HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Standings without Shootout results

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-13-2011, 09:36 PM
  #1
northernKing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,838
vCash: 500
Standings without Shootout results

Was just talking hockey with a few friends and we were laughing at how nowadays no teams under .500 make the playoffs as opposed to the days before the shootouts and awarding of "loser" points.
Based on the OT and SO records the following is how the standings would look today if games ended as ties and no extra point awarded for shootouts. It is not factoring in that teams would not get a point if they lost in OT.

VAN 77
ANA 60
DET 59
LA 55
SJ 55
NASH54
PHX 54
MIN 54

DAL 53
CHI 51
CAL 47

Don't got the time to go lookup how the standings would look if you factored in 2 points for an OT win but I will do so this week and post how the standings would look if games ended as ties after OT and each team got one point and no points for OT losses.

northernKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2011, 11:59 PM
  #2
lafan13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 115
vCash: 500
The 3rd point is a retarded concept... This is a prof sport,there are no victories in losing.NHL needs to take a step back in the stats, and take out all the useless BS.

Have 2 colums.
Win's and losses...
No more Ties, S.o.L., Points..
Just winners on top.
Losers on bottom....

seriously doubt hockey will ever adopt that system though...Its not complex enough...

lafan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 12:11 AM
  #3
matsblue13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Caledon
Country: Canada
Posts: 136
vCash: 500
PHI-72
TB-68
BOS-62
PITT-70
MON-62
NYR-60
WAS-58
CAR-54

BUF-52
ATL-50
FLO-48
TOR-46
NJ-44
NYI-40
OTT-36

VAN-72
DET-68
ANA-64
DAL-62
LA-62
NAS-60
SJ-60
MIN-60

PHX-58
CAL-56
CHI-56
CBJ-56
COL-50
STL-48
EDM-32

This is with just wins and losses. Never really cared about standings. But just wins and losses make so much more sense. The league is still competitive. With 3 point games, it looks like a gimmick.

matsblue13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 04:35 AM
  #4
kingsholygrail
Interference = Cup
 
kingsholygrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Derpifornia
Country: United States
Posts: 43,254
vCash: 500
This thread doesn't get made if it doesn't put the Kings in a better position.

kingsholygrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 08:34 AM
  #5
northernKing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsholygrail View Post
This thread doesn't get made if it doesn't put the Kings in a better position.
LOL! Quite the opposite actually. I was telling my friends how LA and Quick have been great in SO's this season. We then agreed that it was Bettmans idea to make it look like there was more parity in the NHL than really exists. I knew LA had quite a few SO wins when I posted this.

northernKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 09:35 AM
  #6
kingsholygrail
Interference = Cup
 
kingsholygrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Derpifornia
Country: United States
Posts: 43,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nK View Post
LOL! Quite the opposite actually. I was telling my friends how LA and Quick have been great in SO's this season. We then agreed that it was Bettmans idea to make it look like there was more parity in the NHL than really exists. I knew LA had quite a few SO wins when I posted this.
This is about the loser point. The Kings have the least amount of loser points.

kingsholygrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 10:50 AM
  #7
null33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nK View Post
We then agreed that it was Bettmans idea to make it look like there was more parity in the NHL than really exists.
It wasn't Bettman's idea to "make it look like there was more parity". The system the NHL has now is the result of a number of compromises over the years as the league tried to get rid of ties without fundamentally altering the game: 5 minute OT added the mid 80s (5-on-5); 4-on-4 5 minute OT in the late 90s (when the OTL point was introduced as a sop to the old school); today's system with the SO tacked on to the OT.

Not a parity conspiracy, just the usual bumbling along.

null33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 12:34 PM
  #8
Hendrydoso
Registered User
 
Hendrydoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento
Country: United States
Posts: 412
vCash: 500
These desicions are made keeping an eye on the fanbase. They will do what they think will increase the likelyhood of a fan making a licensed purchase of something, tix, jersey, keychain, center ice viewership, etc, and the corresponding tv rights that that fan base brings. They thought that a game ending in a tie was unsatisfying for the average fan so they changed it.
All I care about is that the best teams get into the playoffs and that the Kings win the cup.

Hendrydoso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 12:42 PM
  #9
northernKing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars H View Post
It wasn't Bettman's idea to "make it look like there was more parity". The system the NHL has now is the result of a number of compromises over the years as the league tried to get rid of ties without fundamentally altering the game: 5 minute OT added the mid 80s (5-on-5); 4-on-4 5 minute OT in the late 90s (when the OTL point was introduced as a sop to the old school); today's system with the SO tacked on to the OT.

Not a parity conspiracy, just the usual bumbling along.
True but IMO this system is still around because Bettman, like other commisioners in sports, likes the illusion that ANY team can win it all and that the NHL is ALOT closer in competition than it actually is. Nothing wrong with awarding a winner for each game, just don't reward the loser a point.

northernKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 12:50 PM
  #10
Dr. Naysay
Registered User
 
Dr. Naysay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 365
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Dr. Naysay
Quote:
Originally Posted by nK View Post
True but IMO this system is still around because Bettman, like other commisioners in sports, likes the illusion that ANY team can win it all and that the NHL is ALOT closer in competition than it actually is. Nothing wrong with awarding a winner for each game, just don't reward the loser a point.
You don't think rewarding a team for playing to a tie then losing an absurd exhibition contest at the end of the game is an accurate representation of how competitive they are?

