The NHL Scoring System

[shrader]

Not to tangent your tangent, but I actually want to see the no-change icing rule applied in a situation that might actually decrease scoring (though, marginally.) I really hate the over-the-glass penalty and would rather see them simply treat it as an icing: no line change, no TV timeout, defensive zone faceoff. Still penalizes a little for doing it intentionally (was that really happening too much before that rule), but wouldn't be as big of a penalty for doing it accidentally. Plus, intentionally putting it over is more likely to happen when the team is tired and hemmed in, while accidentally is just as likely to happen at any point, so it would penalize the right situation more.

 

Now that you mention it, I don't feel like I've seen many of those calls lately. Maybe it has fully set in with the players and they've changed up the way the attempt clears. Really though, I have no problem with that rule. I hate when subjectivity is allowed in a call, so I'm not crazy about only calling it when it is intentional. Another one that bugs me is the kicked in vs. directed in with a skate rule. I want it changed to any puck off the skate doesn't count because those reviews are so inconsistent.

 

Your penalty idea is particularly interesting, especially in cases where a defenseman takes a penalty because the team has been hemmed into its own end for a long time. Not only are you killing it with one defenseman, but with four very tired skater, in general. I'd also like to see situations where teams have scoring lines that aren't known for their defensive play and end up having those guys kill penalties ... when tired ... and with just one defenseman. :thumbsup:

 

Or they sent the goon squad out there for a little revenge and wound up shorthanded. The thought of a guy like Andrew Peters killing a penalty while tired and short a defensemen is hilarious.

[carpandean]

Now that you mention it, I don't feel like I've seen many of those calls lately. Maybe it has fully set in with the players and they've changed up the way the attempt clears. Really though, I have no problem with that rule. I hate when subjectivity is allowed in a call, so I'm not crazy about only calling it when it is intentional. Another one that bugs me is the kicked in vs. directed in with a skate rule. I want it changed to any puck off the skate doesn't count because those reviews are so inconsistent.

My system would never have the refs making a subjective call. It would always be treated like an icing. My point was that the accidents happen at any point (I've seen some in non-Sabres games), while the intentional happen when the team is tired and hemmed in. In the current system, the punishment is the same: a PP is a PP; the teams will use the same PP and PK guys. Under my system, the punishment is technically the same, but will feel worse to guys that are tired (usually when it is intentional) than to those that aren't (as is more often the case when it is accidental.)

 

Or they sent the goon squad out there for a little revenge and wound up shorthanded. The thought of a guy like Andrew Peters killing a penalty while tired and short a defensemen is hilarious.

That would be funny ... and kinda sad ... but mostly funny.

[sabregoats]

I had an idea of a 3-2-1 system but slightly different than the others posted above. I would keep the shoot out and award each team 1 point for making it to the shoot out. Then shoot out wins would be the first tie breaker. So, if two teams were tied in the standings, the team with the higher percentage of shoot out wins would win the tie break. The "bonus" for shoot out wins would no longer be an asymmetric bonus point, but rather simply a part of the tie breaker system. Winning in "regular" OT would salvage a standings "bonus point" with that team getting 2 points over the losing team's 1 point. The only way to capture a full 3 points would be by winning in regulation. So, basically 3 points are awarded for a regulation win; each team receives a point for reaching OT; winning in the OT period results in a "bonus point", and winning in a SO results in a tie break bonus. This would cause aggressive play at the end of regulation and at the end of the OT period, which is the opposite of what we see with today's system. This system would penalize teams that find themselves in a high percentage of games requiring a shoot out to decide the outcome. It also puts a premium on ending games as rapidly as possible.

[deluca67]

Even though the NHL is the only that calls it points, every league has an implied point system. Your system (the same used by MLB and the NBA) is just equivalent to a 2-0 point system. The NFL's system is just equivalent to a 2-1-0 point system. Most of the choices that people are suggesting where games have the same number of points could easily be presented as a percent system just like the other leagues(e.g., the 3-2-1-0 system is just a 100%-67%-33%-0% system.) My biggest problem with the current system is that it can't (or really shouldn't), because points per game are not constant. The concept of a "bonus point" in a professional sport is the biggest joke, not just that they use points.

