Loser Point

[hopeleslyobvious]

As we finish up the first season without ties, I wanted to see everyone's opinion on the loser point.

[Taro T]

3 points for a regulation or OT win.

 

2 points for a shootout win.

 

1 point for a shootout loss.

 

0 for a regulation or OT loss.

 

I know they will never go to this format, but that is what I would do if I had Bettman's job for a day.

[hopeleslyobvious]

3 points for a regulation or OT win.

 

2 points for a shootout win.

 

1 point for a shootout loss.

 

0 for a regulation or OT loss.

 

I know they will never go to this format, but that is what I would do if I had Bettman's job for a day.

 

I actually thought they were going to go to a 3 point format after the lockout. Now I don't think it will happen. I like your option as well.

[shrader]

3 points for a regulation or OT win.

 

2 points for a shootout win.

 

1 point for a shootout loss.

 

0 for a regulation or OT loss.

 

I know they will never go to this format, but that is what I would do if I had Bettman's job for a day.

 

If an OT loss is worth nothing, why even bother with a 5 minute OT? I don't think either team would put in much effort, even if it meant they could walk away with 3 points.

[Taro T]

If an OT loss is worth nothing, why even bother with a 5 minute OT? I don't think either team would put in much effort, even if it meant they could walk away with 3 points.

Because it keeps teams from floating at the end of regulation realizing that "if we can just hold on for another x, we get a point". Playing not to lose becomes far more problematic than it had been previously.

 

Personally, I think shootouts are horrible ways to end a hockey game, that is why you play OT. By having OT after a "regulation tie", you can still decide the game by playing HOCKEY rather than a "free throw contest".

 

By giving the loser of OT nothing, you will raise the intensity of the play in regulation and OT. If you want something, you have to go out and EARN it. By taking a point away from the winner of a shootout, you keep a strong team from floating through OT believing they will win in the shootout. They may win in the shootout, but they WILL lose a point for not being able to get it done in 60, 65, or even better 70 minutes.

 

I see it totally opposite of the way you do. Why would a team float through regulation and / or OT when they know they have played (to that point at least) as well as their opponent has? Knowing that you might get nothing for your effort, why would you stop working and guarantee that you get nothing?

[scottnc]

By giving the loser of OT nothing, you will raise the intensity of the play in regulation and OT. If you want something, you have to go out and EARN it.

 

I have to disagree with this. I believe both teams should at least get a point if they make it to OT. The whole reason the league went to the "both teams get a point in overtime no matter what" rule, is that in the old days teams would play the OT ultra-conservative in fear of losing the one point they would get with the tie. That made for 5 minutes of VERY boring hockey.

 

I'm still not sure what I think about the shootout. At first I thought it would be cool, but I haven't found it all that exciting. I could really take it or leave it at this point.

 

I do like giving a team three points for a regulation win as if a team wins convincingly in regulation and another team scores late to tie and wins a game in overtime they had no business being in, I believe the convincing winner deserves the extra point.

[Taro T]

I have to disagree with this. I believe both teams should at least get a point if they make it to OT. The whole reason the league went to the "both teams get a point in overtime no matter what" rule, is that in the old days teams would play the OT ultra-conservative in fear of losing the one point they would get with the tie. That made for 5 minutes of VERY boring hockey.

 

I'm still not sure what I think about the shootout. At first I thought it would be cool, but I haven't found it all that exciting. I could really take it or leave it at this point.

 

I do like giving a team three points for a regulation win as if a team wins convincingly in regulation and another team scores late to tie and wins a game in overtime they had no business being in, I believe the convincing winner deserves the extra point.

Your point neglects the fact that with the shootout, there is no way for a game to end in a tie. Also, with 3 points to the winner, going out and playing for the win is a higher value proposition than hanging back hoping to make it through OT.

 

You are correct, in the past a weaker team that had "secured" a regulation tie might try to hang back and "preserve" the tie against a stronger opponent. Now that ties are no longer available, what can that strategy get that team? It gets them an opportunity to possibly win in a shootout (2 pts), or more likely lose in a shootout (1 pt). There is a stronger possibility that the team would lose in OT (0 pts) than win in OT (3 pts). (You can't score if you never carry the puck beyond the neutral zone.) The PV of that strategy, giving them a 33% chance of winning in OT or the shootout would be 1.17. Assuming going all out to win gives them a 50% chance of winning in OT and they still have their 33% chance of winning in the SO, the PV of that strategy is now 1.42. It is in the weak team's best interest to play for the win. It is also in the better team's best interest to play for the win for the same reasons.

