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

[Boston]

@Boston

Now you are talking about points percentage, not winning percentage. Very different concept. One that works, as you illustrate, but one to which I ask: why bother? If you are going to assign points, why then translate them into a percentage?

Because unlike points earned, points percentage will take into account the detrimental value of a loss. Or is there some reason you wish to ignore the detrimental value of a loss when sorting teams?

It's less useful than the straight points. team A is at .650, team B at .589, how many wins does team B need to catch up?

That's where the games behind column comes in handy.

If you are going to award points for wins, might as well just add them up. Rather than add them up, then add up total game, multiply by two, divide points by total possible. Unless you really like doing extra math to reach essentially the same answer.

What do you propose doing about losses to distinguish them from not playing?

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin

Anyway works rux. Just do it before he signs anymore TITANIC contracts.

You mean like Streit? Am I too late?

[idahophilly]

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.

So then why does it really matter if the outcome is going to be the same anyway?

My plan: 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie and no shoot out. OT is 12 min long. 4 at 5 on 5, then 4 more at 4 on 4 and then the final 4 at 3 on 3. First goal (if any) wins in ot. The winning team gets 2 points, losers zero.

I would just do both methods. The points trump the % but at least you see through out the season who is winning at a higher %. The % thing would just be an FYI and not count in the final standing... Anywho, thats what I would do....

[ruxpin]

Hi Idaho,

Good to see you!

So then why does it really matter if the outcome is going to be the same anyway. Ultimately it doesn't. Not for playoff seedings, etc., anyway. It would, however, make for a clearer, more accurate picture along the way. But it's becoming apparent in this thread that "clearer and more accurate" is subject to personal opinion/perception. I just have really never liked looking at the standings and seeing someone with 5 more games and 3 more losses ahead of another team. But to your question, at the END, it doesn't make a heap of difference because at the end everyone is 82 games and it's apples-apples again. But often, game 82 is the first time that it is (apples-apples) if not all season then at least in quite awhile.

My plan: 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie and no shoot out. OT is 12 min long. 4 at 5 on 5, then 4 more at 4 on 4 and then the final 4 at 3 on 3. First goal (if any) wins in ot. The winning team gets 2 points, losers zero. I've watched hockey all my life and am quite comfortable with points. I don't think it's the best way to do it, but I have no problem staying with them. I prefer your 2 pts for win, bupkis for a loss and a point for a tie. It amounts to the same thing as pct. but still has the "how many games have they played?" excercise. Like I said, I'm okay with that. My only problem with your OT format is simply a logistics one.. I'm wondering: when, say, the first four minutes are up, do you wait for the next stoppage or does it act like an end of a period where there is a horn and a center ice faceoff? I'm asking because without the latter, if you're waiting for a natural stoppage you could potentially end up with uneven distribution (say someone doesn't shoot the puck out or go offsides or whatever until the 6 minute mark?). I'm guessing horn/stoppage/faceoff might work.

I would just do both methods. The points trump the % but at least you see through out the season who is winning at a higher %. The % thing would just be an FYI and not count in the final standing... Anywho, thats what I would do.... I would think that at the end, the % would likely mirror the final standings, but I'm not sure. The problem--for me--would be an instance where they don't and a team with a higher percentage is left home while one with a lower gets into the playoffs. If we're sticking with points in any way, I think just leave % out of it. The optics would be really bad.

I do think the percentage idea is completely moot if we're still finding a way to reward a loser (OT/SO loss reward).

By the way, I asked Mike Ross on NHL home ice about where the points thing started. He wasn't sure but the best he could come up with was that it was stolen from British soccer. To @flyercanuck , the funny thing was he, too, brought up metric/American measurements in saying it's just the way two different heritages developed.

[idahophilly]

Hi Idaho,

Good to see you!

Hi Rux. It's been awhile! I see we have some new blood floating around the forum. Good to see... At least Holmgren will give us allot to talk about...

[ruxpin]

I see we have some new bloodletting floating around the forum.

Fixed it.

[flyercanuck]

Hi Idaho,

Good to see you!

I do think the percentage idea is completely moot if we're still finding a way to reward a loser (OT/SO loss reward).

By the way, I asked Mike Ross on NHL home ice about where the points thing started. He wasn't sure but the best he could come up with was that it was stolen from British soccer. To @flyercanuck , the funny thing was he, too, brought up metric/American measurements in saying it's just the way two different heritages developed.

