As many fans recognize, the introduction of SO has increased the number of 3-point games (where the losing team gets one point) to the point that the benchmark of .500 is no longer significant. In the old days, when all (or almost all) games produced two points in the standings, being above .500 (half of the available points) was a good indication that a team would make the playoffs (or at least be in the playoff race till the end). It's no longer the case today.
In fact, I did some calculations and found out that before the games today, the average game produced close to 2.2 points. In other words, the "average" team should be on pace for almost 1.1 point per game. Using the old method, I found that a .549 record, or a projected 90-point finish, is now the new average. Using this benchmark, 7 teams of the East and 10 teams of the West is at or above average, a much more accurate picture than the traditional .500 mark (23 teams are in fact .500 or better at this point). If the number of OT games do not change signifiantly, I'm quite confident that .550 has become the new benchmark. Teams with a record significantly lower than .550 are just pretending to be in the playoff race. Yes, that includes the team from the Centre of the Universe and the "two games below .500" team in the NW division.
The New .500
Moderator: Referees
'Losing' teams get 0 points.
You have to tie the game.
Four-on-four overtime and the shootout are addendums to the game.
Three point games don't bother me much though it can be a heart breaker when a lot of teams are within a point of making the playoffs.
Both teams, in a three-point game, can be spoilers for a third team that needs at least one of the two contenders to come away with zero or one-point each.
I kind of like the excitement of the shootout but I'd be happier if it wasn't used to determine 'winners & losers'.
I see no reason why NHL games can't end in a tie.
The league could have a shootout after every game as far as I care and, instead of affecting the standings, use the shootout results to gain favourable scheduling the following year.
If you suck at the shootout, next season your team gets to play back-to-back games all over the continent ...
...sort of like our schedule
You have to tie the game.
Four-on-four overtime and the shootout are addendums to the game.
Three point games don't bother me much though it can be a heart breaker when a lot of teams are within a point of making the playoffs.
Both teams, in a three-point game, can be spoilers for a third team that needs at least one of the two contenders to come away with zero or one-point each.
I kind of like the excitement of the shootout but I'd be happier if it wasn't used to determine 'winners & losers'.
I see no reason why NHL games can't end in a tie.
The league could have a shootout after every game as far as I care and, instead of affecting the standings, use the shootout results to gain favourable scheduling the following year.
If you suck at the shootout, next season your team gets to play back-to-back games all over the continent ...
...sort of like our schedule
sorta like relegation, I like it..........whistler wrote:'
The league could have a shootout after every game as far as I care and, instead of affecting the standings, use the shootout results to gain favourable scheduling the following year.
If you suck at the shootout, next season your team gets to play back-to-back games all over the continent ...
...sort of like our schedule
Following the same line, I'd just suggest that they use OT wins and shootouts as tiebreaker in the standings (and nothing else). This way, each game still has a winner, but we don't screw up the standings with 3-point games. Instead, OT wins become the first tiebreaker and SO wins the second tie breakers when teams are tied in the standings.
Not really. Following the current system, the team with X number of OT/SO wins more than the other team will have more X points in the standings, assuming that they would be tied in the standings if all games end in 60 minutes. If we revert to the old 2-point system determined by results after 60 minutes of play, then I think it's fair to have OT win and then SO win as the first two tiebreakers.Cornuck wrote:Shouldn't '60 minute wins' be the first tiebreaker in this hypothisis?
Speaking of tiebreaker, I think the current system is severely flawed. The current system definite screams for regulatio-time wins as the first tiebreaker. Here is a hypothetical case
Team A record, 45-35-2, total points 92.
Team B record, 43-33-6, total points 92.
Under the current system, Team A wins the tiebreaker. That would be totally unfair given the breakdowns such that:
Team A 37-35 (60 minutes), 8-2 (OT/SO, 6 of 8 wins in SO)
Team B 43-33 (60 minutes), 0-6 (OT/SO, 6 losses all in SO)
Team B has a much much better record and should be ranked much higher.