Dr. Naysay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 12:57 PM
  #11
Gentle Ben Kenobi
That's no moon......
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 20,394
vCash: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay View Post
You don't think rewarding a team for playing to a tie then losing an absurd exhibition contest at the end of the game is an accurate representation of how competitive they are?
Rewarding a team for playing to a tie results in more ties.

If it were strictly a win/loss situation, teams would try to win instead of trying to tie.

Gentle Ben Kenobi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 01:01 PM
  #12
Dr. Naysay
Registered User
 
Dr. Naysay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 365
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Dr. Naysay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bunny Foo Foo View Post
Rewarding a team for playing to a tie results in more ties.

If it were strictly a win/loss situation, teams would try to win instead of trying to tie.
then the other team better play hard enough to break that tie I guess...

Dr. Naysay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 01:36 PM
  #13
kingscup
MBML
 
kingscup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Anaheim, CA.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,054
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to kingscup
Makes absolutely no sense that if you win a game in regulation the game is worth two points, yet if the game is won in OT then it all of a sudden becomes a three point game, with the extra point going to the looser, WTF? where is the logic in that? The 3 point system would make it better IMO, 3 point if won in regulation, 2 points if won in OT, and still one looser point, that way there aren't points just magically appearing because games go to OT.

kingscup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 03:07 PM
  #14
kingsholygrail
Interference = Cup
 
kingsholygrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Derpifornia
Country: United States
Posts: 43,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingscup View Post
Makes absolutely no sense that if you win a game in regulation the game is worth two points, yet if the game is won in OT then it all of a sudden becomes a three point game, with the extra point going to the looser, WTF? where is the logic in that? The 3 point system would make it better IMO, 3 point if won in regulation, 2 points if won in OT, and still one looser point, that way there aren't points just magically appearing because games go to OT.

While the loser point is a catchy phrase, it's not entirely true. If you lose in regulation, you get nothing. It's not a difficult point system to understand.

You get 2pts for winning. You get 1pt if your opponent fails to defeat you in regulation.

kingsholygrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 03:09 PM
  #15
tantrum4*
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lafan13 View Post
The 3rd point is a retarded concept... This is a prof sport,there are no victories in losing.NHL needs to take a step back in the stats, and take out all the useless BS.

Have 2 colums.
Win's and losses...
No more Ties, S.o.L., Points..
Just winners on top.
Losers on bottom....

seriously doubt hockey will ever adopt that system though...Its not complex enough...
Its because it`s impossible to do. Do you really think teams can actually play until there is a winner each night which could take until 2 in the morning when they have to catch flights, play the next day, etc etc? Never gonna happen.

tantrum4* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 04:27 PM
  #16
Dr. Naysay
Registered User
 
Dr. Naysay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 365
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Dr. Naysay
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsholygrail View Post
While the loser point is a catchy phrase, it's not entirely true. If you lose in regulation, you get nothing. It's not a difficult point system to understand.

You get 2pts for winning. You get 1pt if your opponent fails to defeat you in regulation.
Yea... it's not a loser point... it's a bonus point.

As in... the HOCKEY GAME ended in a tie. Now there's this bonus activity worth a point for all the fans who can't handle ties. I heard they were debating giving them some warm milk and cookies and tucking them into bed too but they have to draw the line somewhere.

Dr. Naysay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 05:04 PM
  #17
mbar
Registered User
 
mbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
The idea that a shootout (gimmick) win is the equivalent of a true victory in regulation is the problem. They are not equivalent. Nor is losing in a gimmick the equivalent to losing in regulation. Any point system that doesn't recognize this fact is horribly flawed.

The current point system is flawed but at least it doesn't punish a team for failing in the shootout by punishing them with 0 points even though they were the equal of the opposition in the actual hockey game.

The only fair solution which keeps shootouts is the 3-2-1-0 system.
3 points for a real/OT win
2 points for a shootout win
1 point for shootout loss
0 points for a real/OT loss.

So obvious a caveman could come up with it.

But will never happen.

mbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 05:06 PM
  #18
LAK1ngs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 12
vCash: 500
If I wasn't at work, I'd try to figure this out. I'd like to see how the standings would change with this system.

I went and did our Div:

ANA [(28 x 3) = 84 (4 x 2) = 8 (2 x 1) = 2] = 94
DAL [(26 x 3) = 78 (5 x 2) = 10 (4 x 1) = 4] = 92
SJ [(27 x 3) = 81 (3 x 2) = 6 (2 x 1) = 2] = 89
LA [(25 x 3) = 75 (6 x 2) = 12 (1 x 1) = 1] = 88
Pho [(26 x 3) = 78 (3 x 2) = 6 (3 x 1) = 3] = 87

I hope my lazy math is correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbar View Post
The idea that a shootout (gimmick) win is the equivalent of a true victory in regulation is the problem. They are not equivalent. Nor is losing in a gimmick the equivalent to losing in regulation. Any point system that doesn't recognize this fact is horribly flawed.