 

The difference between the NHL and other leagues is the level of scoring (and physical exertion, when comparing with MLB.) It's like soccer in this way and we see point systems there, too. In basketball, they score 20x the number of points, so the chances of not having a winner after a game, much less a short OT period, are much smaller (think of it as winning by a fraction of goal, of which you score 20x as many.) In baseball, it doesn't often take too many extra innings and even if it does, only the bull pen is really affected. In football, a high percentage of drives end in at least a field goal. With hockey, once the playoffs come, we often see long, drawn out OT games, because scoring is generally low and teams lock it down some when they know its all-or-nothing sudden-death. Thus, the already anemic scoring is reduced even further, drawing out the games. So, given the dense schedule and travel requirements, they either have to do something cheesy just to get a winner or allow ties. Fans don't like ties and they complain if an all-or-nothing game is decided in a cheesy way (look at how many people argue that something needs to change about the NFL system.)

 

It's a tough problem to have. One partial solution was to raise scoring, as they did post-lockout. High scoring games are less likely to end in ties (though, with the current point system, the results were tainted.) Unfortunately, the league has decided that wasn't a good idea, for some reason. Other than that, any system will have its benefits and weaknesses; its supporters and detractors. I'm just too grounded in logic that I can't handle an asymmetric point system like we have now.

You need to step away from Excel and have a beer. Your post is a shining example of "over-analysis." Winning and losing is the basis that competition is built on. The only column that should matter is "Wins." You then can go to various tiers to break ties if needed. That is all the NHL needs and anything more is a joke.

 

As far as the game itself? It comes down to accountability. The Refs should finally be held accountable for how they call games and the NHL front offices should be held accountable for the overall quality of officiating and the lack of supplemental discipline. Just enforce the rules and lay the hammer down of those players who who go way beyond those rules despite past reputations or discipline. It's time to make the call based on the play.

[Trey]

Something to keep in mind is that since the Olympic schedule is so short, they need a system like that to better differentiate between the teams in the short standings. I'm not so sure the NHL needs that with their schedule. As for the boring parts you mentioned, let's face it, with an 82 game season, you are going to have those moments regardless of what the point system is.

 

This subject comes up all the time and I'll still stick by my two preferences. Eliminate the bonus point that is awarded to the shoot out winner (yes, that is the bonus point, not the OTL) and/or switch to continuous overtime.

 

:thumbsup:

[carpandean]

You need to step away from Excel and have a beer. Your post is a shining example of "over-analysis." Winning and losing is the basis that competition is built on. The only column that should matter is "Wins." You then can go to various tiers to break ties if needed. That is all the NHL needs and anything more is a joke.

So, what exactly do you suggest they do at the end of sixty when there is no winner? If wins are all that matter, then you can't have ties, as they would be a joke, right? Then, they keep playing? For how long? 20 minutes? 40? 60? Or do you continue with the 5 minute 4-on-4 followed by a shootout to decide "all that matters" pretty arbitrarily?

 

I apologize if that would be covered under "You then can go to various tiers to break ties if needed." I'm not sure what you mean by tiers, but took it more as referring to ties in the standings, not games.

[shrader]

You need to step away from Excel and have a beer. Your post is a shining example of "over-analysis." Winning and losing is the basis that competition is built on. The only column that should matter is "Wins." You then can go to various tiers to break ties if needed. That is all the NHL needs and anything more is a joke.

 

As far as the game itself? It comes down to accountability. The Refs should finally be held accountable for how they call games and the NHL front offices should be held accountable for the overall quality of officiating and the lack of supplemental discipline. Just enforce the rules and lay the hammer down of those players who who go way beyond those rules despite past reputations or discipline. It's time to make the call based on the play.

 

So did you hate ties pre-lockout? I can understand why people would, but I've seen way to many games that deserved to end in a tie and I never had a problem with that result.

[sabregoats]

You need to step away from Excel and have a beer. Your post is a shining example of "over-analysis." Winning and losing is the basis that competition is built on. The only column that should matter is "Wins." You then can go to various tiers to break ties if needed. That is all the NHL needs and anything more is a joke.

