HockeyCSSI: Playing What-If with the Points Standings
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 4, 2012 1:04 PM CST
in Quick Hits
Email
PrintOne of the most persistent complaints among hockey fans since the lockout has been the points system adopted which makes some NHL games worth two points in the standings while others are worth three. The League took a step toward rectifying a problem in that this season by adopting a new tiebreaker system which rewarded teams winning without the benefit of the shootout before going to other tiebreaker scenarios, but countless articles and comments from people have asked for changes to the way standings points are earned. In this article, we’ll use HockeyCSSI.com’s new Advanced Standings charts to look at several of these ideas, their benefits and drawbacks, and most importantly how they would change the standings.
What’s Wrong with the Current System?
Presently, the NHL standings are decided by points earned in playing games. A team earns 2 points for winning a game (no matter the means) and one point for forcing a game to overtime before ultimately losing. The problem many fans see with this system, aside from the mere existence of a shootout which is viewed as a pox on our fair game, is that it unfairly turns some games into three-point games while others are worth only two. A team which is exceedingly good at creating tied hockey games can not only directly benefit from a system which creates this, but also work to make other teams suffer from their division rivals earning more points than they otherwise would have. This system showed this fault in the 2007-08 season when the Boston Bruins made their way to the playoffs as an 8-seed despite having won two fewer games than the Carolina Hurricanes. The difference which gave Boston their playoff berth was that they took twice as many losses to overtime as the Hurricanes did. One could make a very good argument that the Hurricanes deserved to be the first-round opponent for the Montreal Canadiens that season.
Head over to HockeyCSSI to read the rest. It's a look at three of the alternate points options and the kind of playoff scenarios they would have created over the past four seasons.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’d favor the three-point system, personally. But yeah, nothing makes me FUUUUUUUU more than seeing the blues playing the preds and seeing that the game went to a shootout.
Me too
Even as a history buff, I’m less worried about stepping all over the 76-77 Canadiens 132-point record if it makes the game of hockey better. I think the 3-point system does just that.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 4, 2012 1:39 PM CST up reply actions
Could just repurpose the data for purposes of recordkeeping...
Montreal would have earned (at least) 192 points – 60 wins and 12 ties. Without differentiating between ROW and W (if there were any) because I’m lazy, Vancouver would have only managed 167 points (50 ROW, 4 SO, 9 OTL) last season.
I like the sound of the 3-point system – every game being worth the same number of points is a lot more appealing than the bonus points clogging up the current standings.
playoff overtime should be sacred
i can’t believe people think the shootout is an acceptable alternative for playoff overtime. i don’t mind it in the regular season because, despite all the arguments against it which i pretty much fully agree with, the logistics of the regular season as it currently stands makes it difficult to come up with another realistic tie-breaker. if you ask me, the shootout is the lesser of two evils (the other being the tie).
out of the options the article mentions, i would be in favor of the three-point system. i used to be in the camp of “two points for a win, nothing for a loss” which i think was option 2 in the article, but you brought up a great point about how teams might try their luck in the shootout as opposed to actually playing hockey.
something i’m even MORE in favor of, though, that the article didn’t mention, is Quisp’s system that he brought up a few years ago. i think this system provides the greatest incentive to play hockey for the win, and it actually makes ties palatable, at least to me. it eliminates the shootout and emphasizes playing hockey, but it brings back the tie, BUT also quite dis-incentivizes playing for the tie. i guess the other drawback to the system is that games would be worth different point values again, but i can’t get over how much the system rewards winning and playing hockey to do so.
You wanna tell me that to mah face?!
YET ANOTHER Detroit Red Wings blog.
i can’t believe people think the shootout is an acceptable alternative for playoff overtime
In fairness to this, I’ve never met any person I consider an actual hockey fan who says this would be preferred in anything less than either a completely joking or a completely-defeated-because-it’s-3-am-and-my-team-just-lost-in-triple-OT manner. I honestly don’t believe the NHL is dumb enough to mess with playoff OT.
