The Loser Point

by PredHead on Sep 6, 2010 2:50 PM EDT

Before the 2009 – 2010 season disappears forever, it’s time for one last rant. With the NHL meeting to discuss rule changes it seems appropriate to rant on a particularly irritating NHL phenomenon: the loser point.

Take a look at the final Western Conference standings from last season:

Seed Team Pts. Record

1 SJ 113 51-20-11

2 CHI 112 52-22-8

3 VAN 103 49-28-5

4 PHX 107 50-25-7

5 DET 102 44-24-14

6 LA 101 46-27-9

7 NAS 100 47-29-6

8 COL 95 43-30-9

Notice anything strange? How about the fact that DET and LA were seeded higher than Nashville despite the fact that Nashville had more wins?

As Herm Edwards so eloquently put it, “Hello?! You play to win the game!” So why does the NHL reward an overtime lose with a bonus point? Every major sports league in the world, from the NFL to the Australian Women’s Basketball League, has figured out that awarding a loser point is just stupid. If the NHL simply eliminated the loser point, the 09-10 standings would have looked like this:

Seed Team Pts.

1 CHI 104

2 SJ 102

3 VAN 98

4 PHX 100

5 NAS 94

6 LA 92

7 DET 88

8 COL 86

As you can see the same eight teams would have made the playoffs, but the seeds would have been quite different (as in the Eastern Conference). Nashville, for example, would have drawn Phoenix in the first round rather than Chicago. Obviously nobody knows how/if this would have changed the end result of the playoffs. My point is that Nashville defeated 3 more opponents than Detroit; they deserved a higher seed.

The 3-2-1 “Solution”

There has been some talk that the NHL is considering a 3-2-1 point system in which a regulation win is worth 3 pts, a OT/Shootout win is worth 2 pts, and an OT/Shootout lose is worth 1 pt. I have two problems with this. First, this system still awards a point to the losing team. Second, an OT win is a legitimate win in my opinion. Why should it be worth less than a regulation win?

The ~~Coin Toss~~ Shootout

The only justification that I’ve heard for the NHL’s bizarre loser point is that owners/GMs would never accept walking away from a shootout empty handed. This is due to the random nature of the shootout. I can understand this argument, because shootouts were really only instituted so fans could go home at reasonable hour with a final result to cheer/gripe about. However, if a owner/GM/coach/player is willing to accept a shootout loser point, the Herm Edwards in me says, “Get out!”

Conclusion

My suggestion for the 2010 – 2011 NHL season is that they simply do away with the OT loser point. Regulation and OT wins would be worth 2 pts, with 0 pts going to the loser. Shootout wins could still be worth 2 pts with a magical 3rd point going to the loser. This would allow the standings to more accurately reflect the performance of each team, but would not give anyone a chance to call foul. Ultimately the NHL would be one step closer to a league in which everyone play to win the game.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Agreed

I agree with you PredHead. But unlike you, I don’t understand the “owners/GMs walking away emptyhanded” argument. Do the owners think attendance would suffer if their team made it to OT, lost and didn’t at least get a point out of it? Do the GMs think their players have tried hard enough to deserve a point regardless of what happens after regulation?

It sucks when your team loses a close game, whether you’re the owner, the GM or just a fan. But that’s life!

by Lil cutie on Sep 6, 2010 10:53 PM EDT reply actions

One of my favorite pet peeves

I’m fine with either solution, the 3-2-1 format or the 2-0 one. The current setup stinks, though. It pretty much forces coaches to play it safe in the third period and head for overtime instead of playing to win.

On the Forecheck is SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators. Catch me on Twitter at @Forechecker.

by Dirk Hoag on Sep 6, 2010 11:12 PM EDT reply actions

what i have seen lately at the end of regulation when tied is that either team plays it safe and passes all around basically trying to get the time to run out. You hardly see a lot of teams taking risks offensively. I think you would see this change if there would be 1 team that gets nothing in a loss and especially if a regulation win counts for 3 points. But I think even if this new system were in place say for that shootout at the end of the season to see who gets in the playoffs, it still wouldn’t have made a difference. I think that is what needs to be changed.