 

As far as the game itself? It comes down to accountability. The Refs should finally be held accountable for how they call games and the NHL front offices should be held accountable for the overall quality of officiating and the lack of supplemental discipline. Just enforce the rules and lay the hammer down of those players who who go way beyond those rules despite past reputations or discipline. It's time to make the call based on the play.

So, do you have a solution, or do you only criticize? If you actually read my "over analysis" you would understand that I am actually addressing your complaint with the current system. Right now the league has a bizarre way of deciding games, where teams are encouraged to take games to OT because more points are awarded in OT. My system encourages outright regulation wins by offering more points in regulation.

 

The NHL isn't going to a W-L system any time soon. So, any suggestion should be more in depth than "only wins matter." We all get it, wins are the most important column. However, Hockey has a tradition of ties and since 1983 the league has decided games with 5 minute OT. The reason is, hockey can take a long time to decide. In the playoffs you can play till you drop. In the regular season, you can't; teams and the league have travel schedules to think about. So, games have to end in a reasonable amount of time. The solution in the past was ties and a 2-1 point system, which was abandoned after the lockout. The current system is supposedly more exciting, I personally don't see it. I would rather see teams clamor for a regulation or OT win, rather than climb into a defensive shell with the knowledge that they will be rewarded with essentially a coin flip for an extra point.

[deluca67]

So, what exactly do you suggest they do at the end of sixty when there is no winner? If wins are all that matter, then you can't have ties, as they would be a joke, right? Then, they keep playing? For how long? 20 minutes? 40? 60? Or do you continue with the 5 minute 4-on-4 followed by a shootout to decide "all that matters" pretty arbitrarily?

 

I apologize if that would be covered under "You then can go to various tiers to break ties if needed." I'm not sure what you mean by tiers, but took it more as referring to ties in the standings, not games.

Simple.

 

You play 60 minutes. You play 5 minutes of OT. A shootout if needed. At the end of the game 1 team gets the win and 1 team gets the loss. Why is that concept so hard to understand? It's not "arbitrarily" as long as each team understands the rules going in. What is ridiculous is that a team with 40 wins can lose a playoff spot to a team with 35 wins because of loser points. Any system based on anything other than wins and loses is a joke. Like Nascar and the BCS are.

[deluca67]

So, do you have a solution, or do you only criticize? If you actually read my "over analysis" you would understand that I am actually addressing your complaint with the current system. Right now the league has a bizarre way of deciding games, where teams are encouraged to take games to OT because more points are awarded in OT. My system encourages outright regulation wins by offering more points in regulation.

 

The NHL isn't going to a W-L system any time soon. So, any suggestion should be more in depth than "only wins matter." We all get it, wins are the most important column. However, Hockey has a tradition of ties and since 1983 the league has decided games with 5 minute OT. The reason is, hockey can take a long time to decide. In the playoffs you can play till you drop. In the regular season, you can't; teams and the league have travel schedules to think about. So, games have to end in a reasonable amount of time. The solution in the past was ties and a 2-1 point system, which was abandoned after the lockout. The current system is supposedly more exciting, I personally don't see it. I would rather see teams clamor for a regulation or OT win, rather than climb into a defensive shell with the knowledge that they will be rewarded with essentially a coin flip for an extra point.

Does Carp have a split personality?

[sabregoats]

Does Carp have a split personality?

No, I just misread your post. I thought you were analyzing my post as over analysis. I saw a multi paragraph quote and assumed it was mine. I actually don't mind the idea of W-L I just don't like a SO determining who gets the full credit for the W. That is how I arrived at the 3-2-1. I think after 65 minutes of hockey there is nothing wrong with both teams splitting points, especially if the total points awarded is less than the max possible. Which encourages aggressive play at the end of regulation, and the end of OT.

[deluca67]

No, I just misread your post. I thought you were analyzing my post as over analysis. I saw a multi paragraph quote and assumed it was mine. I actually don't mind the idea of W-L I just don't like a SO determining who gets the full credit for the W. That is how I arrived at the 3-2-1. I think after 65 minutes of hockey there is nothing wrong with both teams splitting points, especially if the total points awarded is less than the max possible. Which encourages aggressive play at the end of regulation, and the end of OT.

