Adjusting standings for loser point

[abo9]

The NHL didn't want any game to end in a tie. So they introduced the shootout as a new means of deciding the winner of each game.

It IS a win, and it counts for two points the same way a 7-0 blowout counts for two points.

I know, I know, there's the "regulation/OT win" tiebreaker that comes into effect at season's end, but as far as the standings are concerned it's still two points regardless of when or how the win occurs.

If the NHL decides to bring back the tie and do away with the loser point, I'm all for that as well.

I just don't feel like any team should lose a game and still gain a point from it.

Why did they not change to point system to 3 points then? I'm not criticizing, just curious. I think they do it in Europe (like the SHL, Finland, etc.) so what is the flaw in that system? Teams would want to end it even sooner to get 3 points instead of 2 no?

 

[GOilers88]

This again...

For the 100000000th time: The point is for BEING TIED AFTER REGULATION.

OT and Shootout is where the bonus point is decided.

If you lose the game and still get a point, it's a loser point. Semantics be damned. Why someone thought it would be smart to award points before the game is even over is beyond my comprehension, but I liken it to the CFL and the point you can get even if you miss your field goal attempt.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

If you lose the game and still get a point, it's a loser point. Semantics be damned. Why someone thought it would be smart to award points before the game is even over is beyond my comprehension, but I liken it to the CFL and the point you can get even if you miss your field goal attempt.

Not semantics. Once regulation ends tied, each team already has a point. How is that a 'loser' point?

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

If you lose the game and still get a point, it's a loser point. Semantics be damned. Why someone thought it would be smart to award points before the game is even over is beyond my comprehension, but I liken it to the CFL and the point you can get even if you miss your field goal attempt.

Not when the point is already there before the 'loss'.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Why did they not change to point system to 3 points then? I'm not criticizing, just curious. I think they do it in Europe (like the SHL, Finland, etc.) so what is the flaw in that system? Teams would want to end it even sooner to get 3 points instead of 2 no?

I think the only reason why the NHL doesn't go to 3 points for a win is to protect historical records.

That's pretty much it.

If they boost a regulation win to three points, next thing you know we'll have teams racking up 150+ points in the standings and obliterating team points records.

To be honest I wish the league would just keep it simple, two points for a win and zero for a loss.

The NBA doesn't reward teams that lose in overtime - even if they're tied after regulation.

MLB doesn't reward teams that lose in extra innings - even if they're tied after nine.

The NHL feels compelled to artificially inflate point totals and create more interest late in the season, and boost ticket sales. I wish they didn't feel the need to do this.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Not when the point is already there before the 'loss'.

So, like you said, they're awarded a point in a game they lost.

Hence: Loser. Point.

 

[SotasicA]

Not really.

Teams are awarded two points for a win, regardless of when it happens. There is no "gimmick point"; the winning team gets two points. Simple.

But you didn't win those two points by playing hockey. It's almost like getting to add a standings point for winning a game of jacks.

 

[txpd]

To me there should be no loser points for an overtime loss just for a shootout loss.

Playing 3 on 3?

 

[txpd]

But you didn't win those two points by playing hockey. It's almost like getting to add a standings point for winning a game of jacks.

Well...The alternative is going back to ties which isn't an option. You would get one season of parity hockey were 30-40% of the games are ties. The cryng and yelling would be epic

 

[Windy River]

Since every game now has a winning and losing team, points should be scrapped and just do W-L records.

 

[txpd]

Yes this again. for the 100000000th time.

Its a loser point.

deal with it

Call it what you want. Turn it off after regulation if you want. The fans and the tv audience and the tv broadcasters want a winner. The NHLPA wants a winner with a limit on the extra pounding on the star players. Bitch. Moan. Whine. Cry. The world turns and you cant get off. Noone is making you watch.

 

[SotasicA]

Well...The alternative is going back to ties which isn't an option. You would get one season of parity hockey were 30-40% of the games are ties. The cryng and yelling would be epic

Why would there be crying and yelling? What is fundamentally wrong with a tie game? Regular season isn't about wins and losses. It's about piling up points. And splitting the points when two teams put in an equal performance makes both sense and is fair.

And 40% seems like a stupid made up number. (Good) teams would actually try to win games in regulation knowing they can't get a free pop at 2pts later on in a shootout. A tie can feel like a loss, too.

 

[13th Floor]

Not when the point is already there before the 'loss'.

I'm baffled people want to die on this hill. Why the f*** does it matter? What if I said you get a half point as soon as the regulation horn sounds in a tie game and another half a point when they drop the puck in OT?

The result is exactly the same. Every argument about this is about the standings results unless you have some point about the methodology of awarding points having some differing effect on the standings.

Why people choose to have this argument makes no sense to me other to just be unnecessarily argumentative. Everyone's trying to have a conversation about whether the 3-point system is good or bad and you are talking about whether it's a loser point or an extra winner point. It's like we are pointing to the moon and you are looking at the tip of our finger.

 

[Dr Pepper]

But you didn't win those two points by playing hockey. It's almost like getting to add a standings point for winning a game of jacks.

Football/soccer games are sometimes decided in penalties.

It happens, it's part of the rules, and there's always a winner.

