New Standings Idea

[Herr Hockey 0]

We all know what it's like to hear people saying "The Wings will win the conference only because of their crappy division blah blah blah...". Well, I was thinking of a way to really be able to rank teams based on how good they really are, and I think I'm on to something.

As far as I know, this has not been proposed before, but feel free to point me out if it has. The new standings would be calculated at the end of the season, and they would be called the "Points-beaten" standings. The way they work, is for each team beaten, you get their points added up to your score. For example: Say at the end of the season, Chicago has 90 points. If we beat Chicago 6 times, Detroit would have (90 x 6 = 540) points. This would be added up for each team we beat. This way, a win over a team thats better is worth more. I think this method of ranking teams would give people a better idea on where teams stand going into the post-season.

It would be hard to rank the whole league, but if we worked together it would be a very interesting thing to know. What do you guys think? or , with explanations please

[wingsfan979802 0]

We all know what it's like to hear people saying "The Wings will win the conference only because of their crappy division blah blah blah...". Well, I was thinking of a way to really be able to rank teams based on how good they really are, and I think I'm on to something.

As far as I know, this has not been proposed before, but feel free to point me out if it has. The new standings would be calculated at the end of the season, and they would be called the "Points-beaten" standings. The way they work, is for each team beaten, you get their points added up to your score. For example: Say at the end of the season, Chicago has 90 points. If we beat Chicago 6 times, Detroit would have (90 x 6 = 540) points. This would be added up for each team we beat. This way, a win over a team thats better is worth more. I think this method of ranking teams would give people a better idea on where teams stand going into the post-season.

It would be hard to rank the whole league, but if we worked together it would be a very interesting thing to know. What do you guys think? or , with explanations please

how many points do you get if you lose in overtime?

[Herr Hockey 0]

how many points do you get if you lose in overtime?

ehh, would have to be discussed. Maybe half? Damn you OTL's!

[wingsfan979802 0]

ehh, would have to be discussed. Maybe half? Damn you OTL's!

[VM1138 1,921]

It's an interesting idea, and would reflect talent, but I don't know about using this as an official point tallying device. Simply because the standings fluctuate so much. If you wait until the end of the season to do the tallies, you have no real idea what sort of progress your team is making, and you won't know if you made playoffs until it's too late to make changes.

And if you tally ongoing during the season, the standings fluctuate so much it would make it difficult to keep track.

I'd like to keep the current standings, but if someone wanted to do this next season as a little hobby, it would definitely be interesting to see.

[Opie 308]

In High School we used a similar system, due to the fact that not every team faced one another.

It was called Heal Points, not sure of spelling of heal, heel but regardless it worked like his:

Each position 1 through what ever was given reverse points. So if you beat a team that was ranked one out of ten you received 10 points and vice versa. It did not matter what their ranking was the week before or the week after just what ever place they were ranked when you faced them.

Rankings didn't kick in until all of the teams had played 10 games (for example). Then everyone's rank was based on record and ties were based on pre season ranks. Granted this may not work on the pro level but worked on the high school level fine.

The biggest problem with this is that in high school, there were two conferences and no divisions, so everyone was in the same bracket, in the pros you have teams from different conferences and divisions playing each other, so if the Wings played the Atlantic and the Sharks had to play the South Least sorry South East how would you count those points.

Any kind of point system (other than points for wins) would have to rely on team weighting because beating the Sabres last year would not have been worth the same as beating the Thrash but they both finished first in their division.

[grsbmd 0]

This would punish a team for playing in a weak division. The wings would win the majority of division games no matter which division they played in. And teams can't choose to play a stronger schedule. They're stuck with 32 division games no matter what.

[tweekvp 0]

This would punish a team for playing in a weak division. The wings would win the majority of division games no matter which division they played in. And teams can't choose to play a stronger schedule. They're stuck with 32 division games no matter what.

The only way it would punish a team in a weak division is if you have two equal teams both beating up on their division. In theory an equal team in a tougher division would end up with more losses to division teams. It would likely even out in the end.

If this is used strictly to reorder the top eight for playoff matchups an argument could be made to neglect OTL.

[Guest Crymson]

We all know what it's like to hear people saying "The Wings will win the conference only because of their crappy division blah blah blah...". Well, I was thinking of a way to really be able to rank teams based on how good they really are, and I think I'm on to something.

As far as I know, this has not been proposed before, but feel free to point me out if it has. The new standings would be calculated at the end of the season, and they would be called the "Points-beaten" standings. The way they work, is for each team beaten, you get their points added up to your score. For example: Say at the end of the season, Chicago has 90 points. If we beat Chicago 6 times, Detroit would have (90 x 6 = 540) points. This would be added up for each team we beat. This way, a win over a team thats better is worth more. I think this method of ranking teams would give people a better idea on where teams stand going into the post-season.

