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

[Boston]

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

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

[Boston]

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.

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".

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.

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?

[Boston]

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

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?

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.

So you believe losses should have no detrimental value in the standings. Why?

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.

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.

[Boston]

@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!

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)?

[Boston]

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.

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?

[ruxpin]

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

First of all, I guarantee you and I can look at that record and figure out the three digit percentage in our head. If the "average dude" cannot, he probably shouldn't have dropped out of high school. But EVERY OTHER sport that uses winning percentage (because it is the ONLY apples-to-apples measure) also has a column that says "games behind." This column narrows it down and simplifies it for the high school dropout and also makes it so guys like you and I don't have to be doing math when looking at the standings. "Okay, Philly is 3 games behind Pittsburgh (because we're in an alternate reality, apparently), so any combination of Philly wins and Pitt losses that total 3 gets Philly tied for first." It's vastly more simple than "Okay, Philly is 3 points behind Pitt so they need two wins to be in first ....oh wait, how many games more or less has Pitt played. How many do they play during the games philly takes to get its three points? Does it really even matter because New Jersey has played 5 less games than either or PItt or Philly and is only 4 points behind Pitt? Blah blah blah.

Even NCAA football and baseball use winning pct. It's really not a difficult concept and would instantly eliminate a who slew of nonsense involving the standings and create a clearer picture of "who is actually ahead in the standings" when I wake up on any given day. Simply counting wins and applying 2 points doesn't give a true measure when one team has played as much as 4 or 5 games more in some cases

[ruxpin]

trying to figure out how to catch up to some team, trying to work with half wins, etc etc etc.

This part could be troublesome, I suppose. 5 games left, Philly is behind Pitt by 3 games. In a sport with either no ties or rare ties, you don't have to consider it. It's just "If Philly wins three times and Pitt loses three times, we're tied up in the standings. We (Philly) has to win at least 4 times out of 5 and hope for help to pass them." But how does a tie or multiple ties by either team effect it? Well, in THIS situation I think it's fairly clear, but it's because I didn't start out with a very complicated situation. Go out ten games and make it two back and now looking ahead and figuring out ties maybe becomes more dicey. Or add a third team to the race. But if you go in knowing ties is HALF a win, then you know it will take TWO ties to overcome each one game back.

It seems like maybe it would be complicated, but I don't think it actually would be once implemented.

[flyercanuck]

First of all, I guarantee you and I can look at that record and figure out the three digit percentage in our head. If the "average dude" cannot, he probably shouldn't have dropped out of high school. But EVERY OTHER sport that uses winning percentage (because it is the ONLY apples-to-apples measure) also has a column that says "games behind." This column narrows it down and simplifies it for the high school dropout and also makes it so guys like you and I don't have to be doing math when looking at the standings. "Okay, Philly is 3 games behind Pittsburgh (because we're in an alternate reality, apparently), so any combination of Philly wins and Pitt losses that total 3 gets Philly tied for first." It's vastly more simple than "Okay, Philly is 3 points behind Pitt so they need two wins to be in first ....oh wait, how many games more or less has Pitt played. How many do they play during the games philly takes to get its three points? Does it really even matter because New Jersey has played 5 less games than either or PItt or Philly and is only 4 points behind Pitt? Blah blah blah.

Even NCAA football and baseball use winning pct. It's really not a difficult concept and would instantly eliminate a who slew of nonsense involving the standings and create a clearer picture of "who is actually ahead in the standings" when I wake up on any given day. Simply counting wins and applying 2 points doesn't give a true measure when one team has played as much as 4 or 5 games more in some cases

But at the end of the season (the only time it REALLY matters) when you look at the points it tells you who is in first. Just like when playoffs start and they get rid of the stupid (I'm bored give me something shiny and sparkly to look at) shootout.

What's next...why don't they dribble the puck? How come hockey players don't carry handguns in their 12 sizes too big designer track pants? Why is there action for the entire 60 minutes? How come NHL teams don't carry at least 6 felons like the NFL? When are they going to have a commissioner who knows anything about hockey (sorry that made too much sense).

I get you and Bostons point. They have a different points system and I'm ok with that. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out who's really in first, just like it doesn't take one to track a puck.

[ruxpin]

But it doesn't take a genius to figure out who's really in first, just like it doesn't take one to track a puck.

I supposed not (on the first part...DEFINITELY on the second). PCT just makes more sense because there's no figuring anything out. It just is. The second paragraph of your post was just kind of silly. Don't get me wrong; it was entertaining reading on several levels, but it was still silly.

[flyercanuck]

@ruxpin

Like it wasn't meant to be?

