The Phantom and The Seed

[Cali-Wing-Nut 102]

I have been complaining among my buddies and they seem to agree that the points structure and seeding structure needs to change.

The first part of it is the Phantom Point. When going to OT all of a sudden a point that never would have existed shows up for the loser. I am of the opinion that the way the Tournament style points are delivered are a much better distribution of points that allow Great teams to dominate, Good teams to stay in it and Bad teams get left out. Its the 3-2-1 system.

Three points are available for a given game. You win the game in Regulation you get Three points. If you go to OT then the Winner takes two and and the loser gets the leftover. This has a ton of upside. First if you are a dominate team then you will dominate the ranks, as you should. There is no reason for a good team to be within two points of a horrible one just because of a everyone gets to win points structure. Obviously two teams that are very evenly matched will typically go to OT. Considering that it so close you make the reward that much closer. This has a two-fold effect on teams that go to OT a lot AND LOSE. These teams will more than likely miss the playoffs but they wont be dead last. These teams will be the 10th, 11th and 12th place teams.

The three points will also allow teams that were having a bad streak to catch up with a good run of games.

It will allow for good teams to still have close finishing places but will also weed out the crap teams fairly early on with a chance to sneak in if they really put a good string of wins together.

The other piece of the pie is the seeding. I am having a HUGE problem with the 3rd seed, this year being a big disparity. We are talking something close to 10 points between 3rd and 4th with 4th being the one with more points.

Im of the opinion that if 1st in a division cant get in the show, that they have a Wildcard spot being 8th place. This would be a very rare occurrence. It would require a situation like the Full Central division plus the Nucks, Calgary and Oilers. Since that isnt very likely then the Wildcard would never need to be invoked and you just seed by points.

So, What says You? Do you think Im off base? On the mark? Or do we need to go back to the old way with Ties and split the 2 points?

Im curious to hear what the bigger opinion is because Im not too keen on whats going on now.

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

2 points regulation win and OT win

1 point SO win

0 points for a loss of any kind

[55fan 5,133]

I am still waiting for a team to go 0-0-82 and make the playoffs. Yes, it would mean an incredibly weak division, in which case they'd be the 3rd seed.

History will be made.

[P. Marlowe 748]

I'm with you on all your points. It's the forced parity with the loser point. NHL wants to have these important games at the end of the season. The result is that Florida is leading their division and they have won 37 games and lost 46. It's just that 18 of those losses have been on OT.

I would also like if teams had less games inside their own divisions. Teams on toughest divisions like Central and Atlantic suffer while Boston and especially Vancouver have benefited of being on weak divisions. On the other hand Columbus might not look so horrible if they needn't play the other four Central teams that often.

[atodaso 279]

I like the idea of seeding being based on the total number of points and not giving a team a top three spot automatically just because they won their division.

Another interesting idea would be to do away with conferences and divisions and just have one league table. Top 16 teams make the playoffs. They could make "geographical regions" so that you would still get to play teams closer to you a bit more often in order to reduce travel for most teams. This way we could have more than one or two games per year against Toronto or Pittsburgh. It would also allow for the possibility of a Detroit vs. Chicago final for example; or Pittsburgh vs. Philadelphia, etc.

I don't like the idea of having 3 points for a winner, though. Imagine how weird the standings would look like. I like the new idea proposed by Holland (I think it was him that proposed it) where you play 5 minutes of 4-on-4 OT followed by 5 minutes of 3-on-3 OT. However, in that case, I would love to see the league go back to the old points system:

2 points for a win in regulation or OT

0 points for a loss in regulation or OT

1 point each for a tie (no shootouts!)

They introduced the extra OT point because they felt that it would make the OTs more exciting since teams wouldn't worry so much about losing and winding up with nothing. But making OT 3-on-3 would solve that problem because you can't play it safe when it's 3-on-3; there is just too much space out there for that kind of strategy to work.

[luvmnger 125]

sounds good to me...this version sucks right now.

also...the NHL needs to ditch the last place/ first pick situation.

take the last 4 teams to just miss the playoffs, and start the lottery for first pick.

this will prevent tanking for first..."fail for nail" sound familiar?