Good. I was worried about Carp there for a moment.

 

I have no problem with the shootout determining the Win just like I don't mind the OT coin toss in the NFL. As long as both teams understand the rules before the game begins than the issue of fairness is mute.

[carpandean]

You play 60 minutes. You play 5 minutes of OT. A shootout if needed. At the end of the game 1 team gets the win and 1 team gets the loss. Why is that concept so hard to understand? It's not "arbitrarily" as long as each team understands the rules going in. What is ridiculous is that a team with 40 wins can lose a playoff spot to a team with 35 wins because of loser points. Any system based on anything other than wins and loses is a joke. Like Nascar and the BCS are.

So, you are fine with a team that is not good enough to beat other teams in regulation, but is very good in the shootouts getting a playoff spot over a team that gets one less win, but actually beats teams in regulation? For example, one team gets 45 regulation wins, 32 regulation losses and goes 0-for-5 in the shootout, while the other gets 36 regulation wins, 36 regulation losses, but goes 10-for-10 in the shootout (they have Kotalik, Kozlov and Jussi Jokinen.) You want the latter in the playoffs? Remember, there is no shootout in the playoffs.

 

I don't mind a W-L system, but I can't accept having the shootout involved, then. I'd rather that it just end after the OT with a tie.

 

Does Carp have a split personality?

That's what I'm wondering. :unsure:

 

 

 

And so am I. :bag:

 

(Edit: took too long and missed sabregoats' post.)

[sabregoats]

Good. I was worried about Carp there for a moment.

 

I have no problem with the shootout determining the Win just like I don't mind the OT coin toss in the NFL. As long as both teams understand the rules before the game begins than the issue of fairness is mute.

I am not arguing fairness, the current system is fair. The problem is it awards flawed teams. Like carp says above, the SO awards a different style team than will succeed in the playoffs. However, the NHL will and should go with what they think is exciting and the fans like. I don't know if they are right or wrong. I don't like the shoot out, but they have me hooked. It is the casual fan they are worried about, and I just don't know if the causal fan: a. even exists and b. if he likes shoot outs or not.

 

In the end this is the job of the competition committee, as currently, the competition is not unfair but flawed. The committee needs to take a look at this and make a recommendation to Betman and the owners. Personally I dread OT in both the NHL and NFL. In both sports OT is often decided by a skills competition not by the better team. In the NHL their is no incentive to avoid the SO, so many games end there. In NFL too many games end in a field goal, when the goal of regulation is touchdowns. You would never see a team pull up in the middle of a drive to kick a FG with 10 minutes left in the fourth quarter, why is that rewarded in OT? More simply why is a TD = FG = safety in OT when in regulation time there is scoring stratification?

[gregkash]

ive long been an advocate for 3 points regulation win, or win in OT. 2 points for winning shootout, 0 points for losing in regulation/OT and 1 pt for losing in the shootout as it's an arbitrary way to end the game.

 

It won't effect parity will give extra incentive to win games in regulation and OT.

[blugold43]

 

 

It's unfortunate to what lengths coaches will go to win games and keep their jobs.

yeah if these guys had any balls they wouldn't try so hard to win! just think how much better it would be!

:blink:

[Stoner]

yeah if these guys had any balls they wouldn't try so hard to win! just think how much better it would be!

:blink:

You missed the point. A lot of these guys win, but sell their souls to do so. The fans suffer.

[shrader]

You missed the point. A lot of these guys win, but sell their souls to do so. The fans suffer.

 

All while these coaches are banking their million plus salaries. I'd sell my soul too.

[Guest Sloth]

How about this. Ditch the point system! Go to the win/loss setup. There's nothing to debate about it. It seems to work quite well in the NFL, MLB, etc...

 

*Had to edit this. I forgot about the NFL having a "tie" in their system. The NFL setup is still much better than the NHL setup.

 

I can't believe I just said something positive about the NFL. I've really grown to hate it over the last 5 years. And it has nothing to do with the suckage of the Buffalo Bills. :thumbdown:

[Stoner]

All while these coaches are banking their million plus salaries. I'd sell my soul too.

