NHL Point Structure for Standings

[JTech780]

The only mistake the NHL made with the new points system was trying to be economical with the number of columns.

If they went with 4 columns instead of 3, you wouldn't see threads like the OP started.

99.9% who think of it as a 'loser pt' wouldn't be able to do the math to determine the number of 'loser pts' actually dished out...

 

Current pt system relabelled: 

 

2 pts : Regulation Win

0 pts : Losses

1 pt : Regulation Tie

1 pt : OT/SO win

 

Relabelling the columns doesn't change the fact that a team that just lost the game is still getting a point and that some games 3 points are dished out and some games 2 points are dished out. 

 

The goal of the game is to win, not to get to OT. Winners win, losers lose end of story. No consolation prize because you made it to OT.

 

I understand why a Canucks fan would be in favor of the current system, the Canucks are currently tied with Anaheim and Toronto for fewest wins in the league, but are currently holding a playoff spot because they lost in OT 9 times. This is the exact reason this points system doesn't work.

[JTech780]

If I had my way we would get rid of divisions and just have 2 conferences, the 8 teams with the most wins in each conference make the playoffs.

That way you end up with the best regular season teams in the playoffs.

[DL44]

Relabelling the columns doesn't change the fact that a team that just lost the game is still getting a point and that some games 3 points are dished out and some games 2 points are dished out.

The goal of the game is to win, not to get to OT. Winners win, losers lose end of story. No consolation prize because you made it to OT.

I understand why a Canucks fan would be in favor of the current system, the Canucks are currently tied with Anaheim and Toronto for fewest wins in the league, but are currently holding a playoff spot because they lost in OT 9 times. This is the exact reason this points system doesn't work.

Incorrect... The Canucks are in a playoff standing because they've only been beaten in regulation (5on5) 14 times. 22 times teams have failed to finish em in 60.

Teams earn pts and make the playoffs by Not losing in Regulation.

Not by losing in OT.

All Wins minus regulation losses. THAT'S how the standings are designed.

OTLs are throw away games... A waste of time. It's W minus L.

But that is a challenging concept to grasp by many ( and all who believe it's a 'loser pt').

And FYI.. I've been extremely consistent on this for YRS( check my post history here or on HF).. Not because I'm being reactionary about 9 OTLs over the last 3months for a specific team.

[JTech780]

Incorrect... The Canucks are in a playoff standing because they've only been beaten in regulation (5on5) 14 times. 22 times teams have failed to finish em in 60.

Teams earn pts and make the playoffs by Not losing in Regulation.

Not by losing in OT.

All Wins minus regulation losses. THAT'S how the standings are designed.

OTLs are throw away games... A waste of time. It's W minus L.

But that is a challenging concept to grasp by many ( and all who believe it's a 'loser pt').

And FYI.. I've been extremely consistent on this for YRS( check my post history here or on HF).. Not because I'm being reactionary about 9 OTLs over the last 3months for a specific team.

I fully understand what you are saying, but re-wording it doesn't change anything.

At the end of each game there is a clearly defined winner and loser. The end.

I want teams playing to win, not to not lose in regulation. Not losing in regulation doesn't mean anything, that's not reward worthy. The goal of the game, the reason why these games are played is to win. Wins and loses are the only thing that is important.

[DL44]

I fully understand what you are saying, but re-wording it doesn't change anything.

At the end of each game there is a clearly defined winner and loser. The end.

I want teams playing to win, not to not lose in regulation. Not losing in regulation doesn't mean anything, that's not reward worthy. The goal of the game, the reason why these games are played is to win. Wins and loses are the only thing that is important.

 

 

Re-wording it was simply to exemplify how it is not a "loser point."

 

As for "Not losing in regulation doesn't mean anything, that's not reward worthy" - I agree.  And I stated the exact same thing...: OTLs are throw away games for the losing team.  It does nothing for their "Wins minus Regulation losses" formula that determines their standing.

