is already in the bank, so coaches don’t focus on defense for 5 mins. And the hockey is great isn’t it? Exactly what all the other proposed scoring systems say they want to achieve. And surely we don’t want to take away their point for the tie because they didn’t win a skills competition?

The point that there is no perfect system I think is a good one. The main objection I hear for the current one is that there is a perceived loser point, generating a feeling that something must be wrong here. Well stop perceiving it that way! It isn’t a loser point.

And this bonus point in the end doesn’t seem to really affect the standings as we would have thought, so changing it wont really change anything except make some endings less exciting. No system is perfect, but this one I think is going to be hard to improve on.

I think everything you said would be true for a 3 point system, but the 3 point system has the added benefit of encouraging teams to try and win before regulation time is done. With the "loser point" teams don't have any extra incentive to win before overtime. Sure, in OT there's no reason to sit back, but the 3 point system adds that extra for teams to score in the last minute of play and avoid OT altogether.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

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

This has always made the most sense.

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.

I would love that.

As for the idea of concussions, remember, if you are allowed to hit the opponents goalie, they'll do the same to yours. Plus, all a goalie has to do is raise an elbow and that forechecker is toast. Either way, if a goalie is allowed to handle the puck away from the net, he has to be fair game.

 

[Stylizer1]

The only way you get both teams to play their hardest is not by giving points away. You either win in regulation or overtime and you get 2 points. If neither team can do it you then you give them 1 last chance in the shootout and you penalize them 1 point in the standings. Anything else and you have teams just hoping to make it to overtime to guarantee a point.

The goal should be making both teams play their hardest for 60 minutes and rewarding the team portion of the game. Not rewarding both teams for playing good enough. 3 point games suck especially for teams trying to move up in the standings.

There is no other scenario where you can get the most out of both teams.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

Agree with everything you said except the highlighted part. You didn't do your math. With one point for a tie and no loser points, there is no way two teams can have the same number of wins (and points) and one have more ties.

You're right. I left out an important point: if the standings are changed to be based on wins, points are done away with. I knew what I meant, though

I overlooked this part of your post. But your scenario would then give no points to either team for a tie if the standings were based solely on wins, which is dumb.

Like I meant to say - there wouldn't be points anymore. Just wins, ties and losses. If two teams have the same number of wins, whichever has more ties is ranked higher. And with ties not valuable to play for, and overtime extended to 10 minutes, my guess is that you'd see ties at a record low, since teams are encouraged to win instead of "not lose".

In the final year that there were ties (2003-04), 170 games ended in ties. I'm sure these rule changes would drop the number down to under 40.

 

[Intermission]

If two teams have the same number of wins, whichever has more ties is ranked higher.

The problem with your system: Say Chicago goes 50-32-0. They would have had 100 points with the old system.

They would finish ahead of a 49-28-5 St. Louis team that would have tallied 103 pts and has 4 fewer losses. Doesn't seem right.

If you want disappointed fans, send both teams home after a tie game with no points and what, a miniscule bump on tie breakers. Never going to fly.

You're right.

This is the best part of your post but I liked where you were going with it.

In other news, had the 3-2-1 points system been used last year, Boston is in, Detroit's out.

 

[Hutz]

The problem with your system: Say Chicago goes 50-32-0. They would have had 100 points with the old system.

They would finish ahead of a 49-28-5 St. Louis team that would have tallied 103 pts and has 4 fewer losses. Doesn't seem right.

That's only a problem depending on how you value wins... his system puts a premium on winning. Essentially Chicago has 50 wins and 32 not wins. St Louis has 49 wins and 33 not wins. Chicago is better because they won more - does make some sense. It's a different way to look at it. Not saying I agree, but I do find his suggestion intriguing.

As you pointed out with the other system, though, this one also only makes 2 major changes league wide: Boston's in Detroit's out and Colorado's in Minnesota's out.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

That's only a problem depending on how you value wins... his system puts a premium on winning. Essentially Chicago has 50 wins and 32 not wins. St Louis has 49 wins and 33 not wins. Chicago is better because they won more - does make some sense. It's a different way to look at it. Not saying I agree, but I do find his suggestion intriguing.

Exactly. I can understand where Intermission is coming from when he says that is "doesn't seem right" to value what would have been a 103-point season as lower than a 100 point system. But it only seems that way because we take for granted the value of a tie/OTL as "half a win". To suddenly change that is certainly a shock to the system, but I think dropping the value of a tie/OTL is a much better idea than raising the value of loss if it happens to take more than 60 minutes.

 

[NyQuil]

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.

For the record, I don't think goalies should be hit.

The point is that you can't have hockey players outside of their crease who are essentially immune from physical play, because they use that forcefield to essentially control parts of the defensive zone in a manner that isn't conducive to offensive hockey IMO.

It's hard enough to beat a trapping system with a dump and chase - when you have a goalie who runs into the corner every time you dump it, it's that much more difficult. Exhibit A: Martin Brodeur. No wonder he was pissed with the trapezoid - it was a fundamental part of their defensive system. At least with a defenceman there, you can forecheck, lay a hit and try and generate a turnover. Not so with a goalie.

The crease in front of the net is hallowed ground. Extending that area to the entire defensive zone is a dumb idea, which is why the trapezoid makes sense IMO.

 

[Hale The Villain]

If I could make change one the current points system, I would stop giving teams points for losing in hockey games. If a team were to make it beyond regulation only to lose in overtime, that team wouldn't get a point just for not losing in the first 60 minutes of the hockey game.

The only way a team should get a point for losing is through a shootout, which isn't really hockey so much as it is a way to make sure games don't end up in a tie.

 

[Stylizer1]

If I could make change one the current points system, I would stop giving teams points for losing in hockey games. If a team were to make it beyond regulation only to lose in overtime, that team wouldn't get a point just for not losing in the first 60 minutes of the hockey game.

The only way a team should get a point for losing is through a shootout, which isn't really hockey so much as it is a way to make sure games don't end up in a tie.

You should never be guaranteed a point.

 

[Cat Herder]

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".

I think allow the goalie to play the puck behind the net anywhere, but he become fair game once he leaves the crease

 

[dumbdick]

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Arthur Conan Doyle

 

[Back in Black]

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.

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

2 points for the win, 0 for the loss, whether it happens in regulation time, overtime or shootout!, A loss is a loss! Period the end.