HFBoards

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

Alternate formats in the NHL standings

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-12-2010, 09:40 PM
  #1
yathehabsrule
Registered User
 
yathehabsrule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 273
vCash: 500
Alternate formats in the NHL standings

A look at the 2009-10 regular season using a couple different points formats, including removing the shootout.

Keep in mind it is merely hypothetical as coaching strategies would change with these formats in mind. But it gives a better idea how the Habs coasting into this year's playoffs would not have worked in other formats.

yathehabsrule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2010, 09:43 PM
  #2
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,492
vCash: 500
Interesting, and point well taken...

coolasprICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2010, 10:02 PM
  #3
#2eddieshore
Registered User
 
#2eddieshore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: England / Montréal
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 939
vCash: 500
interesting read.

im surprised how little changed though.

i would like to bring back the tie. the shootouts are a stain on the game.

#2eddieshore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2010, 11:07 PM
  #4
dre2112
Registered User
 
dre2112's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: US and A
Country: United States
Posts: 2,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #2eddieshore View Post
interesting read.

im surprised how little changed though.

i would like to bring back the tie. the shootouts are a stain on the game.
I may be wrong, but it looks like only in the current NHL format do the Habs make the playoffs. They're out in every other one.


Last edited by dre2112: 04-12-2010 at 11:18 PM.
dre2112 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2010, 11:29 PM
  #5
yathehabsrule
Registered User
 
yathehabsrule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #2eddieshore View Post
interesting read.

im surprised how little changed though.

i would like to bring back the tie. the shootouts are a stain on the game.
You'd probably find it varies if you went back year-by-year through the standings, depending how close the standings were.

When i looked at using the NBA format for placing the top-four seeds, in the B/R article I wrote and cited in this one, I did two seasons to give it a better idea.

May only be a placement difference here and there, but could be a world of difference in a playoff matchup, or even in placement for drafting teams.

yathehabsrule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 12:13 AM
  #6
Habs13
Registered User
 
Habs13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: England
Posts: 5,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #2eddieshore View Post
interesting read.

im surprised how little changed though.

i would like to bring back the tie. the shootouts are a stain on the game.
Same here. I don't understand how a team game comes down to one player against another. At least they didn't instal that crap into playoff hockey.... yet.

Habs13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 12:16 AM
  #7
Clumsyhab
Registered User
 
Clumsyhab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 6,831
vCash: 500
Only 5 teams in East would be above .500 with the old system with ties. We suck.

Clumsyhab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 01:01 AM
  #8
catmanhabsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 118
vCash: 500
Really interesting read..nice find!interesting thing is though, is that although the Habs DO miss the playoffs in other formats,its by such a slim margin that we can all mostly agree they just as well deserved to miss as to make it this year anyways.also theres all the same teams as in the present format included in those playoffs, with more seperation between the 9th place Habs and the 10th place teams. Funny how no matter what format the same teams make it in, but with the point system now they got what they wanted...parity. Also explains why theres so many "surprise" teams in the league every year..with this current system they really remove that gap between just out of the playoffs and no where near close.

catmanhabsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 01:56 AM
  #9
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yathehabsrule View Post
A look at the 2009-10 regular season using a couple different points formats, including removing the shootout.

Keep in mind it is merely hypothetical as coaching strategies would change with these formats in mind. But it gives a better idea how the Habs coasting into this year's playoffs would not have worked in other formats.
I don't think it makes much of a difference. Habs would finish 9th but tied with 8th. It's pretty much the same.

But like you said, the importance of a regulation win would rise so Teams would tinker their game plan.
The standings shown there are quite similar than the actual one. Only 1 team isn't in it, the Habs (replaced by NYR).

I'm not much of a fan of the 3-2-1 system though because it compensates a team for winning in Shootouts, something I'm entirely against.
Shootouts were solely introduced in OT for entertainment value so that's what it should be.
2 Points for Reg. Win.
1 Point for OT Win.
0 Point for OT Loss.
0 Point for either team reaching the Shootouts.
Shootouts shouldn't count. Should solely be a way to end the game by giving an extra spectacle. It really doesn't make any sense that a team should earn more points for winning in Shootouts, it requires no strategy.

