Jump to content

Why does the NHL use points instead of winning pct or games behind?


Guest Boston

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hockey. Not baseball. Not basketball. Not football. That's the way they've always done it.

And if the Rangers have 19 wins, they are ahead of Boston. The team with the most points is first. If Boston loses out do they move ahead of the Rangers? No, so the team with the most points should be in first. Until another team passes them in points.

And using your examples (shootout, moving into the south) shows even more reason to just leave the game alone and quit trying to adapt it to what NON fans want. Shootouts suck. And so do most of the southern franchises.

Hockey fan don't complain why a touchdown is worth 6 points. Or why baseballl players just stand around all game. Or why basketball only matters in the last minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer as to why/how the points system was established....but in your example the discrepency in standing between the two systems is based solely on the two teams having played a different amount of games. This would obviously not be the case at the end of the season.

A better question along these lines would be "why do you get a point for losing in OT" and the related "why are some games worth a total of two points and others three".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer as to why/how the points system was established....but in your example the discrepency in standing between the two systems is based solely on the two teams having played a different amount of games. This would obviously not be the case at the end of the season.

A better question along these lines would be "why do you get a point for losing in OT" and the related "why are some games worth a total of two points and others three".

This could be included in the "shootout" and southern franchise" Bettman stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hockey. Not baseball. Not basketball. Not football. That's the way they've always done it.

Yes, I know that. While I appreciate this feedback, it doesn't answer the question.

And if the Rangers have 19 wins, they are ahead of Boston. The team with the most points is first. If Boston loses out do they move ahead of the Rangers? No, so the team with the most points should be in first. Until another team passes them in points.

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.

And using your examples (shootout, moving into the south) shows even more reason to just leave the game alone and quit trying to adapt it to what NON fans want. Shootouts suck. And so do most of the southern franchises.

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?

Hockey fan don't complain why a touchdown is worth 6 points. Or why baseballl players just stand around all game. Or why basketball only matters in the last minute.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer as to why/how the points system was established....but in your example the discrepency in standing between the two systems is based solely on the two teams having played a different amount of games. This would obviously not be the case at the end of the season.

A better question along these lines would be "why do you get a point for losing in OT" and the related "why are some games worth a total of two points and others three".

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Welcome Boston, I think those questions can be discussed in this thread. Topics here often spread into more than one discussion among members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hockey. Not baseball. Not basketball. Not football. That's the way they've always done it.

And if the Rangers have 19 wins, they are ahead of Boston. The team with the most points is first. If Boston loses out do they move ahead of the Rangers? No, so the team with the most points should be in first. Until another team passes them in points.

And using your examples (shootout, moving into the south) shows even more reason to just leave the game alone and quit trying to adapt it to what NON fans want. Shootouts suck. And so do most of the southern franchises.

Hockey fan don't complain why a touchdown is worth 6 points. Or why baseballl players just stand around all game. Or why basketball only matters in the last minute.

I hate the points thing. I think it's absolutely asinine. At one time, riding to work in a horse and buggy was "the way we've always done it." Someone came up with a better way. The NHL is the Amish of sports: Clinging to old idiotic ways of doing things just because it's the way we've done it and for little other good reason.

In his example, yes the team with 19 wins is listed ahead of the one with 17. But if it's because they've played 4 or 5 more games, it's idiotic. I hate the "games in hand" thing and hate that the standings in the NHL are a subjective fluid picture instead of "team X has a better record" at any glance at the standings.

It's utterly stupid. I don't know whether to blame it on drunk Canadians or what, but it's flat out stupid.

I completely agree with you about the shootout. I would prefer to go to 10 minute 4x4 sudden death and if it's still tied, then it's a tie. But the tie can be figured as 1/2 a win for winning pct purposes and you completely eliminate the bullshit about 3 points for regular wins, 2 for OT/SO, and 1 for OT/SO crap or any of the other nonsensical suggestions that arise from the mind-numbingly stupid points system. It's grade school stuff and it's dumb. NHL should put on its big boy pants, stop pissing in it's diapers, and become a grown up league like it's counterparts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but in your example the discrepency in standing between the two systems is based solely on the two teams having played a different amount of games.

Yes, but in leagues with a (frankly intelligent) winning percentage system, the difference in games played is reduced to apple/apples for any snapshot look at the standings.

In baseball, I know that the Atlanta Braves have won a higher percentage of their games than the Phillies. It doesn't matter how MANY games each have played at any given point up until the end where it's the same. It matters that the Braves have won a higher percentage up until X date the standings are printed/posted. (By the way, this example is weakened by the fact that one doesn't even have to look at the standings to know the Braves have won a higher percentage of the their games than the Phillies. One only has to know that Ruben Amaro is the Phillies general manager and the rest becomes fairly clear on its own).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but in your example the discrepency in standing between the two systems is based solely on the two teams having played a different amount of games.

Hi Boston,

Welcome to the board. I have to tell you, I've been a fan of the NHL for over 40 years. As my previous post indicated, I don't LIKE the point system, but that really doesn't answer your question of "why."

