Home HockeyBuzz Register Login
"Don't EVER play 'Lady of Spain' AGAIN!!!!"
I get that a lot. • United States • 42 Years Old • Male

A 'Pointless' Proposal

Posted 3:03 PM ET | Comments 14
The topic of how to best allot points for wins/losses/etc. in the NHL continues to be discussed.

I fully put my support behind the idea put forth by the Random Thinker himself, renowned HockeyBuzzard jsaquella. (the fact he's also my good friend and brother-in-law has little, if anything to do with it. In fact, it probably made me less likely to listen)

The proposal:
Regulation Win: 2 points
Overtime Win: 2 points
Shootout Win: 1 point
Loss (of any kind): 0 points

The current system rewards partial results. Teams garner points for what they do over 60 minutes when a game goes 65 or beyond. Likewise, a team receives the same amount of points through the efforts of as few as 4 players in a shootout (3 shooters, 1 goalie) as they do with a full team effort within 60-65 minutes.
None of the shots, goals, or saves which occur during shootouts count for players' statistics. For example, rookie sensation Patrick Kane's first goal in the NHL didn't count. It wasn't disallowed--it happened during a shootout. If the goals don't count, the result shouldn't be the same.

The tiebreaker would still have value, because we'd stop rewarding the team that loses.

A bit of number crunching gives us how things would look with this system in place (results up to an including January 16th):

New Jersey--45--26--16--3--55
NY Islanders--46--23--18--5--51
NY Rangers----47--22--20--5--49
Tampa Bay----46--17--24--5--39

New Jersey---22--19--4--48
NY Islanders--21--23--2--44
NY Rangers---19--25--3--41
Atlanta--------18--24 --5--41
Tampa Bay---15--29--2--32

-While no one gains points, of course, Ottawa actually gains ground on the east, leading by 10 points instead of 7.
-The individual skills of the ridiculously amazing Sidney Crosby aren't enough to keep his team from the middle of the pack when shootouts count less than team efforts.
-Carolina moves back ahead of Atlanta (and back into the playoff picture), but still only by 2 points.
-Washington leapfrogs Buffalo and Florida (by a mere 1 and 2 points, respectively) by nearly avoiding shootouts altogether (only 2 in 45 games).
-Toronto is still a mess, but is actually one point closer to 8th in the east.

San Jose------45--25--13--7--57
St. Louis------44--22--16--6--50
Los Angeles--47--18--27--2--38

San Jose------23--20--2--48
St. Louis------21--22--1--43
Los Angeles--15--29--3--33

-Detroit is actually pulled closer to the pack out west, albeit only by 3 points.
-Phoenix leapfrogs over Columbus and St.Louis... and it's actually thanks to shootout wins. Phoenix is 4-1 in shootouts, where St.Louis is 1-3 & Columbus is 2-5.
-Sorry, Oiler fans, your shootout prowess (11 wins) is still rewarded; but a team with only 10 wins (9 regulation, 1 OT) halfway through the season doesn't belong ahead of anyone, let alone tied with a team with 19 wins.

Not much overall change in the standings takes place, keeping the league's precious "competitive balance" (pronounced parity) intact, for the most part.
The Bettmaniacs can still have their no-ties spectacle; it simply shouldn't count as much as the game.

and losses should always go 'pointless.'
Filed Under:   NHL   shootout   Bettman   Crosby   jsaquella  
January 17, 2008 3:26 PM ET | Delete
Hmm... I actually like it... I don't know though, I think I like the idea of three points for every game. So, it'd be 3 points for regulation win, 2 for an OT win, and 1 for an OT loss. BUT, your idea certainly has legs, and I do like it. I like both of these ideas better than the current system... SO, now I'm going to figure out what it would look like if 3-point system were used. Stay tuned to my blog!
January 17, 2008 4:15 PM ET | Delete
I like this better than the current system, losses of any kind should never be awarded. Still prefer the old system with OT's ending in ties. I still wouldn't mind seeing the PO format of endless OT's.
January 17, 2008 4:37 PM ET | Delete
I like this too, but I basically fully support just about any math that eliminates the point for losing...nothing drives me more insane them teams being rewarded for failure..makes no senss!!!!
January 17, 2008 4:56 PM ET | Delete
I was thinking about this the other day as well, and was trying to come up with a realistic method that would award 2 points for a regulation win, and 1 point to each team for going to overtime, and then use overtime wins in some sort of tiebreaking scenario. That way, points-wise overtimes would be like ties, but the teams would still have something to play for in OT. Not sure what the tiebreaking scenario would be though.
January 17, 2008 5:00 PM ET | Delete
If that idiot Jsaq liked it then it must be bad.
January 17, 2008 5:14 PM ET | Delete
The only problem I have with the system you are describing is that, like the current system, it makes certain games worth different amounts of points. IMO, all games should be worth the same amount, however they get split up. You could also go to 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, and 1 for an OT loss, but you're back in the same place of rewarding losses.
January 17, 2008 5:19 PM ET | Delete
I'm not sure if there is a problem with rewarding an OT loss, though... I mean, yeah, it's a loss, but shouldn't there be some retribution for equaling the opponent at the end of regulation? Just the same, why should a team get the full worth of the win, if they didn't manage to do it in regulation? The next question is, why would playoffs continue to be full OT periods? I think that all games, regular season and playoff, should follow the same format...
January 17, 2008 6:26 PM ET | Delete
You should not get a point just for being tied at the end of regulation. You don't get a point for being tied in the playoffs, do you? Why should winning a skills competition count as much as winning an actual game? If they ever brought a shootout to the playoffs, I would cease being a NHL fan.
January 17, 2008 7:01 PM ET | Delete
I love the idea. One thing, though...The Wild have one shootout win lol
January 17, 2008 9:55 PM ET | Delete
I agree that awarding more points (or less) for some games and not for others is stupid. My preference would be to play 5 on 5 OT until someone wins. The issue here is that the TV Networks whine when the games go into 5 OT's without a winner and they have to postpone or cancel their programming. Unfortunately hockey is just not popular enough in the US for NBC, ESPN or FOX to be willing to mess up their schedule of Friends re-runs and inane local news. So this option will never be accepted.They should never have gotten rid of ties. A tie is a tie. You split the points. It worked for 80 years in the league and still does in most other sports.
January 17, 2008 10:58 PM ET | Delete
Awarding consolation point to the loser in overtime/shootout games is stupid. With that thinking, you might as well give a consolation point to any team that loses in the final minute of regulation. Or gives up the winning goal on a shot outside the blue line. Or gives up the winning goal on a shot deflected off one of its own players. Or ...
January 17, 2008 11:27 PM ET | Delete
WOW... what a difference! Dumb idea..next
January 18, 2008 5:28 AM ET | Delete
It is a HUGE difference goldenj. Right now winning a shootout counts as much as winning a regulation game. Does that make any sense to you? Maybe you could try having an original idea instead of just trashing other people's suggestions. What a moron.
January 18, 2008 8:12 AM ET | Delete
goldenj... I'm sure Oiler fans would disagree that it's not much difference. Coyote fans, too. The biggest difference would be in how the game is played. If losing is worth nothing, teams will be more likely to play to win. If a shootout is worth less, teams will be more likely to play to win while all their players are participating. But thanks for your superficial comment.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment.