Boston

Does the fact they have 2 less games remaining in which they can earn points factor into how they're sorted in the standings?

Allow me to illustrate: Rangers: 20-19-1 (41 pts) Bruins 21-22-1 (43 pts) Bruins lose two while Rangers don't play. Rangers: 20-19-1 (41 pts) Bruins: 21-24-1 (43 pts) Note that the pts totals are still the same.

You seem to have a penchant for teams not being detrimentally affected when losing a game. Why?

Why would it not bother you that you get precisely the same for losing as you get for not playing. How do you suggest distinguishing between the two?

Yes, at the end of the season points earned will yield the same seedings as percentage or games above/below .500. That being said, why not use percentage or games above/below .500 to sort teams during the season instead of points. Why create the potential of confusing someone by listing a 20-21 team ahead of a 19-18 team? Furthermore, if the standings only matter at the end of the season, then why does practically every major newspaper in the USA and Canada publish the standings every day during the season using a method to sort the teams in which a regulation loss is equivalent to not playing?

Ruxpin - Here are a couple of great reads for you: http://www3.telus.net/dmarchak/can500.htm http://www3.telus.net/dmarchak/canawp.htm

As a tie (pre-OTL) is the net equivalent of half a win and half a loss, we know the reason can't have anything to do with the presence of ties (or one point games). Furthermore, football has ties and they use percentage.

What do you recommend be done so that the negative value of the loss shows up in the way the teams are sorted in the standings?

Would you have a problem if they used a more balanced system - perhaps shifting the point value by 1 for each possible result. +1 for a win; 0 for an OTL; -1 for a regulation loss. Then 18-12 would be ahead of 19-14 like it is in baseball. By saying 19-14 is ahead of 18-12, then the two extra losses are more than offset by the one extra win. Let's say your team goes 25-25-0 under coach A and 20-0-0 under coach B. Your job is to recommend the coach who had the better record. Do you take coach A (50 pts) or coach B (40 pts)?

True they've always done it that way. But why do they do it that way? Why use a system in which a regulation loss is treated no differently than if the team didn't play? So you believe losses should have no detrimental value in the standings. Why? If the NHL doesn't have a problem adding teams in the south and adding the OTL and shootout, then they shouldn't have a problem sorting teams by percentage or games above/below .500.

You seem to be one of the few who possesses the same viewpoint as me. When I have asked in the past why the NHL uses points instead of percentage or games behind, the answer I get 99% of the time is along the lines of "because they use points". That's like if I asked why they call an apple an apple and the answer I get is "because it is an apple". Agreed on the OT rule. Giving a team a point for an overtime loss is just like giving a baseball team half a win for losing in extra innings. And think about this - in the playoffs, if you lose games 1 & 2 in OT, you're not behind 2-1, as would be the case in the regular season. You're behind 2-0. Where's the consistency?

Hi hf101 - This would be a great question to discuss in here. If one can find the answer, that would be great!

Those are both very good questions and deserve discussion. But I feel they are a different topic. Not sure if the mods would prefer to have that discussion in here or to create a separate thread. I'm fairly new here, so I'll wait it out before we discuss the point for an overtime loss.

Yes, I know that. While I appreciate this feedback, it doesn't answer the question. By that rationale, then the Yankees at 19-14 should be ahead of the Red Sox at 18-12. But in my OP, I indicate that I know the Rangers at 19-14 would be listed ahead of the Bruins at 18-12. The question isn't who is listed ahead, but why the NHL does it this way. In the last 15 years, six Stanley Cups have been won by either displaced former WHA teams or southern expansion teams. Do you wish to go back to a 12 team NHL? I'm not raising a complaint. Just asking why something the NHL uses points to sort teams when it would make more sense to use the more balanced percentage or games behind systems of the NBA or MLB.

Why does the NHL use points instead of winning pct or games behind? Here's something about the NHL that's always puzzled me. For sorting teams, the NHL uses points earned instead of percentage or games behind. This makes little sense, as not only does a team not get adversely affected by a loss, a team with a lower games above/below .500 (or lower percentage) could easily be listed ahead of a team with a higher percentage. Take this example. Let's say the Bruins are 18-12-0 and the Rangers are 19-14-0. The Rangers would be listed ahead of the Bruins, despite having a worse record. Yet in MLB, if the redsox were 18-12 and the Yankees were 19-14, the Red Sox would be listed ahead of the Yankees. Why did the NHL decide to do it this way? And with all the changes the NHL has made in the last 10-20 years (e.g. shootout, expansion into the south, etc.), why haven't they adopted the more balanced and conventional method used in MLB and the NBA for sorting teams? Thanks in advance for any responses which help answer this question.