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

0 points for a loss, no questions asked. Getting rewarded with a point for losing is silly.

1 point for a win in a shootout.

2 points for a win in overtime.

3 points for a win in regular time.

OR

2 points for a win.

1 point for a tie.

I have no problem with shootouts and the like, I think they are fun and exciting. I also have no problem with the old W-L-T system. Either is fine with me.

And with seeding...

I have no problem with the concept of rewarding a division winner with a higher seed. This year obviously both conferences have division winners where they have so few points. Just use 2 divisions per conference under the same structure, and the ridiculous gap is likely not as apparent. Or if you continue to go the three divisions, re-seed your teams after the first round based on points.

[Jeff6851 168]

2 points regulation win and OT win

1 point SO win

0 points for a loss of any kind

Always been a fan of this system

[sleepwalker 512]

2 points regulation win and OT win

1 point SO win

0 points for a loss of any kind

I agree 100% with this.

Do away with the hippy dippy feel-good, everyone gets points, "participation" trophy type crap in OT.

You win, you get 2. You win a SO, you get 1. You lose, you get nada. As it should be.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Unfortunately the current system shows why the GM's will likely be reluctant to change it.

Because of how hard it is to put distance on teams with the forced parity of the loser point, many playoff berths were decided in the last few games of the season. And even today the final game of the season will impact seeding. So these late games have meaning in a way they might not if you could actually put distance on your opponents.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Would Detroit make the playoffs this season if not for shootout wins?

[VM1138 1,921]

Would Detroit make the playoffs this season if not for shootout wins?

Yes, because their ROW is good.

Anyone look at Florida's? They have the 3rd worst ROW record in the East, yet they're in 3rd place. 18 overtime losses. Jesus. Shows how stupid both the loser point and the division seeding is.

[Cali-Wing-Nut 102]

I am still waiting for a team to go 0-0-82 and make the playoffs. Yes, it would mean an incredibly weak division, in which case they'd be the 3rd seed.

History will be made.

LOL

I don't like the idea of having 3 points for a winner, though. Imagine how weird the standings would look like. I like the new idea proposed by Holland (I think it was him that proposed it) where you play 5 minutes of 4-on-4 OT followed by 5 minutes of 3-on-3 OT. However, in that case, I would love to see the league go back to the old points system:

2 points for a win in regulation or OT

0 points for a loss in regulation or OT

1 point each for a tie (no shootouts!)

I actually like the SO personally, I would like your idea of 4-4, 3-3 THEN SO. Shoot out would be last resort.

As far as how weird the points would look, Who gives two s***s? The league is maintaining a 2 point max to keep it comparable to past seasons for statistical reasons. I know I love cheering for the guy that breaks a new scoring record or a goalie that has the most stops but in reality is it really comparable between now and 1930,40,50 or even 1990?

Even a simple rule change like two line pass changes the full dynamic of the game and how players stats will be affected.

For example; How many scorers today would make Gretzky look down right average if they still had the same sized goal? How bout Broddy and how big his pads used to be? There is very little correlation although people like to think so. Thats why from time to time you will hear a stat that include AFTER THE LOCKOUT. Points would be no different.

So what if we have the dominate teams hitting 130 points instead of 110?

I could only imagine the excitement in seeing a team in the gutter put a 30 point L10 together and get right back in the tick of things.

Yes, because their ROW is good.

Anyone look at Florida's? They have the 3rd worst ROW record in the East, yet they're in 3rd place. 18 overtime losses. Jesus. Shows how stupid both the loser point and the division seeding is.

THIS^^^

Also to comment about those that want a 2-1-none score, who do you want to reward? If you take a point from a winner then lesser teams have a bettter opportunity of catching up. I am of the opinion that you always reward winning and just reward it less if you dont win as good.

Regardless of how points are distributed, there should be an equal amount of points at the end of the season that there was available at the start. If a season consisted of winners and losers with 2 going to the winner and none to the loser we should have 4920 points available. Todays system actually allows for 7380 points to be distributed by the end of the season if every game went to OT. On the flip side a 2-1-0 would potentially leave the league with 2460 for the season. Im not a fan of that either. You end up with the Phantom point again, and thats no better for play.

