Adjusting standings for loser point

[GOilers88]

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

This is the only logical and sane approach, which is why it won't happen.

 

[paragon]

It is well known that the loser point (first introduced in 1999-00 season) inflates the point total. Nowadays, the playoffs cut is usually well above 90 points, and multiple teams per season routinely get more than 100 points. The purpose of this post is to quantify the effect of loser point in order to compare team achievements from different seasons and eras.

There are two ways of quantifying the loser point – "team-by-team" and "global" (uniform adjustment of the whole table).

Team-by-team

A team record can be adjusted by calculating the share of points the team won:

Points taken / (Points taken + Points surrendered)

Points taken: 2 for any win + 1 for every OT/SO loss,
Points surrendered: 2 for any loss + 1 for every OT/SO win.

Example: currently, the Islanders are on pace to 82 × 42 / 29 = 119 points; in 29 games they took 42 points (20 wins, 2 OT/SO losses) and surrendered 25 points (9 losses, 7 OT/SO wins); their adjusted point total is on pace to 103 points.

Global

Total amount of points available:

Number of games per team × Number of teams + Total amount of loser points

Total amount of loser points varies from season to season: 131 points on average from 1999-00 to 2003-04 and 289 points on average (not counting lockout-shortened 2012-13 season) since introduction of shootouts and elimination of ties.

Adjusting coefficient:

Number of games per team × Number of teams / Total amount of points available

Last season there were 271 loser points; hence, the coefficient is 82 × 31 / (82 × 31 + 271) = 0.904.

Example: the historical 2018-19 Tampa Bay season produced 128 points; adjusting it for the loser point gives 116 points.

On average, the loser point inflates the point total by 5.4% for 1999-2004 and by 11.7% since 2005.

While team-by-team approach is more fair, the global one is easier to calculate and it also does not alter the order of standings. Below are the best and worst seasons adjusted for the loser point globally and normalized to 82 games (points rounded to the nearest whole number).

5 best seasons of all time:

Season	Team	Points Real	Points Adjusted
1929-30	Boston Bruins	77	144
1943-44	Montreal Canadiens	83	136
1976-77	Montreal Canadiens	132	135
1977-78	Montreal Canadiens	129	131
1944-45	Montreal Canadiens	80	131

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

5 worst seasons of all time:

Season	Team	Points Real	Points Adjusted
1929-30	Pittsburgh Pirates	13	24
1992-93	Ottawa Senators	24	23
1992-93	San Jose Sharks	24	23
1930-31	Philadelphia Quakers	12	22
1974-75	Washington Capitals	21	22

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

5 best seasons since 2005:

Season	Team	Points Real	Points Adjusted
2012-13	Chicago Blackhawks	77	118
2018-19	Tampa Bay Lightning	128	116
2005-06	Detroit Red Wings	124	111
2012-13	Pittsburgh Penguins	72	111
2015-16	Washington Capitals	120	108

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

5 worst seasons since 2005:

Season	Team	Points Real	Points Adjusted
2006-07	Philadelphia Flyers	56	50
2014-15	Arizona Coyotes	56	50
2014-15	Buffalo Sabres	54	48
2013-14	Buffalo Sabres	52	46
2016-17	Colorado Avalanche	48	43

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Detroit is currently on pace for the worst season since 2005.

Of course, the exercise above is purely academic – there were a lot of different things across seasons and eras, even the rules were different. However, it gives one some perspective about claims of historicity, "best season ever", etc.

I'd like this a lot more, if you removed the beer league O6 era from the stats as those are quite irrelevant.

 

[Machinehead]

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?

Yeah and it kind of f***ing sucks.

There just isn't a realistic solution in soccer.

 

[GOilers88]

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.

Of course they won it playing hockey. You can call OT and Shootouts a gimmick if you want, but it's part of the NHL now, and Shootouts have been in international hockey forever. So yes, the whole game is a hockey game.

And if they pulled out some jacks at center ice, or did a round of rock paper scissors, the winner should get their two points and the loser should get nothing.

Getting any points after losing the game is moronic, as is getting any points before the game is over.

 

[tmg]

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?

That's a strongly debatable point. A common complaint about this system is that each game is not awarding the same number of points in sum, like NHL games used to. For people making that argument, the soccer 'solution' has the same problem. It makes close contests worth less than blowouts, rather than more than blowouts, but it still has the problem of making some games worth more net points than others.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Complaining about 3 point games is like complaining about the refs

It's done by those who need an excuse instead of admitting their favorite team simply isn't good enough

 

[kingsholygrail]

All these threads highlight is how stupid the points system is. Go Win-Loss. Keep ROW for tie breakers.

 

[TGWL]

The OP knows this, and so do I. What we are discussing is NOT changing the standings or the point system. What is being discussed is:

How can you compare the Lightning in 2018-19 with the Canadiens in 75-76, when the points were different. So, it's a mathematical adjustment in the team's point to negate the effect of some games awarding 3 pts under the current system.

Not a complaint about the system. Not a request for a different system. Just a way to compare with past years.

You can't. You can't compare teams because the game has changed. Just like you can't compare players. All this talk of which team was more dominate, which player was better, and what players would do in different eras is just hockey talk. As fans, it's fun to think about, but it's speculation and you can't compare it.

I agree that the current way doesn't really work out too well with the standings but It's not a loser point as much as being rewarded a point for not losing in regulation. We can call it either way I suppose.