Actually Canada used the same system you guys use until around 1976 I think. We switched because everyone else in the world uses metric. Though I find people still give their height in feet and inches, and weight in pounds. I can get by on either.

[flyercanuck]

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

Does it matter until the end of the season? If Boston plays 10 games in the first 3 weeks,and Philly plays 5, is that going to matter after 82 games? Like I said, if it's a big deal to you,fire an email off to Bettman. He loves destroying the games heritage. me, I'm fine with it the way it is.

[ruxpin]

I can get by on either.

I heard you swing both ways. NTTAWWT

[ruxpin]

Does it matter until the end of the season? If Boston plays 10 games in the first 3 weeks,and Philly plays 5, is that going to matter after 82 games? Like I said, if it's a big deal to you,fire an email off to Bettman. He loves destroying the games heritage. me, I'm fine with it the way it is.

If this really matters to players on a team, I suspect the team has bigger problems to worry about, but do think a team plays differently or has a different confidence level or whatever if they look at the standings and they're in first rather than 4th seed? Not being a smart ass for once; I'm seriously asking. I mean, say the Hurricanes have 4 more points than the Caps but the Caps have 4 games in hand. Do the games in hand make a difference to the players or would they--and their 17 fans-- prefer to see their name in first? Or doesn't matter a damn bit either way? (Don't answer whether it should; I already have the answer to that one).

That's the only place where it might matter to have actual accurate standings. Not in October or November, mind you. A lot of players haven't even come back from summer break yet. But in February? March? Just thinking maybe it makes a little bit of difference anyway.

Like you've said and I've agreed. I could care less whether they continue with points or go with pct. The fact of the matter is they are NOT going to go with pct so it's not really even an issue. I just wish they would come up with a point system (or a pct system) that actually makes all games equal and the same value. I do NOT like the 3 point idea. Can you imagine trying to compare some 37 game winner with 117 points to a 55 game winner with a 117 points from 25 years ago? It just bastardizes the sport.

So how 'bout we have a palace coup in New York or Toronto or wherever the hell Bettman is and you get your points and we both get no shootout, back to ties, no cacti or palm trees for goal posts and everyone is happy.

[flyercanuck]

@ruxpin

I'm so accustomed to the way it is, it's just second nature to say "They're 4 points up but we have 4 games in hand." I hate the 3 point system. I hate shootouts. I hate bettman.

I'd prefer they go the baseball route, and the coach dresses just like the players.

Edited June 18, 2013 by flyercanuck

[Boston]

Does it matter until the end of the season? If Boston plays 10 games in the first 3 weeks,and Philly plays 5, is that going to matter after 82 games? Like I said, if it's a big deal to you,fire an email off to Bettman. He loves destroying the games heritage. me, I'm fine with it the way it is.

It's not the schedule inequity that matters. It's the misleading of the fans that matters.

If the Bruins are 20-21-0 and the Rangers are 19-18-0, what sense would it make to list the Bruins ahead of the Rangers if at the end of the season, percentage and points will each yield the same seedings?

[flyercanuck]

@Boston

It's not misleading the fans. Hockey fans know how the points system works and it's easy to figure out by the games played versus points. If I could do it when I was a kid, I can't imagine it being all that difficult..

[Boston]

@Boston

It's not misleading the fans. Hockey fans know how the points system works and it's easy to figure out by the games played versus points. If I could do it when I was a kid, I can't imagine it being all that difficult..

That's not true if what they hear is "The Bruins are ahead of the Rangers".

[flyercanuck]

@Boston

If they have more points, they ARE ahead of them.

[blocker]

No matter how points, games up or down, percentages or whatever else kind of rating is used to determine league standings. At the end of the year, the rungs on the ladder will be the same.

[ruxpin]

No matter how points, games up or down, percentages or whatever else kind of rating is used to determine league standings. At the end of the year, the rungs on the ladder will be the same.

True, although everyone has acknowledged that. The discussion is "in season."

@flyercanuck

I guess ultimately my problem isn't points vs. percentage (I just think points is intrinsically dumb but ultimately makes no difference when it is actually important: at the end).

