Thursday, February 22, 2007


NHL Defeats Common Sense Once Again

by Jes

Perhaps we should call it 'uncommon sense', since most people don't seem to possess common sense.

Yes, the NHL, once again, did the WRONG thing and rejected a 3-point system for games.

As it stands right now, not every NHL game is equal. Some games give 2 points to a clear-cut winner, while others give out 3 points (2 to the OT/SO winner and the other to the loser).

It seems like a simple problem to fix...
3 points for a regulation win
2 points for a OT/SO win
1 point for a OT loss

Voila!! Every game is worth 3 points.

Yet, the NHL GMs spout of their usual brand of krap:

"Because it's a terrible idea," Anaheim general manager Brian Burke said Wednesday as three days of GM meetings wrapped up. "That's why it didn't have any support."
Terrible idea??? This is coming from the guy who wants Power Plays to be just a minute long in OT?? C'mon Burkie, you ought to be smarter than this!
Colin Campbell, the NHL's director of hockey operations, says the game needs a breather from the constant change.

"It's time to establish continuity, you can't keep making changes," he said. "Let' s not confuse the fans."
Said Burke: "We made some radical changes when we came back from the work stoppage. The game is faster, the game is better, and the game is more entertaining. If something ain't broke, there's no reason to try and fix it."
"I think we've had too much change of late," said New Jersey Devils GM Lou Lamoriello. "It's a good game, let's enjoy it."

Oh, I see. The NHL has been going spastic with major changes (That nobody asked for) for years, and suddenly now Jean-Luc Picard says "The line must be drawn HERE!"

What a crock!

If you have something that is 'broken', you damn well fix it!!
The trapezoids?? What the hell was that for? THAT was a useless change.

Fixing the current system of standings madness is something that needs to be done, lest the NHL wants to look like the biggest joke in North Amerikan sports. YEah, the fans are just going to be SO confused. How could they ever figure out a new set of standings... trust me, fans can remember exactly how many beers they had at a Ducks/Kings back in 2003, and they can certainly learn a new set of standings (which are less confusing than the dreck they use now).

It's just amazing how the NHL has ever succeeded given the headless chickens running the operation.


Edit: Hockey Analysis presents a very simple, but thought-provoking analysis of the current point scheme vs. the old point scheme vs. the 3-point scheme.

Labels: , , , , ,

I believe they use this points format for soccer (over in Europe at any rate..). Are these morons telling us that hockey fans have a harder time grasping the concept than drunken English soccer hooligans?
It's used in nearly all hockey leagues in Europe as well and as of this year been adopted by the IIHF as well for all International tournaments.

Leave the point system as it is, get rid of shootouts, and play 20 minute overtime periods until someone scores.

The league has been treating the fans like idiots for years. Nuthin changes...


The Czech Extraliga uses this and it's very easy to follow. The parity still exists...the playoffs weren't set until the final games were played. The current NHL has races decided well beforehand... a 3-point game can always vault a team ahead much more than the current system...


Teams already have it bad enough with travel and a big sked...especially SJ and Vancouver. Nobody in the league wants that kind of OT...yer mean!
Dear lord... Jes and I agree on something (other than the fact that Sidney Crosby looks like the bastard son of Mr. Ed).
Or they could, you know, stop giving out points for losing. But that would make toooooo much sense.
The 3 point system is absurd. Last year, Detroit would have finished with 178 points and Ottawa with 163. Talk about ridiculous point preliferation. If anything, there need to be fewer points awarded, like by removing loser points. Soccer gets by with the 3 point system for a couple of reasons. If I recall correctly, that's the system they've been with for a while now. Changing for the NHL would be a departure from tradition. Second of all, they play under 40 regular season games per year, the NHL plays an arguably ridiculous sum of 82.
Just count wins, like every normal sport does. Most wins gets to put up a divisional banner. Ties and losses of any kind are not wins, therefore they don't count.
If teams start to find themselves on the losing end in OT and Wack-A-Mole, they'll try harder to win in regulation.
Jes, this 3-point-game idea is perfectly logical, but frankly it's a solution in search of a problem.

Who CARES if some games end up with 2 points being handed out and some with 3? Does this actually lead to any bad results? No way.

Until you can show me why I should be upset at the current 2-or-3 points per game system, you're not going to convince me that the system should change.
Three points for every game would enable teams that win in regulation to actually make a move in the standings when the teams they are chasing get loser points. Since one of the tie-breakers for standings is goal differential, the league obviously values measures of dominance...rewarding teams for regulation wins would be similar.