 

[Golden_Jet]

OP
I don’t understand the why the real time points and adjusted points are not the same prior to 1999, when each team got 1 point for a tie.
Why do I see some with a 50 point difference.e Montreal 83 points real and a 136 adjusted

 

[Hunn]

OP
I don’t understand the why the real time points and adjusted points are not the same prior to 1999, when each team got 1 point for a tie.
Why do I see some with a 50 point difference.e Montreal 83 points real and a 136 adjusted

The tables were also adjusted to 82 games, they started playing 82-game seasons from 1995-96 only, after the first Bettman lockout.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Thanks Hunn

 

[KingsFan7824]

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

The problem being that a regulation W or L, an OT W or L, and a SO W or L, are all very different from each other.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

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!"

Usually playoff cut-off is like 96 points, so both of those teams probably missed the playoffs TBH. I think it is difficult to make the playoffs with fewer than 42 wins

 

[Windy River]

The problem being that a regulation W or L, an OT W or L, and a SO W or L, are all very different from each other.

A 4-3 and 8-0 win are very different things but still both a W.

 

[end]

This game hasn't been what it was meant to be since they banned the rover.

 

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Let's just call it "the point for the team that did not win." Better?

You want offense? 3 points per regulation win.

 

[ole ole]

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.

Do either the NBA or MLB have a gimmick to determine the winner of a game like the NHL does?No they don't!
You don't see a home run derby to determine the winner in MLB....No
Nor do you see a free throw competition in the NBA,,,,No
But the idiot that runs the NHL has a friggin shoot out to determine a winner.
What a joke the NHL has become.

 

[BruinsFan37]

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 NBA doesn't change its rules when it goes into overtime. 5 minutes of non-sudden death overtime until its no longer tied at the end of an overtime period. Given the high paced, rapid scoring of basketball, it rarely goes beyond one overtime period, and 2OT games (or more) are extremely rare.

MLB doesn't change its rules when it goes into extra innings. With the nature of baseball the result can be a 20+ inning marathon that no-one likes. Baseball is the only sport where it goes into "overtime" and fans hate it. It's the only sport where I've seen the stands empty out when it goes into extra innings.

The NFL for that matter doesn't change its rules significantly when it goes into overtime. 15 minutes of sudden-death overtime after which the game ends in a tie if nobody scores. The only change to the NFL rules (other than sudden death) is that the team that gets the ball first in OT has to score a touchdown or the other team gets a chance to score.

The NHL on the other hand, changes it's rules significantly to end the game as quickly as possible with a "win". Five minutes of a contrived sudden-death 3-on-3 hockey game followed by a skills competition if it's still tied.

The NHL rulebook states:

During regular-season games, if at the end of the three (3) regular twenty (20) minute periods, the score shall be tied, each team shall be awarded one point in the League standings.

The teams will then play an additional overtime period of not more than five (5) minutes with the team scoring first declared the winner and being awarded an additional point. ....

Theoretically, if for some reason they were unable to complete overtime after the game had ended in regulation as a tie, both teams would have a single point in the standings.

--

If you don't want the "loser point" that's ok, but then it needs to go back to 5-on-5 hockey in OT, and if it ends in tie, then it's a tie. If you don't want a "loser point" and you don't want ties, then it needs to 5-on-5 hockey till somebody scores -- full stop.

I'm sure a grueling 4OT regular season game that was the front half of a back-to-back would go over real well with the players/fans...

 

[jibbz]

The fact that winning in regular time and winning in a shootout give you the exact same amount of points is pretty weird indeed. What the NHL should do is copy what most European leagues are doing and award 3 points for a regular win, 2 for an OT win, and 1 for an OT loss

 

[Mickey Marner]

I just adjust all teams to W-L-T format to cross compare eras.

 

[Choralone]

What's the big deal about the tie point. It's hard to compare a team's record to those teams pre-2005? Too much parity? Things trigger one's OCD?

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

 

[93LEAFS]

This is the only logical and sane approach, which is why it won't happen.

Its not logical because the game is ended on a gimmick. Just bring back the tie after 60.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

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. *****. Moan. Whine. Cry. The world turns and you cant get off. Noone is making you watch.

I never said the alternative was better. Its a loser point, but its necessary because of the garbage we have to decide the winner after regulation

 

[Hunn]

You can't. You can't compare teams because the game has changed. Just like you can't compare players. All this talk of which team was more dominate, which player was better, and what players would do in different eras is just hockey talk. As fans, it's fun to think about, but it's speculation and you can't compare it.

I agree that the current way doesn't really work out too well with the standings but It's not a loser point as much as being rewarded a point for not losing in regulation. We can call it either way I suppose.

It's true. I personally believe that, say, 2019-20 Columbus Blue Jackets would win every game against Dryden/Lafleur Canadiens (and by decent margin) – simply because today athletes are measurably better than the ones from 40 years ago.

It doesn't imply, however, that those Canadiens, or the Islanders, or the Wings were not dominant. The Bruins of 1929-30 will be destroyed today by a U18 team from Kazakstan, but it doesn't change the hard fact that that Boston squad was the most dominant regular season team ever.

 

[txpd]

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?

There is no chance that happens in North America or the NHL. There are many NHL teams that have gone to overtime in 30 to 40% of their games. Bring back ties and those percentages go up.

The NHL's tv and advertisng partners have no interest in ties and research among customers(ticket buyers) indicate a strong preference against ties. Which is the reason they are gone.