NHL and NBA standings system question

[JasonFromMiami]

Why are teams in the NHL awarded points for wins and ties, but in the NBA they use games ahead/behind and not the point system ?

[JayMac]

Because there have never been ties in the NBA.

[Evil Doctor]

It's also one of culture. The NHL is a Canadian created league where a point system is used to track standings. The CFL uses the same system, and it's no doubt influenced by British sports standings. NBA is an American league and follows the American system of using percentage for standings. It makes no difference in how teams are ranked, ties in a percentage system are counted as .5 and you still get the same results.

[Magnus]

Points for overtime losses fudge things a bit. If a team has 29 wins, 30 losses, and 23 points from overtime/shootout losses, that team gets 81 points (equal to 40.5 wins), which might get you a playoff spot in a really bad season, while a team that legitimately wins 35 games but only gets 10 points from playing past regulation time ends up with 80 points, and loses out on that spot. I'm not necessarily saying the points system should be scrapped, but it might be a good idea to talk about at the next CBA meetings.

[2001mark]

Apples & oranges, yet the NBA's fixed playoff bracket is the stupidest thing ever.

Not least having some rounds begin before others aren't even finished. This after opening week when they play like 2 games.

[winters in buffalo]

I wish the NHL would either bring back ties, or stop awarding the point for the OTL.

[The_Admiral]

An edifying thread. Thredifying.

[JasonFromMiami]

An edifying thread. Thredifying.

I Need a translation, when you are high on shrooms this sort of talk might make sense to you admiral, but for us non-risk takers it´s pure nonsense.

[Sport]

Apples & oranges, yet the NBA's fixed playoff bracket is the stupidest thing ever.

Not least having some rounds begin before others aren't even finished. This after opening week when they play like 2 games.

The NHL moved to a fixed playoff bracket last year, which I like for Bracket ChallengeTM reasons.

[JasonFromMiami]

what is a fixed playoff bracket ? and what is the opposite ?

[Sport]

what is a fixed playoff bracket ? and what is the opposite ?

a fixed playoff bracket is like the NCAA tournament. If you win you play the team who won the matchup that corresponds with your placement on the bracket. The opposite is you reseed after every round.

The NHL used to reseed after the first round so If an 8 seed beat a one they'd have to play the highest remaining seed left in their conference.

[NJTank]

I wish the NHL would either bring back ties, or stop awarding the point for the OTL.

Or get rid of the god damned shoot out.

Seriously 4 on 4 for 5 mins, 3 on 3 for 5 mins. Still tied its TIE

[JackieMoon]

Hoping one day the NHL adopts the American system of Wins and Loss. I hate OTL Points. You lose, you lose... If they stopped awarding points to losing in overtime, then these high priced commodities or I mean players would end things fast.

Futbol/Soccer should be the only sport that allows ties.

[IceCap]

I wish the NHL would either bring back ties, or stop awarding the point for the OTL.

Or get rid of the god damned shoot out.

Seriously 4 on 4 for 5 mins, 3 on 3 for 5 mins. Still tied its TIE

The argument against the shootout is that it's not a reflection of the actual game. How often does a 3 on 3 break out?

[winters in buffalo]

I wish the NHL would either bring back ties, or stop awarding the point for the OTL.

Or get rid of the god damned shoot out.

Seriously 4 on 4 for 5 mins, 3 on 3 for 5 mins. Still tied its TIE

The argument against the shootout is that it's not a reflection of the actual game. How often does a 3 on 3 break out?

3 on 3 is a bit absurd. I could see 4 on 4 for 10 minutes, then end in a tie. Or play a full extra period 5 on 5.

[JasonFromMiami]

what is a fixed playoff bracket ? and what is the opposite ?

a fixed playoff bracket is like the NCAA tournament. If you win you play the team who won the matchup that corresponds with your placement on the bracket. The opposite is you reseed after every round.

The NHL used to reseed after the first round so If an 8 seed beat a one they'd have to play the highest remaining seed left in their conference.

Thanks for the info,

.

so there must pro and cons to both systems, which is best ? according to you guys here.

[JackieMoon]

Personally I am a fan of fixed brackets. Once the playoffs start they shouldn't be altered. If an 8 seed knocks off a 1 in the first round, they deserve to play a 4 or 5. Rewarding them with say a 2 seed, then possibly a 3 after that is ridiculous. The new NHL Playoff System is still new to us all (where it started last year). Personally, I hate divisions altogether. The top so and so should be placed in the playoffs. Then from there is should be a fixed bracket.

My .02

[TropicalFruitGirl3]

what is a fixed playoff bracket ? and what is the opposite ?

a fixed playoff bracket is like the NCAA tournament. If you win you play the team who won the matchup that corresponds with your placement on the bracket. The opposite is you reseed after every round.

The NHL used to reseed after the first round so If an 8 seed beat a one they'd have to play the highest remaining seed left in their conference.

Thanks for the info,

.

so there must pro and cons to both systems, which is best ? according to you guys here.

@JasonFromMiami

The first two posts after yours at the start of this thread pretty much answered the Q as to why the standings systems are different.

As for your Q on the pros and cons of the different bracket systems for hockey, its more like a 'flavor' really.

You will find people that liked the re-seeding method and others that like the current fixed bracket.

Pros of re-seeding?

It helps path the way for the higher seeded teams by always matching them up against the lowest remaining seeded team.

In theory, that is how that should work, but in practice, due to the parity in the NHL that a league like the NBA can only DREAM of, that doesn't always work out because a lower seeded team with heart and determination can very well remove a number one or two ranked team.

Another pro of re-seeding and setting teams 1-8 is matchup variety. Since teams 1-8 are basically competing with EVERYONE in the Conference for spots, this means that you will see from year to year a greater variety of matchups, only seeing more repeat matchups if certain teams consistently finish high and other teams consistently finishing low. That probably ensures certain teams will see each other time after time in an opening round of any playoffs.

This differs from the fixed bracket the NHL uses currently because in fixed brackets, since it is division based, the same matchups (outside of the Wild Cards who may get shuffled from division to division based on how they finished vs the division winners) are seen more often.

So if a team is in the Central, say Chicago, with St. Louis, and both are comparable contenders the next few years, then the chances they meet either right away in Round 1 or 2 are much greater because they are "fixed" into place...changing out only if one of them finishes a Wild Card and is shuffled out to the Pacific division to fill that bracket.

Pros of Fixed Brackets?

Well, I mentioned seeing the same matchups over and over. While some may find that to be somewhat boring and stale compared to re-seeding, the fact is, with THAT much familiarity, comes contempt and REAL team and playoff rivalries emerge.

Using my Chi-St. L example...imagine those teams, division mates all year, competing for position, not really liking each other during the season, THEN see each other in the playoffs year after year with the chance to finally put the other out of their misery.

Yea, its things like that that make rivalries special.

When teams see each other so much, they actually develop a disdain for the other. Real rivalries...not the manufactured schtick the media sometimes try jamming down our throats.

Another pro to fixed brackets is, if you finish top three in the division, you are guaranteed a playoff spot. No competing with the entire Conference for a playoff spot. Just do well in your division, finish top three and you are in.

Only the 4th or 5th place team (if it gets down that far) would need worry about the entire Conference because they'd be Wild cards and aren't guaranteed ANYTHING, unless their records shows them to be better than the rest save for the top three in their division.

This setup almost ensures that no candy-assed (sorry a term my hubby likes to use and I picked up the bad habit...lol) team gets in because they are in a "weak" division or competing against the entire Conference for a playoff spot as high as 3 or 4.

No. It is hard in the NHL to be a consistent top three team in your division (especially with only 4 divisions now as opposed to 6 before), because the divisions are now 7-8 teams deep....so if you are top three, you accomplished something and DESERVE to be in.

Again, leaving the final two spots to be fought over by the rest of the Conference as Wild Cards.

Hope that long winded post created more answers than questions for ya!

[2001mark]

I finally understand the NHL bracket... I wondered what it meant for 2nd round divisional playoff if a wild card team wasn't even in their division.

WC teams become 'adopted' into a division based on the opening round matchup yes? So if there are 2 Central teams like Winnipeg & Minnesota this season, the one who has to play the #1 Pacific team joins the Pacific bracket if it keeps playing.

Glad it only took me 2yrs to figure out. Thanks Gary.

[JasonFromMiami]

yeah, many thanks to fruitgirl...looks like the only way to find the true champion is the points leader when the season is over, like in Euro soccer LOL , but that sure would take much drama out, but still the correct way to crown a champion, or what do you guys say ?