Monday, December 12, 2005
Inaccurate Reflection
There has been some discussion regarding some regular season games being worth two points and some being worth three points. If a game is settled during regulation time, the game is worth two points; of course if a game goes to overtime or the shootout, it is worth three points. In both cases, the winning team gets two points for the win; however, if the game goes to overtime or a shootout, then the losing team also gets a point. But should teams get a point for losing a game in overtime or the shootout? It's like saying, "it's not whether or not you lose, it's when you lose".
The result is a points system that may not accurately reflect which teams have performed the best throughout the season, and this inaccurate reflection is something that's been bugging me.
For example: If a team loses all 82 of their games in overtime or the shootout, that team accumulates 82 points. If a team wins 41 games and loses the other 41, all in regulation time, they also accumulate 82 points. Is the team that lost all their games really as good as the one that won half their games? It can obviously be argued that this example is not plausible, but the fact that it is possible tells me that the current system is flawed.
I offer my following, humble solutions:
Solution #1: The "Best Team Standing" Solution
Forget the shootout. Much like in the playoffs, let the teams play until someone scores, then give the winning team the two points and the losing team zero points. The NBA does this; so does Major League Baseball. Old school, hardcore fans will love this solution; however, TV networks will not, and in Gary Bettman's NHL, TV networks will always get what they want. So I offer solutions #2 and #3.
Solution #2: The "Winner-Takes-All" Solution
Regardless of whether a team wins or loses in overtime or the shootout, award them the same number of points. Give the winner two points and the loser zero points. In terms of wins and losses, this is how it's done in the NBA, the NFL and Major League Baseball. As such, teams that win more games finish higher in the standings - imagine that concept.
The NHL wants to encourage teams to score? Nothing will encourage them more than the thought of not picking up any points if they don't outscore their opponents.
Solution #3: The "Tie-Breaker" Solution
Some fans hate ties, which is the exact reason the NHL implemented the shootout. However, some argue that a team that loses in a shootout - or loses to an individual skill, rather than to the team - shouldn't be awarded zero points for effort. Fair enough and the opposite can also be argued - should a team that wins on an individual skill rather than the team game pick up the extra point?
Now consider this excerpt from the NHL's CBA:
The simple answer is that they shouldn't. Because the shootout essentially acts as a tie-breaker - it is just that, isn't it? - don't add shootout wins and losses in the team standings. After the overtime, credit both teams with a tie, give them their one point, then add a shootout win column to act as a tie-breaker. If teams are tied in the standings at the end of the season, use their number of shootout wins as a tie-breaker.
Endless overtimes aside, my personal preference is to use a combination of solutions #2 and #3 - teams that win in regulation or overtime gain two points, while the losers gain nothing. If the game requires a shootout, neither team gains or loses in the point standings, though the winner can gain a point in the tie-breaker.
What is your preference?
The result is a points system that may not accurately reflect which teams have performed the best throughout the season, and this inaccurate reflection is something that's been bugging me.
For example: If a team loses all 82 of their games in overtime or the shootout, that team accumulates 82 points. If a team wins 41 games and loses the other 41, all in regulation time, they also accumulate 82 points. Is the team that lost all their games really as good as the one that won half their games? It can obviously be argued that this example is not plausible, but the fact that it is possible tells me that the current system is flawed.
I offer my following, humble solutions:
Solution #1: The "Best Team Standing" Solution
Forget the shootout. Much like in the playoffs, let the teams play until someone scores, then give the winning team the two points and the losing team zero points. The NBA does this; so does Major League Baseball. Old school, hardcore fans will love this solution; however, TV networks will not, and in Gary Bettman's NHL, TV networks will always get what they want. So I offer solutions #2 and #3.
Solution #2: The "Winner-Takes-All" Solution
Regardless of whether a team wins or loses in overtime or the shootout, award them the same number of points. Give the winner two points and the loser zero points. In terms of wins and losses, this is how it's done in the NBA, the NFL and Major League Baseball. As such, teams that win more games finish higher in the standings - imagine that concept.
The NHL wants to encourage teams to score? Nothing will encourage them more than the thought of not picking up any points if they don't outscore their opponents.
Solution #3: The "Tie-Breaker" Solution
Some fans hate ties, which is the exact reason the NHL implemented the shootout. However, some argue that a team that loses in a shootout - or loses to an individual skill, rather than to the team - shouldn't be awarded zero points for effort. Fair enough and the opposite can also be argued - should a team that wins on an individual skill rather than the team game pick up the extra point?
Now consider this excerpt from the NHL's CBA:
No individual statistics will be awarded from performance in a shootout (e.g. no goals -- or game-winning goals -- credited to scorer; no saves or goals against charged to a goaltender). Also, a goalie will not be charged with a loss to his record should he lose in overtime (this is a change from current practice) or in a shootout. Instead, such a decision would be added to the goalie's OT column (e.g. same as team standings -- GP W L OT).If, in a shootout, individual statistics don't count towards players' regular season totals, then why do teams accumulate points in the regular season standings?
The simple answer is that they shouldn't. Because the shootout essentially acts as a tie-breaker - it is just that, isn't it? - don't add shootout wins and losses in the team standings. After the overtime, credit both teams with a tie, give them their one point, then add a shootout win column to act as a tie-breaker. If teams are tied in the standings at the end of the season, use their number of shootout wins as a tie-breaker.
Endless overtimes aside, my personal preference is to use a combination of solutions #2 and #3 - teams that win in regulation or overtime gain two points, while the losers gain nothing. If the game requires a shootout, neither team gains or loses in the point standings, though the winner can gain a point in the tie-breaker.
What is your preference?
2 Comments:
My preference is none of the above. Sixty minutes, and a tie is a tie. Old time hockey!
I don't see why people don't recognize the obvious solution: make every game worth 3 points. A win in regulation earns 3 points. A win in OT or SO gets 2 points, and the loser gets 1.
Not only would this solve the problems you mentioned above, but it would give incentive to teams to win in regulation, thus making OT and SO even more rare (which is what everyone wants, right?).
You could even go further, if your goal was to make SO as rare as possible. 3 points for a regulation or OT win, and the 2/1 split for the shootout.
Post a Comment
<< Home