Other than that I think it is fine the way it is.

by preds4ever on Sep 7, 2010 1:09 PM EDT reply actions

I think when deciding playoff seeding, the loser points should not count except as a 3rd or so tie breaker. Make them less important and more teams will play to win. And, that way, the owners will still get their “not walking away after OT/SO with an empty hand” point.

by TitanPredBearFan on Sep 7, 2010 1:35 PM EDT reply actions

Yes, but no.

I hate the current point system more than anything, but I don’t think your conclusion (eliminate loser point in OT but not in the shootout) would change anything for the better. In fact, I think you may have hit upon the only option worse than the present (no offense intended; you make a good argument, but I disagree somewhat with your conclusion), and here is why:

Teams already will often play conservatively late in the third period of a tied game, because of the loser point once they reach OT. Then, when they reach OT, they often stomp on the gas, because they get a point no matter what. If the loser point doesn’t appear until the shootout, I think it is logical to conclude that teams who really feel that they need at least one point out of the game will still play conservatively late in the game, and additionally, stop attacking in OT. Bad.

Basically, with your solution, I see the following happening:
1. Any team that would otherwise be playing conservatively late in the game, will still do so.
2. Any team that would otherwise be attacking, taking risks, and ultimately getting games decided in OT will instead play defensively, excepting a case where they fear the shootout.
3. A higher percentage of the games that made it to OT would get to the shootout, instead of being decided in OT; and although a few would be decided in OT with none of the deplorable magic extra points awarded, most games would make it to the shootout.

Personally, I would be all right with a 3-2-1 point system, or a 2 point system with no OTL points. I hate how the OTL points distort the standings (every team in the league could simultaneously earn more than a point per game in any given season, and all appear to be a winning team). I hate the shootout from the bottom of my heart, and I love long overtimes more than anything.

Ideally, I would have a twenty minute OT period, probably 5 on 5, but perhaps 4 on 4; 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss at any point. A 3 point system would be better than the current one, but I don’t consider it ideal because I am used to a 2 point system.

by Smashvillain on Sep 8, 2010 2:03 PM EDT reply actions

That's true

I honestly did not even consider how it would affect the actual game play. I was only thinking about it in terms standings inflation. But you’re right, it wouldn’t fix the problem, just switch it for a different one.

My ideal solution would be to just have sudden death OT. Then you could simply look at wins and loses. You wouldn’t even need points anymore.

"Get to the Choppa!"

by PredHead on Sep 8, 2010 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Indeed,

I would be all for sudden death OT, just play until someone wins. Sadly, however, I suspect this is out of the question for practical reasons.

A regular season game that had an extra 60 minutes of OT on the end of it, like they sometimes do in the playoffs, would be awesome—but it would do havoc to TV broadcasting schedules, not to mention the fact that both teams involved would be exhausted. Networks want a tidy schedule (they sometimes make allowances for the playoffs, but might not be so willing for all 82).

Also, players and coaches want energy when next game rolls around. From the perspective of someone who has played sports a fair amount, a drawn-out OT is extremely intense and draining, and I doubt any player or coach would be in favor of more than a 20-minute sudden death OT period.

For what it’s worth, though, if you were to start a petition to send to the head honchos asking for sudden death OT instead of the current system, I’d sign it.

by Smashvillain on Sep 8, 2010 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions

You’re logic is great and Ive ranted on about this ever since they introduced this stupid point. Problem is that when we hit the stretch drive most teams still have a shot at the playoffs due to these points and it doesn’t seem like Bettman, et al wan this to change. In other words these “loser” points create the impression of parity and they’re likely not going anywhere.

by drhgzang on Sep 9, 2010 11:39 AM EDT reply actions