It does for the winning team however as they walk away improved on the night.

 

At the end of the day you accumulate points by Winning (anyway you can : Reg/OT/SO) AND not losing in regulation.  

Pt total after 82 = 82+(Wins-Reg L)

 

When i look at the Pacific standings during the season I look at it like:

LA +9

SJ +2

Az +1

Cgy 0

Van -1

Ana -3

Edm -3

 

That's all i look at... because that's all that matters at the end of the season. 

Pt percentage is also nice to look at... however that's rarely available on main page standings.

 

 

So that's why wasting any energy on this team or that team's OTLs or 'loser points' is beyond useless and irrelevant (outside of representing how many times that team blew the opportunity to gain an extra point in OT)...  

[JTech780]

Re-wording it was simply to exemplify how it is not a "loser point."

As for "Not losing in regulation doesn't mean anything, that's not reward worthy" - I agree. And I stated the exact same thing...: OTLs are throw away games for the losing team. It does nothing for their "Wins minus Regulation losses" formula that determines their standing.

It does for the winning team however as they walk away improved on the night.

At the end of the day you accumulate points by Winning (anyway you can : Reg/OT/SO) AND not losing in regulation.

Pt total after 82 = 82+(Wins-Reg L)

When i look at the Pacific standings during the season I look at it like:

LA +9

SJ +2

Az +1

Cgy 0

Van -1

Ana -3

Edm -3

That's all i look at... because that's all that matters at the end of the season.

Pt percentage is also nice to look at... however that's rarely available on main page standings.

So that's why wasting any energy on this team or that team's OTLs or 'loser points' is beyond useless and irrelevant...

It isn't irrelevant at all. If one team has 42 wins and another team from the same division has 40 wins, but the team with 40 wins ends up in the playoffs then the system is broken.

Wins are the only thing that is important, if you agree that not losing in regulation doesn't mean anything and it isn't reward worthy then you agree that teams shouldn't be given points for a regulation tie (OTL).

[DL44]

It isn't irrelevant at all. If one team has 42 wins and another team from the same division has 40 wins, but the team with 40 wins ends up in the playoffs then the system is broken.

 

But is it if the team with 42 wins lost in regulation 35 times and the other lost just 30?

 

 

Wins are the only thing that is important, if you agree that not losing in regulation doesn't mean anything and it isn't reward worthy then you agree that teams shouldn't be given points for a regulation tie (OTL).

 

 

Sorry.. that wasn't what i meant.. i f'd up in my comprehension of your post.

I somehow twisted in my mind that you were said OTL's didn't matter.  The rest of my post supported that thought.

[JTech780]

But is it if the team with 42 wins lost in regulation 35 times and the other lost just 30?

Sure, let's say team A has a record of 42-35-5 for a total 89 points and team B has a record of 40-30-12 for a total of 92 points.

From my understanding you are arguing that team b is the better team just because they lost less in regulation.

I don't agree with that, in my books winning is everything, and should be the only factor in determining who gets to the playoffs. If team b was the better team they should have won more.

[CheersMan]

Sure, let's say team A has a record of 42-35-5 for a total 89 points and team B has a record of 40-30-12 for a total of 92 points.

From my understanding you are arguing that team b is the better team just because they lost less in regulation.

I don't agree with that, in my books winning is everything, and should be the only factor in determining who gets to the playoffs. If team b was the better team they should have won more.

 

Team A went to OT 12 times and won all 12 in a SO.  30 wins were collected 5v5, the other 12 wins were collected in a skills completion.

 

Team B went to OT 12 as well but lost all 12 in a SO.  All 40 wins were collected 5v5.

 

If the two teams were to face each other in a playoff series, Vegas would have Team B as the heavy favorite to win the series.  The playoffs are not about a skills competition, that’s why team B makes the playoffs and team A doesn’t.

[JTech780]

Team A went to OT 12 times and won all 12 in a SO. 30 wins were collected 5v5, the other 12 wins were collected in a skills completion.