The current point system is flawed but at least it doesn't punish a team for failing in the shootout by punishing them with 0 points even though they were the equal of the opposition in the actual hockey game.

The only fair solution which keeps shootouts is the 3-2-1-0 system.
3 points for a real/OT win
2 points for a shootout win
1 point for shootout loss
0 points for a real/OT loss.

So obvious a caveman could come up with it.

But will never happen.


Last edited by LAK1ngs: 02-14-2011 at 05:19 PM.
LAK1ngs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 05:07 PM
  #19
RonSwanson*
Gadfly
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Food 'N Stuff
Country: United States
Posts: 8,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsholygrail View Post
While the loser point is a catchy phrase, it's not entirely true. If you lose in regulation, you get nothing. It's not a difficult point system to understand.

You get 2pts for winning. You get 1pt if your opponent fails to defeat you in regulation.
That's a matter of opinion.

I see it as the losing team getting a point.

RonSwanson* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 05:48 PM
  #20
mbar
Registered User
 
mbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAK1ngs View Post
If I wasn't at work, I'd try to figure this out. I'd like to see how the standings would change with this system.

I went and did our Div:

ANA [(28 x 3) = 84 (4 x 2) = 8 (2 x 1) = 2] = 94
DAL [(26 x 3) = 78 (5 x 2) = 10 (4 x 1) = 4] = 92
SJ [(27 x 3) = 81 (3 x 2) = 6 (2 x 1) = 2] = 89
LA [(25 x 3) = 75 (6 x 2) = 12 (1 x 1) = 1] = 88
Pho [(26 x 3) = 78 (3 x 2) = 6 (3 x 1) = 3] = 87

I hope my lazy math is correct.
The last few years I've gone and done the math at the end of the year and for the most part the change to my preferred point system has had only the smallest of changes to the final standings. Maybe a 9th seed has gone up to 8th or the order of finish has tweaked slightly.

It's because of this fact that I've tried to stop caring about the current broken point system.

But I get so frustrated watching non Kings games and having to hope for anything but a tie. It's just dumb. It's like your rewarding teams for tieing by giving them a 50% shot at a bonus point. Which is ironic since hatred of ties is what lead to the shootout in the first place. Rewarding wins with 3 points in the standings might lead teams to go all out to win in regulation rather then coast to a tie as we often see today.

mbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 06:15 PM
  #21
Dr. Naysay
Registered User
 
Dr. Naysay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 365
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Dr. Naysay
Quote:
Originally Posted by adevandry View Post
That's a matter of opinion.

I see it as the losing team getting a point.
You see it wrong.



As long as we're making needlessly complicated new point scoring systems and getting further and further away from the completely logical and elegant W-L-T/2-0-1 system...

How about THIS....

4 points for a win in regulation/OT
3 points for a win in a shootout
2 points for a loss in a shootout
0 points for a loss in regulation/OT

with OT being played 5 on 5. Like God intended.

They say the perfect compromise is one where nobody is happy.

The current "3 point game" system is the perfect compromise between hockey fans and crybabies.

I hope it stays.

Dr. Naysay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 06:22 PM
  #22
mbar
Registered User
 
mbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay View Post
You see it wrong.



As long as we're making needlessly complicated new point scoring systems and getting further and further away from the completely logical and elegant W-L-T/2-0-1 system...

How about THIS....

4 points for a win in regulation/OT
3 points for a win in a shootout
2 points for a loss in a shootout
0 points for a loss in regulation/OT

with OT being played 5 on 5. Like God intended.

They say the perfect compromise is one where nobody is happy.

The current "3 point game" system is the perfect compromise between hockey fans and crybabies.

I hope it stays.
The advantage of my 3 point system is that it awards a total of 3 points per game for every game played. As opposed to the current system that has 3 points some nights and 2 points others.

Your proposed system would still have extra points awarded in shootout games. But at least the impact is more diluted then it is currently.

mbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 06:26 PM
  #23
kingscup
MBML
 
kingscup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Anaheim, CA.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,054
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to kingscup
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsholygrail View Post
While the loser point is a catchy phrase, it's not entirely true. If you lose in regulation, you get nothing. It's not a difficult point system to understand.

You get 2pts for winning. You get 1pt if your opponent fails to defeat you in regulation.
Well that's kinda my point, why should there be more points available in OT than regulation?

kingscup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 06:35 PM
  #24
mbar
Registered User
 
mbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingscup View Post
Well that's kinda my point, why should there be more points available in OT than regulation?
Especially when the system was put into place in response to a (stupid in my opinion) dislike for ties. But the point system now awards 50% more points when there are ties. Makes no sense.

mbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 07:25 PM
  #25
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay View Post
As long as we're making needlessly complicated new point scoring systems and getting further and further away from the completely logical and elegant W-L-T/2-0-1 system...
... Couldn't have said it better, actually.

That's why when I did my "earned" standings last season, I just converted all shootouts to ties and did it the old way. It's simple, zero-sum, and extracts the pure hockey from the equation - which is what we want in the first place.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:54 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.