More or less points shouldnt appear or disappear, just be moved around accordingly.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Cali-Wing-Nut

[JoeBuddy 10]

2 points regulation win and OT win

1 point SO win

0 points for a loss of any kind

This 100%!

[Cali-Wing-Nut 102]

Since it seems so many dont want a loser getting a point how bout this earth shaker..

2 points- Winner

0 points- Loser

You can have 4-4, 3-3, 2-2, SO and a skydiving competition for the win but whoever wins gets the whole enchilada.

[kylee 727]

2 points regulation win and OT win

1 point SO win

0 points for a loss of any kind

This is exactly what i think should happen. No loser point.

[pjgj13 30]

sounds good to me...this version sucks right now.

also...the NHL needs to ditch the last place/ first pick situation.

take the last 4 teams to just miss the playoffs, and start the lottery for first pick.

this will prevent tanking for first..."fail for nail" sound familiar?

The league does have a lottery for the #1 pick in the draft similar to the NBA!

Would Detroit make the playoffs this season if not for shootout wins?

Yes they would because of the teams below them having SOW as well!

LOL

I actually like the SO personally, I would like your idea of 4-4, 3-3 THEN SO. Shoot out would be last resort.

As far as how weird the points would look, Who gives two s***s? The league is maintaining a 2 point max to keep it comparable to past seasons for statistical reasons. I know I love cheering for the guy that breaks a new scoring record or a goalie that has the most stops but in reality is it really comparable between now and 1930,40,50 or even 1990?

Even a simple rule change like two line pass changes the full dynamic of the game and how players stats will be affected.

For example; How many scorers today would make Gretzky look down right average if they still had the same sized goal? How bout Broddy and how big his pads used to be? There is very little correlation although people like to think so. Thats why from time to time you will hear a stat that include AFTER THE LOCKOUT. Points would be no different.

So what if we have the dominate teams hitting 130 points instead of 110?

I could only imagine the excitement in seeing a team in the gutter put a 30 point L10 together and get right back in the tick of things.

THIS^^^

Also to comment about those that want a 2-1-none score, who do you want to reward? If you take a point from a winner then lesser teams have a bettter opportunity of catching up. I am of the opinion that you always reward winning and just reward it less if you dont win as good.

Regardless of how points are distributed, there should be an equal amount of points at the end of the season that there was available at the start. If a season consisted of winners and losers with 2 going to the winner and none to the loser we should have 4920 points available. Todays system actually allows for 7380 points to be distributed by the end of the season if every game went to OT. On the flip side a 2-1-0 would potentially leave the league with 2460 for the season. Im not a fan of that either. You end up with the Phantom point again, and thats no better for play.

More or less points shouldnt appear or disappear, just be moved around accordingly.

Not sure if I am reading too much into your post but the goals are the same size as when Gretzky played. The goalies might look larger due to equipment though!

[puckbags 863]

2 points regulation win and OT win

1 point SO win

0 points for a loss of any kind

I totally agree, a team should never get a point for losing a game in any form.

[Cali-Wing-Nut 102]

The league does have a lottery for the #1 pick in the draft similar to the NBA!

Yes they would because of the teams below them having SOW as well!

Not sure if I am reading too much into your post but the goals are the same size as when Gretzky played. The goalies might look larger due to equipment though!

That was typed wrong but the context of why I talked about Brodeur hopefully made it clear. Equipment sizes of goalies making it easier to score or easier to stop was the point of that comment.

Im glad you pointed it out though

[Cali-Wing-Nut 102]

I wonder if Ryan Lambert from Puck Daddy read this post since it not only touches on a 3-2-1 points structure but also how seeding is causing issues with embarrasing placement (read PHX and FLA)

Puck Daddy says that the NHL points structure sucks

I didnt get a citation but it seems timely.

[CrimsonFlame 424]

I am still waiting for a team to go 0-0-82 and make the playoffs. Yes, it would mean an incredibly weak division, in which case they'd be the 3rd seed.

History will be made.

If they can get in the playoffs with only 82 points than by all means they deserve to get in. That would mean the rest of the conference would have to be garbage too in which case I see no problem.