Quisp’s idea is very entertaining for the some men who just want to watch the world burn. I’d actually like to see this tried somewhere other than the NHL just to see what would happen.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 4, 2012 1:53 PM CST up reply actions
Quisp’s sytem would be entertaining just like the shootout. But aren’t they both sideshows to the real sport of hockey?
My other issue with that system is that it seems to reject (like the NHL itself does) that a 0-0 or 1-1 tie game can still be a really good game of hockey that involved two teams playing very well.
"My other issue with that system is that it seems to reject (like the NHL itself does) that a 0-0 or 1-1 tie game can still be a really good game of hockey that involved two teams playing very well."
i disagree with the sideshow aspect of it, but maybe we have differing ideas of “sideshow.”
i definitely see your point about disregarding good tie games, but honestly, how often do those kinds of tie games happen? i can think of two: the Red Wings at Bruins game the day after Thanksgiving this season (which the Red Wings won in a shootout, but like J.J. said during/ after the game, if that game ended in a tie, it would still have been a great game) and a Ducks/ Kings game i saw a few seasons ago that ended overtime 1-1 before going to a shootout. while i see your point about disregarding tie games, i think the frequency of these kinds of tie games is overblown and wouldn’t matter too much in the long term.
You wanna tell me that to mah face?!
YET ANOTHER Detroit Red Wings blog.
“Sideshow” might not have been the best choice of words and I did not mean it to be completely negative. To me both the shootout and Quisp’s system alter the fundamentals of the game in the pursuit of determining a winner which again in my opinion is not always necessary. That being said, I still find the shootout very entertaining and would no doubt find two teams both playing desperate hockey to score a goal very entertaining.
Your point is well taken that good tie games are relatively rare. Seeing teams play 20+ minutes of safe hockey to preserve a tie and their respective point is arguably more against the spirit of hockey than a shootout or a several minute free-for-all.
Excellent look at the system and how it could be changed.
However, I still don’t understand all the shootout hate. I absolutely LOVE the shootout. I get tired on a late night and would be even more tired if games went to double or triple overtime in the regular season. The whole point is to win in regulation so you aren’t tired for the next game on the schedule. If a team doesn’t like the shootout, i encourage them to try a little harder to win in regulation. I’m quite pleased that we have won the most games outright so far the season. The last 2 seasons we got to practice for the shootout a bit too much. I’m enjoying this year and our lack of needing to go to the shootout so far. However, I still like the shootout because it’s damn entertaining to watch. Anything can happen and the cream sure rises to the top. Gives me the rest of my night back too!
Your Photochop Guru
Maker of Movie Posters
Quoter of Nonsense
Want RedWings inspired stuff?
My wife makes some...
byjenniferleigh.etsy.com/
Burn the loser point.
The 1 point was for ties, we no longer have ties. If the shootout stays, you either get 2 points or 0. Don’t like getting 0? Win the fucking game. You shouldn’t get a bonus for taking longer to lose.
Or
If the NHL decides (as is most likely the case) that it absolutely wont get rid of the travishamockery that is the shootout, go to a 4-point system.
4 pts for a win
3 pts for an overtime win
2 pts for a shootout win
1 pt for an ot or shootout loss
0 pts for a regulation loss
This system gets even more complicated than the 3pt system, but it pushes teams to win as soon as possible. Although it would really make me happy to get rid of the charity point altogether. And go back to the old system with wins, losses and ties.
Or
3 Points for a regulation or OT win
2 Points for a shootout win
1 Point for a shootout loss
0 Points for a reg/OT loss
That kind of goes toward the playoff theory of a win is a win for actual hockey.
Also
That ensures there are a maximum of 3 points per game earned across the league, and only slightly punished teams who cant seal the deal in actual hockey play, while still making it worth their while to win.
