Re-Thinking the Standings / "The Teams Will Now Play for the Extra Point"
by mikefive on Nov 7, 2009 11:52 PM EST
23 comments
Disclaimer: I've been thinking about this for a while. Even though the Flyers are somehow 2-1 in shootouts this year, I still like this idea enough to present it to you all.
Back in the not-so-hazy, lazy days of March 2009, the NHL's GMs met in Naples, Florida. While there, Detroit's Ken Holland suggested that regulation wins should carry more weight in the standings than shootout victories. Holland's proposal was meant to encourage extra effort in regulation, and I think it was also aimed at teams who "played for the shootout" once they got into overtime. (The Rangers were particularly egregious in this regard when Tom Renney was their coach, and it seemed to me that the Blues did the same tonight.)
I agree with Holland more than I do the author of the above-linked article, for what it's worth. I personally feel that, if you manage to play 60 minutes of hockey and do not lose, you deserve to get a point in the standings. If you play 65 minutes and still do not lose, you deserve a point in the standings. And eliminating points for overtime losses would likely lead to less drama and excitement in March, because fewer teams would be scrambling for the last playoff spot or two. I find shootouts enjoyable to watch but I do not like them as a way to determine whether a team wins or loses a hockey game. That should be determined when two teams are actually playing hockey, not taking penalty shots and hoping for the best.
Unlike Holland, I feel that a win should count as a win in the "W" column whether it is in regulation OR during the 4-on-4 OT session. This is because you are actually playing a hockey game during these 65 minutes; you are not hoping that one team scores on more penalty shots than another. As for losses, I feel that a team should receive a loss in the "L" column whether they lose in regulation OR in overtime. However, you would still get a point for losing a game in OT, as I mentioned above.
Before I get into shootouts and confuse the hell out of everyone, let me illustrate my idea. The standings column would look like this under the Mikefive Proposal:
W L T OP
W stands for "Wins" as it always has. A team who wins in regulation or in the 4-on-4 OT gets a number in the Wins column. Wins are worth 2 points in the standings.
L stands for "Losses" as it always has. A team who loses in regulation or in the 4-on-4 OT gets a number in the Losses column. Losses are worth 0 points in the standings. (See below re: OT and shootouts.)
T stands for "Ties" like it used to back before the league decided that ties sucked. (Note to the NHL: Soccer is the world's most popular sport, and it has Ties. Just sayin'.) Each team is awarded a tie if neither wins during regulation OR in the 4-on-4 OT. A tie counts for one point in the standings, like it used to.
OP stands for "Overtime Points." A team is awarded an Overtime Point if it loses during the 4-on-4, OR if it wins the shootout. Each Overtime Point counts for - you guessed it - one point in the standings.
Under this system, it would be easier to use actual wins as a tiebreaker in the standings. Teams who win in a shootout would still receive points as they do now, but the points would be distributed differently. This would likely encourage teams to press for victory in regulation and/or the 4-on-4 OT. Additionally, fans would see a clearer picture of how good their teams are since losses in the 4-on-4 OT create losses in the "L" column, even though the OT losers still would get a point in the OP column. In other words, the only time losses would not technically be "losses" would be when they happen in the shootout.
Under this system, the Flyers would be 7-4-3-2 right now because 7 of their wins came either during regulation or in OT. Their 4 losses all came during regulation. They would have 3 ties since they made it to the shootout 3 times, and they would have 2 Overtime Points since they won two of their shootouts and got the "extra points," as many commentators say. (Their one OT loss this year came in the shootout; under this system, that would be represented as a tie.)
What do you all think of this? Do you love it? Hate it? Feel indifferent?
UPDATE: ***IN LIGHT OF THE COMMENTS, HOW ABOUT THIS?***
Three columns!
W L OP
2 points in for a regulation or OT (4-on-4) win. 0 points for a regulation loss, 1 for an OT or SO loss, 2 for an SO win, just like we have now. But Regulation and OT wins go in the W column, Regulation and OT losses go in the loss column, 1 point goes into the OP for an OT or SO loss, 2 points go into the OP column for a SO win.
Easier, non?
This item was written by a member of this community and is not necessarily endorsed by Broad Street Hockey.
