The cheap point in the extra one for OT winners

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

The cheap point in the extra one for OT winners

Postby UWSaint » Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:11 am

I still lurk around here (wait, am I Lurk?), and one of the conversation points I see often is how the Canucks are much worse than their overall record because of their cheap "loser points." I am going to disagree with that argument; the cheap points in the NHL are the extra ones earned from overtime wins and shootout losses. All points count the same, of course, but when assessing a team's future performance using past results, looking at a team's regulation play is likely a better way to figure out where they stand in relation to their peers.

I am old enough to remember the NHL without regular season overtime. Every time a game ended after 60 minutes. When overtime was first introduced in the 1980s, it was a winner take all thing. Then its gone through variations. In the mid 90's, OT switched to 4 on 4 and the loser retained the point earned in the first 60 minutes, creating the oddity that some games are worth 2 points and others are worth 3. A separate column existed in the standings to indicate overtime losses. The argument at the time was that overtime would be more likely to result in a point where teams had "nothing to lose" (an argument that ignored the collateral effect that teams would play more conservatively in the 3rd period of tie games -- more exciting overtimes, less exciting 3rd periods). In the mid 2000's, shootouts were introduced, so that *every* game going to overtime would result in 3 points. Now a skills competition would award a team an extra point when regulation and overtime ended in a tie.

Now, the NHL is trying is 4th variation -- 3 on 3 OT. (Variation 1, OT, Variation 2, 4 on 4 OT with 3-point games, Variation 3, SO, Variation 4, 3 on 3). The changes come every decade; the constant tweaking is because we don't like ties in hockey.

But with each variation, the game that is played for 60 minutes has less of an impact on the standings. The shootout is a skills competition; 3 on 3 (and to a lesser extent, 4 on 4) rewards completely different skills than regulation play. Consider this analogy -- what if the Masters golf tournament were tied after regulation and they decide to settle it with a long drive competition?

Well, a smart GM would invest in a few players that can drive the ball long! Don't get me wrong, results in OT/SO are not random. Some players are great at the shootout (some goalies terrible on breakaways). Some are perfectly suited for 3 on 3. Coaches, too, matter as they develop schemes for the best 3 on 3 strategy. Having those players and good coaching means that you are going to earn more points.

But not from the hockey game that will actually decide playoff games.

If 16 games were an adequate sample size (and it is not), I would be of the opinion that this season's Canucks team regulation play indicates it is a far better positioned for success than any of us reasonably believed coming into the season. In regulation, they have score 14 more goals than their opponents -- that's among the league leaders (even with the 5 3 on 3 goals against and none scored, their 9 goal differential is tied for 5th in the league). They have been in every game (but 1). The youth has stepped up reasonably well.

But they are terrible in the long drive competition. They aren't worse than their record indicates because of the loser point (they might be worse than their results based on other factors that always exist in small sample sizes -- including no significant injuries that have plagued the league (Chris Higgins is not significant!)). They are better than their record indicates. If 3 on 3 were evenly distributed, they'd be 9-4-3 or 10-4-2. But to get to the playoffs, they need to find a way not to be the New Jersey Devils in the shootout. Because between 15-25 skills cheap "winner" points will be up for grabs this year, and each one given to an opponent is one that makes getting to the playoffs more difficult.
Hono_rary Canadian
User avatar
UWSaint
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: The cheap point in the extra one for OT winners

Postby rats19 » Thu Nov 12, 2015 8:49 am

Lurk died...


But your post was very nicely explained. I agree we were in all but 1 game, we should not have beat cbj but we did. We are 6 extra points, which tells you were right there and could have won those games giving us 25 pts which is top of the league standings..

Nice to have you pop in and voice thoughts through typing..
You are who you hang with.....
User avatar
rats19
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:21 am
Location: over here.....

Re: The cheap point in the extra one for OT winners

Postby ukcanuck » Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:02 am

Im still so fucking lost on what was so wrong with games ending in a tie?



Call me old school but regular season OT and shootouts and dumb a shit 4 on 4 or 3 on 3... It's just embarrassing.
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3234
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: The cheap point in the extra one for OT winners

Postby Per » Thu Nov 12, 2015 12:19 pm

ukcanuck wrote:Im still so fucking lost on what was so wrong with games ending in a tie?



Call me old school but regular season OT and shootouts and dumb a shit 4 on 4 or 3 on 3... It's just embarrassing.

Agreed. I can accept five minutes of ot to decide a tied game, but if it is still tied - let it be tied!
If you want to encourage teams to win in regulation, switch to the point system used in most football (aka soccer) leagues: three points for a win, one point for a tie, no overtime or shootous or whatnots.

That means a game won in regulation equals three ties. If you win one game and lose one, you have three points. If you play two draws, you only have two points.

Also, since the NHL awards three points in ot games, they should award three points for a regulation win.
That will also encourage teams to try to win in regulation. Actually, that system acomplishes both things - it encourages teams to win in regulation, and it encourages teams tothink offense first in overtime.

