View Single Post
03-26-2013, 09:18 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,987
vCash: 500
Can I get in this discussion, too? I have been intrigued b the 3/2/1/0 system as well, because as a math guy, I hate it that some games give 2 pts in the standings and some 3. I have found myself this year hoping that "ANYBODY" scores near the end of the game so that both teams don't get points, because that is an advantage to the Wild. Both teams (Detroit and Anaheim, for example) aren't gaining points.

As far as the current system, I look at the standings and think Wins-Losses. So, right now, the Wild are +9, Vancouver is +8. In a full season, something like +8 to +12 has normally been the playoff cutoff. This is a 60% season, so probably +5 - +8 will be the cutoff (this matches well with the OP - he says 54 - which is +6).

I always do a 3/2/1/0 standings for my own interest, as well. For these, I count 3 for a Reg Win. I don't have the data for the East right now, but for the West, there are differences between this and the actual standings:

In Order: CHI, ANA, MINN, VAN, DET, LA, STL, SJ where Minn has earned the 3rd spot by points, as well as leading the NW Division.

3/2/1/0 system (by pts/gm):
In Order: CHI, ANA, MINN, LA, VAN, DET, STL, DAL, where again Minn has earned the 3rd spot by points, too.

So, the differences are:
In 3/2/1/0, LA jumps from 6th to 4th
DAL takes SJ's place in the playoffs. It should be noted that the change for Dallas amounts to 3 pts in the standings right now, or 8 pts in a full year. That's alot!!!

So, my take basically is that the 3/2/1/0 is more mathematically pure, but doesn't affect the standings much (A little can mean a lot, though. LA was an 8th seed last year, remember.)

My real argument is that the shootout is a random event. So, because random events tend to fall to a bell curve, then some 'good' team is going to have bad shootout results, and miss the playoffs over the 'luck' of the shootout.

Last edited by MNNumbers: 03-26-2013 at 10:22 AM.
MNNumbers is online now   Reply With Quote