The Olympic points system applied to this season

by Germware on Apr 13, 2010 3:50 PM CDT

OK, this all started when I heard that the Olympic group stages would be using a slightly different points system from the NHL; their format rewarded a regulation win with 3 points, a shootout or OT win with 2 points and a shootout or OT loss with 1 point, but overtime lasted 10 minutes instead of the usual 5.

When I remembered this last night, I decided it would be a good idea to see what the final standings would be this season had these rules been in effect.

A few notes before we start:

I ranked SOW (shootout wins) and OTW (OT wins) separately because, as mentioned above, in the OT in Olympic hockey is double the length of the OT in the NHL. It is also helpful with a view to the playoffs because, obviously, there are no SOs in the postseason, and so teams like San Jose (with only 1 OTW and 5 OTLs, but a respectable 7-6 record in SOs) might be worried if any of their games creep into extra time.
In accordance with NHL rankings, if two teams had the same number of points, I ranked the team with the largest number of wins (in this case, regulation wins) first.
I really hate the tables I've used for a number of reasons, not least because I can't figure out how to "zebra" them to make them easier to read, and also because I can't figure out how to highlight the line between 8th & 9th in Conference so you can easily see who made the playoffs. Sorry about that.
To quote Robert Benchley, "Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at the moment." I consider this post proof of that statement.

Anyway, let's get started:

Eastern Conference

Rank	Team	W	L	OTW	OTL	SOW	SOL	Points
1	Washington Capitals	43	15	6	7	5	6	164
2	New Jersey Devils	40	27	2	2	6	5	143
3	Buffalo Sabres	35	27	6	4	4	6	135
4	Pittsburgh Penguins	33	28	6	5	8	2	134
5	Ottawa Senators	34	32	5	1	5	5	128
6	Philadelphia Flyers	35	35	2	3	4	3	123
7	New York Rangers	34	33	1	7	3	4	121
8	Boston Bruins	25	30	4	4	10	9	116
9	Atlanta Thrashers	29	34	2	7	4	6	112
10	Montreal Canadiens	24	33	8	5	7	5	112
11	Carolina Hurricanes	26	37	5	5	4	5	106
12	Tampa Bay Lightning	25	36	5	5	4	7	105
13	Florida Panthers	24	37	2	3	6	10	101
14	New York Islanders	20	37	6	5	8	6	99
15	Toronto Maple Leafs	21	38	5	10	4	4	95

Observations

Well, that's certainly different... New York & Philly see the benefits of winning their games in regulation, while Montreal suffer from not being able to put their opponents away in 60 minutes.
Boston vs. Washington would be an interesting first-round series; my brother is a Washington fan, and he is of the opinion that only Buffalo or Boston can stop Ovie et al. from reaching the Cup Finals, mainly because of Rask & Miller's ability to cockblock just about anyone into oblivion.

Onto the West...

Western Conference

Rank	Team	W	L	OTW	OTL	SOW	SOL	Points
1	San Jose Sharks	43	20	1	5	7	6	156
2	Chicago Blackhawks	37	22	6	2	9	6	149
3	Vancouver Canucks	41	28	4	1	4	4	144
4	Phoenix Coyotes	31	25	5	1	14	6	138
5	Detroit Red Wings	33	24	5	5	6	9	135
6	Nashville Predators	33	29	6	2	8	4	133
7	L.A. Kings	32	27	4	1	10	8	133
8	Colorado Avalanche	34	30	2	4	7	5	129
9	Calgary Flames	35	32	2	3	3	7	125
10	Anaheim Ducks	31	32	3	3	5	8	120
11	St. Louis Blues	30	32	3	5	7	5	120
12	Dallas Stars	28	31	2	4	7	10	116
13	Minnesota Wild	29	36	4	1	5	7	113
14	Columbus Blue Jackets	27	35	3	5	2	10	106
15	Edmonton Oilers	17	47	1	2	9	6	79

Observations

Not much change here, but a little push from Calgary could've seen them make the postseason. The Hawks are now playing L.A. instead of the Preds due to the Preds having more wins.
If nothing else, this post shows just how bad the Oilers were this season. 17 wins in regulation is just laughable; they were about as on-the-ball as a dead seal.
Columbus were 2-10 in SOs this season. Kopecky by himself could've done better than that.
Meanwhile, Phoenix were dominant at 14-6. Too bad SOs count for diddly in the postseason...

Notes

My stats are very slightly off; I have 116 OTWs and 117 OTLs combined with 185 SOWs and 184 SOLs. If anyone figures out where I made my mistake, please let me know.
Special thanks to Radiohead, Tool, Björk, Anaïs Mitchell, Bon Iver, Led Zeppelin, Decibully and Explosions In The Sky for helping me stay sane while doing this.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'd been wondering what these results would be like

so thanks for doing all the work so I don’t have to.

It would be interesting to see what the different point system would do to the perception that sometimes teams end up just playing not to lose in the last few minutes of a game, instead of playing to win.

But crunch time before the playoffs would be even more insane with that many different point combinations.

by shinkicker on Apr 13, 2010 7:02 PM CDT reply actions

I know what you mean

I think it would also be interesting to see some teams pull their goalie in the last minute of regulation in a tied game, if they were that desperate for the extra point/s.

by Germware on Apr 14, 2010 7:13 AM CDT up reply actions

Nice job

I prefer this point system to the current screwed up “everyone’s a winner” system in the NHL now.

