20 replies to this topic

[b.shanafan14]

So we all have our opinions about the "loser point" and what it does for overall parity (closing the gap between the best teams and worst teams) and changing the standings among the playoff teams. I personally think that its pretty terrible, less so because of overall parity and more so for what it does to playoff seeding. Also, I'll include the standings without the automatic Top 3 seeding of the division leaders. As both a forum for debate and discussion, as well as plain old interest, I figured I'd open and try to update every few days, the standings as they sit with and without the loser point:

[As of 3/4/2012]

Western Conference 1-10 Standings:
1) VANCOUVER 66GP 90PTS
2) DETROIT 65GP 89PTS
3) PHOENIX 65GP 75PTS
4) ST LOUIS 66GP 89PTS
5) NASHVILLE 65GP 83PTS
6) CHICAGO 66GP 77PTS
7) SAN JOSE 64GP 73PTS
8) DALLAS 65GP 73PTS
---------------------------
9) LOS ANGELES 65GP 72PTS
10) COLORADO 66GP 70PTS

WITHOUT 3rd PT or Automatic seeding of Division leaders:
1) DETROIT 65GP 43W
2) VANCOUVER 66GP 41W
3) ST LOUIS 66GP 41W
4) NASHVILLE 65GP 38W
5) CHICAGO 66GP 35W
6) DALLAS 65GP 34W
7) SAN JOSE 64GP 33W
8) PHOENIX 65GP 33W
---------------------------
9) COLORADO 66GP 33W
10) LOS ANGELES 65GP 30W

Using the old tie system, no division leader seeding:
1) ST LOUIS 66GP 84PTS
2) VANCOUVER 66GP 82PTS
3) DETROIT 65GP 81PTS
4) NASHVILLE 65GP 77PTS
5) CHICAGO 66GP 69PTS
6) DALLAS 65GP 68PTS
7) PHOENIX 65GP 67PTS
8) SAN JOSE 64GP 63PTS
---------------------------
9) LOS ANGELES 65GP 63PTS
10) CALGARY 65GP 61PTS


WESTERN CONFERENCE MATCHUPS:

As they are:
1) VANCOUVER VS. 8) DALLAS
2) DETROIT VS. 7) SAN JOSE
3) PHOENIX VS. 6) CHICAGO
4) ST LOUIS VS. 5) NASHVILLE

Alternative 1 (no loser point or division leader):
1) DETROIT VS. 8) PHOENIX
2) VANCOUVER VS. 7) SAN JOSE
3) ST LOUIS VS. 6) DALLAS
4) NASHVILLE VS. 5) CHICAGO


Alternative 2 (2 pts for REG/OT Win, 1 pt for tie, no shootout):
1) ST LOUIS VS. 8) SAN JOSE
2) VANCOUVER VS. 7) PHOENIX
3) DETROIT VS. 6) DALLAS
4) NASHVILLE VS. 5) CHICAGO

Some folks would prefer the old system of ties after OT, whereby one point is awarded to each team. I personally prefer to raise the stakes by leaving the format the same, adding longer overtimes with perhaps a 4on4 then 3on3 format before shootouts, while making wins in any case 2PTS and losses in any case 0PTS. This will eliminate teams who "wait out" the third period and overtime when outmatched, content to get a point and try their luck at a shootout, while increasing the desperation on the better team that night to close out the game before reaching a shootout where anything can happen. Either way, I think automatic seeding of division winners should be eliminated.

Edited by b.shanafan14, 04 March 2012 - 09:36 AM.

[haroldsnepsts]

Interesting. thanks for doing the work.

I can't stand the loser point but unfortunately I don't see the league getting rid of it any time soon. As you point out, it's forced parity so it keeps more teams relevant towards playoff time. So teams' games are relevant later into the season too, which means better ticket sales and tv ratings. It's about the money and not about what's most fair for the teams involved.