0 recs |
23 comments
| Add comment
Email
Print
Comments
I haven’t quite formed an opinion yet, but I think it’s important to point out that your system may have too steep of a learning curve for the average fan. The NHL is trying to attract new people, so even more intricacies in the standings may be a deterrent.
by DragonGirl0583 on Nov 8, 2009 12:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Possibly
I see your point (partially intended) but I think this is easier to visualize than Holland’s idea, which made no change to the column system as far as I know. In Holland’s proposal, say two teams finished 46-26-10. One would have to go through the standings and determine how many of each teams’ 46 wins came in regulation.
So my system is a proposal to change the standings based on Holland’s idea.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Nov 8, 2009 12:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also:
Good point about trying to attract new fans, but I’d rather the league do something with the standings that requires a little thought instead of constantly watering down the game in order to attract new fans.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Nov 8, 2009 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In reference to your soccer comment, yes soccer has ties oftentimes, but in soccer playoffs and competitions, PKs (the soccer version of the shootout) are used to see who advances if there is still a tie after 90 or 120 (30min OT) minutes. At least we don’t have NHL shootouts in the playoffs. Still, to me, the shootout originated in soccer, so its not the best example to use for the “ties are okay” issue. Why can’t we just play multiple OTs in the NHL? The NBA does. Yes, the goalies may be more tired, but each team has a backup goalie, who could either play part of the multi-OT game or start the next game if the goalie from before is tired. I don’t have a problem with the current system. I don’t see playing for the shootout as a detriment as much as a coaching strategy. It should be commended for its shrewdness.
by chillicothe20 on Nov 8, 2009 12:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Different in soccer
If you don’t have penalty kicks in soccer, you’ll be playing all week since soccer is, by it’s nature, a lower-scoring game. You have a lot more chances in hockey.
Multiple OTs are fine in the playoffs, but not for the regular season. There’s a lot more standing around, setting up, and scoring in basketball. Hockey is constant motion; endless OTs would be too draining over the course of a season.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Nov 8, 2009 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I might have gotten lost somewhere, but it seems like you’ve just re-arranged the points into separate categories instead of reforming the system.
Right now, you get two points for a win, zero points for a regulation loss, one point for an OTL or SOL, and two for winning the SO. Under your system, you’d get two points for a win, zero for a regulation loss, one point for losing in OT or making it to the SO, and then an extra point for winning the shootout. You’d get the same two points, they’d just show up in different columns? That’s the same thing points-wise, though, right?
Or are you just trying to change the terminology in regards to Holland’s tiebreaker solution?
I’ve always believed that the main problem is that some games are worth more than others in the standings. There are 1,230 games total in the NHL schedule, and in the current system, there can be anywhere between 2,460 and 3,690 points given out. Games that go into overtime are worth more than games that don’t, and that just doesn’t seem fair.
That’s why I’d even the total point value for each game. Make three points available in each and every game. Three points for a regulation win, two for an OT/SO win and one for an OT/SOL. It gives an incentive not to play for OT, while still rewarding teams who win once OT/SO’s happen.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Nov 8, 2009 12:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
You're right.
My idea would essentially give more value to games won when an actual hockey game is played, since wins are a tiebreaker in the standings. I have no problem with the way that the standings are scored per se, just how they are reflected..
If we go back to my response to DragonGirl above, let’s look at our 46-26-10 teams. Say one of them actually has 10 OT (4-on-4) losses and 6 shootout wins.
If we see a team in the standings who is 46-26, we think that team is good. Under my system the above described team would be 40-36-6-16. That actually shows you that perhaps this 102-point-team is not so hot. When they’re actually playing hockey, they are only 4 games over .500. It might give one more realistic expectations heading into the playoffs.
It’s late and I’m tired, but does this post make sense?
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Nov 8, 2009 12:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also:
I’d be fine with an idea like yours too, though I think 3-point wins might lessen the drama at the end of the season. Aside from the playoffs, March is the best time to watch hockey I think.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Nov 8, 2009 12:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would prefer something like this, kinda taking into account both of our ideas.
Let’s look at the 08/09 Flyers. They finished 44-27-11, with a 6-5 OT record and a 4-6 record in shootouts. Here’s how I would break that down, changing to a three-point system per game, as well.
Regulation Wins (worth 3 points): 34, 102 pts
Regulation Losses (worth no points): 27
SO/OT Wins (worth 2 points): 10, 20 pts
SO/OT Losses (worth 1 point): 11, 11 pts
So, the final record would look like this: 34-27-10-11, 133 pts
That shows you, as clearly as possible, just how good a team is when “actual hockey” has been played, and just how good they are when they’re in the extra session. Of course, point totals as we know them would go completely out the window, but that also happened when the extra point was first introduced. It’s all relative to the times.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Nov 8, 2009 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
3w 2t 1l system is what Im waiting for.