[ruxpin]

Hey @flyercanuck

What do you think about a column with "point percentage?" I think it maybe defeats the whole purpose of either points or percentage but how about "Flyers have played 37 games and have 35 points. This is a point/game percentage of .946" and rank the teams in standings according to this. It gets a little wonky when you have a team going 22-13-2 because you end up with a 1.xxx in the standings but it still reduces things to apples-apples at any given snapshot rather than having to do the calculus of "but team Y has 3 games in hand" yadda yadda. You get to keep the 2 points win, 1 point for showing up in OT thing but have a more balanced way of producing the actual standings.

No matter which way you do it, it changes NOTHING at the close of the season but makes things a little more accurate along the way.

[flyercanuck]

@ruxpin

As long as they don't bring in a designated hitter, I'd be ok with that I guess.

I don't know, I've been watching hockey for a long time, and it's never bothered me one bit that you got 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie and none for a loss. I never saw a problem with ties in an 82 (or 80) game schedule.

Edited June 17, 2013 by flyercanuck

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin

As long as they don't bring in a designated hitter, I'd be ok with that i guess.

I"m so happy to hear you don't like the designated hitter, either. Now, what do you think of a three point shot for hockey? I don't think we have enough lines in the offensive zone, so they should put two isosceles triangles just inside the blueline along both boards. If a player scores from inside one of those, they get three points but doesn't count as a hat trick. And any time Coburn scores from anywhere he should automatically get three points so he ends up with 3 points each year.

[flyercanuck]

@ruxpin

Skating with the puck without stickhandling = travelling

have guys warming up their shots on an adjacent rink and when one of your plumbers gets a brakeaway you call timeout and throw in a ringer

make all defencemen eat like Byfuglien so in a few years all NHL blueliners weigh 350 lbs and over.

all players must practice diving.

fighting in hockey is animalistic and should be banned (but hey how about that MMA bout last weekend?)

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin

Skating with the puck without stickhandling = travelling

have guys warming up their shots on an adjacent rink and when one of your plumbers gets a brakeaway you call timeout and throw in a ringer

make all defencemen eat like Byfuglien so in a few years all NHL blueliners weigh 350 lbs and over.

all players must practice diving.

fighting in hockey is animalistic and should be banned (but hey how about that MMA bout last weekend?)

Terrific ideas, make it so.

Oh, here's another one: Have the worst 8 teams or so enter a lottery for a draft to see who picks first. You can even arrange the odds to favor the worst teams. Then have a public lottery drawing behind closed doors so no one can see. Oh, and don't forget to televise it because this could be great for ratings.

[ruxpin]

While we're adding silly rules, let's make a rule where a player in the defensive zone gets an automatic penalty if they shoot the puck over the glass with absolutely no intention criteria. Because we all know that a bouncing disc can be absolutely and easily controlled in a hurry and will always go exactly where aimed.

[flyercanuck]

While we're adding silly rules, let's make a rule where a player in the defensive zone gets an automatic penalty if they shoot the puck over the glass with absolutely no intention criteria. Because we all know that a bouncing disc can be absolutely and easily controlled in a hurry and will always go exactly where aimed.

Plus you get to see all the players on the ice stop and point up in the air.

[ruxpin]

I also think players should stop hugging and groping each other after a goal is scored. They need to go get the puck out of the net and spike it and do a little retarded dance. Maybe pull a cell phone out and phone a friend. Dunk it over the end glass or something.

[flyercanuck]

@ruxpin

Choreographed dancing. THAT is what's missing from hockey.

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin

Choreographed dancing. THAT is what's missing from hockey.

We have that, but we call it a pre-meditated fight.

[sarsippius]

So......how did the point system in hockey originate?

[Boston]

@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?

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.

[Boston]

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.

Ruxpin - Here are a couple of great reads for you:

http://www3.telus.net/dmarchak/can500.htm

http://www3.telus.net/dmarchak/canawp.htm

[Boston]

But at the end of the season (the only time it REALLY matters) when you look at the points it tells you who is in first. Just like when playoffs start and they get rid of the stupid (I'm bored give me something shiny and sparkly to look at) shootout.

What's next...why don't they dribble the puck? How come hockey players don't carry handguns in their 12 sizes too big designer track pants? Why is there action for the entire 60 minutes? How come NHL teams don't carry at least 6 felons like the NFL? When are they going to have a commissioner who knows anything about hockey (sorry that made too much sense).

I get you and Bostons point. They have a different points system and I'm ok with that. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out who's really in first, just like it doesn't take one to track a puck.

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?

[Boston]

@ruxpin

As long as they don't bring in a designated hitter, I'd be ok with that I guess.

I don't know, I've been watching hockey for a long time, and it's never bothered me one bit that you got 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie and none for a loss. I never saw a problem with ties in an 82 (or 80) game schedule.

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?