The NHL Scoring System

[carpandean]

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.

I'm enjoying this discussion, in part because sometimes it makes me go :blink:

 

So, you are OK with a shootout deciding who gets all 2 points, but if they end in a tie, then it's no better than a loss? I'm the exact opposite. I'm not OK with the shootout deciding all 2 points (they might as well just bring out the chrono and see who has the hardest shot), but I am fine with the 1 point tie. Is 1-1-0 really better than 0-0-2? Sure, you won once, but you also lost once. In the latter, you haven't beaten anyone, but you haven't been beaten, either. I have no problem two teams, who battle to a stalemate for 65 minutes, sharing the points. You want to talk about something that's bad for the sport, try having two teams go through all that and no one walks away with any points. Everyone would stand around going "what the f**k just happened?"

 

I suppose that I could see the benefit of maybe a 3-point win and 1-point tie, though I hate when games have different total values.

[deluca67]

I'm enjoying this discussion, in part because sometimes it makes me go :blink:

 

So, you are OK with a shootout deciding who gets all 2 points, but if they end in a tie, then it's no better than a loss? I'm the exact opposite. I'm not OK with the shootout deciding all 2 points (they might as well just bring out the chrono and see who has the hardest shot), but I am fine with the 1 point tie. Is 1-1-0 really better than 0-0-2? Sure, you won once, but you also lost once. In the latter, you haven't beaten anyone, but you haven't been beaten, either. I have no problem two teams, who battle to a stalemate for 65 minutes, sharing the points. You want to talk about something that's bad for the sport, try having two teams go through all that and no one walks away with any points. Everyone would stand around going "what the f**k just happened?"

 

I suppose that I could see the benefit of maybe a 3-point win and 1-point tie, though I hate when games have different total values.

1-1 should be better than 0-0-2. The object of any competition is to win. It should have the utmost value. If a game goes 60-65 minutes and no one wins why does there need to be partial credit? You establish the rules and let teams adjust strategy to accommodate the rules. If you are going into a game and know it may be decided by a shootout. It's up to you to make sure your are prepared for the shootout. If teams know it's all or nothing after 60-65 minutes? Teams will play like it.

 

Hockey has one advantage that other sports don't. That is the ability to have a shootout. There is no equivalent in the top three major sports. Not a field goal contest, slam dunk contest or a home run derby. That is why I don't mind the NHL using it at this point.

 

Having two teams go at it on a given night and neither team walking away with points is far less a mark on the sport than rewarding points to a team that did not win. Let alone awarding points to two teams that did not win.

[carpandean]

1-1 should be better than 0-0-2. The object of any competition is to win. It should have the utmost value. If a game goes 60-65 minutes and no one wins why does there need to be partial credit?

The opposite of winning is losing. So, one gets points, while the other does not. If you allow for the game to end before a winner is selected, due to practical limits on game lengths (otherwise, why would you stop it), then I don't see a problem with saying neither won, but also neither lost, so 1 each. Not being beaten is better than being beaten, but not as good as doing the beating. I guess that we'll have to just agree to disagree on that.

 

You establish the rules and let teams adjust strategy to accommodate the rules. If you are going into a game and know it may be decided by a shootout. It's up to you to make sure your are prepared for the shootout. If teams know it's all or nothing after 60-65 minutes? Teams will play like it.

 

Hockey has one advantage that other sports don't. That is the ability to have a shootout. There is no equivalent in the top three major sports. Not a field goal contest, slam dunk contest or a home run derby. That is why I don't mind the NHL using it at this point.

My problem is that the shootout is not hockey; it's an artificial skills competition. I don't see it as any different than a field goal contest, slam dunk contest or home run derby. If you do, that's your opinion, but I don't see it that way, at all. As such, I see it as a very arbitrary and nonsensical way to end a game. Why not just rock/paper/scissor it? Flip a puck? See who's got the fastest skater?

