The Standings Are a Joke

[Sod16]

Once again, teams are playing for ties and the loser point is distorting the standings.

 

Carolina sits comfortably atop the Metro with a 16-6-12 record in regulation.  They have the same number of regulation wins as the Islanders, who are currently out of the playoffs.

 

13-12-12 is good for a home ice advantage second spot in the Pacific for LA.

 

Two other observations.

 

First, last year there was no playoff race in the East and large gap between the playoff teams and the rest.  It looks like that could develop again, with the bottom seven, if not eight, not really in the hunt half way through the year.

 

Second, while I don't have the interconference numbers, it looks like the East is eating the West alive.

 

 

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

I don’t really have a problem with it. Playing close enough games consistently will consistently go to OT. I find it to just be another indicator of a good team that plays competitive (and smart?) hockey more often than not.

 

If teams don’t like it, then they should stop losing in regulation as much.

[josh]

Fuck loser points. Get rid of that shit. 

[Cash or Czech]

46 minutes ago, josh said:

Fuck loser points. Get rid of that shit. 

 

Agreed. If you lose, you lose.

[BrooksBurner]

Can’t have gimmicks like 3v3 and SO deciding who gets points and who gets none. That’s not hockey.

[Karan]

3 hours ago, josh said:

Fuck loser points. Get rid of that shit. 

 

Agreed, I'd rather see them go with 0 points for OTL/SOL and only 1 pt for an OTW/SOW. Or 2 pts for OTW/SOW, but then make it 3 pts for a regulation win. A little more incentive to finish games in regulation. 

[josh]

18 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

Can’t have gimmicks like 3v3 and SO deciding who gets points and who gets none. That’s not hockey.

That’s true too, loser point boy 

[josh]

1 minute ago, Karan said:

 

Agreed, I'd rather see them go with 0 points for OTL/SOL and only 1 pt for an OTW/SOW. Or 2 pts for OTW/SOW, but then make it 3 pts for a regulation win. A little more incentive to finish games in regulation. 

I don’t want 3 point games, either. That’s still rewarding loser points

 

do win % (baseball, basketball) or 2 pts for a win, 0 for any loss

 

 

id really really like if they had 2 points for win, 0 points for a tie or loss. You want to see hockey? Tell a team they aren’t getting any points for a tie. You’ll see some fucking great hockey in the third period. And it prevents this BS safety net loser point with no one playing in the third period 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, josh said:

I don’t want 3 point games, either. That’s still rewarding loser points

 

do win % (baseball, basketball) or 2 pts for a win, 0 for any loss

 

 

id really really like if they had 2 points for win, 0 points for a tie or loss. You want to see hockey? Tell a team they aren’t getting any points for a tie. You’ll see some fucking great hockey in the third period. And it prevents this BS safety net loser point with no one playing in the third period 

 

Fans gonna spend hundreds of dollars on a game to see a 0 point, "like it never happened" game? Nope. Stinks.

 

Open to seeing a change, but I haven't heard a better option than what it currently is already - in this thread or in past reading.

[siddious]

6 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

 

Fans gonna spend hundreds of dollars on a game to see a 0 point, "like it never happened" game? Nope. Stinks.

 

Open to seeing a change, but I haven't heard a better option than what it currently is already - in this thread or in past reading.

3 pts for regulation win.

2 for ot win.

1 for reaching Ot or just get rid of the loser point in general.
 

always made sense to me. 

[Sod16]

3 hours ago, rmc51 said:

Can’t have gimmicks like 3v3 and SO deciding who gets points and who gets none. That’s not hockey.

3X3 and SO are not hockey.  The last season of regulation ties, 1982-83, there were vastly fewer regulation ties than there are now.  At least one team, the favorite or home team, was pressing hard for the win in regulation.  It really wasn't so bad.  I wish they'd just left it.  I just don't think a team with over a third of its games regulation ties should be in first place.  If we have to engage in this nonsense, make it 3-2-1.

 

I'll make a note to run the numbers at the end of the regular season and add to the facts.

[josh]

3 hours ago, rmc51 said:

 

Fans gonna spend hundreds of dollars on a game to see a 0 point, "like it never happened" game? Nope. Stinks.

 

Open to seeing a change, but I haven't heard a better option than what it currently is already - in this thread or in past reading.

They’ll literally see playoff hockey every third period. 
 

just go by win %, then. No points. 

