Should standings be determined by wins first instead of points?

Question

This season, three of the six divisions were won by teams that had less wins than a division rival. In the Pacific, division winner Anaheim had less wins than both Dallas and San Jose. Back in the days of tie games, I thought the points sytem was a good thing. There had to be a way to count tie games.

But now ties are gone, but the system remains where a 48-34 team can rank higher than a 51-31 team because the 48 win team had more "almost wins." That's just silly.

I propose to keep the points systems, but make it the first tiebreaker. Wins should come first, then standings points in case of two teams with the same number of wins. I think that just makes more sense.

Do you think the system should stay as is, or be changed?

Answer 1

I think that though the shootout is fun and entertaining, it should be taken out of the game. Here's what should happen.
2 points for a win
0 points for a loss
Play sudden-death overtime 5-on-5 (or 4-on-4 i dont really care) until someone wins. What's the point of 5 minutes of overtime? To win a close game, teams should have to have endurance and perseverance. Play overtime into the morning if you need to.
A game of hockey shouldn't be decided by a skills competition.

Answer 2

I agree with what someone said on here a few weeks ago. I support elimination of awarding a top seed to a division winner that has less points than other teams in the conference. I think the play-off teams should be ranked based strictly on points. The most points equals the highest seed, and other teams will be placed successively as earned. The shoot-out system ensures a multiple point winner each night. I believe this makes it more competitive, both with wins and points. I think games and teams should be given a chance to have a definite winner. That is why they started the shoot-out system, besides to sell more tickets. It's a new part of the game, and it's fun. The comparison between a 51-31 team and a 48-34 is too close to be concerned about "almost wins." The better teams finish the job in the shoot-out, it's a new part of the game, and teams better adapt or be prepared to face the consequences of either a lower seed, or not making the play-offs.

Answer 3

When I first saw your question, I thought that you might be an angry Leafs fan who's upset because the Leafs missed the playoffs by one point, even though they had more wins than the Islanders. I can see now that you are really a fan of one of the two teams, either Dallas or San Jose, in the Pacific Division that lost their division title to Anaheim, even though they each had more wins than Anaheim. I say keep the points system, but get rid of this one point for losing in overtime or the shootout. I mean honestly, what employer in the real world rewards their employees for lack of success? None to my knowledge. So why does the NHL reward it's players and teams for prolonging the inevitable (a loss) an extra couple of minutes on some nights with a point? Why reward a lack of success? I just don't understand it. I could see keeping the system like that before the lockout when they had ties, but now that ties no longer exist, giving out one point to a team doesn't matter anymore. Go back to the days where every game was a 2 point afair, that all that could be gained out of it was a combined 2 points between the teams. Now, that would mean that the only team to get points in the overtime would be the winning team, so teams that are not very good in the extra session are not going to be in favour of this type of rule change, but those that have good teams in the overtime session might not feel too bad about this type of idea. Just some thoughts on the issue.

Answer 4

they should just have a straight win-loss record. Forget the points structure. Awarding a team a point for losing in OT or the shootout is ridiculous because Colorado and Montreal have more victories than Calgary and NY Islanders yet Colorado and Montreal are the ones hitting the golf course. In addition, San Jose will be facing a tougher Nashville team in the first round despite having more wins than Anaheim. Anaheim on the other hand, gets to face a slightly easier opponent in Minnesota.

The straight win-loss record will also simplify the standings for everyone, including the fans that are still learning what hockey is all about.

If the NHL just went by a win-loss record, the seedings would be in the West: (1) Nashville, (2) San Jose, (3) Vancouver, (4) Detroit, (5) Dallas, (6) Anaheim, (7) Minnesota, (8) Colorado. In the East, they'd be (1) Buffalo, (2) New Jersey, (3) Tampa Bay, (4) Ottawa, (5) Pittsburgh, (6) Atlanta, (7) NY Rangers, (8) Montreal

As you can see, awarding the extra-point for OT losses makes a HUGE difference in playoff matchups

Answer 5

The reason why they started rewarding one point just for reaching OT was in an attempt to spruce up OT. Before when you'd only get a point if you finished in a tie, or 2 points if you won it, in division games, teams wouldn't try as hard because giving up 2 points would be a huge hit. They could finish up tied and it'd be a wash, but if they went all out and tried to get the win, that means if they fail to score, they open it up for the other team, and if they score, they now get 0 points, and their rival gets 2 points. They only time teams really gave it their all in the old system was when it was inter-conference (east vs. west) games. That's also why they made it 4-on4, to open the ice up and "force" more offense.

So that's why they introduced the 1 point for getting to OT. This way, it's not a huge drop in points. If you get a game to OT, you obviously did something right to get to that point, so don't you deserve something for that endeavor?

I think the current system is fine. As someone said, it'd be nice to see the shootout go from 3 guys to 5 guys, but either way I like the shootout, and I like the point system. There was talk of making a regulation win 3 points, but I don't think it'll come to that (and I don't think it should, that's just too much).

In any case, you guys are acting like they make these rule changes on a whim. They actually put more thought into it than people realize, and each change has a reason behind it.

Answer 6

Interesting concept, but you missed one important factor....those stupid shoot-out wins. Why should one team be given full credit for a victory if they manage to hang on in games and then win it based on the abilities of one or two players in a shoot-out?
Teams like Tampa, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and New Jersey all had 10 wins come via the shoot-out, which I think is not as important as a regular time victory when it is a team effort to win. If you only looked at regular or overtime wins (not shoot-outs) then San Jose would finish first, Anaheim second and Dallas third.....but I am okay with Anaheim winning the division currently because they should not be punished as a team for having a 4-10 shoot-out record. Hockey is a team sport, and not about individuals in a none team exhibition at the end of a game!!

Answer 7

There is no way the system should stay as is. I don't mind the extra point for an OTL so much as I mind the fact that overtime games are three-point games.

The point for an OTL was introduced in an effort to get teams to go for it in overtime. If they have one point clinched, then they can just go all-out for the win and they have nothing to lose. Of course, this is now a defunct reason due to the shootout--you don't have to go all-out for the win, because if it ends up tied after regulation then you can just grab the extra point in a shootout.

However, I don't like having just wins and losses. If you have a shootout, you need to have a points system, because having all of the points come down to a skills competition would be wrong. A shootout, if you must have it, has to be worth one point and only one point. That's why I like having three point games in every game:

3 for a win
2 for a shootout win
1 for a shootout loss
0 for a loss

The reason I am giving a point for a SOL and not an OTL is this: overtime is real hockey and should be just as important, pointswise, as regulation. The shootout...is not and should not. But if we do see anything like this in the near future, it will probably count overtime AND shootout losses as 1 point and OT wins as 2 points. I wouldn't have a really problem with that.

As much as I'd like to see the shootout scrapped, I don't think that is going to happen because the NHL has already gone down the path of "every game must have a winner" and won't go back to ties in hockey. That said, I wish they would inplement a ten minute 4-on-4 overtime just to minimize the impact of the shootout.

Answer 8

Yes! What's bigger than a win? Nothing!
I think as long as they are having a shootout, the OT win should be 2 for a win and zippo for a loss. You'd only get the one if you make it to the shootout and lost.
If it were up to me, there would be just a shootout, but with five shooters, not three. Less of a fluke that way, I think.
Also, the playoffs would be set like an NCAA Basketball Regional Bracket--1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, 3 vs. 14, etc. That would make it quicker in the beginning, and fairer at the end, since it would be more likely the two best teams would play for the Cup. So what if they are from the same conference, or even the same division? We fans deserve the best possible matchup, not this regional parity B.S. that Commissioner Gary Butt-man keeps tossing out there. I hope he chokes to death on his own smugness.

Answer 9

The system does suck now but was worse before 3 point games. Years ago when ties were around and 5-5 ot's, the last 5 minutes of a 3rd period would be dreadful if the teams were tied. No one would want to lose the point so even ot's were horrible. I like the 4 on 4's. But the point system must change. How can a team win in regulation and get only 2 points when another team that wins in OT or SO also gets 2 points,
NEW SYSTEM
3 points regulation win
2 points OT win or SO win
1 point OT lose or SO lose

Answer 10

I think that if the standings are determined by wins, they should just take out the point system. Ties in wins are decided by:

1. The fewer number of games played (i.e., superior points percentage).
2. The greater number of OT/SO losses.
3. The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any "odd" games, shall be used to determine the standing.
4. The greater differential between goals for and against for the entire regular season.

hehe took the bottom part from NHL.com but changed number 2

Answer 11

Your idea does make sense for the current NHL, but I dont like it just because I have problems with the shootout. Yeah, they are exciting and Im always on the edge of my seat when watching them, but its like ending a basketball game with a dunk competition. Right now, the shootout doesnt play as big a role in the standings because the losing team stills gets a point. With the current point system, getting 10 shootout losses is worth 10 points and its like getting 5 wins and 5 losses in regulation. If you looked at just wins/losses, it would just show up as 10 losses, and I wouldnt ever want shootouts to make that big of a differance in the standings. Although it will never happen, I would prefer to go back to the old style, with a couple alterations. Get rid of the shootout, make OT 5 on 5 and 10 minutes long, and give 1 point each for a tie.