 

Having two teams go at it on a given night and neither team walking away with points is far less a mark on the sport than rewarding points to a team that did not win. Let alone awarding points to two teams that did not win.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. A tie is not a win and not a loss, so it is treated differently. The NFL does it and I have no problem with it. If there is a less cheesy way to ensure games don't end in one than a SO, I'd prefer it, but otherwise I'd be fine with 2-1-0.

[Rip Titwide]

I think it may be worth a try in the AHL.

 

As far as going to the 3-2-1 system, I believe it would discourage playing to the tie. Im sick of seeing teams play for the safe point. There should also be a difference between a regulation win vs. a shootout win. I was a hater when the shoot out was first put into play. And I still think its a gimmick. But every time I see one, I have to admit getting a bit of butterflies in my stomach. Ive seen them live, and everyone in the house stands, you know, like whenever there's one of those barbaric fights that so many hate? So, if it decides a winner, everyone plays by the same rules, so be it. But a regulation win should be rewarded, more so.

 

Standings-wise, I dont think teams would necessarily drop out faster. I get that it may create separation faster, but does it not work the other way where teams could also get hot and close gaps faster? I think it could keep things interesting late in the season top to bottom. Imagine 2 games left in the reg. season, your up or down 5 points and you are not safe, nor out of it. In the end, 16 go to the dance no matter what.

 

 

Finally, if I may stray a bit from my point, Isnt the symmetry of the current system just a matter of how you look at it? When you look at individual games on the schedule, yes its asymmetrical. But, who cares about the total points doled out per game, as long as it awards a winner, punishes a loser, and puts an in betweener in between? Because when you look at it from each individual team's perspective, EVERY game on the schedule is worth 2, if you win, 1 if you play out regulation tied, and 0 if you lose. This way, each team plays for a max of 2 points every night. The goal is still to collect as many points as you can through your 82 games. And if the casual fan has any play in this, a counting point system is no harder for them to understand than trying to calculate a winning percentage or being "2 and a half games back." If I had a buck for every time Ive had to explain that one...

[deluca67]

My problem is that the shootout is not hockey; it's an artificial skills competition. I don't see it as any different than a field goal contest, slam dunk contest or home run derby. If you do, that's your opinion, but I don't see it that way, at all. As such, I see it as a very arbitrary and nonsensical way to end a game. Why not just rock/paper/scissor it? Flip a puck? See who's got the fastest skater?

The goaltender alone makes anything similar to the shootout impossible. In a slam dunk contest their would have to be a defender on the floor. You would also need to have a actual pitcher throwing in the home run derby and have the full special teams squads on the field to block the kick. The last two are impractical because of the rarity of the blocked field goal and home run (maybe 2 or 3 over 100 pitches.)

 

You couldn't be more wrong on the "shootout is not hockey." It is 100% hockey at it's purest form. A skater, a puck and a goalie. It can't be replicated in other sports other than soccer. That aside, what is so wrong with using "skills" to determine the winner of games. Isn't that what we all want? The shootout is the closest fans will get to the post lockout hockey we all loved. Skilled hockey players on the ice showing what they can do. I would much rather a game determined by Ryan Miller and Sydney Crosby in 1 on 1 scenario than some cheap overtime goal scored because it bounced of two or three skates before it went in which is how most goals are scored these days.

[sabregoats]

The goaltender alone makes anything similar to the shootout impossible. In a slam dunk contest their would have to be a defender on the floor. You would also need to have a actual pitcher throwing in the home run derby and have the full special teams squads on the field to block the kick. The last two are impractical because of the rarity of the blocked field goal and home run (maybe 2 or 3 over 100 pitches.)

 

You couldn't be more wrong on the "shootout is not hockey." It is 100% hockey at it's purest form. A skater, a puck and a goalie. It can't be replicated in other sports other than soccer. That aside, what is so wrong with using "skills" to determine the winner of games. Isn't that what we all want? The shootout is the closest fans will get to the post lockout hockey we all loved. Skilled hockey players on the ice showing what they can do. I would much rather a game determined by Ryan Miller and Sydney Crosby in 1 on 1 scenario than some cheap overtime goal scored because it bounced of two or three skates before it went in which is how most goals are scored these days.