Team B went to OT 12 as well but lost all 12 in a SO. All 40 wins were collected 5v5.

If the two teams were to face each other in a playoff series, Vegas would have Team B as the heavy favorite to win the series. The playoffs are not about a skills competition, that’s why team B makes the playoffs and team A doesn’t.

Both teams played under the same rules, team b should have won a couple of those SO games.

Even if you wanted to weigh regulation wins over OT/SO wins the 3 point system makes much more sense than the current system.

[CastleMania]

The current system does exactly what I want, it rewards regular time play.

 

I'd prefer to just have ties, but that ship sailed long ago.

[JTech780]

http://grantland.com/features/at-a-loss/

 

This article perfectly sums up my feelings on the loser point, or regulation tie point, or whatever you want to call it.

 

The current system does exactly what I want, it rewards regular time play.

 

I'd prefer to just have ties, but that ship sailed long ago.

 

If by rewards regular time play, you mean that it rewards teams who play it conservative in 3rd to make sure they get the OT point then yes you are correct. I prefer to have teams playing for the win the whole game.

[JTech780]

 

In last week's 30 Thoughts, there was one statistic a few people asked about, that just three of 32 NHL teams at least four points out of a playoff spot on Nov. 1 recovered to make the playoffs from 2005-06 to 2011-12 (Sources say no hockey was played by that date in 2012-13).

It is amazing to see how the "loser point" has changed the NHL game. The last season before its introduction was 1998-99. Back then, you got two points for a win, one for a tie and nothing if you lost in overtime. There was no shootout. 

That year, the two worst teams in the NHL as we threw out our Halloween costumes were the Colorado Avalanche (2-6-1) and San Jose Sharks (1-6-2). They were four and five points out of the playoffs, respectively. The Avalanche were a powerhouse and recovered to finish second in the Western Conference and reach the conference final. Their first-round opponent? The Sharks.

That simply does not happen anymore. Since the shootout entered the NHL, we've never had a season in which two teams came from that far back to make it. And only one of the three comeback kings was more than four points out. That was Calgary. The Flames were seven points out in 2006-07, then went 40-22-9 to make it. The other survivors were the Buffalo Sabres (2010-11) and Boston Bruins (2011-12). The Sabres went 40-22-8; the Bruins, 45-22-4.

Generally, working yourself into a panic about what your team does in the first 10 games is a bad idea. But what really stands out about this particular season is how many teams are in danger of falling so far behind.

For example, the highest number of teams to fall at least four points out of the playoffs by Nov. 1 in our sample size is seven. That was 2006-07, the year Calgary made it. The lowest was two. This year, there are, potentially, seven such teams in the Eastern Conference (remember the crossovers). The West has three.

Anyway, that's the explanation. The optimists will say, "Well, it's happened each of the last two full seasons, so it can be done again." Just don't show the pessimists the numbers.

 

This perfectly shows how the loser point is actually killing playoff races not making them more exciting. 

 

I should note that this is from Elliotte Friedman's 30 Thoughts Blog from October 21, 2013, so the stats could have changed slightly.

[DL44]

This perfectly shows how the loser point is actually killing playoff races not making them more exciting. 

 

I should note that this is from Elliotte Friedman's 30 Thoughts Blog from October 21, 2013, so the stats could have changed slightly.

 

 

If you don't think the playoff races have been the most exciting they've EVER been these last few yrs then there is NO helping you.

 

The compression provided by the present system makes it absolutely the best pt structure the NHL could have ever come up with for maximum fanbase involvement, ratings and revenues late into the season.

 

It will never be changed for those reasons.

 

Any alternative pt structure you can come up with decompresses the standings and reverses what has occurred with the playoff races in recent yrs.

 

So hey.. i respect you voicing your displeasure for the current pt structure (even tho you think it's a loser pt)... but I adamantly disagree with you on it.

 

So we'll agree to disagree... and i'll move on.