My biggest problem remains points for losing. Take the following example:

Team.............W..........L.........OTL..........PTS...........PCT

Penguins.......37........34..........11.............85........... .518

Flyers............35........31..........16.............86........... .524

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Penguins.......37........45...........................74........... .451

Flyers............35........47...........................70........... .427

In the first example, despite having won two less games than the Pens, the Flyers finish ahead of them by virtue of managing to lose 5 more times in OT/SO. (With points/credit for being a loser, this ends up the case whether points or percentage is used assuming .5 for the OTL in a percentage system).

Eliminating the reward for being a loser, the Flyers finish where--in my opinion--they belong in a big boy set up where you get reward for winning and zilch for losing. Even the points end up doing a better job of reflecting a somewhat lousy season for both.

If we went back to ties, the first example would be the same except for a "T" where the "OTL" is. In that case, the Flyers would rank ahead, but in that case I'm okay with that. You got half the credit for getting a tie. My problem, I guess is, was, and always will be the smiley face point for being a loser.

(Sorry for the clumsy ..... in the table. It's the only way I could get the columns to get anywhere near lining up)

[Boston]

@Boston

If they have more points, they ARE ahead of them.

It would be misleading to announce that the 20-21-0 team is ahead of the 19-18-0 team, regardless of how the teams are officially listed in the standings, as 19-18-0 is a better W-L-OTL record than 20-21-0. And saying they are ahead suggests they have the better record.

[flyercanuck]

True, although everyone has acknowledged that. The discussion is "in season."

@flyercanuck

I guess ultimately my problem isn't points vs. percentage (I just think points is intrinsically dumb but ultimately makes no difference when it is actually important: at the end).

My biggest problem remains points for losing. Take the following example:

Team.............W..........L.........OTL..........PTS...........PCT

Penguins.......37........34..........11.............85........... .518

Flyers............35........31..........16.............86........... .524

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Penguins.......37........45...........................74........... .451

Flyers............35........47...........................70........... .427

In the first example, despite having won two less games than the Pens, the Flyers finish ahead of them by virtue of managing to lose 5 more times in OT/SO. (With points/credit for being a loser, this ends up the case whether points or percentage is used assuming .5 for the OTL in a percentage system).

Eliminating the reward for being a loser, the Flyers finish where--in my opinion--they belong in a big boy set up where you get reward for winning and zilch for losing. Even the points end up doing a better job of reflecting a somewhat lousy season for both.

If we went back to ties, the first example would be the same except for a "T" where the "OTL" is. In that case, the Flyers would rank ahead, but in that case I'm okay with that. You got half the credit for getting a tie. My problem, I guess is, was, and always will be the smiley face point for being a loser.

(Sorry for the clumsy ..... in the table. It's the only way I could get the columns to get anywhere near lining up)

I hate the shootout and I hate points for losing. I think you already know that. I'd go back to ties in a heartbeat.

[flyercanuck]

It would be misleading to announce that the 20-21-0 team is ahead of the 19-18-0 team, regardless of how the teams are officially listed in the standings, as 19-18-0 is a better W-L-OTL record than 20-21-0. And saying they are ahead suggests they have the better record.

Announce? They list them in the standings. I'll agree I'm not going to the corner of Main and Main with a bullhorn telling people who's in first. If they have more points, they are ahead. Until the other team passes them, IF they pass them. And that's why they're not ahead of them, because they actually have to win those games.

You like percentage. I'm fine with points. Shall we continue this pointless discussion for another 7 pages?

Edited June 24, 2013 by flyercanuck

[ruxpin]

I think you already know that. I'd go back to ties in a heartbeat.

Yeah, I knew I was "preaching to the choir." Had to post it anyway because I had put the above fake standings thing in a spreadsheet so I could change wins, losses, OTL etc. and it would change all the points and percentage math automatically. I was trying to come up with an example of where W-L-OTL came up with a different order of standing at the 82 game mark than the equivalent percentage. I was fairly sure there would never be a difference but, you know, drop the two objects and see if they do hit the ground at the same time. I came up with no example of a difference between points and winning % at the close of the season.

There becomes huge discrepancies between awarding points for losing and only getting points for winning, but I think we both already knew that (dropping the two objects again). And that's, by far, my bigger issue than points vs. winning pct. Like you, after a lifetime of indoctrination I can figure out the points/games-in-hand thing fairly quickly. So...eh...leave that alone if we must. Just call your people and get the point for losing thing fixed.

[ruxpin]

And saying they are ahead suggests they have the better record.