I think I found the root of the disagreement. I think deflection goals is hockey at its purest. Hockey is a team game, and should be decided with two full teams on the ice (I guess I will make an exception for 4 on 4). Most deflection goals are intentional, it is the rare goal that resembles the immaculate reception. All other "major" American sports are made up of individual competitions disguised as team sports. Baseball is the pitcher vs. batter; outside of the line play, most of football is one on one competitions (CB vs receiver, linebacker vs. RB); and much of basketball is decided by fouls and free throws, so I think this is why the shootout is so attractive to some American sports fans. The shootout resembles the other "major" sports more than hockey as a whole does.

 

The tie was something hockey had that made it stand out, it is a low scoring game where goals are highly valued. When two teams play to 2-2 tie after 65 minutes they were equal in "hockey team goals". The shootout devalues team goals, by rewarding teams with more individual talent than team talent and punishing teams with better "chemistry". This point should hit home to Buffalo sports fans, as I think we tend to value the "team" more than other cities, because our two major sports teams have difficulty recruiting top individual talent. For me at least, this is why I do not like or enjoy the shootout, and I do not believe that it should have any place in picking the teams that will have a chance to compete for the cup.

[carpandean]

The goaltender alone makes anything similar to the shootout impossible. In a slam dunk contest their would have to be a defender on the floor. You would also need to have a actual pitcher throwing in the home run derby and have the full special teams squads on the field to block the kick. The last two are impractical because of the rarity of the blocked field goal and home run (maybe 2 or 3 over 100 pitches.)

 

You couldn't be more wrong on the "shootout is not hockey." It is 100% hockey at it's purest form. A skater, a puck and a goalie. It can't be replicated in other sports other than soccer. That aside, what is so wrong with using "skills" to determine the winner of games. Isn't that what we all want? The shootout is the closest fans will get to the post lockout hockey we all loved. Skilled hockey players on the ice showing what they can do. I would much rather a game determined by Ryan Miller and Sydney Crosby in 1 on 1 scenario than some cheap overtime goal scored because it bounced of two or three skates before it went in which is how most goals are scored these days.

In order for it to be hockey, there would need to be at least one defenseman (defensive ability is a hockey skill, as well), too, and really another forward, so that passing is involved (playmaking is as important as finishing.) Maybe 2-on-1 (plus the goalie) instead; it would be closer to real hockey.

 

They take away the defense because scoring would be so low with it and they want to artificially inflate it. In that way, you could argue that a shootout is equivalent to, say, sending out your long snapper, holder and kicker for a field goal contest against three defensemen (probably a lineman and two fast guys like linebackers, corners or safeties.) Might be kind of fun. The lineman takes the long snapper and the other two fly in and dive. I'd bet you'd see a lot of blocked field goals, then. In baseball, maybe it would just be hits versus strikes, not actual home runs (perhaps, it would have to go out of the infield to count.)

 

A shootout tests a very small part of the skills required in hockey. They may seem like the most important, but that's not really true. Other than penalty shots, where basically you are saying that the defenseman forfeited his right to stop the forward on the awarded shot, what proportion of shots in a game come from breakaways? Even then, it's due to a mistake by the defense and they have a chance to get back and harass the forward if they are fast enough (hmmmm, maybe stick a defenseman behind the opposite blue line and tell him that he can't cross until the forward touches the puck ... that might be fun.) Hockey games should be decided by skill, but overall skill of the game, not just one small subset of it. I'd rather have a "garbage" goal scored by a group of players against another group of players win a game in OT than have it decided by a shootout. Even in the games where we win in the shootout, it feels cheaper than actually winning in OT. If you have a problem with the garbage goals, then change the rules (or their enforcement) to promote faster, fancier hockey like they did post-lockout.

