Proposal: NHL Alternative Points scheme

[FonRiesen]

Some of us have discussed possibilities for alternative points schemes to more accurately reflect a team's strength, and reward/incentivize teams to win in regulation (or at least OT) for a more exciting product. I decided to whip up a spreadsheet to see how it would change the final standings:



There are 3 tabs - the 2nd and 3rd show playoff seeding for each conference. 3 points for a regulation win; 2 for OTW, 1 for OTL *or tie* - no shootouts, so a game that ends OT in a tie result in a loss of a point for the game (1+1 instead of 3), which should incentivize an even more high-flying OT. If neither team can score 3v3, neither really deserves a coin-flip bonus point IMO.

Some interesting notes: the standings remain surprising close, and fairly similar, though of course teams weren't playing strategically to take advantage of the proposed points system. I'd expect more push at the end of the 3rd to get the extra point.

Differences in final seeding:
East:
-TBL and TOR swap spots
-CAR and NYR swap spots (Carolina won more in regulation, and NYR benefitted more from Shootouts)
-Washington surprisingly still gets in by the skin of their teeth... I still think they don't deserve to have made it, but then again, none of the teams below them really deserve it either...

West:
-WPG and DAL swap spots (I do think WPG is a much stronger team based on regulation play; WPG is also #1 in the league)
-everything else is the same

The biggest difference comes in the ability for teams to come from behind in the standings. The points totals might look farther apart, but an end of the year win streak could make a bigger difference because OT doesn't give an extra point (teams are incentivized to get to OT right now, and there were a TONNE of OT games this year).

I don't expect the NHL to change (it's inconvenient and there is an argument that "it wouldn't make much of a difference"), and at most I think it is an alternative power ranking tool. I do think it shows potential playoff power better than current standings (since it reduces OTW and Shootout weighting).

Any thoughts/observations?

Click to read more...

 

[trebendan]

I’d prefer a points system where every game has 2 points available. Regulation win is 2 points; Ot win is worth 1.75, with the loser getting 0.25; SO winner gets 1.25 and the loser 0.75.

 

[WolfHouse]

Some of us have discussed possibilities for alternative points schemes to more accurately reflect a team's strength, and reward/incentivize teams to win in regulation (or at least OT) for a more exciting product. I decided to whip up a spreadsheet to see how it would change the final standings:



There are 3 tabs - the 2nd and 3rd show playoff seeding for each conference. 3 points for a regulation win; 2 for OTW, 1 for OTL *or tie* - no shootouts, so a game that ends OT in a tie result in a loss of a point for the game (1+1 instead of 3), which should incentivize an even more high-flying OT. If neither team can score 3v3, neither really deserves a coin-flip bonus point IMO.

Some interesting notes: the standings remain surprising close, and fairly similar, though of course teams weren't playing strategically to take advantage of the proposed points system. I'd expect more push at the end of the 3rd to get the extra point.

Differences in final seeding:
East:
-TBL and TOR swap spots
-CAR and NYR swap spots (Carolina won more in regulation, and NYR benefitted more from Shootouts)
-Washington surprisingly still gets in by the skin of their teeth... I still think they don't deserve to have made it, but then again, none of the teams below them really deserve it either...

West:
-WPG and DAL swap spots (I do think WPG is a much stronger team based on regulation play; WPG is also #1 in the league)
-everything else is the same

The biggest difference comes in the ability for teams to come from behind in the standings. The points totals might look farther apart, but an end of the year win streak could make a bigger difference because OT doesn't give an extra point (teams are incentivized to get to OT right now, and there were a TONNE of OT games this year).

I don't expect the NHL to change (it's inconvenient and there is an argument that "it wouldn't make much of a difference"), and at most I think it is an alternative power ranking tool. I do think it shows potential playoff power better than current standings (since it reduces OTW and Shootout weighting).

Any thoughts/observations?

Neat idea but Ill never say anything against the shootout... I remember desperately waiting for Howie Meeker's intermission shootout competition that the NHL only did every 15-20 games.... it was like magic!

I also remember when teams would just play for the tie in OT and never want to see that again...

 

[FonRiesen]

I’d prefer a points system where every game has 2 points available. Regulation win is 2 points; Ot win is worth 1.75, with the loser getting 0.25; SO winner gets 1.25 and the loser 0.75.

Mathematically this wouldn't be extremely far off (other than the shootout), just multiply these points by 2/3 and you'd have 2 points for a win, 1 1/3 for OTW, 2/3 for OTL. My version doesn't reward people as much for OT wins, and penalizes both teams for going to the gimmicky shootouts (because if you can't score 3v3, as a team sport you really deserve a tie... and a point gets lost from the game as a deterrent to keep games faster and less defensive).

I whipped up your version:


Interestingly, it would change even less - the East remains as is (Boston, Toronto and the Islanders still get unduly rewarded for losing so much in overtime), the only change in the league is Winnipeg switching with Dallas (because Winnipeg has so many more regulation wins). I'd say it's a slight improvement, though maybe not enough to incentivize more aggressive play to end games early. It actually incentivizes teams to play conservatively and go for the shootout (you get more points for losing in SO vs OT), and you know many coaches play to lose the least amount of points...

 

[FonRiesen]

Neat idea but Ill never say anything against the shootout... I remember desperately waiting for Howie Meeker's intermission shootout competition that the NHL only did every 15-20 games.... it was like magic!

I also remember when teams would just play for the tie in OT and never want to see that again...

OT in the olden days were freaking 20 minutes at 5v5... I'll agree, it was terrible.

By losing a point for a tie (to penalize boring play), there's actually nothing to be gained by playing "not to lose" in OT, so that's the beauty of the 3 point system; you either get the extra point, or you get 1 point, so there's nothing lost by going aggressive unless you're playing someone in your division and you want to drag them down with you - not quite as compelling as it is currently. I'd even be okay with up to 20 minutes of 3v3 hockey - it's at least still a team sport with strategy and back and forth action.

Right now, the shootout still gives cautious coaches a coin flip chance of getting an extra point for delaying the game.

If we *have* to have shootouts, you could still hold them, but instead of giving points for the standings, they can be the 3rd tie breaker stat or something. So still 1 point for the tie, but whoever has the most skillz can edge out an identical record team...

 

[King Woodballs]

Since there are no ties. Turn it into baseballs system.
Use RW vs OTW as a tie breaker.
Enough of this some three point games shit.