NHL Point System - Good, Bad, Ugly?
by rusherman on Feb 16, 2010 10:09 AM EST
8 comments
So I was wandering around the expanse of the internet and found this article from about a year ago:
The gist of the article is the need for a point system that doesn't reward a loss (the whole "one point for an OTL" thing). You can read for yourself, but I was a little taken aback by the following statistic: One team could go 46-36-0, and another could go 10-0-72 and they would both make the playoffs. I know a team having 72 OT losses is unrealistic, but it does sort of point out a flawed system.
The suggested point system in the article makes sense to me.
Your ideas/opinions/rants?
0 recs |
8 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Because of the coin-flip nature of the shootout, I doubt NHL GM’s would ever agree to going with simple wins and losses. I think the closest we’ll get is something like 3 points for a Regulation or OT win, 2 for a Shootout Win, 1 for a Shootout Loss, and 0 for a Regulation or OT loss. You could also treat OT wins and losses like Shootouts, alternatively.
The biggest problem with the current setup is that some games are worth 50% more in the standings than others. Down the stretch we’ll be cheering not so much whether one team or another wins a given game, just that it doesn’t go to OT.
More fun than a stick to the face!
On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators.
Agreed
I could go for a winner take all or a 3-2-1 model. Anything but the current model would be an improvement. I hate watching a game and praying for no OT. This third point that magically appears in the event of OT sucks.
"Get to the Choppa!"
This should be simple....
3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for OT or SO win, and 1 for OT or SO loss. There should be 3 points available in every game. That way, you can win a game without having to overcome the three points of the teams ahead of you that went into OT. It’s wrong, to do what you need to do to get 2 points for the win, only to have other games generate 3 points in the standings that you now have to overcome. What more can you do than win? Also, I’m a little tired of watching teams coast through the last few minutes of regulation, they used to be the most exciting part of the games. If you can get an extra point by winning in regulation, I think the final minutes of games would be way more exciting, and the standings would be more fair.
by hockeydekefreak on Feb 16, 2010 12:24 PM EST reply actions
The shootout
The shootout is so far removed from regular game play, that the GM’s would never stomach walking away from a game with nothing because of a shootout loss.
More fun than a stick to the face!
On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators.
3-2-1 system...
is exactly what they’re using at the Olympics (OT is 2-1 like a shootout)—and is in fact the IIHF standard for its own competitions. That probably makes it the most likely change to be adopted.
We had this discussion over at MHH
And I suggested that they reinstate the tie. The problem with the shootout is that it forces a team to win (sometimes the team not deserved of the win). In some games, a clear cut winner isn’t really defined so why give them an extra point when both teams played so-so?
One point for a win
Nothing for a loss, nothing for a tie, no overtime (except playoffs, of course), no shootouts.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
About Me
Dirk Hoag is the Forechecker, churner of NHL stats and analysis.
Got a question or a suggestion? Feel free to email the.forechecker@gmail.com.
Named by Sports Media Challenge as a Top 10 NHL Blog
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.