The 3-2-1 system is flawed because you still get compensated for Losing. I'll never understand how you can LOSE but earn points..Kind of defies the point of losing.
I agree there should be a 1 point difference between winning in Regulation and OverTime, but you shouldn't get any for losing a game, not matter what period.
2-1-0 system is the most logical one IMO.


Last edited by Kriss E: 04-13-2010 at 02:04 AM.
Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 01:56 AM
  #10
Mister Potato
Registered User
 
Mister Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 871
vCash: 500
I think they should cancel the division leaders getting top 3 spots and go by points to place the teams 1 to 8. Sometimes the 4th place team has more points than the 3rd place team when it is because of the competitiveness of the different divisions.

Mister Potato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 02:25 AM
  #11
BaseballCoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dre2112 View Post
I may be wrong, but it looks like only in the current NHL format do the Habs make the playoffs. They're out in every other one.
No, he just conveniently ignored the simplest format of all, which has the Habs in 7th place: Win=2 pts, loss=0 (like baseball or football or basketball).

BaseballCoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 02:55 AM
  #12
BaseballCoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I don't think it makes much of a difference. Habs would finish 9th but tied with 8th. It's pretty much the same.

But like you said, the importance of a regulation win would rise so Teams would tinker their game plan.
The standings shown there are quite similar than the actual one. Only 1 team isn't in it, the Habs (replaced by NYR).

I'm not much of a fan of the 3-2-1 system though because it compensates a team for winning in Shootouts, something I'm entirely against.
Shootouts were solely introduced in OT for entertainment value so that's what it should be.
2 Points for Reg. Win.
1 Point for OT Win.
0 Point for OT Loss.
0 Point for either team reaching the Shootouts.
Shootouts shouldn't count. Should solely be a way to end the game by giving an extra spectacle. It really doesn't make any sense that a team should earn more points for winning in Shootouts, it requires no strategy.

The 3-2-1 system is flawed because you still get compensated for Losing. I'll never understand how you can LOSE but earn points..Kind of defies the point of losing.
I agree there should be a 1 point difference between winning in Regulation and OverTime, but you shouldn't get any for losing a game, not matter what period.
2-1-0 system is the most logical one IMO.

Whatever system is used, to be fair, MUST, MUST, MUST have an equal number of points available for every game. The current system is potentially corrupt, as two teams have it within their power to create an additional point for their game, that is out of control of other teams fighting for standing.

Your system, on the other hand, fails in reverse. It penalizes two teams who play hard but finish regulation time with the same number of goals. Suddenly, there is only ONE point available for the two teams combined. Also unfair.

There are several options that are fair in the sense of every game having an equal number of points available:

1. 3-2-1-0 with shootout after X minutes of scoreless OT.
2. 3-2-1-0 with unlimited OT, but no shootout

3. 2-0 with shootout after X minutes of scoreless OT.
4. 2-0 with unlimited OT, but no shootout

5. 2-1-0 with tie declared after X minutes of scoreless OT.


In all cases, X minutes of overtime can be whatever number we want; it doesn't HAVE to be 5 minutes. It can even be ZERO minutes of OT. Or it can be 10 or another number.

The problem in the regular season is that unlimited overtime is impractical from a scheduling point of view. In basketball, double OT is rare due to the large number of points scored in the game, and triple OT even rarer. So it works for them. In baseball, the inconvenience in terms of departure occurs only on the last game of a typically 3-game series, so it is tolerated. In football, OT is almost always short, and teams only play once a week anyway.

Five minutes is a compromise between 0 and unlimited, but it is a really LOW compromise. Scheduling would be hardly affected if teams knew that OT could last 10, 15 or even 20 minutes. If you don't mind shootouts though, 5 minutes works. But get rid of the loser point and go with either 3-2-1-0 or straight 2-0.

