Toggle sidebar

Suggestions for NHL scoring (re: OT & Empty Nets)

The Panther

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
20,410
17,590
Tokyo, Japan
So, before, we had 3-on-3 overtime inflating scoring (not necessarily a bad thing). But now we've got 3-on-3 overtime and the huge rate of empty-net goals inflating scoring, as well as save percentages, 5-on-5 results, etc.

So, here are my suggestions for the NHL (and I'm going to hold myself back and not get into how stupid having "3 point games" is yet again... Oh, whoops!):

1) 3-on-3 overtime goals and empty-net goals should not count for or against any player's plus/minus.
This just seems obvious, to me. The rate of scoring in the 3-on-3 has got to be higher than on a PP, which doesn't count for plus/minus, but 3-on-3 does. This doesn't make any sense. 3-on-3 overtime is potentially important, yes, but it's just novelty time as far as hockey goes. And for God's sakes, the NHL needs to stop counting empty-net goals for and against the plus/minus of players on the ice.

The plus/minus system has never been altered since it was invented in 1958 or whatever. Time to tweak it a bit.

2) Stop awarding secondary assists on Empty-net goals.
Empty-net goals are way up. Okay, that's fine and dandy. But to slightly mitigate the possibility of players winning scoring titles on empty-net points, I think the NHL should just stop awarding any secondary assists on EN goals. Sure, it wouldn't make a big difference in the long run, but it might make a small difference. (I might go one step further and suggest to stop awarding ALL assists on empty-net goals, but maybe that's taking it too far... for now.)

3) What to do about goalies' save percentage in 3-on-3 overtime? I don't know.
I personally feel that goalies take a bit of hit because of 3-on-3 overtime. I dunno, I always feel that it's unfair if a goalie lets it in in OT and it destroys his save percentage for the night. Is this really fair — or, more importantly, accurate — when 3-on-3 is a bunch of three-on-ones and two-on-zero's by the best players on either team?

I was thinking maybe the overtime simply shouldn't count at all in save percentages (or shot counts?). But maybe that's not right because, after all, power-plays (incl. 5-on-3's against) have always counted in goalies' save percentages.

__________

Those are my ideas. Admittedly, I'm on shaky ground with point 3, but I'm still feeling my way through it (like a blind man at an orgy). Your thoughts?
Click to read more...
 
People are usually against change, so expect a lot of opposition here.

I think 1 and 2 totally make sense. These are not dramatic changes at all, but it would bring more fairness in the stats department. It wouldn't change a thing about how the game is played. Good ideas.

I agree your 3rd idea is not totally fair, but I see where it's coming from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lazlo Hollyfeld
I definitely agree on #1. OT can definitely skew one's +/-, both positively and negatively. I would even consider excluding 6-on-5 goals, which are similar to PP goals.

I'm on the fence on #2, but then again I watch the Bruins, who have been an unmitigated disaster with the opposition's goalie pulled. If a pass out of the zone is a secondary assist on an ENG, it's earned, in my book.

As for #3, I get the gist of it, but two things: the winning goalie would have his save percentage improved (unless he faced zero shots). Secondly, it kinda averages out when throughout the game easy saves, such as clearing attempts that end up on net, are counted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nturn06
Breakfast of Champs said:
When you just accept that stats aren't THAT important, none of this matters.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you can also say that grown-men chasing a piece of vulcanized rubber around an artificial ice-surface doesn't matter either.

So...
200w.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: D Wakaluk
The Panther said:
Yes, but you can also say that grown-men chasing a piece of vulcanized rubber around an artificial ice-surface doesn't matter either.

So...
200w.gif
Click to expand...
Right, but stats are supposed to be objective- not fair or take into account the changes of league environment.

Obviously it's nuanced, stats from the 80s don't reflect the fact that goalies were stand up or wore tiny pads. You have to understand difference to understand that, it isn't raw stats that need to reflect this.

If you want more advanced or adjusted stats, that's fine, but taking a 2nd assist away in some circumstances is stupid. Where do you draw the line? It's Like having the actual temp and then the "real feel". The record for hottest day will always be the actual temperature. Whether it "felt" the hottest is somewhat subjective depending on how each person feels humidity (genetics do play a part) but it isn't the job of a thermometer to do anything but show the cold hard temperature. Take from the stats what you will, but they should just stay the way they are.

WatchfulElm said:
People are usually against change, so expect a lot of opposition here.

I think 1 and 2 totally make sense. These are not dramatic changes at all, but it would bring more fairness in the stats department. It wouldn't change a thing about how the game is played. Good ideas.

I agree your 3rd idea is not totally fair, but I see where it's coming from.
Click to expand...
Thinking stats need to be fair is literally the antithesis of "stats".