Yet my ideal would be to go back to letting tied games be tied.
User avatar
Per
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2915
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: The cheap point in the extra one for OT winners

Postby Reefer2 » Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:51 pm

It is called parity and for owners means more teams are in the playoff hunt longer which means more fans coming to the games.
User avatar
Reefer2
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2701
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

Re: The cheap point in the extra one for OT winners

Postby Topper » Thu Nov 12, 2015 3:07 pm

UWSaint wrote:I still lurk around here.....

Well Hansen must have had a great night.

More on 3pt games later.......
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 8774
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: The cheap point in the extra one for OT winners

Postby Lloyd Braun » Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:57 pm

What has always mystified me the most about the whole situation -- and the subject of many-a-rant from me over the years -- is that the three-point game was introduced slightly before the shootout (maybe even the year before?) At the time, we were told that they added the third point to incentivise aggressive play in overtime. The idea was to give teams nothing to lose and everything to win for that 10 minutes of five on five, because both a tie and an OTL were worth a point.

Apparently, this new overtime format wasn't exciting enough, so they added the shootout, but kept the third point. Ever since, rather than incentivising offensive overtime play as teams competed for the "bonus point," the third point has only incentivised defensive turtling late in tied games as teams want to add a guaranteed third point to the game. On average, teams gain an extra half point each for each game decided in overtime, rather than late in the third period. In other words, the third point has, for over a decade now, been playing almost exactly the opposite role to the reason it was first introduced.

So why the hell would they keep it? The only thing that makes any sense to me is that they viewed it as a pandora's box situation. They were happy to add extra points to the schedule, so that regular season records would fall and totals would seem to increase over time. They're not interested in removing points so that the records of tomorrow won't compete with the records of yesterday. I guess it's a little like baseball, where everyone is depressed that the greatest home run hitters likely won't touch record setting seasons of the past because of the steroid era. All the excitement around Bonds and McGuire chasing the record seemed great at the time, but they didn't have any choice about closing that box in the end... and it hurt.
Lloyd Braun
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:21 pm

Re: The cheap point in the extra one for OT winners

Postby theman » Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:47 am

This is the points system they should go to:

3 points for a regulation or OT win
2 points for a SO win
1 point for a SO loss.

That should encourage scoring, especially in the latter part of the season when teams need that 3 point win. But of course they won't go to that because the system they have no keeps teams in the playoff hunt and that is all the league cares about. Inflating the teams points in the standings to pretend they are doing better than they really are.
theman
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: The cheap point in the extra one for OT winners

Postby 5thhorseman » Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:26 am

That's an interesting point about the current system keeping teams in the playoff hunt for longer. If it wasn't for that I would say:

2 points for a Win
0 points for Tie or Loss

Sit back and watch the desparate 3rd period hockey!
User avatar
5thhorseman
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: The cheap point in the extra one for OT winners

Postby Meds » Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:26 am

theman wrote:This is the points system they should go to:

3 points for a regulation or OT win
2 points for a SO win
1 point for a SO loss.

That should encourage scoring, especially in the latter part of the season when teams need that 3 point win. But of course they won't go to that because the system they have no keeps teams in the playoff hunt and that is all the league cares about. Inflating the teams points in the standings to pretend they are doing better than they really are.


Is there still a single point given for losing in OT? Because, if not, all you will get is both teams playing for guaranteed shootout point.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 5391
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: The cheap point in the extra one for OT winners

Postby theman » Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:29 am

Meds wrote:
theman wrote:This is the points system they should go to:

3 points for a regulation or OT win
2 points for a SO win
1 point for a SO loss.

That should encourage scoring, especially in the latter part of the season when teams need that 3 point win. But of course they won't go to that because the system they have no keeps teams in the playoff hunt and that is all the league cares about. Inflating the teams points in the standings to pretend they are doing better than they really are.


Is there still a single point given for losing in OT? Because, if not, all you will get is both teams playing for guaranteed shootout point.


Except when a team really needs to win is reg or OT to get the full 3 points and deny the other side a loser point in the standings. No system is perfect, but I would think this would create more exciting hockey, especially in the 3rd period and late in the season as teams try to make the playoffs.
theman
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: The cheap point in the extra one for OT winners

Postby Topper » Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:51 am

I looked at the 3 point system while writing a post a year ago.

We are looking at it wrongly when saying some games are three points and some are two. With an unbalanced schedule weighted to division, conference and then league competition means most games are now 4 pointers or 2 point games. You need to look at the point swing between conference foes.

Out of conference wins/losses have less impact on the standings.

An out right win versus a conference foe is a four pointer We call it that down the stretch, but it is no different in October and November.

OT/SO wins are are two point games as that is the swing in the standings between conference teams.

It is the division and conference standings that matter to playoff qualifications.

The point system mentioned my some of awarding 3 points for an outright win, two for an OT/SO win and retaining the loser point means an regulation time win has a six point swing in the standings.

This puts a greater premium on regulation wins in conference games and diminishes OT/SO wins and the loser point. It also diminishes the weighting of out of conference points.

Does the BOG want that points bias.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 8774
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.


Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], TDA Rum and 7 guests