 

Your point also neglects that it is extremely difficult to play a trapping or kitty bar the door style for 5 minutes when you are playing 4 on 4. There is too much room to be able to shut another team down, unless you absolutely excel at the trap. Jersey and Florida may pull it off, but I doubt there are many others that could pull it off. Throw in the fact that obstruction calls do get made in the OT in the "new NHL", I don't see teams regularily "playing for the tie" simply because they MAY "lose" a point.

 

You also neglect that "giving" a team a point for making it to OT, simply pushes the ultra-conservative play up into regulation time vs. OT where it was before.

[hopeleslyobvious]

Your point neglects the fact that with the shootout, there is no way for a game to end in a tie. Also, with 3 points to the winner, going out and playing for the win is a higher value proposition than hanging back hoping to make it through OT.

 

You are correct, in the past a weaker team that had "secured" a regulation tie might try to hang back and "preserve" the tie against a stronger opponent. Now that ties are no longer available, what can that strategy get that team? It gets them an opportunity to possibly win in a shootout (2 pts), or more likely lose in a shootout (1 pt). There is a stronger possibility that the team would lose in OT (0 pts) than win in OT (3 pts). (You can't score if you never carry the puck beyond the neutral zone.) The PV of that strategy, giving them a 33% chance of winning in OT or the shootout would be 1.17. Assuming going all out to win gives them a 50% chance of winning in OT and they still have their 33% chance of winning in the SO, the PV of that strategy is now 1.42. It is in the weak team's best interest to play for the win. It is also in the better team's best interest to play for the win for the same reasons.

 

Your point also neglects that it is extremely difficult to play a trapping or kitty bar the door style for 5 minutes when you are playing 4 on 4. There is too much room to be able to shut another team down, unless you absolutely excel at the trap. Jersey and Florida may pull it off, but I doubt there are many others that could pull it off. Throw in the fact that obstruction calls do get made in the OT in the "new NHL", I don't see teams regularily "playing for the tie" simply because they MAY "lose" a point.

 

You also neglect that "giving" a team a point for making it to OT, simply pushes the ultra-conservative play up into regulation time vs. OT where it was before.

 

 

Just another thought. Instead of completely overhauling the point system, why not go with 2 points for a regulation or OT win, and 1 point for a shootout win. Under this system, the loser doesn't get a point, and teams don't put it in cruise control trying to get to the shootout.

[Taro T]

Just another thought. Instead of completely overhauling the point system, why not go with 2 points for a regulation or OT win, and 1 point for a shootout win. Under this system, the loser doesn't get a point, and teams don't put it in cruise control trying to get to the shootout.

That has a lot more likelihood of ever happening that the way I would do it, because the "sanctity" of 2 points for a win is preserved and the standings in the newspaper will pretty much look like they always have.

 

The issue that I have with it is, some games are 2 point games and some are 1 point games. I'm not sure why, but it really bothers me that "all games are not created equal". I can't bring myself to fully accept that some games currently are 2 point games and others are 3 pointers. I do prefer your idea to the current system though, as you are now penalizing a team that doesn't win playing hockey, rather than rewarding a team for losing. ("We needed a point to make the playoffs, and even though we were up by 3 with 6 minutes to go and lost in 2 shots in the shootout; we're in! Hooray for us.")

 

To be honest, the system that I would ideally see, and I know there is no way in any parallel universe that might exist of this happening (I also realize that I am probably the only one here that would prefer to see this), is to have them play at least a 10 minute and ideally a 20 minute sudden death OT, and if at the end of that time, the game is still tied, then either they both get 1 point or they both get 0, take your pick. It's the way the NFL does it (more or less) and with the obstruction crackdown I can't believe that you would end up with more than a handful of ties in a full season. You wouldn't have to worry too much about teams going through the motions in OT, because 20 minutes is a long time to have to play when you really don't want to be there.

 

Having grown up with ties in the NHL, I don't hold them in the same low regard that most fans seem to view them.

[haseoke]

solution: 1 point for every time "the good ol hockey game" plays over the arena loudspeakers.

1.5 points for a fight that you win

-.5 points for a fight that you lose

7 points for making a save with the back of your head

-1 point for getting caught swearing by the ice mic's

2 points for getting all of your players in the penalty box at the same time.

 

and by that logic......pittsburgh wins the presidents trophy this year!!

[sabregoats]

That has a lot more likelihood of ever happening that the way I would do it, because the "sanctity" of 2 points for a win is preserved and the standings in the newspaper will pretty much look like they always have.

 

The issue that I have with it is, some games are 2 point games and some are 1 point games. I'm not sure why, but it really bothers me that "all games are not created equal". I can't bring myself to fully accept that some games currently are 2 point games and others are 3 pointers. I do prefer your idea to the current system though, as you are now penalizing a team that doesn't win playing hockey, rather than rewarding a team for losing. ("We needed a point to make the playoffs, and even though we were up by 3 with 6 minutes to go and lost in 2 shots in the shootout; we're in! Hooray for us.")