You earn every point be doing the right things in the time they needed to get done in. =3
If you dont get it done on time but still do the right things you needed to do you get some points but not as much =2
If you keep your opponent from getting it done in the time they needed to get it done you get even less. =1
If you dont achieve any of your objectives you dont deserve any points.
You lose and get no cake!=0
by Prometheus74 on Nov 8, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How very European of you
They use this system in the World University Games – the Olympics for college kids. I was trying to do updates for BSD because some of the Icers were representing the USA, and didn’t realize that this was the system they were using. I was quite confused at first, but the more I looked at it, the more sense it made. I’d definitely be interested to see it implemented at perhaps a lower level (AHL, ECHL, etc etc) before moving to the NHL, but I’m intrigued by it nonetheless.
"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
by IcersGuy on Nov 10, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hm, interesting. I wasn’t aware of that. I’m actually shocked I’ve never even heard of those games, besides maybe a passing reference that I didn’t give any thought to.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Nov 10, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The most popular sport in the world uses this system all over the globe. It has been successful in quelling a lot of controversy over which team from which league around the world should be included into which tournament and such.
Soccer in all international tournaments, including the Campions League, the World Cup, the Premier League, and even MLS use this system.
This has been brought up before, and the reason the NHL hasn’t adopted it is because of tradition. Season point records would drastically change. Yes with OT points, the records have been altered, but only slightly. At least thats what I have been told.
by Prometheus74 on Nov 11, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know it would never happen, but I was pondering a 5 point system the other day, because it allows a more granular breakdown of the points.
If you win in regulation, you get five points. The losing team gets zero.
A win in overtime would be worth four points, with the losing team getting one point.
A shootout victory would only be worth three points, with the losers getting a pair.
This makes OT worth something, since you’re playing for an extra point. With the current system, most teams seem to play overtime to “not lose,” rather than to win. Making a shootout victory worth less than an OT victory, and both worth less than a regulation victory, will make it more important to try to win as quickly as possible.
Possible? Sure. Probable? Heck no. That’d be too radical a change for most people, and even I’m not sure I’d like the point inflation.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
by The Dark on Nov 11, 2009 10:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I do like that with this system there would be a constant amount of points awarded for each game, regardless of outcome. Having most games be worth two points but some worth three is something I’d like to see done away with.
by Ben Feldman on Nov 11, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So if we roll the lightning by 5 goals, that’s worth 3, but if we score a goal late in the third to tie it with Pitty, we can only hope for 2? Sounds wonky.
Honestly, I’d prefer a shootout to be for the weak fans it’s supposed to attract anyway. If it makes it to the shootout, both teams get a point, no matter who wins it. End of the year, if teams are tied in points, sure. Go with shootouts. Till then, forget it exists.
by BroadStreetBully on Nov 8, 2009 3:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think that’s wonky. If you beat a team in regulation, especially by a ton of goals, you deserve that extra reward. If you can’t beat a team in 60 minutes, you deserve credit for not losing, but you also should get that little slap on the wrist for not being able to close them out in 60 minutes, either.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Nov 8, 2009 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How about two columns...
I say they just stop giving teams points for losing. Give two points to the winner and none to the loser, no matter how they lose, be it in the SO or OT. Its simple and its solves the whole playing for OT nonsense. It would also make for some really intense games with teams playing to avoid trying their luck in the shootout.
by halx on Nov 8, 2009 2:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know if I like that, because I do think you deserve something for not losing after playing a full 60 minutes of hockey.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Nov 8, 2009 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree, Travis. I think if you push the game to overtime after a hard fought 60 min(s) you deserve a point.
Personally, I hate the shootout. Maybe that is just because, historically, the Flyers have sucked at them. But, I just don’t see any better way of ending a tied game. Honestly, I’d rather just end the game in a tie if neither team can score after 65 min(s). I don’t think the shootout is a good representation of how good a team is. Who wants to focus on shootouts when there are more important things to practice. Idk, I don’t really have any better options though.
by flyrsfrk05 on Nov 8, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Clarification / Shootouts
Just in case I didn’t make it clear before, I will do so now. The purpose of this post was to offer a slight modification of Ken Holland’s idea, which I think was a good one at heart. If the league were to do something like Holland had suggested, I think they should make it easier for fans to differentiate between games won while playing hockey and games won while taking penalty shots.