[AlbertaBoy12]

If you don't think the playoff races have been the most exciting they've EVER been these last few yrs then there is NO helping you.

 

The compression provided by the present system makes it absolutely the best pt structure the NHL could have ever come up with for maximum fanbase involvement, ratings and revenues late into the season.

 

It will never be changed for those reasons.

 

Any alternative pt structure you can come up with decompresses the standings and reverses what has occurred with the playoff races in recent yrs.

 

So hey.. i respect you voicing your displeasure for the current pt structure (even tho you think it's a loser pt)... but I adamantly disagree with you on it.

 

So we'll agree to disagree... and i'll move on.

Youre totally right its super exciting to see vancouver be in a playoff spot at this time based on 9 OTL. WOW EXCITING!

 

This is for sure the kind of hockey that should be rewarded., same thing with LA even being close last year based on 15 OTL, or the 2011-12 season where both the flames and LA had more losses then wins but were 8th and 9th over teams with more wins. What would you call it if not a loser point? 

 

If the point didnt exist you would be 13-23 with 26 points vs being in the playoff hunt, I dont see why you think thats ok. It just makes it look like you are playing better hockey then you are which is what the article states.

[DirtyDeeds]

Youre totally right its super exciting to see vancouver be in a playoff spot at this time based on 9 OTL. WOW EXCITING!

 

This is for sure the kind of hockey that should be rewarded., same thing with LA even being close last year based on 15 OTL, or the 2011-12 season where both the flames and LA had more losses then wins but were 8th and 9th over teams with more wins. What would you call it if not a loser point? 

 

If the point didnt exist you would be 13-23 with 26 points vs being in the playoff hunt, I dont see why you think thats ok. It just makes it look like you are playing better hockey then you are which is what the article states.

To support DL44's point he does make a case for the loser points keeping more fans interested longer.

 

He should know as Canuck Fans are top-notch bandwagon jumpers. Keeping all those fickle fans interested longer is "good marketing" don't you know.

 

It could get a lot more lonely here if the Canucks were out of playoff spot by December break and no DL44 kicking about these forums.

[Flyerfan52]

In a world with short attention spans the premise of looking at the standings & seeing their team (among the other 29) still in in playoff hunt deludes them into thinking they have a chance.

Like the pass kids get in school when they obviously don't/won't or just don't care to comprehend what the real world will entail banking on not losing in 60 minutes gives a false sense of accomplishment. Do/win nothing but get rewarded. In the real world those kids find jobs don't appear because you tried. In the playoffs the teams that lose but benefit by doing so in pretend are quickly found on the roadside.

Teams that do well in the playoffs normally finish the season on a flurry of wins. Since the gimmicks don't exist when the SC is up for grabs the pretenders can't rely on the "thanks for coming, here's a point" strategy.

 

To make it fair let every team get used to playing for 2 points in real time. If neither wins in regulation award each a point but be assured especially the team a few points out of a playoff spot will go for 2 instead of 1 in the 3rd period. 2 teams with spots sewed up might slack for the 1 point but to any team on the cusp it's leave it all on the ice time.

 

Phrase it any way way you want but rewarding losing is exactly that. Competition is by definition trying to best the opponent.

[darth_henning]

I don't understand why we just don't use the international system. 

 

3 for a regulation win

2 for an overtime win

1 for an overtime loss

0 for a regulation loss

 

Simple. 

[travel_dude]

Why not simply eliminate the loser point?  Teams do their best to win in regulation.  Going to OT assures them nothing but a chance for 2 points.  A loss in OT or SO is just that; a loss.  It gives the teams that can only win in shootouts a chance to get there if they survive.

It rewards teams with a OT win while not rewarding the loser.

[darth_henning]

The thing is winning in OT or even worse a shootout takes less skill than winning in regulation. 

 

Yes, OT wins have greatly helped us this year. BUT on the whole, an OT win shouldn't be worth the same as a regulation win. 

