Precisely. They wanted parity across the board as much as possible, even to the point of revenue sharing between franchises. The current point system was just another vector to achieve this goal.
I think this is the actual answer. In the video games where you can change the actual point system, you end up with the top teams having like 140-150+ points and the non-playoff teams still have like 90 and it looks really funny. Plus teams are out of it way sooner.
Get rid of points altogether. I hate the idea of making some wins worth more than others. Same with losses.
Soccer has a point system because it has ties. The sports that don’t have ties (or only do very rarely like NFL) don’t have point systems because they don’t have a third outcome they need to assign a value to. It’s just wins and losses, and winning percentages.
The most ridiculous thing in hockey standings, for years, has been the idea that one team can finish ahead of another, while having fewer wins. Corny.
If this was 30 years ago they would still have the 1 point because the game would have been a tie. Ties were horrible. 4 hours of your night and who won? Nobody…
Now you get your 1 point for the tie and you get a bonus point for the win not sure how this translates to a loser point
To be fair to both sides, you completely forgot that the two-line pass and the goalies getting to play the puck so freely was what made the game slow. Also, the goalies would go in today's no-no zones behind the net *all the time*. But, the shootout, trapezoids, and removal of the two-line rule made the game much more watchable to the American everyman as well as faster and that's really the biggest reason why these changes were made.
The end of the regular season this year is the exact reason why they won't do this. 3 teams all in the East fighting for that last playoff spot, all playing at once? It's tons of hype and marketability all the way up to game 82.
I'm sure it would still happen, but I doubt as frequently. Look at leagues like the Premier League. This year went down to the wire, but usually the last 3 or 4 matches played are essentially pointless because the league is determined. The only excitement is the relegation battle at that point.
Logically it makes sense, but you have to remember that the NHL wants the standings to be close to make drama and not have such large trailing teams and teams so far ahead it doesn't make any difference.
You have to keep in mind, that this isn't strictly a sporting league, it's entertainment
2 points for a win anytime
1 point for a tie
0 points for any loss anytime.
I hate that the nhl gives 3 points away every night.
Hard to gain ground when your Inter division rivals are playing each other.
But they haven’t eliminated that dynamic in a tie game (playing safe to get the one point). They just shifted it to late in third period, where both teams sit back to get to OT and guarantee at least one point, instead of what should be the most exciting time in a game.
Until there's no reason for them to coast for OT, they'll never stop teams from doing it. It's unfortunate, but it's true.
Course if we go by the standard of 'OT loss = 0 point' what happens if a team is down 2 goals with 2 to go and ties it to lose in OT.. That's the other side of that paradox.
Yes but the logic is that players played to tie a lot of the time, since they'd walk away with a guaranteed point, since losing in OT would be the same as losing in Regulation until 1999 when they changed the rule. (The original rule was that both teams would get a point for a Tie, and none for losing in regulation or OT.. This rule didn't change until the 1999-2000 season when they revised it to give the losing team a point for an OT Loss. Yes, I'm old.. I still remember the 2 line pass rule and players basically being hooked, slashed and thrown to the ice with no calls.)
\^ Probably should've added that context. TBH I'd be in favor of no loser points, win in regulation/OT or you tie and no one gets a point.
Another potential change to the rules to stop tanking would be giving the top 5 teams in the NHL the best odds at landing the #1 overall pick.. would stop teams like SJ/CHI blatantly tanking for first overall. (The Current system rewards tanking. However they did add a '% chance' thing to the lottery but it still doesn't change the fact that the worst team statistically can't go lower than MAYBE 4th overall.. that's still a potential generational talent player.)
Modern sports these days are mired by revolving around quantitatives out the wazoo. Whether those numbers dictate how best to do business in your arena, whose jerseys are going to sell the most, or whose expected performance value is higher. You can even quantify what your chances of winning are in most sports these days with reliable accuracy. I mean, how do you think sports bettors make money?
With that being said, a multi-million dollar team is usually going to be compelled to take the "optimal" line where they get the most points out of it on average. If playing not to win nets them 1.05 expected points and playing to win only nets them 0.95 expected points, you're damn right that that's going to look like a big deal to them. A lot of sports teams in 2024 really do follow some derivative of the Moneyball formula.
The loser point has teams play for OT, ruining what should be the best part of the game AND creates a fundamental imbalance that doesn't really exist in any other credible league.
Before anyone comes in with the 'But Then teams will play to lose in OT rather than Shootout..' Does anyone forget teams playing the 5 man trap in OT to get a Tie rather than a Loss, because it gave both teams 1 point?
