Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:58 pm EST
The parody of parity in the NHL standings
Former Los Angeles Kings, Vancouver Canucks and Colorado Avalanche coach Marc Crawford is blogging for CBC Sports, and celebrates the amount of unpredictable parity in the NHL this season.
He also seeks to indentify some reasons for these tightly-packed races, starting with the goaltending:
There are only a handful of great goalies in the league: Luongo, Brodeur, Lundqvist and maybe Backstrom. (Ed. Note: Probably shouldn't surprise anyone to not see Nabokov or Giguere here, considering the source.) These four lead the group and yes there are some very good young ones coming up. My point is if you have adequate goaltending in today's NHL your team can be competitive.
All teams have average goaltending, that is to say, technically-sound netminders who can keep their team close, if not win. Also, most teams play within a strict defensive structure that eliminates mistakes and minimizes second chances.
But Pepper over on The Red Skate focuses on another part of Crawford's essay:
The most important reason is the stat which he throws in at the end: That "third point has been awarded 68 times already this season," in 278 games played thus far. That means that 24.5% of games played this season are worth three points, and the other 3/4 are worth two. And of course that figure will increase as the playoffs approach.
You know where I'm going with this. Although it pleases me to note that the Capitals have earned only 3 of those "third points." The Penguins have earned 6 of them.
We debate the virtues of overtime, the shootout and the charity point a lot on this blog, and for good reason: They are deciding who does, or does not, gain entry into the postseason.
Proponents of the charity point claim that teams that are deadlocked after 60 minutes of hockey deserve a little something for the effort. Which is to say they should be rewarded for defeat. Outside of a high draft pick and a plum place on the waiver wire, that flies in the face of basic competitive logic.
As long as Gary Bettman wants the privilege of crowing about competitive balance, the NHL is going to have the overtime charity point because it helps maintain that balance. Meanwhile, the NHL will continue -- on a consistent, weekly basis -- to be the League that has losers, sorta-losers and winners.
Or, in other words, a League in which the Tampa Bay Lightning are a 16-point team that's four out of a playoff spot instead of a 10-point team thinking about the draft again.
Isn't it time for the NHL to adopt a new standings system?
Puck Daddy
Greg Wyshynski
Puck Daddy is an NHL blog edited by Greg Wyshynski. Email him, and follow him on Twitter.
- Contributors:
- Sean Leahy, Ross McKeon, Matt Romig, Dmitry Chesnokov, Ryan Lambert, Dobber, Scott Pianowski,
Puck Daddy | NHL
- Does star power matter for the NHL in the U.S.?
- November 20, 2009
- It's not the name on the back; it's Harry Truman on the front
- November 20, 2009
- Video: Anaheim fans brawl over Scott Niedermayer's stick
- November 20, 2009
Related Photo Gallery
-
AP
-
AP
-
AP
-
The Canadian Press
-
AP
-
AP
-
AP
-
Getty Images
-
Getty Images
-
Getty Images
-
Getty Images
-
Getty Images
Featured NHL Video
-
Detroit 3, Montreal 2 (Nov. 21)
Posted Nov 20 2009
-
Dallas 5, New Jersey 3 (Nov. 21)
Posted Nov 20 2009
-
Chicago 5, Edmonton 2 (Nov. 21)
Posted Nov 20 2009
Y! Sports Blogs
-
Edited by MJD
-
Edited by 'Duk
-
Edited by J.E. Skeets
-
Edited by Greg Wyshynski
-
Edited by Matt Hinton
-
Edited by E. Brennan
-
Edited by Jay Busbee
-
Edited by Jay Busbee
-
Edited by Steve Cofield
-
Edited by Chris Chase
-
Edited by Chris Chase
-
Edited by Andy Behrens
74 Comments
1 - 25 of 74
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
3 points regulation and overtime win, 0 points regulation or overtime loss
2 point shootout win
1 point shootout loss
That solves the "hunkering down in 3rd period" dilemma, eliminates the phantom point, and Gary keeps his precious shootout. Maybe teams would hunker down in OT to guarantee themselves a point, but they also guarantee themselves less than the 3 point maximum (so in theory will still be trying to score to grab all 3 points, especially in divisional games and/or playoff races). And shootouts are values less than real wins, which is the important part.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Wins in regulation are worth 3 points.
Regular Overtime wins are worth 2 points.
Regular Overtime Losses are worth 1 point
Shootout Wins are worth 2 Points
Shootout Losses are worth 0 Points
I think the teams' focus needs to be on winning the games in the 60 minutes and thus they need to be worth more. The focus of overtime should be to win and to give the effort to make it happen. The pity point remains, and it may still be a sticking point with some purists, but I think you'll see teams more willing to take chances if they know that if it goes against them, they're still walking out with something. However, by removing the pity point for the shootout, teams will seriously have to consider how wise it may be to lay back in the overtime, knowing that if it goes to the shootout, they may end up with nothing.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
The real "charity point" is the winner's second point, which is earned by some 4-on-4 or 1-on-0 circus that won't get hardly any play in the playoffs. That's the farce to me, not the fact that 60 minutes of real hockey couldn't determine a winner.
You can tell me off if you like, but know this: the team with the most shootout wins in the past three seasons has yet to win a playoff round. Better to earn standings points in a more applicable way, I'd think.
Report Abuse
Games need to be worth the same no matter when they end. Really, the simplest and probably best choice is to just make a regulation win worth 3 points.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Win - 3 points
Loss - 0 Points
OT/Shootout win - 2 points
OT/Shootout loss - 1 point
All games worth 3 points.
Report Abuse
I believe that teams should be more focused on winning in regulation, therefor why regulation wins should be worth more. A third period where one team is desperately trying to tie to get get to overtime to at least get a point is exciting. A third period where one team is desperately trying to tie and where one team is desperately trying to stop the other team from tying to prevent losing points is more exciting in my opinion.
Report Abuse
I agree with most of your theory, although I think keeping a win (no matter what kind) at 2 points is the way to go. An OT loss can be worth a point and a SO loss gets you nothing. There is simply no reason to reward a team with anything that can't score one on one. Period. If regulation wins were worth 3 points and suddenly there was a huge disparity between the 1st seed and 8th seed you'd kill the competition before midway through the season.
Bottom line, the charity point is frustrating for sure but not going anywhere for a long time.
Report Abuse
I still think the point for losing is cheaper. If you're going to create a system by which you're claiming one team "won" while the other "lost," then don't give the losers a damn thing.
But I agree with you on the shootout point -- people think that as a Devils fan I should be in favor of it, but even I know we've backed into division titles because of Marty in the SO.
Report Abuse
Also, the way you talk about ties as good things, shootouts as bad things, yet refer to the Loser point as "charity" makes no sense. That point was already there from the ties in the past, the only thing that has happened is a "reward" point for winning in OT or the shootout.
Also, if you go back and re-calculate the standings for the last couple years using the few different point systems people like to talk about the playoff standings barely change - it seems like making a big deal out of nothing.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
3 points for a win
1 point for a tie (after a 10Min 4 vs 4 OT)
0 for a loss, (yes even if you lose in OT)
Report Abuse
And that's why I miss ties. Back in that system when we didn't need a winner in order to sleep at night, the points earned made sense towards postseason success. By the time playoffs roll around, I know I'll be looking only at regulation records when trying to gauge teams -- the rest is just a sideshow.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
No problem with disagreement. I can see where you're coming from. In my opinion, I don't think you would see hunkering down to the degree you think. Here's my view.
Right now, I see a lot of games where the team with a lead goes into lockdown mode and ends up only playing "safe" hockey. If they give up the lead, no biggie, they'll take it to overtime. I think that's the reason we're seeing a lot of teams giving up third period leads this season because they're taking their foot off the gas and they figure the worse that could happen is that they could lose a point. (My Pens are becoming quite adept at this to my consternation.)
I'm not gonna write a whole dissertation on this (Much to the relief of everyone, I'm sure.)
In any case, I can agree to disagree, and with mutual respect for the opposite argument.
Report Abuse
What's so bad about wins and losses?
Seriously, this just goes back to what a damn joke the shootout is: They'll never leave it at wins and losses because they know the shootout is inferior to a regulation win. And yet we decided who makes the postseason by using it.
Report Abuse
I also considered doing an Excel spreadsheet thing where I added up the Regulation Wins for 3 points, the OT Wins for 2 points, and SO wins for 1 Point, with a loss being a loss, just to see if there was a substantial difference to the real standings. But after the first week I was tired of scrolling through every hockey game to see how a team won.
Note, I don't necessarily advocate that change, but it was to see if teams are getting in to the playoffs more on their shootout prowess than anything else. But I would like to see losses equal zero points and for there to be less of an incentive to play until the skills competition.
Report Abuse
I don't neccessarily think OT and Regulation wins are worth more or less relative to each other, but I do a) think shootout wins are worth less and b) that teams are hunkering down in OT and waiting until the shootout to take their chances.
But I am not saying a Regulation Win should be 3 points, an OT Win 2, and a Shootout Win 1. I just think that all losses should be 0, and the rest I'd like to see the minor leagues consider experimenting with.
Report Abuse
Nothing wrong with it, just a different method. I personally think the NHL method is a little more accurate than straight win loss record in determining which teams are the best; but I doubt it makes a big difference either way. I looked at the Western Conference final standings for last season and the order would have been identical if a win/loss record was used instead of the current point system (assuming that the leader from each division gets one of the top 3 spots still.) I didn't bother looking at the Easter conference, but I'm guessing it would have been the same or close their as well.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
You'll get nothing but agreement from me on the overlying argument that the shootout needs to be de-emphasized. I have no problem with the shootout being the last resort of settling a time game when regular hockey could not produce one. However, it should be that... a LAST resort.
The problem I see with awarding zero points for regulation and overtime losses but points for shootout losses is it seems to be counterproductive to that argument. To de-emphasize the shootout, teams will have to play the game so as to not end up there. Awarding no points for a shootout loss seems like a big incentive to not end up there.
As for the 3 point games vs. the 2 point games. A game ended by playing hockey is worth more than a game ended by a skills competition, IMO.
1 - 25 of 74