 

To be honest, the system that I would ideally see, and I know there is no way in any parallel universe that might exist of this happening (I also realize that I am probably the only one here that would prefer to see this), is to have them play at least a 10 minute and ideally a 20 minute sudden death OT, and if at the end of that time, the game is still tied, then either they both get 1 point or they both get 0, take your pick. It's the way the NFL does it (more or less) and with the obstruction crackdown I can't believe that you would end up with more than a handful of ties in a full season. You wouldn't have to worry too much about teams going through the motions in OT, because 20 minutes is a long time to have to play when you really don't want to be there.

 

Having grown up with ties in the NHL, I don't hold them in the same low regard that most fans seem to view them.

 

I agree with this idea, i have always thought 5 minutes of OT is too short. I think 1 20 minute period and than a tie is the best option

[Eleven]

3 points for a win, 1 for a tie, no OT, that's it. Incentive to play hard in the 3d for the win: the win is worth three times as much as the tie. Teams with too many ties will not make the playoffs.

[sabregoats]

3 points for a win, 1 for a tie, no OT, that's it. Incentive to play hard in the 3d for the win: the win is worth three times as much as the tie. Teams with too many ties will not make the playoffs.

 

You must watch soccer

[Peace Frog]

How about this, for you hardcore hockey fans...

 

After regulation, a 5 minute, 5 on 5 OT period is played with NO shootout afterwards. 2 points for a regulation or OT win, and NO POINT if the game ends up tied after OT. That should get them playing hockey.

[Eleven]

You must watch soccer

 

I do! And I've seen teams scramble for those extra two points.

[SwampD]

Several people have mentioned the loser point in the past couple of GDTs. So for the fun of it (yes, it was a slow day) I re-tallied the top ten teams in the East last year using the old scoring system, to see what the difference would be. SO wins became ties, and OT losses became losses.

 

Current System (Loser Point)

 

GP W L OTL PTS

1 z-Boston 82 53 19 10 116

2 y-Washington 82 50 24 8 108

3 y-New Jersey 82 51 27 4 106

4 x-Pittsburgh 82 45 28 9 99

5 x-Philadelphia 82 44 27 11 99

6 x-Carolina 82 45 30 7 97

7 x-NY Rangers 82 43 30 9 95

8 x-Montreal 82 41 30 11 93

e-Florida 82 41 30 11 93

e-Buffalo 82 41 32 9 91

 

Old System

 

GP W L T PTS

1 z-Boston 82 49 23 10 108

2 y-Washington 82 46 27 9 101

3 y-New Jersey 82 45 29 8 98

4 x-Carolina 82 42 32 8 92

5 x-Pittsburgh 82 39 31 12 90

6 x-Philadelphia 82 40 32 10 90

7 x-Florida 82 38 33 11 87

8 x-NY Rangers 82 33 33 16 82

e-Montreal 82 34 34 14 82

e-Buffalo 82 33 36 13 79

 

The bad news, Buffalo still missed the playoffs.

 

My conclusion (and the same one I got doing this last year) - I like the current scoring system. It rewards skill. Skill at either at the goalie position or skill in the scoring postitions. NY and Pitt both won a lot more shootouts than other teams and therefor ended up higher in the standings than by the old system.

 

I think we want the more skilled teams in the playoffs and I'm sure the NHL wants it's stars in them. We, as Sabres fans, know better than any how far a good goalie can take you in the playoffs. If the current system rewards good goalies and helps them get into the playoffs, then I'm all for it.

[wjag]

Seems like about 8-9 points on average. NYR certainly played a lot of OT last year..

[SwampD]

Seems like about 8-9 points on average. NYR certainly played a lot of OT last year..

They also had ten shootout wins, more than any other team.

[carpandean]

I ran the numbers using a couple of schemes last year and also found that it didn't make much of a difference. However, I can't get by the fact that from a logical standpoint it makes absolutely no sense. I find the whole concept of a bonus point in professional points to be bush-league and ... well ... insulting. Maybe it's the academic in me, but I just can't accept it.

[SwampD]

I ran the numbers using a couple of schemes last year and also found that it didn't make much of a difference. However, I can't get by the fact that from a logical standpoint it makes absolutely no sense. I find the whole concept of a bonus point in professional points to be bush-league and ... well ... insulting. Maybe it's the academic in me, but I just can't accept it.

If you are against the bonus point then are you against using points at all? They are not really necessary. Why not just use wins and losses, then? The goal of using these systems is to get the best teams into the playoffs. I have no problem with using points or bonus points for that matter. They factor in the way in which a team lost or won and gives the team credit accordingly. A loss in OT or in a SO should be worth more than a loss in regulation if the goal is to have a more competitive playoffs.