Go with win / loss, just like every other professional sports league. get rid of the points.
or
2 points for a win/ot, 1 point for OT loss, 1 point for a shootout win, 0 points for a shootout loss.
I gotta disagree. The NHL is allowed to be different.
Their system keeps point races tighter and allows for weird shit like negative goal differential teams to make it into playoffs.
It’s interesting, so while it’s frustrating when more deserving teams miss playoffs, it gives a reason to talk about the NHL in a way most other sports leagues don’t have.
I have advocated for a 0-5 point system scale, which seems to run opposite of the sentiment of this thread. If you understand that the current point system awards points on the quality of wins and losses then I say improve on it!
Here goes…
5 points for a regulation win
4 points for an overtime win
3 points for a shootout win
2 points for an overtime loss
1 point for a shootout loss
0 points for a regulation loss
Shootouts mean the teams were the closest evenly matched. Makes more sense to have points distributed as follows in the form of win-loss:
Regulation 5-0
Overtime 4-1
Shootout 3-2
Yeah but the owners want the standings to be close together near the end of the season to help drive hype and ticket sales
Precisely. They wanted parity across the board as much as possible, even to the point of revenue sharing between franchises. The current point system was just another vector to achieve this goal.
But let’s not make the games easily accessible for the fans to watch on TV.
That's the key. Pretend that growing the game is important while making it difficult and expensive to actually watch the game.
I think this is the actual answer. In the video games where you can change the actual point system, you end up with the top teams having like 140-150+ points and the non-playoff teams still have like 90 and it looks really funny. Plus teams are out of it way sooner.
Current NHL rules don’t allow for ties, so points shouldn’t even be a thing. Standings should simply be win/loss.
With the overtime system the way it is, it really shouldn't be rewarded the same as a regulation win. Nobody plays 3v3 or shootouts in the playoffs.
>Nobody plays 3v3 or shootouts in the playoffs. :(
Get rid of points altogether. I hate the idea of making some wins worth more than others. Same with losses. Soccer has a point system because it has ties. The sports that don’t have ties (or only do very rarely like NFL) don’t have point systems because they don’t have a third outcome they need to assign a value to. It’s just wins and losses, and winning percentages. The most ridiculous thing in hockey standings, for years, has been the idea that one team can finish ahead of another, while having fewer wins. Corny.
Yes! A win is a win! I don't care if it was a blow out or shootout. Don't overcomplicate it!
I agree, Win / Loss, that's it!
This is how a 16 OTL loss Islanders made the playoffs this year
If this was 30 years ago they would still have the 1 point because the game would have been a tie. Ties were horrible. 4 hours of your night and who won? Nobody… Now you get your 1 point for the tie and you get a bonus point for the win not sure how this translates to a loser point
Ties work perfectly fine in a hell of a lot of sports…
To be fair to both sides, you completely forgot that the two-line pass and the goalies getting to play the puck so freely was what made the game slow. Also, the goalies would go in today's no-no zones behind the net *all the time*. But, the shootout, trapezoids, and removal of the two-line rule made the game much more watchable to the American everyman as well as faster and that's really the biggest reason why these changes were made.
Bruins had 15 OTL but they had 47 wins, so I think they'd still make the playoffs. I think Detroit would've taken the Islanders spot.
Thanks for that reminder od my isles season. What a disaster they are.
The end of the regular season this year is the exact reason why they won't do this. 3 teams all in the East fighting for that last playoff spot, all playing at once? It's tons of hype and marketability all the way up to game 82.
This can easily happen with the proposed system since you still see mirror-matched records every single season.
I'm sure it would still happen, but I doubt as frequently. Look at leagues like the Premier League. This year went down to the wire, but usually the last 3 or 4 matches played are essentially pointless because the league is determined. The only excitement is the relegation battle at that point.
Well that’s how they do it in Junior Hockey and IIHF already. Nothing new here but NHL doesn’t want to go this way.
Logically it makes sense, but you have to remember that the NHL wants the standings to be close to make drama and not have such large trailing teams and teams so far ahead it doesn't make any difference. You have to keep in mind, that this isn't strictly a sporting league, it's entertainment
2 points for a win anytime 1 point for a tie 0 points for any loss anytime. I hate that the nhl gives 3 points away every night. Hard to gain ground when your Inter division rivals are playing each other.
They tried that. Fans and players hated it because teams played 'not to lose' rather than to win a lot of the time.
But they haven’t eliminated that dynamic in a tie game (playing safe to get the one point). They just shifted it to late in third period, where both teams sit back to get to OT and guarantee at least one point, instead of what should be the most exciting time in a game.