Keeping stats the way they are also, doesn't change how the game is played. Stats reflect real data, they don't aim to please
 
Breakfast of Champs said:
Right, but stats are supposed to be objective- not fair or take into account the changes of league environment.

Obviously it's nuanced, stats from the 80s don't reflect the fact that goalies were stand up or wore tiny pads. You have to understand difference to understand that, it isn't raw stats that need to reflect this.

If you want more advanced or adjusted stats, that's fine, but taking a 2nd assist away in some circumstances is stupid. Where do you draw the line? It's Like having the actual temp and then the "real feel". The record for hottest day will always be the actual temperature. Whether it "felt" the hottest is somewhat subjective depending on how each person feels humidity (genetics do play a part) but it isn't the job of a thermometer to do anything but show the cold hard temperature. Take from the stats what you will, but they should just stay the way they are.


Thinking stats need to be fair is literally the antithesis of "stats".

Keeping stats the way they are also, doesn't change how the game is played. Stats reflect real data, they don't aim to please
Click to expand...
Yes, I get what you are saying, but I think you're incorrect in assuming that stats are objective. Are they? Consider:

-- It's well known that, in the past, shot-counts were widely inflated in certain rinks (Boston Garden, for example) compared to other rinks. So, this was never objective.
-- Power-play percentage doesn't factor in minutes, but rather raw number of PP-opportunities --- thus, a widely inaccurate stat. (12 seconds on the PP counts the same as 120 seconds on the PP for the official stats.) Obviously, there's subjectivity at work in the guise of objectivity. (While I'm on my soapbox, another thing I've never understood, btw --- why doesn't the League count PP-percentage as goals scored per minutes [or seconds] on the PP? That way, the very great PP's would show an even higher percentage for scoring faster on the man advantage.)
-- The NHL's official records for points-per-game don't factor in that several games were longer before 1942 and after 1983 (overtimes), nor that 3-on-3 overtimes make it much 'easier' to score in. Another example of a stat where a "game" itself is somewhat subjective.

Anyway, I know what you're saying --- that stats are supposed to be purely objective and show a measurement, not an ideal. But to my way of thinking, stats are completely useless unless they have a purpose for being kept in the first place. So... what is the purpose of plus/minus if it's counting empty-net goals for and against? What does including this (and not including PP goals for and against) tell us about the given players on the ice that's purposeful?
 
The Panther said:
So, before, we had 3-on-3 overtime inflating scoring (not necessarily a bad thing). But now we've got 3-on-3 overtime and the huge rate of empty-net goals inflating scoring, as well as save percentages, 5-on-5 results, etc.

So, here are my suggestions for the NHL (and I'm going to hold myself back and not get into how stupid having "3 point games" is yet again... Oh, whoops!):

1) 3-on-3 overtime goals and empty-net goals should not count for or against any player's plus/minus.
This just seems obvious, to me. The rate of scoring in the 3-on-3 has got to be higher than on a PP, which doesn't count for plus/minus, but 3-on-3 does. This doesn't make any sense. 3-on-3 overtime is potentially important, yes, but it's just novelty time as far as hockey goes. And for God's sakes, the NHL needs to stop counting empty-net goals for and against the plus/minus of players on the ice.

The plus/minus system has never been altered since it was invented in 1958 or whatever. Time to tweak it a bit.

2) Stop awarding secondary assists on Empty-net goals.
Empty-net goals are way up. Okay, that's fine and dandy. But to slightly mitigate the possibility of players winning scoring titles on empty-net points, I think the NHL should just stop awarding any secondary assists on EN goals. Sure, it wouldn't make a big difference in the long run, but it might make a small difference. (I might go one step further and suggest to stop awarding ALL assists on empty-net goals, but maybe that's taking it too far... for now.)

3) What to do about goalies' save percentage in 3-on-3 overtime? I don't know.
I personally feel that goalies take a bit of hit because of 3-on-3 overtime. I dunno, I always feel that it's unfair if a goalie lets it in in OT and it destroys his save percentage for the night. Is this really fair — or, more importantly, accurate — when 3-on-3 is a bunch of three-on-ones and two-on-zero's by the best players on either team?

I was thinking maybe the overtime simply shouldn't count at all in save percentages (or shot counts?). But maybe that's not right because, after all, power-plays (incl. 5-on-3's against) have always counted in goalies' save percentages.