[NowDoYouBelieve]

A loss in OT or in a SO should be worth more than a loss in regulation if the goal is to have a more competitive playoffs.

 

Then why doesn't a regulation win count for more points than an OT win? I'd be fine with a 3-2-1-0 system or (even better) simply wins and losses. The problem with the bonus point is that OT games yield 3 points, while non-OT games yield only 2.

[carpandean]

If you are against the bonus point then are you against using points at all? They are not really necessary. Why not just use wins and losses, then? The goal of using these systems is to get the best teams into the playoffs. I have no problem with using points or bonus points for that matter. They factor in the way in which a team lost or won and gives the team credit accordingly. A loss in OT or in a SO should be worth more than a loss in regulation if the goal is to have a more competitive playoffs.

No, I have a problem with the fact that some games are worth 2 points and some are worth 3 points. I'm fine with an OT/SO loss being worth more than a regulation loss, but if it is, then an OT/SO win must be worth less. I don't like that teams play for the OT. I'd be fine with any of these following:

1) Wins = 2, Losses = 0.

2) Wins = 2, Losses = 0, Ties = 1.

3) Regulation Wins = 2, Regulation Losses = 0, All OT/SO = 1 but with a standings tie-breaker point for the winner.

4) Regulation Wins = 3, OT/SO Wins = 2, OT/SO Losses = 1, Regulation Losses = 0.

[SwampD]

No, I have a problem with the fact that some games are worth 2 points and some are worth 3 points. I'm fine with an OT/SO loss being worth more than a regulation loss, but if it is, then an OT/SO win must be worth less. I don't like that teams play for the OT. I'd be fine with any of these following:

1) Wins = 2, Losses = 0.

2) Wins = 2, Losses = 0, Ties = 1.

3) Regulation Wins = 2, Regulation Losses = 0, All OT/SO = 1 but with a standings tie-breaker point for the winner.

4) Regulation Wins = 3, OT/SO Wins = 2, OT/SO Losses = 1, Regulation Losses = 0.

It seems like you just don't like the current system only because of it's lack of symmetry. I don't really care. As long as the best teams get into the playoffs I'm fine with it and I think it does that.

[deluca67]

Several people have mentioned the loser point in the past couple of GDTs. So for the fun of it (yes, it was a slow day) I re-tallied the top ten teams in the East last year using the old scoring system, to see what the difference would be. SO wins became ties, and OT losses became losses.

 

Current System (Loser Point)

 

GP W L OTL PTS

1 z-Boston 82 53 19 10 116

2 y-Washington 82 50 24 8 108

3 y-New Jersey 82 51 27 4 106

4 x-Pittsburgh 82 45 28 9 99

5 x-Philadelphia 82 44 27 11 99

6 x-Carolina 82 45 30 7 97

7 x-NY Rangers 82 43 30 9 95

8 x-Montreal 82 41 30 11 93

e-Florida 82 41 30 11 93

e-Buffalo 82 41 32 9 91

 

Old System

 

GP W L T PTS

1 z-Boston 82 49 23 10 108

2 y-Washington 82 46 27 9 101

3 y-New Jersey 82 45 29 8 98

4 x-Carolina 82 42 32 8 92

5 x-Pittsburgh 82 39 31 12 90

6 x-Philadelphia 82 40 32 10 90

7 x-Florida 82 38 33 11 87

8 x-NY Rangers 82 33 33 16 82

e-Montreal 82 34 34 14 82

e-Buffalo 82 33 36 13 79

 

The bad news, Buffalo still missed the playoffs.

 

My conclusion (and the same one I got doing this last year) - I like the current scoring system. It rewards skill. Skill at either at the goalie position or skill in the scoring postitions. NY and Pitt both won a lot more shootouts than other teams and therefor ended up higher in the standings than by the old system.

 

I think we want the more skilled teams in the playoffs and I'm sure the NHL wants it's stars in them. We, as Sabres fans, know better than any how far a good goalie can take you in the playoffs. If the current system rewards good goalies and helps them get into the playoffs, then I'm all for it.

Your work is missing one vital component. Teams adjusting how they play with the "loser point" already accounted for. If teams went into OT with the guarantee of the one point it changes their strategy. Especially at the end of the year when teams are trying to make up as much ground as possible.

[carpandean]

It seems like you just don't like the current system only because of it's lack of symmetry.

Yes, exactly. It makes no sense ... none ... at all. Whoever suggested it should have been laughed out of the room. With 82 games and eight slots, any of the systems would guarantee that the best teams make it, as well as some of the middle-of-the-road teams. But, the fact that the NHL has what is commonly referred to as a "bonus point" is a joke. Hockey has enough trouble being taken seriously as a professional sport, as it is.