683 replies to this topic

[Old School Hockey]

It's time the NHL addresses the loser point! A team with more wins should NOT be lower in standings than a team with less wins. Without the loser point the Western Conference would a lot different than it does today. IMO they should get rid of points all together and use win pct.

I know this is way out there but a lesser version of this is possible.

Team A goes 50-32-0 and has 100 points.
Team B goes 20-0-62 and has 102 points.

Something fundamentally wrong with a system that could possible reward a team with more loser points than a team with more actual wins!

Thoughts?

[damned]

For the record, I like the idea of the winning team getting more points then then a team that doesn't win.

With that said, when you look at the standings things wouldn't change much if you did switch things up, the good teams are still the good teams.

[Old School Hockey]

In the WC LA would out and Dallas and Colorado would battling for the 8th spot.

Understand 2 loser points equals 1 win.

Get rid of the All Star Game gimmick. Go back this great system that worked great!

2 points for a win
1 point for a tie
0 points for a loss

[damned]

Sure, but it's marginal at best. You have a log jams across the league with the current system for both playoff spots and ranking, it's good tight races. As I said, it doesn't change much by making a switch.

[Left Wing Loner]

A few teams might switch places by a couple slots either way. It's not huge movement. If we went back to that way, people would clamor for this way again. I don't LOVE the current system, but I'm used to it. So to quote my grandpa "STOP changing stuff!".

[Old School Hockey]

Good tight races? In other words false parity!

[Old School Hockey]

I agree it should not been changed in the first place!

What also is forgotten with this system Shoot out win extra points.

[Old School Hockey]

Here is real possible scenario.

Team A 34-28-20 equals 88 points
Team B 41-37-4 equals 86 points

This is very possible scenario and would punish the team that won and played in more regulation games.

[Tashimojo]

Here's a real example of what you're talking about, the 2006-2007 standings:

In 8th, the last playoff spot, we have the Calgary Flames. Their record was 43 - 29 - 10.
Bumped just out of the playoffs, in 9th, there's the Colorado Avalanche. Their record was 44 - 31 - 7.

Needless to say I hate the loser point.

[Tashimojo]

In the WC LA would out and Dallas and Colorado would battling for the 8th spot.

Understand 2 loser points equals 1 win.

Get rid of the All Star Game gimmick. Go back this great system that worked great!

2 points for a win
1 point for a tie
0 points for a loss

Before the shootout teams still got 1 point for losing in OT. I do hate the loser point, but I also hate ties. You don't need to have one to take away the other.

[Craig Simpson]

Here is real possible scenario.

Team A 34-28-20 equals 88 points
Team B 41-37-4 equals 86 points

This is very possible scenario and would punish the team that won and played in more regulation games.

When you say "very possible" have you bothered to consider the odds? They are NOT good at all. If you took a statistical analysis of NHL team records since the new system started, you would see that any of the "loser" points have had nothing as dramatic as you've described. Could it happen? Yes, but to say it is "very possible" makes it sound like its only a matter of time, but its still highly unlikely. Its not quite winning the lottery chances, but its getting there.

The current system isn't perfect, but there is still parity even if you had the old system, its not false parity. The races would be tight either way, and that's what parity is.

If you remove the "loser point", seven teams in the East would change places, but only one team would get in the playoffs that is on the outside now and one would fall out. And it would be dramatic because Washington would be in and Florida would be out. However, Washington has games in hand on Florida and winning those games in hand would have them switch places regardless, so overall, nothing has changed as far as playoff implications go. Tampa Bay would also flip places with Montreal, but that would just drop them one more spot in the draft.

In the West, its a little different as you say. Still 7 teams would change position in the standings, but two teams in the playoffs right now would be out and two that are out would be in. Minnesota and Los Angeles would both be on the outside looking in while Dallas and Colorado would move up into those final two playoff spots. Detroit would also move into 2nd place from 5th as they would take over the Central Division lead while St. Louis would drop to 4th and Chicago to 5th.

In both cases, though, the parity is there. Without the "loser point," 12 points separate 1st to 10th in the West - exactly the same as the current standings. That is tight.

In the East, its the same story - 14 points from 1st to 10th, no matter which model of points system you use. That is parity and overall the standings change very little.

[Old School Hockey]

When you say "very possible" have you bothered to consider the odds? They are NOT good at all. If you took a statistical analysis of NHL team records since the new system started, you would see that any of the "loser" points have had nothing as dramatic as you've described. Could it happen? Yes, but to say it is "very possible" makes it sound like its only a matter of time, but its still highly unlikely. Its not quite winning the lottery chances, but its getting there.