If you are against shootouts in principle, a stance I can sympathize with, then either leave the old system in place with no OT, or put in a limited OT. With no need for the time devoted to a shootout, we can go with 10 minutes at least. In both cases, zero minutes of OT or some limited number, the teams each get one point if the time runs out with the scored tied.

Conclusion that I personally favour: 2-1-0 system with 10 minutes of sudden death OT, no shootout, with two other changes from today's rules:

a. a PP is played 5-on-4 and not 4-on-3;
b. if a team is shorthanded at the end of the OT due to a late penalty, extra time is added until the penalty is over, or the opponents get a penalty that brings the teams back to equal number of skaters.

My second best alternative, which includes a shootout:

Simple formula whereby every win is 2 points and every loss is zero points. If shootouts are meaningful, then go all in. I would still make the two rule changes regarding penalties in OT.

BaseballCoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 09:32 AM
  #13
Darth Joker
Registered User
 
Darth Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,795
vCash: 500
Given how popular the shootouts have become, I doubt we'll be seeing them go away anytime soon. However, if you're going to have a shootout, it has to count for something; at least something small.

So, I suggest a mixture of the old system and the new.


Just like the old system, there are wins, losses, and ties. Yes, ties.

This is how it would work...

If you win in regulation or OT you get 2 points.

If you lose in regulation or OT you get 0 points.

If both teams are tied after five minutes of OT, each team gets a tie and 1 point.


But what about a shootout then?

Well, if both teams are tied after five minutes of OT, you still have a shootout. This is for two reasons:

1. A spectacle for the fans watching, and to provide a sense of the game having a winner (the whole point of why we have shootouts).

2. To make the shootout somewhat important (enough so that the fans and players will care who wins them), but not as important as they currently are, the winner of the shootout gets what I would call "a tiebreaker point". So, a team that wins the shootout gets a point (for a tie), and a tiebreaker point (which is separate from actual points). The team that loses the shootout gets a point, but that's it.

These tiebreaker points would serve to, you guessed it, break ties in the standings at the end of the year.

First tiebreaker would be wins (team with most wins gets in over a team with fewer wins but more ties and same number of points in the standings). So, a 41-31-10 team comes ahead of a 40-30-12 team in the standings.

Second tiebreaker would be the team with the most tiebreaker points gets ahead in the standings.

So, here's the good thing about the system. True 3-point games don't exist anymore; every game is worth 2 points in the standings now. And, when it comes to standings tiebreakers, wins still count more than ties due to the first tiebreaker. The "tiebreaker points" tiebreaker only comes into effect if two teams in the standings have the exact same record (wins, losses, and ties).

So, the shootout "tiebreaker points" would only come into effect for teams with the same number of ties; it wouldn't penalize teams for not having a lot of OT games, like the current system does.

If two teams are, say, 40-30-12, but one team has accumulated 7 tiebreaker points (won 7 of 12 shootouts), and the other 5 (won 5 of 12 shootouts), then the 40-30-12 (7) team comes just ahead of the 40-30-12 (5) team in the standings.



What do people think about this idea here? I know it's a bit complex and could take some time to get used to, but I think it would preserve the concept of all games being worth the same, but while allowing the shootout spectacle to remain and possibly serve some sort of use (i.e. in breaking ties in the standings).


Last edited by Darth Joker: 04-13-2010 at 09:46 AM.
Darth Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2010, 09:39 AM
  #14
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Country: United States
Posts: 7,632
vCash: 500
lol @ umm if the rules were different from the current ones, then I wouldn't be on the outside looking in.

Kinda like if in 93, if Patrick Roy wasn't awesome, then we wouldn't have won. Well guess what, he was awesome and we won. Guess what, these are the rules this year and guess what, we are in.

Do you honestly think that Henrik Lundqvist would have led his team to the Stanley Cup when he couldn't even lead them into the playoffs. The fact is he wasn't good enough to make his team make the playoffs. Halaks sv% was .924 and Henriks was .921, that is the reason the habs made the playoffs and the Rags didn't.

/thread.

macavoy 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 11:37 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.