Regarding the shootout, it’s exciting to watch, and in a way it gives a sense of closure to games. I just don’t think a team should be credited with an out-and-out win if they cannot beat an opponent fair and square after 65 minutes. This is why I suggested a column for ties originally, though I could see how having two single point columns (for ties and overtime points) could be confusing. Just have wins, losses, and overtime points for columns, Keep the current scoring system for standings intact, but give a team two overtime points for a shootout win instead of a proper win. If a team loses in the 4-on-4, give them a loss in the L column, but give them an overtime point too.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Nov 8, 2009 5:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Do away with the points.
I think they should do away with the whole point system.
I don’t mind the system they use to decide the winners/losers of regular season games, but to award a team a point for losing (whether it be in OT or a Shoot out) sort of takes away from the object of trying to win.
Afterall isn’t the object of the game, to win?
Teams should be rewarded for winning, not for getting the most “points”. Hence it’s possible for a team with more losses to be ahead in the standings.
The teams with best win/loss records should make the post season, not the team with the most “points”.
For example… look at the Northeast Division Standings as of November 17.2009
Buffalo is in first place, they have a win/loss record of 12 – 4 – 1 which gives them 25 points
Boston is in second place, with a win/loss record of 8 – 8 – 4, which gives them 20 points
Ottawa in third place, with a record of 8 – 6 – 3, which gives them 19 points
Montreal in fourth, with a 9 – 11 – 0, 18 points
Toronto in last place, with 3 – 10 – 5, 11 points
Because of the point system, Boston is ahead of both Ottawa and Montreal, despite having more losses than Ottawa, and less wins than Montreal
If the standings were based on just winning and lossing, than the northeast might look like this. (after all losing in OT or a shoot out is still a loss? is it not?). This is each teams Win/Loss record combining both regular & OT/Shoot out losses.
Buffalo: 12 – 5
Montreal: 9 – 11
Ottawa: 8 – 9
Boston: 8 – 12
Toronto: 3 – 15
Look at the Flyers current situation. They are in a three way tie in the Atlantic with both the Rangers & Islanders for third place.
Flyers: 11 – 5 – 1 (23 points)
Rangers: 11 – 8 – 1 (23 points)
Islanders: 8 – 6 – 7 (23 points) (all those OT/Shoot out losses)
Their actual Win/Loss records
Flyers: 11 – 6
Rangers: 11 – 9
Islanders: 8 – 13
Think about it, if the Islanders were instead of 8 – 6 – 7, were 8 – 5 – 8, (which is still 8 – 13) they would have 24 points on the season and be in third place, despite having a losing record.
If you were a new fan…wouldn’t you be confused? a team that’s 8 – 13, could possibly be ahead in the standings over a team that’s 11 – 6.
Matter of fact, suppose the Islanders were 8 – 1 – 12 (still 8 – 13, right?) they would have 28 points and tied for first place in not only the division, but the conference with the Devils (14 – 5 – 0) & Pittsburgh (14 – 7 – 0) & Capitals (12 – 4 – 4)
by FlyersGoalies1and27 on Nov 17, 2009 9:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Most of those problems don’t come into play at the end of the season, though. Theoretically they could, but the ones you listed are the result of teams playing different numbers of games.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Nov 18, 2009 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Atlantic Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New Jersey
|
58 | 36 | 20 | 2 | 74 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
59 | 35 | 22 | 2 | 72 |
|
Philadelphia
|
57 | 29 | 25 | 3 | 61 |
|
New York Rangers
|
59 | 26 | 26 | 7 | 59 |
|
New York Islanders
|
58 | 23 | 27 | 8 | 54 |
(updated 2.9.2010 at 9:00 AM EST)
Flyers Schedule
Next 5 Games
|
@
New Jersey
|
Wed 02/10 | 7:00 PM EST |
|
Montreal
|
Fri 02/12 | 6:00 PM EST |
|
@
Montreal
|
Sat 02/13 | 7:00 PM EST |
|
@
Tampa Bay
|
Tue 03/02 | 7:30 PM EST |
|
@
Florida
|
Wed 03/03 | 7:30 PM EST |
Last 5 Games
|
New Jersey
|
Mon 02/08 | W 3 - 2 |
|
@
Minnesota
|
Sat 02/06 | L 1 - 2 |
|
@
Edmonton
|
Wed 02/03 | L 0 - 1 |
|
@
Calgary
|
Mon 02/01 | W 3 - 0 |
|
New York Islanders
|
Sat 01/30 | W 2 - 1 |
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