[carpandean]

But, who cares about the total points doled out per game, as long as it awards a winner, punishes a loser, and puts an in betweener in between?

So, an OT/SO loser is an in-betweener, but a OT/SO winner is somehow exactly the same as a regulation winner? Either both are in-betweeners or neither should be. 3-2-1-0 at least says that they are both in-betweeners, though not equally so. I just find it wrong that a team that has a lead and lets the other team tie it up in regulation gets the same 2 points if they win it in OT/SO despite the fact that the other team magically gets a point that they wouldn't have. Either make wins and losses the same regardless of whether it is regulation or OT/SO, or if you want to reward the loser getting to OT, then punish the winner for allowing them to. Otherwise, it seems like you are simply giving an award for losing later. "Great job on the win, here's your two points, and for doing such a great job in taking it all the way to OT, here's a point for you (loser), too."

[SwampD]

Here is my point system.

 

A win is worth 7, unless you had a 5 on 3 and didn't score, then a win is only worth 5.

 

A loss is worth 0, unless the other team had a 5 on 3 and didn't score, then you get 1.

 

Shootout wins are worth 4.

 

Shootout losses are worth 3, unless there was a goal in it that was really sick. Then give'm 4 as well, but just say the other team won.

[Rip Titwide]

So, an OT/SO loser is an in-betweener, but a OT/SO winner is somehow exactly the same as a regulation winner? Either both are in-betweeners or neither should be. 3-2-1-0 at least says that they are both in-betweeners, though not equally so. I just find it wrong that a team that has a lead and lets the other team tie it up in regulation gets the same 2 points if they win it in OT/SO despite the fact that the other team magically gets a point that they wouldn't have. Either make wins and losses the same regardless of whether it is regulation or OT/SO, or if you want to reward the loser getting to OT, then punish the winner for allowing them to. Otherwise, it seems like you are simply giving an award for losing later. "Great job on the win, here's your two points, and for doing such a great job in taking it all the way to OT, here's a point for you (loser), too."

My post said I liked the idea of the 3-2-1 for these reason. My reason for my bringing up the in betweeners was to just demonstrate my point that the current "symmetry" is being mis-represented by some. All games are currently worth 2 pts to every team that wins.

[carpandean]

All games are currently worth 2 pts to every team that wins.

Right, but the problem is when you're not the team involved and the two teams that you are competing with could get two or three points combined. That's the asymmetry.

[shrader]

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.

 

The points were a simple way of quantifying each team's record thanks to the constant imbalance in games played and the fact that ties were a result. The only problem was when they decided to decide games with a skills competition.

[SwampD]

Right, but the problem is when you're not the team involved and the two teams that you are competing with could get two or three points combined. That's the asymmetry.

Do you have to lock and unlock your door 5 times before you go to bed? ;)

 

Points are used to determine who makes it to the tournament portion of the season. That's all. I want asymmetry. I want the way a team wins to matter. It gives us the best possible playoff scenarios.

[carpandean]

I want asymmetry. I want the way a team wins to matter.

The two don't have to go hand-in-hand. A 3-2-1-0 system is symmetric and awards different points based on how a team wins.

[deluca67]

So, an OT/SO loser is an in-betweener, but a OT/SO winner is somehow exactly the same as a regulation winner? Either both are in-betweeners or neither should be. 3-2-1-0 at least says that they are both in-betweeners, though not equally so. I just find it wrong that a team that has a lead and lets the other team tie it up in regulation gets the same 2 points if they win it in OT/SO despite the fact that the other team magically gets a point that they wouldn't have. Either make wins and losses the same regardless of whether it is regulation or OT/SO, or if you want to reward the loser getting to OT, then punish the winner for allowing them to. Otherwise, it seems like you are simply giving an award for losing later. "Great job on the win, here's your two points, and for doing such a great job in taking it all the way to OT, here's a point for you (loser), too."

I am loving this conversation.