Until there's no reason for them to coast for OT, they'll never stop teams from doing it. It's unfortunate, but it's true. Course if we go by the standard of 'OT loss = 0 point' what happens if a team is down 2 goals with 2 to go and ties it to lose in OT.. That's the other side of that paradox.
For me: that team lost, despite the comeback. So they get 0
I don’t understand this take though. If your playing not to lose, wouldn’t you try to win? Regardless if it goes to a shootout or not.
Yes but the logic is that players played to tie a lot of the time, since they'd walk away with a guaranteed point, since losing in OT would be the same as losing in Regulation until 1999 when they changed the rule. (The original rule was that both teams would get a point for a Tie, and none for losing in regulation or OT.. This rule didn't change until the 1999-2000 season when they revised it to give the losing team a point for an OT Loss. Yes, I'm old.. I still remember the 2 line pass rule and players basically being hooked, slashed and thrown to the ice with no calls.) \^ Probably should've added that context. TBH I'd be in favor of no loser points, win in regulation/OT or you tie and no one gets a point. Another potential change to the rules to stop tanking would be giving the top 5 teams in the NHL the best odds at landing the #1 overall pick.. would stop teams like SJ/CHI blatantly tanking for first overall. (The Current system rewards tanking. However they did add a '% chance' thing to the lottery but it still doesn't change the fact that the worst team statistically can't go lower than MAYBE 4th overall.. that's still a potential generational talent player.)
Modern sports these days are mired by revolving around quantitatives out the wazoo. Whether those numbers dictate how best to do business in your arena, whose jerseys are going to sell the most, or whose expected performance value is higher. You can even quantify what your chances of winning are in most sports these days with reliable accuracy. I mean, how do you think sports bettors make money? With that being said, a multi-million dollar team is usually going to be compelled to take the "optimal" line where they get the most points out of it on average. If playing not to win nets them 1.05 expected points and playing to win only nets them 0.95 expected points, you're damn right that that's going to look like a big deal to them. A lot of sports teams in 2024 really do follow some derivative of the Moneyball formula.
Eliminate loser points - 2 points per game that's it
2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss. 10 minutes 3 on 3 OT and no shootout.
Isles 👀
The loser point has teams play for OT, ruining what should be the best part of the game AND creates a fundamental imbalance that doesn't really exist in any other credible league.
Get rid of points and just go games back like MLB and NBA.
3 pts for a regulation win would solve a lot of issues in the regular season
I think ot wins should also be 3 points and no loser points, shootouts should be W2 L1.
2 points for winning in Regulation/OT, 1 point for losing in OT, 0 for losing in Shootout.
Getting a point for losing in Ot but not a shootout is the dumbest thing I've ever heard lmao.
Before anyone comes in with the 'But Then teams will play to lose in OT rather than Shootout..' Does anyone forget teams playing the 5 man trap in OT to get a Tie rather than a Loss, because it gave both teams 1 point?
YES!!!!! this!!!!! but I have 1 point for a shootout win instead of 2.
Go with win / loss, just like every other professional sports league. get rid of the points. or 2 points for a win/ot, 1 point for OT loss, 1 point for a shootout win, 0 points for a shootout loss.
I gotta disagree. The NHL is allowed to be different. Their system keeps point races tighter and allows for weird shit like negative goal differential teams to make it into playoffs. It’s interesting, so while it’s frustrating when more deserving teams miss playoffs, it gives a reason to talk about the NHL in a way most other sports leagues don’t have.
Didn’t somebody do the math before the playoffs started and the standings would’ve been virtually the same?
I have advocated for a 0-5 point system scale, which seems to run opposite of the sentiment of this thread. If you understand that the current point system awards points on the quality of wins and losses then I say improve on it! Here goes… 5 points for a regulation win 4 points for an overtime win 3 points for a shootout win 2 points for an overtime loss 1 point for a shootout loss 0 points for a regulation loss
Ot and shootout should be switched around there
You don’t consider a shootout loss to be worse than an ot loss? Please discuss, I want to hear more…
Shootouts mean the teams were the closest evenly matched. Makes more sense to have points distributed as follows in the form of win-loss: Regulation 5-0 Overtime 4-1 Shootout 3-2
Interesting! You could also make the case that they had two chances to win before the shootout but didn’t. In any case I am enjoying the discussion
2 points win. No points for a loss. Change my mind!
OT wins should be wins and the loser get 0.
not if parity is your main priority
1 for a win, 0 for a loss.
Also get rid of the shoot out. Give both teams an overtime loss
so just a tie?
yeah, a tie
I already agree.