I'm hoping someone answers it because I, myself, would like to know "why?" But I have a feeling that it's likely that no matter if one likes it or doesn't the best "why?" answer you're going to get is @flyercanucks : "it's just always been that way." I would imagine that was just the way someone or a group of someones decided to do it way back in the day when the sport was young or whatever and it's been done that way ever since--nevermind that there are CLEARLY better ways of doing it that make more sense.

By the way, the original reason for the red line at either ends of the rink isn't just for the goal. It stems from before there were boards and the sport was played outdoors. It was a warning to players to slow down and turn for fear they might lose control and accidentally fall off the ends of the earth. Silly hockey people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Boston

OK so the league should go the way of MLB? So theres a salary cap but the Rangers and The Leafs can exceed it by triple or quadruple and pay a tax? Say goodbye to your Bruins ever having a chance at a cup cause their ownership doesn't play that game. Everytime you develop a good player the Yankees and RedSox Leafs and Rangers drive a truckload of cash up and buy him. And instead of a fast paced game, everyone just stands around scratching themselves and spitting huge gobs of brown sludge on the ground. And they all take HGH. Can't wait.

Sorry, I just like it the way it is. You get 2 points for a win...it seems a lot simpler than .613 doesn't it?

@ruxpin - you're the idiots (along with North Korea) who wont accept the easy, simple and WORLD-WIDE metric system.

OK, rant over....and welcome to the board Boston!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Well welcome to our humble hockey abode.

I'll simply state that gaining a point for losing goes against all sports logic. And having some games weighted more heavily than others makes no mathematical sense whatsoever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Boston

OK so the league should go the way of MLB? So theres a salary cap but the Rangers and The Leafs can exceed it by triple or quadruple and pay a tax? Say goodbye to your Bruins ever having a chance at a cup cause their ownership doesn't play that game. Everytime you develop a good player the Yankees and RedSox Leafs and Rangers drive a truckload of cash up and buy him. And instead of a fast paced game, everyone just stands around scratching themselves and spitting huge gobs of brown sludge on the ground. And they all take HGH. Can't wait.

Sorry, I just like it the way it is. You get 2 points for a win...it seems a lot simpler than .613 doesn't it? No, it doesn't. It's much more complicated. Look at one column and know .613 is better than .583. You seem fine with three digit decimal numbers for save percentage, what really is the problem here? The problem with the hockey points thing is that at no time between game one and game 82 is it truly apples to apples, and it's a silly clinging on to a long ago weird system. If you simply went to winning percentage, you really would eliminate alot of the arguments about what to do with overtime/shootouts and the crazy "teams don't truly have incentive in overtime because..." crap. It just simply makes more sense.

@ruxpin - you're the idiots (along with North Korea) who wont accept the easy, simple and WORLD-WIDE metric system. First of all, I know that was in response to the "drunk Canadians" comment, so well-played. But just for clarification sake, I wasn't trying to insinuate that ALL Canadians are drunk. Just you and whomever came up with the stupid point thing. As to your point about the metric system: completely agree as it makes entirely more sense and would be so much easier to use. It's so much easier to slide decimals than to try to remember--which I never do--how many ounces is in a quart. Funny thing is that I went through grade school in the late 70s when the US was all gung-ho about converting to metrics. So that's what I learned in school. I never learned the "american" "system" [sic]. So I now I have a really difficult time when I need to convert volume (ounces, cups, pints, quarts, gallons, etc.). It's archaic and it's "what we've always done." It's still stupid.

OK, rant over....and welcome to the board Boston!

Seriously now. Calling it stupid or good aside. Do you have any idea where the points thing started or came from? Or is it so fundamental to the beginnings of the game itself that it's kind of like asking "why is it played on ice?" I mean, at some point the league even early on must have gone with the decision to do something different from just about every other team sport, right? Do you have any idea when or why? Like I said earlier, I'm a fan all my life, and I really don't know this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well welcome to our humble hockey abode.

I'll simply state that gaining a point for losing goes against all sports logic. And having some games weighted more heavily than others makes no mathematical sense whatsoever.

Crazy American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@flyercanuck

By the way, you know as well as I do how disingenuous the salary cap thing was. It's a little beneath you, actually. Clearly we're simply talking about making the standings a bit more uniform so they're a little more relevant to and descriptive of "who has the best record in the division/conference TODAY." The salary cap thing has nothing to do with anything. Invoking that is as silly as "so you want to go to percentages? Yeah, let's go the way of baseball and give the team a 'run' every time the puck goes over the end wall."

You like the points thing. I get it. But it really just comes down to personal preference and "because it's always been done that way" because mathematically and objectively there's really not a justifiable reason for it. No more than the silly measurement system we have in the US.

Again, though, the original post really seemed to be an honest "why is it done that way?"

You asked about 6 points for a touchdown. I haven't been a football fan as long or as strongly as I've been a hockey fan. But since I was a child anyway. If anyone knows how or why they came to 6 points for a TD, I'd be interested in hearing that story, too. Because damned if I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ruxpin

"If anyone knows how or why they came to 6 points for a TD, I'd be interested in hearing that story, too."

