Pet Peeve -- NHL standings de-emphasize total losses

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

41 minutes ago, Taro T said:

The answer was pretty easy.  Didn't want to stop your fun if you were just goofing.

It is but you can't imagine how many people get fooled looking at it from the wrong way. Funny how that works with other things as well.

[MattPie]

6 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

If your so called skills competition is such an important barometer than why is there an ROW column (regulation and OT wins) and no column for SCW (skills competition wins)?

If a team wins in regulation they are awarded 2pts

If a team wins in OT they are awarded 2pts.

If a team wins in your skills competition they are awarded 2pts

Mean while after regulation time the loser is awarded 1pt no matter the situation. Which one is getting rewarded with the "bonus" point?

The ROW column came in after the first season of the Shootout, I believe. The dinosaurs whined and whined that some team had a bunch of SO wins and got into the playoffs over another team that have one more ROW. I say tough cookies, everyone plays by the same rules; team #2 should have been better at the shootout.

FWIW, I'd prefer a 3 point system to make each game worth a consistent number of points.

[SwampD]

6 hours ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

Win = 2 points

Loss = nothing, nada, zip

Tie = 1 point

I had no problem with this system.

4 hours ago, JujuFish said:

Count me in the 3-2-1 crowd. It makes every game worth the same number of points, and I don't hate the loser point as much as some people.  Maybe eliminate the shootout for 3-on-3 OT until someone scores.

Not a fan of this.

 

The whole thing is moot because regardless of whatever system they would have used, they Sabres weren't getting into the playoffs the past seven years anyway, so wgaf??

[JujuFish]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

I had no problem with this system.

Not a fan of this.

 

The whole thing is moot because regardless of whatever system they would have used, they Sabres weren't getting into the playoffs the past seven years anyway, so wgaf??

Any reason? It's the most logical choice to me, IMO.

[SwampD]

1 minute ago, JujuFish said:

Any reason? It's the most logical choice to me, IMO.

Id rather have it end in a tie than make teams play until there is a winner. There are 82 freakin' games in the season. Do we really need teams playing until 4 in the morning on a Tuesday in October just because nobody scored in OT?

I'm just not a fan of 3-2-1, officiating bias not being the least reason why.

I just don't care about the asymmetry of games having different values. I think the current system is fine. The weighting of the current points system Based on how teams win is pretty accurate, IMHO, on how good those teams actually are.

[Thorny]

On 11/13/2018 at 12:03 PM, golfball323 said:

"In the last 10 games we're 6-2-2!!"

No, it's 6-4 guys. Those "OT losses" ARE LOSSES. If you want to talk about the points, then just say we've taken 14 out of a possible 20 points in the last ten games.

It makes everybody think we're better than we are. Honestly we're a borderline wild card team that I don't see making the playoffs this year. We're not setting the world on fire...

 

This doesn't hold logic.

They aren't really losses, because we're losing while not actually playing the real game. We tied the other guys in regulation, in those cases. 3 on 3 OT while entertaining is a gimmick and not representative of your actual team. In that way, they can be seen as ties. 

Calling say a 6-4-2 record .500 does a disservice to the team in some ways, without including context. It's better than a being a .500 team implies. That would only hold in the worst case scenario where, had those games continued 5 v 5, the Sabres lost all of them. For all we know, they maybe have won some of them. 

Being above a .500 points percentage still has value. Even if that .500 winning % is still a major hump. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Thorny

[Drunkard]

You guys are going to continue to fight a losing battle on this one. I don't think the NHL has any interest in eliminating the OT/SO loss point or giving 3 points to a team that wins in regulation. They want a tighter standings with as many teams in the hunt for a playoff spot as possible. They want those games in February, March, and April to carry as much relevance as possible to put more eyes on televisions and more butts in seats. Bettman is smart enough to know that doing what is being advocated for here is shooting themselves in the foot and would likely lead to a loss in revenue.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Alkoholist

[MattPie]

16 minutes ago, Alkoholist said:

You guys are going to continue to fight a losing battle on this one. I don't think the NHL has any interest in eliminating the OT/SO loss point or giving 3 points to a team that wins in regulation. They want a tighter standings with as many teams in the hunt for a playoff spot as possible. They want those games in February, March, and April to carry as much relevance as possible to put more eyes on televisions and more butts in seats. Bettman is smart enough to know that doing what is being advocated for here is shooting themselves in the foot and would likely lead to a loss in revenue.

I'm not sure anyone is "fighting" for anything. ? In the end, good teams make the playoffs, bad teams don't. I have no problem with 3-v-3 or the shootout as a way to finish off a tie game.

On 11/15/2018 at 6:37 PM, Thorny said:

This doesn't hold logic.

They aren't really losses, because we're losing while not actually playing the real game. We tied the other guys in regulation, in those cases. 3 on 3 OT while entertaining is a gimmick and not representative of your actual team. In that way, they can be seen as ties. 

Calling say a 6-4-2 record .500 does a disservice to the team in some ways, without including context. It's better than a being a .500 team implies. That would only hold in the worst case scenario where, had those games continued 5 v 5, the Sabres lost all of them. For all we know, they maybe have won some of them. 

Being above a .500 points percentage still has value. Even if that .500 winning % is still a major hump. 

The game is what the rules define it as. The real game is 60 minutes of regulation, followed by 5 minutes of 3-v-3, and then a shootout. Teams need to build to optimize their results using that structure. Ignoring the OT format is shooting yourself in the foot, just like ignoring powerplays would be. Plus, it's nice that the OT format rewards fast, skilled play as it keeps more of those players on the team.

[Thorny]

9 hours ago, MattPie said:

I'm not sure anyone is "fighting" for anything. ? In the end, good teams make the playoffs, bad teams don't. I have no problem with 3-v-3 or the shootout as a way to finish off a tie game.

The game is what the rules define it as. The real game is 60 minutes of regulation, followed by 5 minutes of 3-v-3, and then a shootout. Teams need to build to optimize their results using that structure. Ignoring the OT format is shooting yourself in the foot, just like ignoring powerplays would be. Plus, it's nice that the OT format rewards fast, skilled play as it keeps more of those players on the team.

Right. But the point still holds: that if we are going by the rules as defined by the league, we can't lump OT losses in with regulation losses as they are defined as being worth 1 point. According to the league, not all losses are created equal 

It's kind of a middle ground. To call say 10-5-5 ".500, 10 wins, 10 losses,"  does a disservice to our record in the same way saying we are 5 games above, eliminating the "ties" is as wrong, just the other way. 

I mean, back in the day, when there were real ties, a 10-5-5 wouldn't be called .500, right? Those 1 point games were effectively eliminated from the equation. So they aren't real ties anymore, but to your point about the rules of the league, they are worth one point, just the same. Of course, the other team gains points on the loser, so it's really more of a "half loss" than a "half win". The way the league point system is set up is pretty out of whack. 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Thorny