Point proliferation is no different from playing more games (or handing out loser points in the first place). And just because the GMs are too stoopid to figure out math stuff, doesn't mean the fans are.

(And be careful about listening to a Canuck fan. With 3-point wins, Vancouver would currently have 99 points and sit in second place (64% wins in regulation), and Calgary would be in first with 101 points (97% wins in regulation).)

(Although Edmonton would only be one point behind Minnesota right now instead of nine, so that would work out to their advantage.)
Why not stop rewarding failure completely? The loser gets nothing and the winner in shootouts only gets one point. Then make the first tie-breaker most regulation wins.
I love it when fans say "the league should do things differently, then my team would seem like it didn't suck so bad." If teams didn't get a point for a tie at the end of regulation, Calgary would be in first! Edmonton would almost make it into the playoffs! Monkeys would fly out of my butt!

Hey, I've got an idea. How about we say teams get 4 points for almost winning and then crapping out against bad teams in the third period,. Then the Canucks would have won the Stanley Cup last year. That would have been cool.
Monkeys would fly out of my butt!

Isn't that kinda how the NHL standings work now?
Your update, Jes, linking to that demonstration of what the rankings and points WOULD be under various systems is just fine... except it requires that we assume that a team will behave the same way no matter how many points are available.

This is a pretty big assumption.

If we change the point system, teams may change their behaviour (more aggressive, less aggressive, etc.). Which is why make-believe rankings like the one you link to are fine for bullshitting around, but actually aren't evidence of anything.

All good fun, of course. I expect the Oilogosphere to develop a scoring system which says their team DOESN'T suck. More power to them. Beats actually watching the cOilers, if you ask me.
Its funny how the same people that were most vehemently against the point for losing in overtime are the most likely to try and incorporate that point into the fix. 2 points for winning, 0 points for losing, no other points on the table. I'm not sure why people want to keep a 2-1 point split in any game. i read al strachan's column and his logic was that to be fan friendly you had to award a team at least one point for playing to a draw for 65 minutes. Its just too cruel for a team to play to a draw for a whole game and overtime and get nothing to show for it. Excuse me? Isn't that sort of the whole point of sports? Isn't that what people mean by 'the agony of defeat'? Its supposed to hurt when you lose. And the closer you were to winning the more the loss should hurt.
The consolation point is also what's wrong with the shootout, in my opinion. I'm not a fan of them in any circumstance, really. But if we are going to have them they should be nerve shattering. That is why shootouts are exciting is because they're so very tense. The consolation point sucks all the tension out of the shootout and reduces it to just a little skills competition for an extra point. If it was winner take all, I still don't think its the best way to end a game but at least i'd be entertained. And by entertained i mean pulling my hair out.
I think it's pretty stupid how they award points for losing in any sport. Why?! If you lose, you, um, LOSE! No points! You would actually have MORE parody if points were not awarded for losing, the trade deadline would create MORE interest as there would be more teams willing to "sell" and the overtimes would most likely be more entertaining (as they say they were trying to get) because teams would not want to lose in either overtime OR the shootout. Then teams would not be saying "Well, we may have lost, but at least we got a point" or "Every point counts, even the one for losing".
Keep in mind, the very fact that Brian Burke opposes this should make anyone think it's a good idea.

That said I don't know what was wrong with the system the NHL had for years. I'd go back to the old way, maybe get 8 or 10 minutes of OT instead of 5 to cut down the number of ties.

Just a thought.
Here's some ideas... 1) Drop the shootout!! The better HOCKEY team should win the game, not the better BREAKAWAY team.

2) Get rid of regular-season overtime. If the teams are tied after 60 minutes, it's a tie! Leave it that way! Overtime used to be a special occasion, only in the playoffs. Without regular-season tie-breakers, every game is worth 2 points, 2 to the winner, or 1 to each team in the case of a tie.

3) Get rid of those damned lines behind the net. What are they meant for? Really, what good do they do? Why can't goalies play the puck? Jacques Plante must be turning in his grave!

4) Make the crease big again. Goalies get run mercilessly now. If I recall correctly, 10 years ago you couldn't even score a goal if you were in the crease. What happened?

5) Move the blue lines further apart to force the powerplay to play closer to the net. Why Gary Bettman move them together?

6) Acutally ENFORCE the instigator rule!

7) Move Carolina back to Hartford, Phoenix back to Winnipeg, and relocate a struggling southern US franchise to Hamilton (there are too many to name).

8) Sack Gary Bettman and replace him with a Canadian! As far as I'm concerned, the NHL now markets an American sport with all the new rules.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?