Goddammit man, one thing at a time!!! I'm still working on the point system, abandonment of the US conversion to metric, salary caps, horse and buggy, drunk Canadiens and how the Hell Ruben Amaro still has a job! Sheesh!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

@Boston,

Well, I don't know for sure but I would think that it has something to do with the tie game (pre-shootout). How do you figure out a winning percentage with tie games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Boston,

Well, I don't know for sure but I would think that it has something to do with the tie game (pre-shootout). How do you figure out a winning percentage with tie games?

A tie is half a win and half a loss in calculating winning %

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to know why rux responded in red. Is he communist or something?

The baseball cap thing was just a drunken Canadians way of saying "right back at ya" to the seemingly endless way SOME Americans want to continually change the game. The 'glow" puck was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen in my life. Shootouts? In a game? I hate the extra point that was brought in. I hate that arenas aren't "The Spectrum" or "The Gah-dun" anymore, but an ever changing financial institution that I have no idea whose rink is what anymore.

No offence was intended towards Boston personally. Some is still intended towards rux and his communist reply!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Boston,

Well, I don't know for sure but I would think that it has something to do with the tie game (pre-shootout). How do you figure out a winning percentage with tie games?

Hi. What sarsippius said. I suspect the initial reason was to account for ties. I honestly don't know but would love to. But you would figure out winning percentage like they do with ties in the NFL. It's half a win. so say you played 10 games and you went 5-4-1 Your winning percetage would be 5.5/10 = .550

Of course, if you kept the shootout things become strange if you're trying to account for some sort of credit for making it to overtime (now you get 1 point for going home a loser). In such a system, I wouldn't give anyone credit for losing no matter how they "accomplished" the loss. So if you keep a shootout, a win is a win and a loss a loss. In the 10 game thing above, pretend you went 6-4 but you won one game in the shootout and lost one game in the shootout. In my opinion, it still ends up being 6-4 with a .600 winning percentage. I think this is where you'd probably get a lot of push back from some and why we're stuck with points: people want the loser of OT/SO to get some sort of credit.

Best of all worlds--for me--is kill the shootout and just have an OT period of whatever length you want (5 min or 10 min) and if it ends in a tie, you just get .5W credit. The winning percentage just gets weird with the shootout, I think. But then again, IMO, hockey gets weird for me with the shootout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to know why rux responded in red. Is he communist or something? Yes. Although my not wanting to give people credit just for showing up but losing seems to belie that. We all make exceptions, though, I guess.

The baseball cap thing was just a drunken Canadians (lmao) way of saying "right back at ya" to the seemingly endless way SOME Americans want to continually change the game. I suppose, but I'm not sure how this is an example of changing the game. It just changes how the standings look--correct. The 'glow" puck was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen in my life. Can't agree more. But that's just the commie in me. Shootouts? In a game? I hate the extra point that was brought in. Agree with all the preceding. I hate that arenas aren't "The Spectrum" or "The Gah-dun" anymore, but an ever changing financial institution that I have no idea whose rink is what anymore. It used to be fun when all the rinks weren't cookie cutter. Like the old Aud and it's weird corners. The old Boston Garden had weird dimensions too, didn't it? The old rinks were more cozy. I guess it's just "oh the good old days" in me, but I have to agree with this point as well.

No offence was intended towards Boston personally. Some is still intended towards rux and his communist reply! If you didn't mean at least some offence (we'll stick with the drunk spelling) we wouldn't get along so well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Boston

the answer is, as far as I know, ties. winning percentage is wins divided by total games played...which makes ties the same as losses. a team that is 20-10-10 is at .500, same as a team that is 20-20-0. so, that doesn't work. I've seen some systems that drop the games that end in ties from the "total games played" number, but that presents problems, too. 20-10-10 is a .666 team, under that system. so, they'd be ahead of a team that was 26-14-0 (.650). which isn't right, either.

the only way to deal with it is to give some kind of value to the tie itself, and thus the 2-point-win, 1-point-tie thing. which made a lot of sense and worked well. games were worth 2 points, total, winner take all...if there is no winner, both teams split them.

the OTL point, of course, threw that out the window and the system no longer makes any sense, but the solution is to solve the point-allocation, not to go to a percentage system. unless they drop the OTL credit entirely and just call it a loss, so ultimately records would be W-L. then percentages would work. as I type that, it seems like a not bad idea. I also don't hate the idea of 3 point games, 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT/SO win, 1 point for a IT/SO loss. at least you are dealing with a fixed number of points available again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<br />But you would figure out winning percentage like they do with ties in the NFL. It's half a win. so say you played 10 games and you went 5-4-1 Your winning percetage would be 5.5/10 = .550<br />

works ok with a ten game set, but it gets tough in a real situation. a team that is, say, 35-23-9. yeah, can be done, but the average dude looking at the paper sunday morning isn't going to be able to work it out in his head. and the nightmare of a playoff race, trying to figure out how to catch up to some team, trying to work with half wins, etc etc etc.

really, I like the points thing. 5 points back. 9 point back. 4 points to clinch. trying to do that stuff with winning percentage, you almost have to have a news source break down all the math for you.

the points allocation just needs to make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...