It would be hard to rank the whole league, but if we worked together it would be a very interesting thing to know. What do you guys think? or , with explanations please

This is far too complicated for the average fan to follow. Too complicated = turnoff.

[Herr Hockey 0]

Oops, sorry to mislead, I wasn't suggesting this as the official means of keeping standings, just one for us to get a different view.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Herr Hockey

[puckhog419 0]

how many points do you get if you lose in overtime?

7

[lfd250 1]

two points for a win, none for a lose. Simple, no more playing for a point and hopeing you get another in the shoot out

[Guest snowman89]

We all know what it's like to hear people saying "The Wings will win the conference only because of their crappy division blah blah blah...". Well, I was thinking of a way to really be able to rank teams based on how good they really are, and I think I'm on to something.

As far as I know, this has not been proposed before, but feel free to point me out if it has. The new standings would be calculated at the end of the season, and they would be called the "Points-beaten" standings. The way they work, is for each team beaten, you get their points added up to your score. For example: Say at the end of the season, Chicago has 90 points. If we beat Chicago 6 times, Detroit would have (90 x 6 = 540) points. This would be added up for each team we beat. This way, a win over a team thats better is worth more. I think this method of ranking teams would give people a better idea on where teams stand going into the post-season.

It would be hard to rank the whole league, but if we worked together it would be a very interesting thing to know. What do you guys think? or , with explanations please

I am not sure I understand.... is there a way you could explain this better, i dont want to bash it with out understanding it.

How about this why dont we just look at there record vs. the teams outside there division, that seems much simpler. hmmm

[Herr Hockey 0]

Ok I'll explain better. Lets use the first 5 games from last season.

Game one was a loss vs the Canucks, so we get 0 points beaten because we lost.

Game two was a win vs the Penguins. Because the penguins finished the season with 105 points, we get 105 points.

Game 3 was a win vs the Coyotes. Since the Coyotes finished the season with 67 points, we get 67 points. Thus, this is where you can understand the concept. The win vs the penguins awarded us more points than the win vs the Coyotes, and rightfully so.

Game 4 was an OTL vs the Sabres. Since 1 point is awarded to a team for an OTL, as opposed to 2 for a win (half), we would get half of the Sabres 113 points, or 56.5 points.

Game 5 was a win vs the Kings, so as you should have caught on, we get 68 points, because thats how many the Kings had at the end of the season.

Of course this can only be calculated at the end of the season, but you would continue to add them up for each team, and it would show who won more against better teams.

BTW, the wings had 4996.5 points beaten last year.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Herr Hockey

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

two points for a win, none for a lose. Simple, no more playing for a point and hopeing you get another in the shoot out

That wouldn't be good for the Wings since we never seem to win in overtime or in a shootout.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

We all know what it's like to hear people saying "The Wings will win the conference only because of their crappy division blah blah blah...". Well, I was thinking of a way to really be able to rank teams based on how good they really are, and I think I'm on to something.

As far as I know, this has not been proposed before, but feel free to point me out if it has. The new standings would be calculated at the end of the season, and they would be called the "Points-beaten" standings. The way they work, is for each team beaten, you get their points added up to your score. For example: Say at the end of the season, Chicago has 90 points. If we beat Chicago 6 times, Detroit would have (90 x 6 = 540) points. This would be added up for each team we beat. This way, a win over a team thats better is worth more. I think this method of ranking teams would give people a better idea on where teams stand going into the post-season.

It would be hard to rank the whole league, but if we worked together it would be a very interesting thing to know. What do you guys think? or , with explanations please

Sounds nice in theory, but it just greatly penalizes the weaker teams, even the mid-level teams that could make the playoffs as a lower seed.

My standings/points breakdowns for regular season proposal, regardless of who you play.... I know some don't like shootouts determing W's/L's but I'm keeping them in, I like them for the most part (NO PLAYOFFS THOUGH )

0 points for a loss, it doesn't matter when it happens during a game

1 point for a shootout win

2 points for an overtime win

3 points for a regular-time win

[Hockeyguru 0]

IMO the standings should be decided by division/conference wins. If the top two teams are tied for points at the end of the season, it should be decided by who has the better record. Exapmle: Say Detroit & Nashville are tied for the top spot in the west. And the season series went 6 games to 2 in favor of Detroit, detroit would get the 1st seed because they won more games

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

I like how you guys are trying to be creative, but the standings system is fine as it is. The only thing I'd change is the schedule, so that teams would have either 4 or 6 divisional games, instead of 8 which is too many.