There was some discussion on here last week about why or if all hockey games should be worth three points, instead of it varying from game to game because of overtime.Obviously, a win, overtime win or shootout win gets you two points, getting to overtime and then losing will get you a single point and losing in regulation gets you nothing. (Good day, sir.)
I have argued that I want every game to be worth three points because it would a) be consistent and b) represent a true representation of a team's season. My initial thoughts were that it would significantly alter the standings if this were played out over an 80-game season. So I e-mailed the AHL a few months back and they told me they have run the numbers for several seasons and it did not change things enough. They did not go into detail, but there is just not enough data to advocate a switch that would alter the record books for sure.
There is another point that was made that I will get to later.
As of today, Jan. 4, the standings look like this:
TEX (46), PEO (42), MKE (42), RFD (42), HOU (41), CHI (38) and SAT (35).
This is how the standings would look if every game was worth three points exactly:
TEX (63), RFD (59), MKE (57), PEO (53), HOU (53), CHI (53) and SAT (47)
As you can see, only two teams traded places, as Peoria was punished because a whopping eight of its wins are of the overtime and shootout variety. This backs up the argument that, even with all the OT games played these days, things just don't change that much.
I would still like to see the three -point system, if only to tidy things up and get an exact representation of things. I have also read the argument that a move to three-point games will not happen because of the psychology of how it would affect the representation of the standings.
Look above, and as you can see, the Rampage would now trail first-place Texas by 16 points. That *looks* a lot different than 11 in the current system.
The argument is some teams would feel like they were more out of it than they are. And fans would take a look at the Internet or newspaper, see that their team is way out and change their mind about how to spend their hard-earned dollar. Again, I am presenting you with their argument.
My argument is that the true fans would know about the rule and realize that their team is still just four wins out. And my argument is the families that the AHL teams are targeting don't give a rats hoo-ha what place the team is in. (i.e. - People are still going to see games in Springfield, a team that has lost 18 of its last 19 games).
What are your thoughts?
Posts
8 comments:
Serious hockey fans might point to one or more of the following factors which favor a permanent 3-point system:
. Competitive bias...every major sport has made rule changes to improve "balance" (i.e. the NBA's 3-point shot) and broaden fan interest. Hockey's "extra innings" contests magnify the intensity of fan interest and recall (win or lose).
. Geographical bias...venue location makes a difference, the NHL in particular, reflecting the history of higher permanent attendance levels in Northern venues (the original "Six" and others well established in time) v. Southern and Western venues (new, more recent markets, derivative to the "Howe" and "Gretsky" bellwethers of the last 20-30 years. Here, the divisional splits of the AHL (West v. North, East, and Atlantic) are slightly different than the NHL.
. Media Class bias...particularly, in the Southern markets where football, at all levels, trumps other sports, the lack of "proportional community coverage" by major broadcast networks can be a big factor suppressing potential fan support. The absence of media support for the Aeros has been a major negative factor in sustaining a permanent fan base in Houston.
To be sure, the Wall Street Journal's THE COUNT column (12/21/09)..."Learning How To Love The Tie"...did a 5-year review of the impact of the 3-point system and concluded (over that period): (1) the percentage of games going to OT increased by 5% and (2) the "scoring rate" in the final 3 minutes of regulation decreased almost 50%. The accuracy of these statistics, however, rests with their journalist (WSJ's Gabriel Desjardins).
Go Aeros!
I would like to see the nhl/ahl use the 3 point system.
IceVet,
Thanks for your comment. Good stuff as always.
I think the WSJ article supports my theory. The incentive of getting a win in regulation would help beef up scoring in the latter stages of the third period.
Now it appears, with some data to back that up, teams are willing to play for the crap shoot ... and that just leads to relatively dull and meaningless overtime hockey.
Time to go 3-on-3?
I have not given much thought to a 3 point win, but what about the old 2 points for a win and nothing for a loss, whether it be in ot or a shootout?
I see your point, but then you wouldn't even need to calculate points.
To expand on tVelin's and Andrew's point: Going with two points for a win and no points for a loss, OTL or SOL would simplify the standings. You could go to a straight win-loss record with "games back" like you see in the MLB and NBA standings. It would make it easier for the casual fan to follow.
My thoughts on this are really more simple...there should be no reward or points awarded for losing a game. For reasons that I understand, the NHL needed to rid itself of games ending in a tie. However, the solution of giving that 'free' point away to a losing team simply because they were extended into ot or a shootout is where I see the problem.
Andrew -
I'm all for three point scoring, which the IIHF juniors are using and I think will beused at the Olympics.
The reasons the NHL and its puppet the AHL don't want it are as you describe and likewise as faulty. There's one other reason too, with the current system about 2/3rds of the teams in the league (or more correctly, their marketing departments) can claim to be "over 0.500" (Joe does this all the time) despite the fact that something like 0.570 is the new 0.500. Who wants to see an under 0.500 team? And since when do marketing departments care about the truth?
Post a Comment