Changing the points system

by Vansteel on Feb 8, 2010 4:37 PM EST

I'm relatively new to this site so I apologize if this is something that has been covered before, but how does everyone feel about the current point system? I personally hate how some games are worth 3 points while others are only worth 2. It creates an absolute logjam in the standings. It seems as if there are teams that have lost so many more games than won, but are still in the hunt right now, whereas they wouldn't be under the old system. I feel a team should be rewarded more for winning in regulation than a team that must go to overtime or shootout (at least if the losing team is going to be rewarded for taking it to OT) At least when we had ties, every game was worth the same, and the standings gave a clear indication of how a team stood against others.

This item was written by a member of this community and is not necessarily endorsed by Broad Street Hockey.

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

agree with you 100 percent on the 3 point regulation win the believe the arguments against were

1) it would destroy historical records teams would be ending the year in the 140 – 150 points

- now that every game ends with 2 points handed out the records really don’t mean anything anyway the fact the gave Brodeur the most wins in a season record is a joke he wouldn’t have came close without his shootout wins

2) it would be too confusing to read a four column win loss record W/L/OTW/OTL

- hockey fans are not morons and can count I think most hockey fans would be for it but the shootout is not really for hockey fans and hockey purist aren’t very found of it

3) parity is paramount the NHL wanted every team to be in the playoff race and didn’t want too many teams to get far out ahead the pack

- another gimmick to boost popularity and help the bad teams by making winning less important to give false hope to lesser franchises wild-card in Baseball and Football, restrictor plates in NASCAR worked to grow those sports so this in the NHL equivalent

by chrislanci on Feb 8, 2010 5:56 PM EST reply actions

Just to throw it out there, the 4 column thing isn’t unheard of. The AHL and the Q (and probably the rest of the CHL) use a 4 column system, but its Wins – Losses – Overtime Loss – Shoot Out Loss. However, they count the points exactly the same as the NHL, so it doesn’t really make any difference.

Anyway, here’s the link back to the original post: Rethinking the standings

by DragonGirl0583 on Feb 8, 2010 6:28 PM EST up reply actions

If i recall, before the lock out it was four columns. W-L-T-OTL

by orangeandblack20 on Feb 10, 2010 12:47 AM EST up reply actions

You’re right about that, thanks for the refresher.

by DragonGirl0583 on Feb 10, 2010 12:56 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, I really don’t care how they show standings. I’ve been following hockey long enough to understand things. And, frankly, I believe hockey lives and dies by it’s hardcore fans. I just strongly feel if you’re going to reward a team for losing in overtime/shootout, a team that wins in 60 should be rewarded.

by Vansteel on Feb 8, 2010 6:50 PM EST reply actions

Oh, there were plenty of strong opinions on here about how to fix things, and most of the solutions we talked about involved giving more points for an overtime win. If you follow the link I posted to that other fanpost, you’ll see all the different proposed solutions and some discussion about the merits of each way of tracking points.

by DragonGirl0583 on Feb 8, 2010 6:53 PM EST up reply actions

Bah, typo… that’s supposed to say most of the posts favored giving more points for a regulation win.

by DragonGirl0583 on Feb 8, 2010 7:00 PM EST up reply actions

For me, the dream scenario would be do it soccer style. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss.

Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter

by JasonB on Feb 9, 2010 12:52 AM EST reply actions

I still like my five-point system, if Bettman’s going to insist on no ties and the skills competition:

For a regulation win, winner gets 5 points, loser gets 0
For an OT win, winner gets 4 points, loser gets 1
For an SO win, winner gets 3 points, loser gets 2

This maintains the incentive to play hard in OT, which is currently set up to encourage defensive play. I’d prefer to go back to a W-L-T system, but given the current administration of the league, I don’t expect that.