 

I am reading your point about a OT/SO winner not being the same as a regulation time winner. You know I disagree. That leads into the thought that if they are not the same why stop at the OT/SO? Should a team that wins 3-2 in regulation be awarded the same amount of points as a team that wins 7-1? Maybe margin of victory should be added to the 2 points given for a win? Maybe have two points for the winner and a bonus point for the team that wins a period. Not of any of this is what I want to see happen. I'm just saying want is coming to my mind. When you start trying to classify wins this is the road it leads to. I like the idea of a shootout because it is practical and efficient. Not to mention the entertainment value is through the roof. I don't feel strongly enough about it as it should be a must for the game.

 

I will stand behind my all or nothing scenario. I think it would make teams more aggressive and make for some interesting and intense finishes to hockey games. Play 82 games, count the number of wins and slot accordingly in the playoffs. Tie breakers are a discussion for another day.

[carpandean]

I am loving this conversation.

 

I am reading your point about a OT/SO winner not being the same as a regulation time winner. You know I disagree. That leads into the thought that if they are not the same why stop at the OT/SO? Should a team that wins 3-2 in regulation be awarded the same amount of points as a team that wins 7-1? Maybe margin of victory should be added to the 2 points given for a win? Maybe have two points for the winner and a bonus point for the team that wins a period. Not of any of this is what I want to see happen. I'm just saying want is coming to my mind. When you start trying to classify wins this is the road it leads to. I like the idea of a shootout because it is practical and efficient. Not to mention the entertainment value is through the roof. I don't feel strongly enough about it as it should be a must for the game.

I have no problem with OT wins being treated the same as regulation wins. Though, if they are, then I'd prefer straight 5-on-5 hockey. However, if you are going to differentiate losers, as they do in the current system, then you have to differentiate winners, too. If you don't want to differentiate either, that's fine, but it should be both or neither.

 

I don't like the idea of a SO winner being the same for the reasons that I've mentioned above. I'd rather just see it end in a tie. Teams traveling that night or playing back-to-backs wouldn't like it, but I'd be fine with one 20 minute OT period, after which both teams get 1 point if no winner is decided.

 

The reality is (and I think this goes to Shrader's point about 16 vs. 82 games), 82 games is a large enough sample that any system that has any sort of logic (winners get more than losers, etc.) will only differ on the margin. The best 5-6 teams will always get in (though, the precise order may differ) and the remaining 2-3 teams will come from the same 4 or 5 marginal teams across all possible point schemes. That top group will truly deserve to be there and the rest should just consider themselves lucky that the league takes 8 per conference. Teams will, as you say, adjust their play to whatever point/percent system that you implement and better teams will get more points more often. With 16 games, you worry more about a bad team with good luck getting in instead of a good team with bad luck, but with 82 games, that should work itself out. As such, the discussion, while fun, is fairly mute. I dislike the current system from a logical standpoint and because on a micro (in-game) scale, it provides incentive to play a way that is not exciting (e.g., sitting on a tie in the final five minutes of regulation, because the winner always gets two, but a loser gets one if it makes it to OT.) A true W-L system would be fine, but from a practical standpoint, games in the regular season can't just continue on like they do in the playoffs. So, either you choose some arbitrary circus stunt or accept ties. I prefer the latter.

[SwampD]

The two don't have to go hand-in-hand. A 3-2-1-0 system is symmetric and awards different points based on how a team wins.

I'm changing my mind. I agree with your 3-2-1-0 system. But not for symmetry's sake because I really don't care about that. I just think that it is more representative of which team is better. I redid the standings from last year with your system and came up with similar results that I got when I started this thread.

 

Here's the standings from last year but with what the point totals from your system.

 

EDIT: W-L-OT/SHW-OT/SOL

 

boston 46-19-7-10 162

wash 40-24-10-8 148

nj 36-27-15-4 142

pitt 33-28-12-9 132

philly 34-27-10-11 133

caro 35-30-10-7 132

rags 30-30-13-9 125

montreal30-30-11-11 123

flor 34-30-7-11 127

buff 31-32-10-9 121

[sabregoats]

Here is my point system.