[BrooksBurner]

3 hours ago, Sod16 said:

3X3 and SO are not hockey.  The last season of regulation ties, 1982-83, there were vastly fewer regulation ties than there are now.  At least one team, the favorite or home team, was pressing hard for the win in regulation.  It really wasn't so bad.  I wish they'd just left it.  I just don't think a team with over a third of its games regulation ties should be in first place.  If we have to engage in this nonsense, make it 3-2-1.

 

I'll make a note to run the numbers at the end of the regular season and add to the facts.

 

I don't know. I'm just not a huge fan of taking a tight game played by two teams and reducing the value of the win for one of them. It's better than josh's idea though of sending everybody home unhappy lol

Edited December 25, 2022 by rmc51

[BrooksBurner]

How about a maximum number of OTL points teams can accrue during the year? 10% of games...so 8? Any more than 8, no "loser point" awarded.

 

Number of teams with 9 or more OTLs (skipping shortened Covid years):

 

 

'16-'17: 17, with 15 in double digits.

'17-'18: 20, with 17 in double digits.

'18-'19: 16, with 10 in double digits.

'21-'22: 16, with 15 in double digits.

 

This would have resulted in multiple playoff team changes.

 

Just a thought. It might make for a more exciting brand of hockey in the 2nd half as a bunch of teams start hitting the maximum.

Edited December 25, 2022 by rmc51

[Pete]

16 hours ago, josh said:

I don’t want 3 point games, either. That’s still rewarding loser points

 

do win % (baseball, basketball) or 2 pts for a win, 0 for any loss

 

 

id really really like if they had 2 points for win, 0 points for a tie or loss. You want to see hockey? Tell a team they aren’t getting any points for a tie. You’ll see some fucking great hockey in the third period. And it prevents this BS safety net loser point with no one playing in the third period 

@josh making sense isn't the Christmas gift we asked for, but it's the one we needed. 

[Pete]

10 hours ago, rmc51 said:

How about a maximum number of OTL points teams can accrue during the year? 10% of games...so 8? Any more than 8, no "loser point" awarded.

 

Number of teams with 9 or more OTLs (skipping shortened Covid years):

 

 

'16-'17: 17, with 15 in double digits.

'17-'18: 20, with 17 in double digits.

'18-'19: 16, with 10 in double digits.

'21-'22: 16, with 15 in double digits.

 

This would have resulted in multiple playoff team changes.

 

Just a thought. It might make for a more exciting brand of hockey in the 2nd half as a bunch of teams start hitting the maximum.

No. Why overcomplicate it even further? 

[BrooksBurner]

51 minutes ago, Pete said:

No. Why overcomplicate it even further? 

I’m trying to be nice. It’s fine the way it is IMO.

[SaveByRichter35]

15 hours ago, rmc51 said:

How about a maximum number of OTL points teams can accrue during the year? 10% of games...so 8? Any more than 8, no "loser point" awarded.

 

Number of teams with 9 or more OTLs (skipping shortened Covid years):

 

'16-'17: 17, with 15 in double digits.

'17-'18: 20, with 17 in double digits.

'18-'19: 16, with 10 in double digits.

'21-'22: 16, with 15 in double digits.

 

This would have resulted in multiple playoff team changes.

 

Just a thought. It might make for a more exciting brand of hockey in the 2nd half as a bunch of teams start hitting the maximum.

Too gimmicky as well.  Has NHL written all over it though lol

[jsm7302]

No more loser points. 

 

2 points for regulation win.

 

1 point for OT or SO win.

 

It fixes the original stated problem while still rewarding the winner. No more playing for overtime or the shootout.

[Sod16]

12 hours ago, jsm7302 said:

No more loser points. 

 

2 points for regulation win.

 

1 point for OT or SO win.

 

It fixes the original stated problem while still rewarding the winner. No more playing for overtime or the shootout.

A team that gets a win in the skills competition should not be rewarded as much as one who wins in regulation.

[jsm7302]

10 hours ago, Sod16 said:

A team that gets a win in the skills competition should not be rewarded as much as one who wins in regulation.

 Not sure if you were agreeing with me or making another point that I missed, but  I absolutely agree.That's why I broke it down to 2 points for a regulation win and 1 point for overtime or shootout win. 3 on 3 and shoot out winners should not aquire the same amount of points as a regulation win.