I would also approve of this change to the standings.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 4, 2012 3:53 PM CST up reply actions
Me to
Want me to add this as on option for the Advanced Standings Page?
We would have faced Nashville in the first round last year
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 4, 2012 5:00 PM CST up reply actions
More detail
2010: All the same teams make the playoffs, but the standings are jumbled. Phillly wins the East in a tiebreaker. Chicago becomes a 5-seed as the 6,7, and 8 seeds in the West are decided by tiebreaker (NSH gets 6th over PHX on goal differential and LA is 8th because of ROW)
2009: The Rangers win a tiebreaker for the 8-seed over Montreal on ROW. Philly passes Boston for the 6-seed. Chicago wins the West over SanJo. Detroit drops to the 7 seed to face the Sharks.
2008: Once again, Florida makes the playoffs as a 7-seed while Montreal drops out. St. Louis and Columbus trade places out West, but no other changes.
2007: As usual, the Canes win the SE. Boston drops out of the playoffs, and we get a PIT/WSH first round. There is zero change in the order of the Western teams.
Conclusion: Looking at it, the goal differential of playoff teams favors the simpler 3-point game system by 9 total goals over four seasons. I would also say that having a team get 1 point for making the shootout and 0 points for losing in OT would almost guarantee the shootout more often. All-in-all, this is still my second-favorite option.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 4, 2012 5:57 PM CST up reply actions
I like this as well
Manager of the Mursak League's Banzai Bananas. BANZAI!!!
The over emphisis on points.
I don’t see the need for tallying different amounts of points for a win to try to force emphasis on winning in regulation time. I see the OT/Shoot out as one in the same during the regular season. It’s not a complete period with 5 players on the ice. The Shoot out is the last resort for a point. A loss is still a loss and deserves no points. I like to keep things simple:
Regulation Win: 2 points.
OT/SO Win: 1 point
Loss: 0
Under this system teams can only deny points to the other team. OT in the playoffs will not be touched. If you want to drink from the Stanley Cup you better damn well earn that right with guts, grit, and endurance.
I'm not giving points for any loss. Regulation or OT/SO loss.
Teams want points they need to win. Go into OT/SO, they can scrap for 1. Lose, no points for 2nd place. It’ll demand teams to play a full 60 minutes. No system will be seen as 100% fair but I’m not going to try to please everyone.
I see what you're saying
All in all, looking at each of these options, it’s funny how much the East changes and how little the West does.
Goes to show why they call it the Leastern.
by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 4, 2012 6:27 PM CST up reply actions
Agreed not too many Eastern Teams are conditioned for the Western travel schedule.
The East would not budge much on anything that involve increasing travel out West. They enjoy their timezone too much to leave it.
I also support this. A skills competition win is not as valuable as a team win, entertaining though it may be. And the game has a clock for a reason. If you cant get it done in the 60 minutes allotted you lose out, so this also forces a change in coaching strategy.
Bonus to this system for not infringing on the 2-point win records.
i've been hawking the blog today...
got that nasty itch after the new years break. seeing them play last night was outstanding but i’m already jonsing for more Red Wings hockey.
unfortunately, all the extra (and awesome) stuff you guys have been doing today isn’t cutting it.
i’m going through straight junkie withdrawal at the moment.
"I'll smile in June."
by Lords of Olympia on Jan 4, 2012 6:09 PM CST reply actions
I approve of this new standings chart.
And it has nothing to do with the fact that Vancouver is No. 1 and Chicago is No. 3.
Really.
I swear. :P
Blackhawks bleed Red & White.
We are all Canucks...including Toews, Sharp, Keith, Seabrook, ...need I go on?
keep it simple, Stupid!!!
Did any of you hockey fans watch the Swede/Russian gold medal game last night!!!???
PLAY ONE EXTRA PERIOD…. AND IF NO ONE IS THE WINNER, USE A SHOOT OUT. AND ONLY ONE TEAM COMES OUT A WINNER!!! no more (1) point for the loser.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