"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 Feb 9, 2010 9:42 AM EST reply actions

Recognized world wide, and used universally for all other international sports and competition as the best was to score wins losses and ties.
3 points for a win
2 points for a win in OT
1 point for making it into OT
0 points regulation loss

Logic behind the system
If you complete the objective in the amount of time alloted you get all the points
Win in regulation =3 pts

Complete the objective but not on time; you get some of the points but not all
OT win/so win= 2 pts
(shootout and ot serve the exact same purpose. Making a winner in regular season games)

You successfully keep your opponent from achieving their goal in the time alloted but fail to achieve yours is worth something, but not much.
Regulation tie =1pt

You fail to achieve your goal, and you fail to prevent your opponent from successfully achieving theirs is worth nothing.

by Prometheus74 on Feb 9, 2010 1:19 PM EST reply actions

I am fully behind this and you articulated it very well.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 9, 2010 1:44 PM EST up reply actions

Absolutely. With the exception of screwing with history and records, it amazes me that the people in charge don’t see the logic and advantage to a system like this. I really think the current system rewards certain underachieving teams and gives a false tightness to the playoff race.

by Vansteel on Feb 9, 2010 4:15 PM EST up reply actions

That is the way it should be done.

by chrislanci on Feb 12, 2010 9:45 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

keep it simple. you win, or you lose. no points. winning more games gets you into the playoffs. losing doesn’t.

by jhamer85 on Feb 9, 2010 11:36 PM EST reply actions

Are you keeping the shootout?

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 9, 2010 11:40 PM EST up reply actions

Off topic

Hey, Geoff, this is completely off topic, but I just read you grew up in Quakertown. I grew up in Coopersburg. I’m a little older than you, but did you play in any leagues in the area? Are you familiar with the Gunn Hockey League that operated out of Quakertown?

by Vansteel on Feb 10, 2010 9:45 AM EST up reply actions

I’m familiar with Gunn Hockey, but I never played in the league myself.

I played one year of roller hockey but stuck to high school ice.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 10, 2010 10:23 AM EST up reply actions

i’m fine with or without the shoot out. i like some arguments for it and some against it. all i know is it helps my friends who aren’t interested in the first 65 minutes see some hockey. shoot out would just contribute to the simple W-L record though, no bonus or sympathy point

by jhamer85 on Feb 22, 2010 11:55 AM EST up reply actions

I hate snow.

by Vansteel on Feb 10, 2010 7:18 AM EST reply actions

For the sake of conversation:
Here is what the Eastern conference standing would look like under Prometheus’ system heading into tonight’s games:
Wins-Losses (OT record) Points Current Points

Washington 34-12 (7-6) 112 88

New Jersey 28-20 (8-2) 102 74

Buffalo 25-18 (7-7) 96 72

Pittsburgh 25-22 (10-2) 97 72

Ottawa 26-22 (8-4) 98 72

Tampa Bay 20-21 (6-11) 83 63

Montreal 16-26 (12-6) 78 62

Philadelphia 25-25 (4-3) 86 61

Boston 16-21 (9-11) 77 61

NY Rangers 24-26 (2-7) 83 59

Atlanta 19-24 (6-8) 77 58

Florida 18-25 (6-9) 75 57

NY Islanders 12-27 (12-8) 68 56

Carolina 18-30 (4-7) 69 51

Toronto 18-30 (1-11) 67 49

by delawarept on Feb 10, 2010 8:18 PM EST reply actions

Other changes

I am also against the 4 on 4 OT I think it is really minor league gimmick that cheapens the game. I know it is exciting but it just isn’t right to artifically reduce the number of players on the ice for an OT period. I am also on favor of going back to a 10 min OT and I have always been in favor of a 5 man shootout 3 is too small and doesn’t make sense you play with 5 guys and a goalie you should have 5 shots in the shootout. The current OT and SO rules favor the least deep teams and the teams with best individual superstar players not the best teams overall.

by chrislanci on Feb 12, 2010 9:53 AM EST via mobile reply actions

I stick by my earlier post, which DragonGirl linked earlier. WLTOP. Win, Lose, Tie, Overtime Points.

Win in regulation or in OT – Get a W. 2 points.
Lose in regulation – Get an L. 0 points.
Lose in OT – Get an L but an OP as well. (This shows that you lost while actually playing hockey, but gives you the point for getting through 60 minutes.) 1point.
No one wins after 65 minutes (regulation & OT) – Each team gets a tie since no one actually won a proper hockey game. 1 point.
Shootout winner gets an OP as well, so SO winner still gets 2 points but those 2 points do not carry the same weight as a win due to the NHL’s tiebreaking system.

Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?

by mikefive on Feb 12, 2010 10:03 AM EST reply actions