For the most part, I'm with you in the points vs. percentage discussion. But the above isn't necessarily true. Because if the system is points, then saying they are ahead simply suggests/implies/states that a team has more points. This is a wildly bad analogy on several levels, but here goes anyway: the object of the game during the game is to score more goals than the other team. Say the Bruins are playing the Hawks and the Bruins are vastly outplaying them in every way, winning 2-1 in faceoffs, 3-1 in hits, 4-1 in shots, etc. But Rask has shown up wearing his Yoda underwear with the wrong colored lightsabre and has given up three goals on shots from center ice. So both the announcer and the screen going into the third period say "Chicago is leading the Bruins 3-2." The implication, in fact the flat out statement, is that Chicago has more goals than Boston--the only relevant measure of the object of the game. Now, one could argue that Boston has been the better team. They could argue that based on the previous two periods that if they were to keep playing that perhaps the Bruins will come out at the end with the win. But the statement "Chicago is leading" is based solely on the measurement of the object of the game.

So it is with the standings. If the object is to get the most points, then any statement that a team is "leading" implies only that a team has the most points at any given moment--since that is the measure determining the object of the game. It does not imply best record or number of co-ed conquests or anything else.

I personally like winning percentage and "leading" would clearly refer to "best record" if they went to a winning percentage system. But that's not what leading means nor implies in a points system. It simply means and should only be interpreted as "currently has the most points."

[Boston]

Announce? They list them in the standings. I'll agree I'm not going to the corner of Main and Main with a bullhorn telling people who's in first. If they have more points, they are ahead. Until the other team passes them, IF they pass them. And that's why they're not ahead of them, because they actually have to win those games.

You like percentage. I'm fine with points. Shall we continue this pointless discussion for another 7 pages?

You're acting as if this a discussion about what system is being used. It's meant to be a discussion about why they use a particular system.

If one glances at the standings without looking closely at the numbers, they'll be misled to think the 20-21-0 team has a better record than the 19-18-0 team.

Let me ask you: which do you think is a better W-L-OTL record in each of these two cases:

20-21-0 or 19-18-0?

20-0-0 or 21-61-0?

[Boston]

For the most part, I'm with you in the points vs. percentage discussion. But the above isn't necessarily true. Because if the system is points, then saying they are ahead simply suggests/implies/states that a team has more points. This is a wildly bad analogy on several levels, but here goes anyway: the object of the game during the game is to score more goals than the other team. Say the Bruins are playing the Hawks and the Bruins are vastly outplaying them in every way, winning 2-1 in faceoffs, 3-1 in hits, 4-1 in shots, etc. But Rask has shown up wearing his Yoda underwear with the wrong colored lightsabre and has given up three goals on shots from center ice. So both the announcer and the screen going into the third period say "Chicago is leading the Bruins 3-2." The implication, in fact the flat out statement, is that Chicago has more goals than Boston--the only relevant measure of the object of the game. Now, one could argue that Boston has been the better team. They could argue that based on the previous two periods that if they were to keep playing that perhaps the Bruins will come out at the end with the win. But the statement "Chicago is leading" is based solely on the measurement of the object of the game.

So it is with the standings. If the object is to get the most points, then any statement that a team is "leading" implies only that a team has the most points at any given moment--since that is the measure determining the object of the game. It does not imply best record or number of co-ed conquests or anything else.

I personally like winning percentage and "leading" would clearly refer to "best record" if they went to a winning percentage system. But that's not what leading means nor implies in a points system. It simply means and should only be interpreted as "currently has the most points."

You are right that 'ahead' is the wrong word to use. More appropriate language would be 'better record'. So I'll ask you as well:

Let me ask you: which do you think is a better W-L-OTL record in each of these two cases and why is it a better record?:

20-21-0 or 19-18-0?

20-0-0 or 21-61-0?

[ruxpin]

Let me ask you: which do you think is a better W-L-OTL record in each of these two cases and why is it a better record?:

20-21-0 or 19-18-0? The second but neither is very good.

20-0-0 or 21-61-0? Clearly the first.

I was there with you when you made this point several days ago. I would prefer the 19-18-0 team be listed above the 20-21-0 team in the standings (which it would be if winning pct were used). The second example would indicate that the second team somehow played 62 more games than the first--which is weird even for hockey.

Sadly, in hockey, better record and "on top" is only really equivalent after game #82 because the game is to acquire points. I'm not going to argue THAT point with you because we seem to be on the same side on this one. My only real point to you was the "ahead" thing.