[Ozzie30]

I'd be interested to see see what the standings look like under the old tie system - if you go to a shootout each team gets a single point instead of the winner getting one extra. But, alas, I'm too lazy.

[b.shanafan14]

I'd be interested to see see what the standings look like under the old tie system - if you go to a shootout each team gets a single point instead of the winner getting one extra. But, alas, I'm too lazy.

Haha, you and I both at this point, but more than that, I do enjoy the idea of finishing games, although an alternative to the shootout would be VERY welcome. I hate the shootout. HATE. The equivalent of "good game everyone, now lets flip a coin so we can settle this and go home". Honestly, I think the worst part of the shootout is that eventually teams alter the way they play to first accept the "loser point", making sure they at least get one point by playing conservatively in a tied game. Then, teams that are outmatched skating and/or figure themselves better in the shootout, tend to play in such a way to ensure it goes there.

I think the problem of holding onto the loser tie point instead of risking zero points existed (albeit to a far lesser degree) in the old format. That's why I thought it would be intriguing to both test one suggested solution (same play without a loser point), as well as highlight the extremes of who benefits from such a point. My feeling is that if the playing format remains the same (or better, with longer and/or different overtime) AND the league creates a win-or-bust situation instead of a win-or-half-win situation, the game will get more heated and competitive.

In my opinion the salary cap and deeper talent pool has created real parity, while the third point creates false parity while hurting the competitiveness of games. On top of that, I hate watching a game between two teams close to the Wings in the standings and instead of rooting for close, exciting game, I'd prefer a blowout, making sure the third point doesn't rear its ugly head.

Edited by b.shanafan14, 03 March 2012 - 03:23 PM.

[Bannedforlife]

In my opinion, people who spend their time whining and complaining about rules that probably will not be changed in our lifetime, are morons. Just my 2 cents.

[GMRwings1983]

Many of our wins are shootout wins, though.

[T.Low]

In my opinion, people who spend their time whining and complaining about rules that probably will not be changed in our lifetime, are morons. Just my 2 cents.

Glad John Hancock didn't share your philosophy.



I'd actually like to take it a step further. The game is 60 minutes for 2pts. Now, if it can't be won in the regulation 60 monutes, the value of the game goes down to 1pt. If it takes you OT or a shootout to win the game, you only get 1 pt and the loser gets 0.

[Ozzie30]

Glad John Hancock didn't share your philosophy.

Burn.

[CrimsonFlame]

To me it doesn't matter because all eight teams in the west make the playoffs in both formats. The seeding might be a little different but I don't really think seeding matters that much since if you want to win the cup you're going to have to beat all of those teams at some point, or the team that did beat one of those teams.

The only way i could really see any merit to the argument was if the playoff picture was different if we changed the format.

[Bannedforlife]

Glad John Hancock didn't share your philosophy.

It's HERBIE Hancock. Duhhhh!

[T.Low]

It's HERBIE Hancock. Duhhhh!

Good call. He changed the way things were done, too.

[toby91_ca]

Many of our wins are shootout wins, though.

Wonder what it would look like if all games that went to shootout were considered ties....ie. rather than removing loser point, removing the extra point the winner gets in the shootout (I think that annoys me more than the loser getting a single point).

[GMRwings1983]

Wonder what it would look like if all games that went to shootout were considered ties....ie. rather than removing loser point, removing the extra point the winner gets in the shootout (I think that annoys me more than the loser getting a single point).

Detroit would be lower in the standings.

I've said this a million times, but I'd go back to the system before 1999-2000. Go back to having ties and the OT loser getting no point. And overtime would be 5 on 5.

[Barrie]

I'm in favor of all games being 3 points. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for a OT/SO win, and 1 point for a OT/SO loss.

I don't care if point totals will be outta whack with all games being 3 points, because points are already outta whack now! What's the difference?

I've said this a million times, but I'd go back to the system before 1999-2000. Go back to having ties and the OT loser getting no point. And overtime would be 5 on 5.