 

[txpd]

And 40% seems like a stupid made up number. (Good) teams would actually try to win games in regulation knowing they can't get a free pop at 2pts later on in a shootout. A tie can feel like a loss, too.

You should check and see what ot/so rate is these days. I just checked the Capitals. 32 games. 12 tied after regulation. Flyers have 10 in 30. Islanders 9 in 29. Boston 8 in 31. These are good teams. The NHL is a defense first league. Its a don't lose the game first league. If you are guaranteed to no lose the game because of the tie, you will see more ties. Not less.

 

[SotasicA]

You should check and see what ot/so rate is these days. I just checked the Capitals. 32 games. 12 tied after regulation. Flyers have 10 in 30. Islanders 9 in 29. Boston 8 in 31. These are good teams. The NHL is a defense first league. Its a don't lose the game first league. If you are guaranteed to no lose the game because of the tie, you will see more ties. Not less.

You are currently guaranteed to get a point AND A FREE SHOT AT 2PTS for a tie. Changing that to NO CHANCE AT 2PTS for a tie would make it a less desireable option.

You can't climb to the top of the standings splitting points with bottom feeders in a clean 2pt system. You can with the current system. Currently you could theoretically tally 164 points without scoring a single goal all season. 0-0 shootout wins x 82. Winning 41 games 5-3 and losing 41 games 3-5 only gets you to 82pts. I think it's only fair that 0-0 team can't get more than 82pts. Even if they are really really good at a gimmick.

 

[SotasicA]

Football/soccer games are sometimes decided in penalties.

Not in regular season they aren't.

 

[rintinw]

I really don't understand your post. The idea is simple:

Montreal in 75-76 played games in which each game awarded 2 pts.
Tampa Bay played games in which the average game awarded 2.2121 pts.

If you want to compare the teams, it seems very reasonable to say:
Take Tampa's total and multiply by 2/2.2132.

What is 'approximation' about that?

It seems the other option would be to look at the results and remove the points gained from winning in overtime.
Or, perhaps to say "OT wins would be ok, but Shootout should not be", and then you would remove the points from winning in SO, but also remove the points from losing in OT.

Or, do you have something else in mind?

The other option is exactly what I had in mind. For example 2007-08 EDM team had 88 pts. This approximation would give them 79 pts. But if you go by actual games:
between 1942-1983 they would have 69 pts
between 1983-1999 they would have 71 pts
between 1999-2004 they would have 73 pts (even with loser point)

That's because they had 19 games going to SO where they won 15.

 

[txpd]

You are currently guaranteed to get a point AND A FREE SHOT AT 2PTS for a tie. Changing that to NO CHANCE AT 2PTS for a tie would make it a less desireable option.

You can't climb to the top of the standings splitting points with bottom feeders in a clean 2pt system. You can with the current system. Currently you could theoretically tally 164 points without scoring a single goal all season. 0-0 shootout wins x 82. Winning 41 games 5-3 and losing 41 games 3-5 only gets you to 82pts. I think it's only fair that 0-0 team can't get more than 82pts. Even if they are really really good at a gimmick.

The NHL is a defense first league. Its a don't lose the game first league. Playing a division rival over a playoff spot, its better to tie than lose.

 

[Duke Silver]

Seems like this thread may be a good place to share this:

Loser Points - Tableau Public

 

[Dr Pepper]

Not in regular season they aren't.

Correct.

And conversely, we don't see shootouts in the NHL playoffs either. If not for the networks squawking, I'm willing to bet endless OT would be an option instead of going to a shootout after just five mins.

Which is odd, because how often do you see MLB/NBA games get cut off early due to OT dragging on?

Anyways, going back to the league's infatuation with the loser point, how about a hypothetical?

After 82 games:

Team A:

40-35-7, 87 points

Team B:

36-30-16, 88 points

Which team deserves to be seeded higher?

Team A won more games over the course of the season.

Team B lost more games in OT/SO, therefore amassing more "loser points". Enough so that it squeaks in one point ahead of Team A.

That's my issue with the system.

Both of these teams finished with fewer wins than losses, both clearly benefit from the loser points they gained.....but should the league really be rewarding this kind of system? "You lost at the right time, good for you!"

 

[Machinehead]

 

[StreetHawk]

Not semantics. Once regulation ends tied, each team already has a point. How is that a 'loser' point?

Whether it's called loser point or bonus point, is immaterial.

It just doesn't seem right that there are 2750 or so points given out in an NHL season when there are 1260 games played a season. That should be 2520 points awarded. But, because around 20% of games end up going past regulation another 250 or so points get handed out.

 

[tmg]

Could this thread have been saved from the sewer if the wonderful OP's research wasn't delivered with clickbait semantic context? The world will never know.

It is interesting to discuss "Points adjusted in past seasons' records, accounting for the NHL's current games-played and points-awarded-per-game norms". That's what the math in the OP is all about.

But using loaded language to turn it into a fight about whether the extra points are awarded for making overtime or losing overtime, and people will lose their minds fighting over the words and not even discuss the research and numbers anymore.

 

[57special]

Regular season Soccer does it right. No points for a loss, 1 point for a draw, 3 points for a win. No 3v3 OT...why play a game with different rules to determine points?