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

[flyercanuck]

@Boston

All I can say is, it's worked for 100 years, and it's now tradition. I've got by my whole life with it and never got confused as to who was in first...it's whoever has the most points until someone passes them. Both ways have their merits. Using the percentage, a team could pass another without even playing. Does THAT make sense?

Hope you didn't mind me messing with you. Rux and I (among others) have a tendency to be idiotic at times. Glad to have you on board.

[ruxpin]

Rux and I (among others) have a tendency to be idiotic at times

I'm only idiotic at times? Man, I must be slipping.

[flyercanuck]

@ruxpin

Well you certainly weren't when you agreed with Sarsippius' post "So......how did the point system in hockey originate?"

He asks a question, and you agree? :blink:

[ruxpin]

@flyercanuck

Kind of was using it as "like" because I really would like someone to find out an answer. I've tried googling but just keep getting explanation rather than origin. I don't think anyone actually knows.

[flyercanuck]

@ruxpin

Oh I know. I'll tell you after you bury Holmgren beside your wife.

[Boston]

@Boston

All I can say is, it's worked for 100 years, and it's now tradition. I've got by my whole life with it and never got confused as to who was in first...it's whoever has the most points until someone passes them. Both ways have their merits. Using the percentage, a team could pass another without even playing. Does THAT make sense?

Hope you didn't mind me messing with you. Rux and I (among others) have a tendency to be idiotic at times. Glad to have you on board.

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

[flyercanuck]

@Boston

Not detrimental to lose a game? Of course it is..how is it not? There's only so many games...my Flyers lost more than your Bruins, so we didn't make the playoffs, and you're still in.

[ruxpin]

@flyercanuck

Can I bury him UNDER my wife? MUCH bigger punishment that way, I assure you.

[flyercanuck]

@Boston

Here's a better question...why is my teams gm such an idiot?

[ruxpin]

@flyercanuck

because he grew up liking the NHL point system

[flyercanuck]

@ruxpin

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

[flyercanuck]

@flyercanuck

because he grew up liking the NHL point system

LOL! Bastardo!

[Boston]

@Boston

Not detrimental to lose a game? Of course it is..how is it not? There's only so many games...my Flyers lost more than your Bruins, so we didn't make the playoffs, and you're still in.

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.

[flyercanuck]

@Boston

Bruins now have 2 LESS games in which they can get points. If that isn't detrimental, what is?

Dude if you can't figure it out, petition the league. I've been fine with it for decades upon decades.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

@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.

@Boston,

This post from Aziz makes the most sense of all.

I'm not a soccer fan, but I understand they use the point system, too.

[jammer2]

I hated ties growing up, now.....I would gladly welcome them back with open arms. One of the worst things about this whole sorrid thing is we have effectively lost our ability to cross compare great teams across eras. For instance, when a team crossed the 100 point threshold in the 70 or 80's etc, it was taken for granted this was an excellent team that was worthy of praise....now, currently it's just a wishy washy total that does not mean a whole lot due to this stupid 3rd point that is awarded. When a team got 110+ points they were great, now it just means they play a lot of close games. The whole thing is lame and it's made a mockery of the standings as we know them. Just my 2 cents.

[ruxpin]

I can't begin to express how much I hate the three point idea and how much of an utterly ridiculous joke of a bush league it would make the NHL. Those of you that have seen me post for years will understand how much I dislike the three point travesty of common sense: the shootout is 10 times a better idea than the three point lunacy. And I think the shootout is an abortion.

@aziz: I understand the context you brought it up, and I understand why it is almost required if we're going to continue rewarding losers. It would make all games worth the same number of points (which is better than the current system of making some games worth more than others). I get it, so I don't want you to think the above was aimed at you in some way. I just hate the whole concept and would rather just stop rewarding losers--whether in hockey or elsewhere.

[radoran]

If only it were the same system for 100 years...

In 09-10, the Flyers had 41 wins - three more than the Boston Bruins, but the Bruins were the 6 seed to the Flyers 7 because they lost in overtime seven more times than the Flyers.