 

A win is worth 7, unless you had a 5 on 3 and didn't score, then a win is only worth 5.

 

A loss is worth 0, unless the other team had a 5 on 3 and didn't score, then you get 1.

 

Shootout wins are worth 4.

 

Shootout losses are worth 3, unless there was a goal in it that was really sick. Then give'm 4 as well, but just say the other team won.

I understand you are intentionally using hyperbole. However, there are examples of leagues that use systems designed to reward teams who win in large margin games. The most prominent example is in the Rugby Union code of rugby. In Rugby Union leagues around the world the following point system is used: 4 points for a win, 2 points for a draw, 1 "bonus" point for scoring 4 tries (or more), 1 "bonus" point for losing by 7 points (or fewer).

 

All wins are not created equal, but I would agree that the rugby system is unnecessarily complicated. However, hockey has a clear dividing line and that is the OT/SO. Once a game gets to OT or the SO, the winning team should not receive the same number of points as a team winning in regulation. A 3-2-1 system is not complicated or difficult to understand as you are portraying it in your post. No one is suggestion situational point awards as you also suggest, it has simply been pointed out that the SO is not hockey and should not be used to reward hockey teams.

[cdexchange]

I just thought of a cool scoring system: goal differential. Win 2-1, earn 1 pt in the standings. Win 8-2, earn 6 pts. It rewards high-potency offense, which we all want to see. When teams get up 3-1 they would probably no longer go into a defensive shell but rather keep pouring it on. Teams would probably not be content to trap themselves to a 1-0 or 2-1 victory when the Caps and Pens are out there putting up 4-5 goals per night on a regular basis. Seems like a simple and fair scoring system to me, and would make for more exciting games.

[SwampD]

I just thought of a cool scoring system: goal differential. Win 2-1, earn 1 pt in the standings. Win 8-2, earn 6 pts. It rewards high-potency offense, which we all want to see. When teams get up 3-1 they would probably no longer go into a defensive shell but rather keep pouring it on. Teams would probably not be content to trap themselves to a 1-0 or 2-1 victory when the Caps and Pens are out there putting up 4-5 goals per night on a regular basis. Seems like a simple and fair scoring system to me, and would make for more exciting games.

It would also keep the losing team playing until the end.

[cdexchange]

It would also keep the losing team playing until the end.

 

 

That's right.

 

I just thought of another advantage: good teams wouldn't have the same tendency to "play down" to their inferior opponents' level. Instead of "taking the night off", they might instead view these games as golden opportunities to put several points in the bank. Might make for more lopsided games in this regard, but at least you'd see effort on both sides.

[nobody]

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.

 

 

Not anything to do with your point but I think the league should reduce their schedule to 72 games.

[carpandean]

I just thought of a cool scoring system: goal differential. Win 2-1, earn 1 pt in the standings. Win 8-2, earn 6 pts. It rewards high-potency offense, which we all want to see. When teams get up 3-1 they would probably no longer go into a defensive shell but rather keep pouring it on. Teams would probably not be content to trap themselves to a 1-0 or 2-1 victory when the Caps and Pens are out there putting up 4-5 goals per night on a regular basis. Seems like a simple and fair scoring system to me, and would make for more exciting games.

They were talking about a system like this on WGR last week. It's an interesting idea that would probably make Deluca's head explode, but I can't see even the NHL implementing such a system.

[shrader]

They were talking about a system like this on WGR last week. It's an interesting idea that would probably make Deluca's head explode, but I can't see even the NHL implementing such a system.

 

It's funny. I'm not crazy about that system but I can't come up with a single thing to say against it.

[deluca67]

They were talking about a system like this on WGR last week. It's an interesting idea that would probably make Deluca's head explode, but I can't see even the NHL implementing such a system.

Why not just have lasers rotate different colored circles on the ice during the game and have each circle be a different point value. :doh: