HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Washington Capitals
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Standings Points Revisited

View Poll Results: Which Standings Point Option is Bes?
3 for Reg Win, 2 for OT/SO Win, 1 for OT/SOL, 0 for Reg Loss 10 43.48%
3 for Reg/OT Win, 2 for SO Win, 1 for SOL, 0 for Reg/OT Loss 7 30.43%
2 for Win, 0 for Loss 6 26.09%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-12-2012, 08:31 PM
  #1
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,886
vCash: 500
Standings Points Revisited

Apparently, at the GM meetings, the prospect of the 3-2-1 scoring system is being discussed. As I understand it, this would be 3 for a regulation win, 2 for ot/so wins, and 1 for ot/so losses, with regulation losses still worth zero.

So, I threw out my back yesterday and was just bored enough to do some analytics on this and other options for restructuring the point system. Here's what I came up with. First, the current standings as of Monday morning:



Here's the standings using the proposed 3-2-1 system. NOTE: I had a hard time counting out OT wins, but think these figures are right. In this case ROW breaks the tie followed by GF:



Now, personally, I think if a new system is put in place that differentiates some wins from others, OT wins should be the same as regulation wins since they still involve actual team play. In that case, OT losses are likewise worth zero points and SO losses are worth 1. GF breaks the tie, and this would be the outcome:



Having said that, I have stated here many times that I believe differentiating wins makes our sport look stupid. I was happy with ties and hate the shootout, but it's here to stay. So in a world where winning is winning and losing is losing, i.e. 2 points for a win and 0 points for a loss with ROW then GF as tiebreakers, we'd get:




So, what you have here is my order of preference from worst to best. What do others think of these options? Discuss.


Last edited by californiacapsfan: 03-12-2012 at 11:47 PM.
californiacapsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 08:32 PM
  #2
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,886
vCash: 500
nevermind


Last edited by californiacapsfan: 03-12-2012 at 09:17 PM.
californiacapsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 08:48 PM
  #3
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,886
vCash: 500
****ing finally. got my pics up.


Last edited by californiacapsfan: 03-12-2012 at 10:31 PM.
californiacapsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 11:23 AM
  #4
ChibiPooky
Moderator
Yay hockey!
 
ChibiPooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Fairfax, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,446
vCash: 500
I like 3/0, 2/1 if they keep the shootout (which they will). However, I'd dump the shootout and go back to ties. 3/0, 2/1, 1/1 because I think a regulation win is better than an overtime win and should be worth more. A tie game is not as cool as a game someone wins, so one point disappears.

ChibiPooky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 12:09 PM
  #5
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChibiPooky View Post
I like 3/0, 2/1 if they keep the shootout (which they will). However, I'd dump the shootout and go back to ties. 3/0, 2/1, 1/1 because I think a regulation win is better than an overtime win and should be worth more. A tie game is not as cool as a game someone wins, so one point disappears.
Chib, the problem with 3-0, 2-1, 1-1 is that then you still have uneven total value across games. Most would be worth 3 standings points but a proportion would only be worth 2.

californiacapsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 12:16 PM
  #6
Jedgi
Registered User
 
Jedgi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by californiacapsfan View Post
Chib, the problem with 3-0, 2-1, 1-1 is that then you still have uneven total value across games. Most would be worth 3 standings points but a proportion would only be worth 2.
Why is that an issue? That's how it is now.

Jedgi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 12:19 PM
  #7
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedgi View Post
Why is that an issue? That's how it is now.
But they're not likely to change the system without fixing that aspect of it.

Although it would be amusing to have the "frustration" aspect of it gone. You'd suddenly start rooting desperately for shootouts in games involving teams in your conference.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 12:37 PM
  #8
QuadrupleDeke
33% more deke
 
QuadrupleDeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 4,583
vCash: 500
How about:

2 points for a regulation or overtime win
1 point for a shootout win
0 points for a loss of any kind

It rewards winning the game before the shootout, while still keeping the shootout for the fans that hate ties and not rewarding losing in any way. It's in nobody's interest to play for the shootout.

QuadrupleDeke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 12:46 PM
  #9
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuadrupleDeke View Post
How about:

2 points for a regulation or overtime win
1 point for a shootout win
0 points for a loss of any kind

It rewards winning the game before the shootout, while still keeping the shootout for the fans that hate ties and not rewarding losing in any way. It's in nobody's interest to play for the shootout.
I like this.

FWIW, I had a twitter exchange with BMac where he said that the SO loser point was a guarantee in order to get the SO approved. (I realize the 2-0 option ignores this too, but just FYI.)

Since I'm still laid up, maybe I'll add a chart for this. Does anyone know if/how I can modify the poll to add this option and a status quo option?

californiacapsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 12:47 PM
  #10
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedgi View Post
Why is that an issue? That's how it is now.
Because that's a key part of the problem.

californiacapsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 12:52 PM
  #11
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
I've said before I'm curious about 2 for a ROW, 0 for ROL, 1/1 for the SO with the winner getting a "win" in the standings (still only 1 point but counts towards the first tiebreaker).

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 12:58 PM
  #12
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brs03 View Post
I've said before I'm curious about 2 for a ROW, 0 for ROL, 1/1 for the SO with the winner getting a "win" in the standings (still only 1 point but counts towards the first tiebreaker).
So what would be the first tiebreaker? overall wins?

I can play around with this option too.

californiacapsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 01:09 PM
  #13
pcnorth22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
sorry, Sabres fans checking out your board to see how you all are feeling about the playoff race and came across this...

I really think adopting the EPL system is the way to go... no shootouts, 3 points for a win (reg or OT), 1 for a tie...

the incentive of 2 extra points is enough to get teams to go for it each night, either in regulation or OT... really separates the teams that win games from the teams that play for the 1 point...

pcnorth22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 01:14 PM
  #14
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by californiacapsfan View Post
So what would be the first tiebreaker? overall wins?

I can play around with this option too.
Points > Wins (including SOW) > head-to-head > etc. is what I'd throw out there.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 01:19 PM
  #15
ChibiPooky
Moderator
Yay hockey!
 
ChibiPooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Fairfax, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by californiacapsfan View Post
Chib, the problem with 3-0, 2-1, 1-1 is that then you still have uneven total value across games. Most would be worth 3 standings points but a proportion would only be worth 2.
I don't have a problem with a tie being worth fewer total points than a game with a winner and a loser. Gives people even more incentive to win. Of course it's moot as the shootout is here to stay.

ChibiPooky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 01:22 PM
  #16
QuadrupleDeke
33% more deke
 
QuadrupleDeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 4,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuadrupleDeke View Post
How about:

2 points for a regulation or overtime win
1 point for a shootout win
0 points for a loss of any kind

It rewards winning the game before the shootout, while still keeping the shootout for the fans that hate ties and not rewarding losing in any way. It's in nobody's interest to play for the shootout.
Here's how this system would look, using ROW as the first tiebreaker:


QuadrupleDeke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 01:28 PM
  #17
Millhaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,811
vCash: 500
3 points for a win a 1 point each for a tie is the way to go. A tie in a sport like hockey, or soccer, is often the fairest result. But it is very difficult to keep up in the standings tying a lot of games so it encourages teams to play to win.

2 points for a win, any kind of win, and 0 points for a loss, any kind of loss is ridiculous. The idea that you can play to a tie over 65 minutes and then come away with nothing because of a SO loss is absurd.

Millhaus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 01:40 PM
  #18
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuadrupleDeke View Post
Here's how this system would look, using ROW as the first tiebreaker:


Wait, tho. This still leaves games with uneven values. The point is that all games should yield the same number of standings points. The question is how they are distributed.

californiacapsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 01:43 PM
  #19
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
3 points for a win a 1 point each for a tie is the way to go. A tie in a sport like hockey, or soccer, is often the fairest result. But it is very difficult to keep up in the standings tying a lot of games so it encourages teams to play to win.