 

Maybe I'm way off base here, but wouldn't it benefit the owners to dictate what kind of game is played? Isn't that the point of forming a league and having a commissioner? NFL owners get nervous when scoring goes down.

[rickshaw]

The Olympic points system in hockey is superior to what the NHL does, and the NHL should adopt it. Every game is worth 3 points. A regulation win is worth 3, an overtime/shootout win is worth 2, and an overtime loss 1.

 

This fixes a number of problems I have with the current NHL points system. First, it makes no sense that regulation games are worth 2 points, but overtime games 3, it is asymmetrical and in the wrong direction. Second, in the later portions of tie games team hunker down for overtime, it is dull. But if you know you are going to lose a point or two if it goes to overtime, your economic incentives change. Third, since overtime points are gimmicked up with 4 on 4 and shootouts, it seems right that a gimmick win is worth less than a regulation win.

 

Not as interesting as Ryan Miller's sexual preferences I suppose, but just a thought for the day... DD

 

 

In a perfect world this would be the point system, with all games worth the same amount of points. But sadly, the NHL knows that if a team gets down early in the season, that if it's in a fickle fan base, the fans won't go to games. So they "trick" us all into believing their league is so super competitive. Look at the standings everyone. We're sooooo full of parity.

 

The only other option would be to go to a basketball system with no points awarded. Even if your team is garbage your team can still make the playoffs under that system. Currently the 8th place team in the NBA Eastern Conf is 27 & 26, 14.5 games behind first place. The 9th place team is just 2 games back.

In the West it's a bit tighter but teams hovering around .500 are right there with a shot at making the playoffs.

 

Either way, the NHL is stupid in so many ways and they won't change a darn thing. The only league where some games are worth more than others. Now there's a concept.

[shrader]

How about this. Ditch the point system! Go to the win/loss setup. There's nothing to debate about it. It seems to work quite well in the NFL, MLB, etc...

 

*Had to edit this. I forgot about the NFL having a "tie" in their system. The NFL setup is still much better than the NHL setup.

 

I can't believe I just said something positive about the NFL. I've really grown to hate it over the last 5 years. And it has nothing to do with the suckage of the Buffalo Bills. :thumbdown:

 

The NFL plays a 16 game schedule. There is next to no point in comparing the two.

[SwampD]

The world is an asymmetrical place. Get over it. Good teams will get into the playoffs. Bad teams won't. No matter what system was used, the Sabres weren't getting in the last two years.

 

 

EDIT: Besides, do we really want to surrender 18 points to Ottawa every year instead of only 12?

[deluca67]

The NFL plays a 16 game schedule. There is next to no point in comparing the two.

16? 82? 162? It doesn't matter how many games a league decides each team will play. I don't think it's a coincidence that the three major sports leagues don't find it necessary to use some asinine point system to determine standings. The NHL should follow.

[deluca67]

So, you are fine with a team that is not good enough to beat other teams in regulation, but is very good in the shootouts getting a playoff spot over a team that gets one less win, but actually beats teams in regulation? For example, one team gets 45 regulation wins, 32 regulation losses and goes 0-for-5 in the shootout, while the other gets 36 regulation wins, 36 regulation losses, but goes 10-for-10 in the shootout (they have Kotalik, Kozlov and Jussi Jokinen.) You want the latter in the playoffs? Remember, there is no shootout in the playoffs.

 

I don't mind a W-L system, but I can't accept having the shootout involved, then. I'd rather that it just end after the OT with a tie.

 

 

That's what I'm wondering. :unsure:

 

 

 

And so am I. :bag:

 

(Edit: took too long and missed sabregoats' post.)

If you change to simply a win/lose scenario for standings and use the shootout? I think it will change how teams address their rosters. I would hope it would also make teams more aggressive in the 60-65 minutes of game play. If you up against a team loaded in the shootout you will need to take more chances to prevent the shootout.

 

If you want to get rid of the shootout. I would have no problem with that either. Ties would be fine as long as they count along the same lines as loses. I don't like how the NFL lets ties effect the standings. I wouldn't want them to effect winning percentage. If two teams each have 45 wins at the end of the year I wouldn't want ties to be any part of the tie breaker system.