I'm with ya man, I never had a problem with ties.

Edit: or the OT loser getting nothin'!

Edited by Barrie, 04 March 2012 - 12:13 AM.

[Jaymister]

I just came up with an idea that might or might not work. What if you gave two points for a regulation or OT win. If it goes to a shootout the winner gets one point and the loser gets nothing. If you lose in regulation, OT or the SO you get nothing.

This would eliminate all these 3 point games that make the standings look silly and it would cause teams to try harder to win the games in reguler time rather than sit back and try to get lucky in a SO.

I myself don't like shootouts deciding games, but I don't like ties either. This might be as good as it gets.

[b.shanafan14]

I've updated the OP with today's numbers while including the current system, the alternative with OT/SO but no loser point and no division leader seeding, and by popular demand, the standings under the old system, replacing SO W/L with ties, and again, no division leader seeding. I've also clarified my stance. ENJOY!

Edited by b.shanafan14, 04 March 2012 - 09:43 AM.

[GMRwings1983]

I just came up with an idea that might or might not work. What if you gave two points for a regulation or OT win. If it goes to a shootout the winner gets one point and the loser gets nothing. If you lose in regulation, OT or the SO you get nothing.

This would eliminate all these 3 point games that make the standings look silly and it would cause teams to try harder to win the games in reguler time rather than sit back and try to get lucky in a SO.

I myself don't like shootouts deciding games, but I don't like ties either. This might be as good as it gets.

I think that would be even worse. A team shouldn't be punished with zero points for losing a shootout. It's one thing to decide Olympic elimination games that way, but not regular season games.

It would be too harsh.

And there's nothing wrong with ties. It just means neither team was good enough to win the game in regulation or in OT. Hence, neither gets two points. Basically, each game should have a maximum of two points on the line.

[haroldsnepsts]

Detroit would be lower in the standings.

I've said this a million times, but I'd go back to the system before 1999-2000. Go back to having ties and the OT loser getting no point. And overtime would be 5 on 5.

I agree except for the OT.

Keep it 4 on 4 to open things up, and make it 10 minutes. 2 points for win during regulation or OT. 1 point each for a tie. And I know it's a radical concept to the NHL these days, but zero points for a loss, even in OT.


There's a decent article on ESPN about a three point system. Yzerman is in favor of trying the 3 points for a win, Holland is not.

"I just think a regulation win should be most important," the Tampa Bay Lightning GM and Hockey Hall of Fame player told ESPN.com Friday.

"We switched to 4-on-4 overtime years ago which is entertaining, I have no problem with that," Yzerman said. "The shootout is a roll of the dice, it doesn’t prove who the better team is. I just think, let’s reward teams that win in 60 minutes."

But, and you knew it was coming ...

"But I don’t think it has much support around the league," Yzerman said.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/15321/three-point-debate-change-the-standings

[GMRwings1983]

I agree except for the OT.

Keep it 4 on 4 to open things up, and make it 10 minutes. 2 points for win during regulation or OT. 1 point each for a tie. And I know it's a radical concept to the NHL these days, but zero points for a loss, even in OT.

Well, that wasn't the format back then. OT should be 5 on 5 if you're going to give the loser zero points. That was the old system.

It'd be unfair to punish a team for losing a 4 on 4.

[Barrie]

I think that would be even worse. A team shouldn't be punished with zero points for losing a shootout. It's one thing to decide Olympic elimination games that way, but not regular season games.

It would be too harsh.

And there's nothing wrong with ties. It just means neither team was good enough to win the game in regulation or in OT. Hence, neither gets two points. Basically, each game should have a maximum of two points on the line.

Plus if teams get 0 points in a SO loss, players would be putting the puck in their own net with a few seconds left in OT to guarantee at least 1 point.

I think there's only 3 options, 1) keep it the same, 2) make every game 3 points, or 3) go back to ties.