2 points for a win, any kind of win, and 0 points for a loss, any kind of loss is ridiculous. The idea that you can play to a tie over 65 minutes and then come away with nothing because of a SO loss is absurd.
I understand the argument, but if the NHL wants SO to decide a game, then they should live with that. I am not comfortable with the "degrees" of winning and losing. Sends a bad message and gets you teams like Florida which loses constantly and feels good about it because it was after regulation.

californiacapsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 01:52 PM
  #20
ChibiPooky
Moderator
Yay hockey!
 
ChibiPooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Fairfax, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,446
vCash: 500
Eh. A team that ends up in a bunch of overtime games, only to lose them, is better than a team that never makes it to overtime. By the same token, a team that requires overtime to win a lot of games isn't as good as a team who wins their games in regulation. I'm fine with points reflecting that. What I'm not ok with is two games that award the same points to the winners, but not to the losers (or vice versa).

ChibiPooky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 01:52 PM
  #21
Millhaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by californiacapsfan View Post
I understand the argument, but if the NHL wants SO to decide a game, then they should live with that. I am not comfortable with the "degrees" of winning and losing. Sends a bad message and gets you teams like Florida which loses constantly and feels good about it because it was after regulation.
But losing the SO is not really a loss, it is a tie. The problem isn't giving the team that tied the game after 65 minutes a point as that point was earned, it is giving the team that won the gimmicky tie breaker the same amount of points as someone who won an actual hockey game.

Millhaus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 01:59 PM
  #22
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
But losing the SO is not really a loss, it is a tie. The problem isn't giving the team that tied the game after 65 minutes a point as that point was earned, it is giving the team that won the gimmicky tie breaker the same amount of points as someone who won an actual hockey game.
This all goes back to what we want vs. what is realistic (and you're absolutely right of course).

Getting rid of the shootout is unrealistic (or so it seems).
Uneven points per game is unrealistic (they wouldn't change it unless they addressed this)
Making the shootout significantly more important is unrealistic I think (GM's have already started to try to minimize its importance so I don't see them swinging in the other direction).

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 02:05 PM
  #23
BiPolar Caps
Emotionally Wounded!
 
BiPolar Caps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 5,773
vCash: 500
Enough with all of the gimmicks. Just go back to the way it had been for 75+ years in the NHL. A Win = 2 Pts. and a tie = 1 point. No more OT during the regular season and no shootouts.

BiPolar Caps is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 02:26 PM
  #24
RandyHolt
Capitals Station
 
RandyHolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: Poland
Posts: 24,574
vCash: 1300
I think priority one is to get rid of the loser point in regulation.

A team can score zero goals the entire season and finish with 80+ points, and be close to sneaking into the playoffs.

The league wants more scoring yet can't figure out how to fix it.

Enabling the loser point did not help their cause, i assure you.

RandyHolt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 02:48 PM
  #25
Millhaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyHolt View Post
I think priority one is to get rid of the loser point in regulation.

A team can score zero goals the entire season and finish with 80+ points, and be close to sneaking into the playoffs.

The league wants more scoring yet can't figure out how to fix it.

Enabling the loser point did not help their cause, i assure you.
I agree that giving a team a point for just getting to OT tied isn't perfect but if you changed it to only getting that point for getting to the SO I don't think that is going to make all that much of a difference personally.

It would jive with the old way of 2 points for a win in regulation or OT and 0 points for a loss in regulation or OT but the main issues IMO, a SO win being just as profitable standings points wise as a regulation or OT win and SO games being worth 3 total standings points to 2 for non SO games would remain.

IMO this comes down to what is the goal and I don't think most agree on what that should be.

Millhaus is online now   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 12:16 PM.

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.