[CheersMan]

If you don't think the playoff races have been the most exciting they've EVER been these last few yrs then there is NO helping you.

 

The compression provided by the present system makes it absolutely the best pt structure the NHL could have ever come up with for maximum fanbase involvement, ratings and revenues late into the season.

 

It will never be changed for those reasons.

 

Any alternative pt structure you can come up with decompresses the standings and reverses what has occurred with the playoff races in recent yrs.

 

So hey.. i respect you voicing your displeasure for the current pt structure (even tho you think it's a loser pt)... but I adamantly disagree with you on it.

 

So we'll agree to disagree... and i'll move on.

 

I concur, and I'll move on as well.

[xstrike]

I don't understand why we just don't use the international system. 

 

3 for a regulation win

2 for an overtime win

1 for an overtime loss

0 for a regulation loss

 

Simple. 

Just putting this here for comparison. (I used this points system.)

 

Old Place New place Team Name New Points

      1               1          CHICAGO        102

      2               2           DALLAS           98

      3               3         ST. LOUIS         92

      4               4       LOS ANGELES    87

      8               5         COLORADO      82

      7               6         NASHVILLE       80

      6               7          ANAHEIM         80

      5               8         SAN JOSE         79

      9               9        MINNESOTA      78

     10             10          ARIZONA        72

     13             11         WINNIPEG       70

     11             12       VANCOUVER     65

     12             13        CALGARY         63

     14             14       EDMONTON      58

 

Colorado makes the biggest jump, SJ the biggest fall, and Winni goes up a touch.

Edit: wh00ps, it didn't look terrible when I posted. Fixed now.

[darth_henning]

Old Place New place Team Name New Points

1 1  CHICAGO 102

2 2  DALLAS 98

3 3  ST. LOUIS 92

4 4  LOS ANGELES 87

8 5  COLORADO 82

7 6  NASHVILLE 80

6 7  ANAHEIM 80

5 8  SAN JOSE 79

 

9 9  MINNESOTA 78

10 10  ARIZONA 72

13 11  WINNIPEG 70

11 12  VANCOUVER 65

12 13  CALGARY 63

14 14  EDMONTON 58

 

 

What's interesting is that it doesn't change the rankings TOO drastically overall, but it really adjusts the spread. 

 

There's a very clear top 4, 5 teams fighting for the other 4 playoff spots, and 5 teams that are for all intents and purposes out. 

 

Makes a lot more sense to me. 

 

 

But I'm really sad that the Canadian teams make up the bottom 4 in both ranking systems. 

[DirtyDeeds]

Old Place New place Team Name New Points

1 1  CHICAGO 102

2 2  DALLAS 98

3 3  ST. LOUIS 92

4 4  LOS ANGELES 87

8 5  COLORADO 82

7 6  NASHVILLE 80

6 7  ANAHEIM 80

5 8  SAN JOSE 79

 

9 9  MINNESOTA 78

10 10  ARIZONA 72

13 11  WINNIPEG 70

11 12  VANCOUVER 65

12 13  CALGARY 63

14 14  EDMONTON 58

 

 

What's interesting is that it doesn't change the rankings TOO drastically overall, but it really adjusts the spread. 

 

There's a very clear top 4, 5 teams fighting for the other 4 playoff spots, and 5 teams that are for all intents and purposes out. 

 

Makes a lot more sense to me. 

 

 

But I'm really sad that the Canadian teams make up the bottom 4 in both ranking systems. 

if playoffs started today, theren would be no Canadian Teams participating.

[xstrike]

if playoffs started today, theren would be no Canadian Teams participating.

Maybe EDM should trade their stars to MTL for future considerations on the condition they get traded back after the season/playoffs. We could send our D-men and maybe TOR could loan a GK. Then maybe the Habs could make the dance and be a super CAN team.

Works for us too, our AHL team could all get called up and play some NHL games eh.

 

I'm joking of course, but does the league have any rule against this?