Same year, the Predators had one more win than the Kings, but were the 7 seed against Chicago instead of 6 against Vancouver.

In 10-11 the Flyers took the #2 seed and Atlantic Division with 47 wins to the Pens 49 - thanks to four more overtime losses (and a better in-season record vs. PIT).

In 11-12 Florida took the #3 seed and Southeast from the Caps with four fewer wins but TEN more overtime losses. Phoenix also took the Pacific from San Jose with one fewer win and three more OTLs.

This year Vancouver was the #3 seed and Minnesota squeaked in at #8 with the same number of wins by virtue of the Canucks' four more OTLs.

The key word in "overtime loss" is "loss"

Sure would make the end of regulation a whole heckuva lot more interesting in tie games...

[Boston]

@Boston

Bruins now have 2 LESS games in which they can get points. If that isn't detrimental, what is?

Dude if you can't figure it out, petition the league. I've been fine with it for decades upon decades.

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

[ruxpin]

@radoran

Thank you for that post. It kind of goes to jammer's point that a point in today's game was not a what a point was in the 70s and 80s. It seems it's not just the salaries and ticket prices that have inflated since then (actually, I'm too tired to figure out whether the points inflated or deflated but the line worked better with "inflated" so I went with it). In any case, it's clear the points are not the same as they were 25-30 years ago let alone 100 years.

[Boston]

@Boston,

This post from Aziz makes the most sense of all.

I'm not a soccer fan, but I understand they use the point system, too.

There are numerous holes in the post of Aziz, most in the first paragraph. I'll find his post and respond accordingly.

[ruxpin]

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

No, it doesn't.

But I guess @flyercanuck's point is that it doesn't really matter until the final bell. Until then, it's just optics. I suppose there's a point to that. I mean, I guess in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter how a newspaper or website ranks the teams on February 2. It only matters at the end of the season, and it is pretty much a wash across "systems" at that point.

I think @radoran 's post clearly shows, though, that the current system of rewarding losers with door prizes can screw a team that actually got the job done more often. So, again, I have no problem with a 5 or 10 minute overtime and the loser goes home with nothing but the beer they came with. If after 10 minutes (or 5) it's still tied, then fine. You leave with a tie and it's 1/2 (.5) of a win for both teams in figuring the winning percentage.

You don't want ties? Fine. Keep the skills competition (I'll be showering after typing this). The winner goes home with a win and the loser goes home with a loss. No credit. No smiley face for trying. No point as a door prize. With the skills competition you'd end up with standings that look like:

W L PCT GB

Without the skills competition it would look like:

W L T PCT GB

Simple. Easy to remember. I like it.

[Boston]

@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.

Winning percentage is points divided by double the games played. E.g. 6-3-1 = 13 pts in 10 games or 13/20 = .650 percentage. Very simple.

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.

What value do you give to a loss to differentiate it from not playing?

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.

The OTL didn't hurt the effectiveness of percentage.

6-4-0 = 12 pts in 10 games = 12/20 = .600 pct

5-3-2 = 12 pts in 10 games = 12/20 = .600 pct

Any questions?

[aziz]

@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? 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?

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.

[ruxpin]

@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? 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?

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.

Fairly decent point. For me, it would be an exercise to show at any given moment who exactly has the best record statistically. Having .650 is a apples-to-apples better than .589 so whichever team has the .650 would be listed higher in the standings than the team with. 589

Rather than the team with 24 wins over the team with 22 but having played 5 more games.

Ultimately, does it really matter? No. So if we're sticking with the current 2 pts for win, 1 pt for OT/SO loss you might as well stick with points. If you're going to the 3-2-1 thing, then definitely stick with points.

The winning percentage thing only works for me if you go back to the tie thing and kill the shootout. If you end up with W-L-T it works well. (Works even better, obviously, with no ties and just W-L if you keep the shootout of have some other way of ensuring games don't end in ties. Win you win, lose and go home with bupkis).

But yeah, I think "points percentage" was attractive to me on some level, but you're right that it becomes a cumbersome exercise with very little practical purpose or benefit.