__________

Those are my ideas. Admittedly, I'm on shaky ground with point 3, but I'm still feeling my way through it (like a blind man at an orgy). Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Let me guess. You play lots of fantasy hockey and these things screwed you over
 
The Panther said:
Yes, I get what you are saying, but I think you're incorrect in assuming that stats are objective. Are they? Consider:

-- It's well known that, in the past, shot-counts were widely inflated in certain rinks (Boston Garden, for example) compared to other rinks. So, this was never objective.
-- Power-play percentage doesn't factor in minutes, but rather raw number of PP-opportunities --- thus, a widely inaccurate stat. (12 seconds on the PP counts the same as 120 seconds on the PP for the official stats.) Obviously, there's subjectivity at work in the guise of objectivity. (While I'm on my soapbox, another thing I've never understood, btw --- why doesn't the League count PP-percentage as goals scored per minutes [or seconds] on the PP? That way, the very great PP's would show an even higher percentage for scoring faster on the man advantage.)
-- The NHL's official records for points-per-game don't factor in that several games were longer before 1942 and after 1983 (overtimes), nor that 3-on-3 overtimes make it much 'easier' to score in. Another example of a stat where a "game" itself is somewhat subjective.

Anyway, I know what you're saying --- that stats are supposed to be purely objective and show a measurement, not an ideal. But to my way of thinking, stats are completely useless unless they have a purpose for being kept in the first place. So... what is the purpose of plus/minus if it's counting empty-net goals for and against? What does including this (and not including PP goals for and against) tell us about the given players on the ice that's purposeful?
Click to expand...
Yea I agree they are not objective in nature, another question is, why do we have 2 assists, not 1 or 3? Agreed on old time stat keepers too , it was a total farce.

My point is that, we should just record them the way they have been, to save some objectivity.

I agree that ppg/2min is a better stat than pp percentage. We can keep the old way and adapt a new. Its like how nobody cares about fg percentage anymore and TS has effectively replaced it. We can still keep fg % , it's just a relic. Anyhow, I don't agree with the eng secondary assists thing, or the goalies 3 v 3 sv percentage. If you wanna exclude plus minus I'd be OK with that because it is already situational (pp,pk)

I also don't consider Shootout wins to be "real" for goal tenders and would exclude it entirely for the purposes of records.

My point (which you understood ) was that if we chase "fairness" in stats, them they aren't stats .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rodgerwilco and The Panther
The primary scoring stats table is what needs to change.

I'm talking about the GP - G - A - P - +/-

1. It's already a widespread view among analysts that 5v5 +/- is much more useful than the current +/-, which is larded up with unfair empty net and shorthanded points. For instance, Erik Karlsson was an even player at 5v5 in his last Norris season, and he's still getting crap for being a -26, which was mostly empty net goals against.

2. This one is more my personal opinion, the assist column should be primary assists. So A1, not A1 + A2. You still record A2s, they're very useful at times.

I'm also okay with a carveout that empty net goals and assists don't count in the main goals and assist columns. It's not just empty net assists that are a problem, you've also got goal scorers that are half empty nets.
 
ENGs and 3-on-3 does inflate point totals to some degree but we just have to take that into account when evaluating stats.

You could look at them as a "tip" that star players get for being at the top of the food chain.
 
Better yet, why don't we set up a panel of judges for each game that rates the difficulty and skill level of each goal and assist on a scale of 1-10. The rating system determines how many "points" each player gets on the stat sheet.

/sarcasm. Sorry, I don't think any of that is necessary at all. Should points also not count if a team scores after pulling their goalie on a delayed penalty?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Rodgerwilco and Breakfast of Champs
Address other massive issues next:

Fans banging on the glass

The excessive cussing from the players

Michigan goals

I propose the death penalty for all 3, but apparently that's "too harsh"
 
Here's the thing.....I agree with many that suggest to stop whining about ENP....I agree, a point is a point and I wouldn't want to start tweaking that, or dropping 2nd assist, etc. There are several examples where the goal scorer did the easiest thing, so should be worth the least and examples where the 2nd assist was really the difference maker, etc. Just take it as it is. I have to imagine enough thought was put into as to why we look at the actual goal scorer and then 2 other guys that should get the points on a goal....

HOWEVER, I wonder if we could think about it when it comes to tiebreakers. Right now, if two guys are tied in points at the end of the year, the guy with the most goals will win the Art Ross. I don't have a problem with that, but what if two guys tied with 122pts and one guy had 51 goals (10 ENG) and the other guy had 50 (1 ENG)? They already have team standings tiebreakers by weighting a regulation win more than an OT win which is then more than an OT win....why not do this.

As I type away though, I figure it's completely meaningless and I'm guessing that type of tiebreaker would never apply in the history of the game....I feel dumber for even thinking about this.......
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rebels57
IMO more scoring is good. Don't you like modern players having a chance at records?

If you think about it, if overtime went until there was a winner, like it does during the playoffs, there would always be points handed out in extra time, so 3-on-3 actually represents fewer points
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom