2013-14 NHL Season: "We Are North American Scum"

[Kramerica Industries]

3-2-1-0

[The_Admiral]

You can get almost the same breakdown from a 1.5/0.5 split for shootouts (but not overtime) without the madness talking about a team having a 150-point season. You just have to talk about an 87.5-point season. I'm not sure which one is worse. I think points are dumb no matter what.

[-kj]

If you're going to have a carnival game decide the outcome of a game, you can't use a straight up W-L record. That's beyond even NHL ludicrous.

Half points would be super-dumb, so 3-2-1-0 it is.

Or get rid of the fascination with not having ties; 2-1-0.

[-kj]

And real trolling would have been saying something about all the talk about playing the "Blackhawks Way".

[OMMF]

If you're going to have a carnival game decide the outcome of a game, you can't use a straight up W-L record. That's beyond even NHL ludicrous.

Half points would be super-dumb, so 3-2-1-0 it is.

Or get rid of the fascination with not having ties; 2-1-0.

3-2-1-0 just moves the careful, must get points mentality from OT to the final minutes of regulation. If you were tied with less than 5 minutes to go, where's the incentive to try for the win when, if you wait it out, you will be guaranteed at least a point? I'd take a guaranteed 1 pt over trying for 3 but ultimately ending up with 0 due to a mistake late in the game.

[Still MIGHTY]

As much as some of us would be fine with it, the NHL isn't going to go back on ties. That's a non-starter. We might get an extra 5 minutes of 3-on-3 or a full 10 minutes of 4-on-4, but I don't think the NHL will ever go back on the shootout.

Best solution points-wise, for me, would be the 3-2-1-0. Half-points would be asinine. You think casual fans are confused by the standings now? Add in half-points and we'll add one more bullet in the chamber for the hockey haters.

[IceCap]

If you're going to have a carnival game decide the outcome of a game, you can't use a straight up W-L record. That's beyond even NHL ludicrous.

Eh, not sure if I agree there. Points in the standings were introduced to deal with ties. Hate the shootout all you want (as much as I don't like it, I think it serves a purpose, which is perhaps the most ludicrous thing of all) but its presence means games now only have one of two results. Wins or losses. Time to embrace the simple W-L model and assign the points system to the dustbin of history.

[-kj]

If you're going to have a carnival game decide the outcome of a game, you can't use a straight up W-L record. That's beyond even NHL ludicrous.

Eh, not sure if I agree there. Points in the standings were introduced to deal with ties. Hate the shootout all you want (as much as I don't like it, I think it serves a purpose, which is perhaps the most ludicrous thing of all) but its presence means games now only have one of two results. Wins or losses. Time to embrace the simple W-L model and assign the points system to the dustbin of history.

No. No no no no no. No. I'm not ok with defining a loss in the carnival game the same as a regulation loss.

The points system works fine in other sports; why is hockey the one that needs to lose it?

3-2-1-0 just moves the careful, must get points mentality from OT to the final minutes of regulation. If you were tied with less than 5 minutes to go, where's the incentive to try for the win when, if you wait it out, you will be guaranteed at least a point? I'd take a guaranteed 1 pt over trying for 3 but ultimately ending up with 0 due to a mistake late in the game.

I'd say there's more incentive to get to OT at the end of regulation with the 2-0/2-1 system, since there's no extra incentive to win the game in regulation vs OT or carnival game. Added "bonus": not all games are worth the same amount of points. Gross.

[OMMF]

No. No no no no no. No. I'm not ok with defining a loss in the carnival game the same as a regulation loss.

The points system works fine in other sports; why is hockey the one that needs to lose it?

Because it's the only one that demands there be a winner at the end? Don't all the other point-based sports allow for ties?

[-kj]

No. No no no no no. No. I'm not ok with defining a loss in the carnival game the same as a regulation loss.

The points system works fine in other sports; why is hockey the one that needs to lose it?

Because it's the only one that demands there be a winner at the end? Don't all the other point-based sports allow for ties?

Didn't hockey do that just fine until the introduction of the carnival game?

[IceCap]

No. No no no no no. No. I'm not ok with defining a loss in the carnival game the same as a regulation loss.

The points system works fine in other sports; why is hockey the one that needs to lose it?

What OMMF said. The points system is simply a holdover from when the NHL allowed ties. That's no longer the case, regardless of what you or I think about the means by which they've eliminated ties, so the points system needs to go. If they do away with the shootout* then by all means, bring back the points system. It's just useless in a league where the only two outcomes of a game are a win or a lose. That and it artificially inflates the records of losing teams.

[-kj]

I just don't buy that logic. The sports that use straight-up W-L also don't end their tied games with carnival games. (Ok, so soccer knockout tournaments do, but that's a whole other topic.)

[IceCap]

I just don't buy that logic. The sports that use straight-up W-L also don't end their tied games with carnival games. (Ok, so soccer knockout tournaments do, but that's a whole other topic.)

The shootout is a necessary evil so long as the NHL refuses to go back to a system that includes ties. More on that below. The only other option is to have continuous overtime periods until one team scores, ala the playoffs. Problem is that this isn't viable given the way the NHL schedule works. You'd burn teams out very quickly. I'd like to see the OT period expanded to a full 5-5 20 minute period. There's a greater chance of ending the game then, and it would reduce the shootout. The shootout would still be around as a last resort, however, so the points vs W-L debate would still be with us.

No. No no no no no. No. I'm not ok with defining a loss in the carnival game the same as a regulation loss.

The points system works fine in other sports; why is hockey the one that needs to lose it?

Because it's the only one that demands there be a winner at the end? Don't all the other point-based sports allow for ties?

Didn't hockey do that just fine until the introduction of the carnival game?

My answer to this is a bit...well it may seem confrontational. I assure you that's not what I'm going for. I'm simply relating things as I see them, and I mean no insult to you or any other American hockey fan.

Your average American sports fan hates ties. Was the NHL's standings system just fine until the advent of the shootout? Not in the ways the NHL wanted to emphasize. US tv ratings. To improve those they needed to appeal to said average American sports fan. Not your American hockey fan mind you. Ties were seen as a determent to the league because to those fans "tie" is a dirty word. So until that stops being the case the shootout will be seen as a necessary evil.

[-kj]

You're not wrong; average American sports fans hate ties. But average American sports fans are, by and large, stupid.

I just hate the idea that you win the carnival game or you get nothing after playing sixty(-plus) minutes of even hockey. (And, yes, I like calling it the carnival game. )

[The_Admiral]

As much as some of us would be fine with it, the NHL isn't going to go back on ties. That's a non-starter. We might get an extra 5 minutes of 3-on-3 or a full 10 minutes of 4-on-4, but I don't think the NHL will ever go back on the shootout.

No one should be fine with ties. Not in baseball, not in basketball, not in tennis, not in soccer, not in that weird Afghan sport with severed goat heads, and not in hockey. To amend the words of a prophet of our time, YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME. HELLO. UNLESS YOU'RE DAVE TIPPETT OR KEVIN DINEEN IN WHICH CASE YOU PLAY TO LOSE IN A SHOOTOUT UNLESS YOU HAPPEN NOT TO, EVIDENTLY.

And here's the problem I have with advocating 3-on-3. Okay, so the shootout is a mere "skills competition" divorced from regular gameplay, akin to deciding games with a home run derby. Okay whatevsies. But at least penalty shots occur within play on a rare but simple basis: get fouled on a breakaway, take a penalty shot. On the other hand, to reach 3-on-3 strength in a game situation requires a long sequence of penalties in which no one manages to score at any intermittent phase of uneven strength. I can recall instances of penalty shots within a given season. I can't think of many instances of 3-on-3. So how is that any more natural or less contrived than trading penalty shots?

Best solution points-wise, for me, would be the 3-2-1-0. Half-points would be asinine. You think casual fans are confused by the standings now? Add in half-points and we'll add one more bullet in the chamber for the hockey haters.

I think both are equally asinine. Somehow our brains can process the idea of a baseball team being 3 1/2 games back of the division leader despite knowing that no one's ever played half a game of baseball. One preserves traditional points percentages at the expense of looking stupid, the other preserves integers at the expense of blowing up the record books (and also looking stupid). Honestly, without ties, there's no real reason to have points except to inflate the appearance of playoff-bubble teams so that they keep selling tickets. I'd be fine with straight W-L, a parenthetical for shootout records), and ROWs as a tiebreaker. Yes, it would suck that a shootout loss counts as much as a regular loss, but in this better world there wouldn't be so many shootouts to lose anyway.

I had to rewrite this whole post because I bumped something with the side of my hand and went like ten pages back on my browser and lost everything. I want to say it was better the first time, but we all know it wasn't.

[JayMac]

I'm sorry guys. I think my post of the Flyers OT loss started this all!

[FiddySicks]

Why don't they just use the playoff format for OT in the regular season? Sure it'd make for some long games, but is that really that much of a problem? Make it 4 on 4 even (I'm not sure if they do that in playoff OT off the top of my head) to open up the ice a bit. It's not an ideal solution, but ties suck and the shoot out, while fun, is a pretty terrible way to determine the outcome of a game. Hell, if they're even totally worried about teams being beat to s**t after the game, maybe they can even *GASP!* get rid of a few regular season games. The regular season is too long as it is, isn't terribly meaningful, and it's not terribly common to see teams play back-to-back games anyway, so what's the big deal?

[JayMac]

BTW, I'm gonna call it the carnival game from now on! I love that! And Mockba, you're right. We American people are dumb because we as a majority need a winner and a loser. If liking ties makes me unpatriotic then so be it! I like ties!

[The_Admiral]

Playoff overtime is 5 on 5 with a full intermission and a long change in the fourth period (and sixth, even eighth if necessary). Logistically, you just can't do that in the grind of a regular season.

And no, they shouldn't get rid of regular season games when the league is making more money than ever in spite of its numerous dead spots. That's a hard sell.

[Kramerica Industries]

I'm sorry guys. I think my post of the Flyers OT loss started this all!

Between my visits to Grantland (Sean McIndoe) and my usual Lightning grounds (Raw Charge), it would seem we've actually reached the 2013-14's critical mass of "the NHL point system is broken". That, and the fact that the Lightning also lost in an unbelievably-well-timed shootout last night is part of the reason I paraphrased one of my favorite sitcom characters (surprisingly not Kramer!) with my "minion of the Antichrist" comment.

--

Well, ok, I'm already on this tangent, so I might as well finish it. I'm too lazy to edit what I posted on Raw Charge yesterday, so whenever you see "John" mentioned, just ignore it.

You know why I don't mind a 3-2-1-0 system? Consistency.

A little over a year ago, playing an old favorite video game (NHL 2004), I decided to change things up and play with a Swedish hockey franchise – Malmo (same place as the past WJC’s, woot!). I didn’t know what the schedule was, how many games, or what the points system was. When I picked up three points for a win instead of two, I found it weird. But as the season went on I realized that I actually liked that points system more than the NHL’s, for these reasons:

• There will always be the same number of points in a given season. In the NHL, regulation games end in two point decisions. Overtime/shootout games end in three point decisions. It’s inconsistent. The cumulative point total in the NHL from one season to the next is not set in stone. In the Elitserien (and various other European leagues, I imagine), it is – a regulation decision sends all three points to the winner, and an overtime decision sends two points to the winner and one to the loser, which leads to my other point
• There is a punishment for having to go beyond regulation 60 to settle the score. It felt disappointing when I had to go to OT and settle for only two points when I couldn’t finish off the worst team in the league, at home, in regulation. Given how NHL overtimes are not played under analogous circumstances to regulation, it could be argued that the game shouldn’t ultimately be scored the same way in the standings if it didn’t follow same trajectories in arriving to the conclusion.

I’ve had a different viewpoint on this argument, which I shared here across various game thread comments sections back in 2010 that is also fine with the idea of awarding zero points to the loser, regardless of circumstances. I remember, hmm, I want to say it was the Calgary Flames and Detroit Red Wings that year around February-March (before Detroit got fire late in the season), when Calgary had what was undeniably a better record in the pure W-L department, but were on the outside looking in/had a precarious perch over a Red Wings team that was bloated on OTL’s (they were something like 27-21-12 at the 60 game mark – 27-33, but sitting in a good spot; that’s not right).

Whichever viewpoint I care to support, I agree with the general sentiment that John preaches – it is an imperfect system that gives relatively equal weight in ways that is not appropriate. I mean, yes, now ROW exists as a tiebreaker to designate shootout wins, which is a positive because shootout wins SHOULD carry the least weight, but teams can still get fat from getting the two points from those games, just as teams can get fat from pushing games beyond regulation 60 and still get half the credit of a W for doing so. That’s how these Red Wings are staying afloat as well (must be an Olympic year thing). 20-16-10 → 20-26, including a grisly home record (6-10-7 → 6-17), yet still in a playoff position and a probable candidate to play very well down the stretch as they return to health. The Capitals ROW total is only higher than that of Florida, Calgary, Edmonton, and Buffalo, yet they sit in a playoff position.

I don’t know which system that I advocate is better, and I don’t know if John’s ideas are better than mine. But, in any case, any of them are better than what is currently in place today.