The current system isn't perfect, but there is still parity even if you had the old system, its not false parity. The races would be tight either way, and that's what parity is.

If you remove the "loser point", seven teams in the East would change places, but only one team would get in the playoffs that is on the outside now and one would fall out. And it would be dramatic because Washington would be in and Florida would be out. However, Washington has games in hand on Florida and winning those games in hand would have them switch places regardless, so overall, nothing has changed as far as playoff implications go. Tampa Bay would also flip places with Montreal, but that would just drop them one more spot in the draft.

In the West, its a little different as you say. Still 7 teams would change position in the standings, but two teams in the playoffs right now would be out and two that are out would be in. Minnesota and Los Angeles would both be on the outside looking in while Dallas and Colorado would move up into those final two playoff spots. Detroit would also move into 2nd place from 5th as they would take over the Central Division lead while St. Louis would drop to 4th and Chicago to 5th.

In both cases, though, the parity is there. Without the "loser point," 12 points separate 1st to 10th in the West - exactly the same as the current standings. That is tight.

In the East, its the same story - 14 points from 1st to 10th, no matter which model of points system you use. That is parity and overall the standings change very little.

While understand what you are saying. With current system many team are simply put OKAY with getting OT/SO! For several reasons. First its a guareteed point. Second many team lay down late in games and in OT to get to the shoot out. Because their teams good in shoot outs. Look no further that the 2009 Coyotes.

Again the gimmick needs to go and the 2-1-0 did very good for long time.

But I guess it's not about us 40+ years hockey fans! It's about attracting non traditional fans!

[damned]

Good tight races? In other words false parity!

I totally disagree, the teams in the races are of equal power. They are the same level teams fighting for the playoff spots, it's not false parity, it's teams we all would have picked to be 6 through 12 in the standings fighting for spots 6 through 12 in the standings.

Even Tashi's example backs the point on some levels, tha Avs won ONE game more then the Flames, ONE. While I get they won more games, obviously, you can't tell me a way better team got ripped off. An average team (Avs) missed the playoffs for another average team (Flames). Which is my point, it's not false parity, it's the same teams fighting for the same spots, no matter how you roll out the point system. As long as everyone plays by the same rules parity is parity, there is no advantage to any one team.

[damned]

Here is real possible scenario.

Team A 34-28-20 equals 88 points
Team B 41-37-4 equals 86 points

This is very possible scenario and would punish the team that won and played in more regulation games.

It's not a real possibility when not 1 team in the NHL is on pace for 20 OTL's, it will never happen. If it does it will be once in blue moon.

[Old School Hockey]

It's not a real possibility when not 1 team in the NHL is on pace for 20 OTL's, it will never happen. If it does it will be once in blue moon.

It the system as a whole! The loser point the extra point for a shoot out win. Heck Pheonix lived/lives on that extra point. Again eliminate the gimmick and the problem is solved! I'm not sure why it's so very important to a have a winner in every game at the cost of legitimatacy?

[damned]

It the system as a whole! The loser point the extra point for a shoot out win. Heck Pheonix lived/lives on that extra point. Again eliminate the gimmick and the problem is solved! I'm not sure why it's so very important to a have a winner in every game at the cost of legitimatacy?

Obviously we disagree, which is fine, I don't see it as a big issue at all, I'm repeating myself, but aside from MAYBE 1 or 2 teams the playoff picture stays the same.

[Old School Hockey]

Obviously we disagree, which is fine, I don't see it as a big issue at all, I'm repeating myself, but aside from MAYBE 1 or 2 teams the playoff picture stays the same.

I can't remember the number but just using Pheonix as an example I remember somewhere around 20 extra points for them between loser and extra shoot out points! I think you under estimate how many teams can and will use the system to their advantage.

I'm really all for wins and loses and your win pct is the governing factor for your playoff positioning!

[Old School Hockey]

Obviously we disagree, which is fine, I don't see it as a big issue at all, I'm repeating myself, but aside from MAYBE 1 or 2 teams the playoff picture stays the same.

What if your team was one of those 1 or 2 teams? Do you have the same opinion? Mine is not one but it's still something to think about.

[Old School Hockey]

I wonder if the players from the teams that don't make it would agree. Its so easy for us to look in from the outside to judge. But imo if i worked my ass off as a player all season to see a team w a worse record make it Id b mighty pissed.

Bravo you get it!