Well, folks, I want to thank you for being here for the recording of my live comedy album. Funny material and laughter will be dubbed in later.

by ChicagoNativeSon on Apr 13, 2010 8:04 PM CDT reply actions

I like it

The post, and the system both. Never made sense to me how the total number of points in a season wasn’t constant. I feel like that violates some law of physics.

by VerStig on Apr 13, 2010 8:32 PM CDT reply actions

Interesting how

the Western Conference standings are only slightly affected but the East is more affected.

I am personally not a fan of rewarding losing (there were losers when I was a kid and we all came out fine!). I think it should just be 1 point for winning, none for losing. But no one asked my opinion when they were making the rules.

Also, I love Explosions in the Sky. Nice work!

by Katherine215 on Apr 13, 2010 10:19 PM CDT reply actions

I see your reasoning...

but I think it’s a bit harsh to not reward teams that take their opponents to OT/SO, especially in hard-fought games which end 1-0 after a SO, where the only reason one team won was because one team had to win.

I’m a huge fan of their The Rescue EP. No-one else really seems to know about it. Oh well.

by Germware on Apr 14, 2010 7:21 AM CDT up reply actions

The NFL, MLB and NBA

all manage to survive without the extra point. Of course one team has to win; if they went on indefinitely, 5 on 5 or 4 on 4, one team would eventually tire before the other team and give up a goal. I’m not a huge fan of the SO, but it serves its purpose of ending games in a reasonable amount of time (I’d rather see a slightly longer OT first, but that’s not the point here).

I guess for me, rewarding a team for losing later in the game is just silly. I realize it’s done so the league can show more winning records and try to draw more fans to a “winning” team, but I think putting a good product on the ice solves that problem (see: your Chicago Blackhawks). I can rant about this for hours (and probably have), so I’ll quit now. :)

I only have 1 CD of theirs, but I first heard of them because they do the Friday Night Lights theme song and I love that show.

by Katherine215 on Apr 14, 2010 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions

Ah, OK

I’m not from America, so I’m not really familiar with any American sports league (apart from the NHL, obviously) so I wasn’t aware of how those leagues conducted their points systems. When I was talking about a team having to win, I suppose I was – in a backhanded way – implying that a return to draws would be an improvement. But I’m pretty sure no-one wants to see that happen, even me.

Apologies for being a stckler for detail, but apparently they didn’t; they did situational music for the show, so people kind of assumed they did the theme song as well, but it was actually some other guy. You learn something new every day, apparently.

by Germware on Apr 14, 2010 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions

Whoops

That should read “stickler for detail”

by Germware on Apr 14, 2010 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions

They don't?!

My sister lied to me. Wow, I’m so surprised. No apology necessary, I want to know when I’m wrong.

Yeah, the other professional leagues generally do just wins and losses, though (American) football can actually end in a tie in non-playoff games but it is very rare and pretty much baffled the entire country when it happened a season or two ago. Major league soccer still has ties I think. I definitely don’t want to see the NHL go back to that, I’d just rather the whole “everyone’s a winner” mentality stay out of professional sports.

by Katherine215 on Apr 14, 2010 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions

Ok, I just wiki'd the FNL music

Explosions in the Sky performed the theme that was written by WG Snuffy Walden who has done a ton of good television music including The West Wing.

by Katherine215 on Apr 14, 2010 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions

If I recall

one of the primary reasons the NHL implemented extra points for overtime losses was due to the fact that teams, in the 5 minute overtime, would sit back and wait for the game to end so as to secure the point. Teams would rather play it boring for the point then risk getting no points at all. Thus, at least the overtimes are more exciting to due the fact that a point is already secured for the losing team. It allows the teams to play more aggressively which I actually like. Now the shootout is an entirely different matter all together that the NHL needs to fix.

by EamusCatuli23 on Apr 14, 2010 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Yes, but my point

is it would be more exciting if you only got points if you won, no matter when you won. Win in OT? 2 points. Win in SO? 2 points. Win in reg? 2 points. Lose in any of those? No points. They would be like most other professional sports teams and trying to win at any time.

if anything, I think the OT point makes the final couple minutes of a tied game pretty dull. They really just changed when teams were sitting back and waiting for a point. If you’re only going to win or lose, there’s no point to sitting back and waiting for OT.

Is extra innings less exciting because you don’t get a point for getting there? No, the sudden death part adds that excitement. You don’t get anything extra for losing in 10 innings as opposed to 9.

by Katherine215 on Apr 14, 2010 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions

I agree with you

I always thought the team that wins no matter how it happened should get the 2 points. Why get a point for losing?

I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.
- Rodney Dangerfield

by stacie7 on Apr 14, 2010 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions

I understand what you're saying

but it sounds like you agree that there should be no ties, which I wasn’t necessarily against. Plus, I think your points system would put wayyyyyyy to much emphasis on the SO, which I don’t think is a good idea. What do you think about this – Starting four on four in the OT then every three minutes each team pulls a player until it’s two on two. Not necessarily pure hockey, but better than the shootout and it should create enough offense where the game doesn’t last more than ten to fifteen minutes.

by EamusCatuli23 on Apr 14, 2010 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions

To add to that

I also wouldn’t mind seeing an absolute winner and loser in every game, but not if it means letting a shootout decide it (I’d rather see ties). And of course I as a fan would love to see overtime hockey in the regualr season like it is in the playoffs, but the NHL/NHLPA would never go for it, because the last thing both would want is a five hour regular season game going to triple overtime on the first end of a back-to-back where the teams have to get on a plane after the game. That’s why I suggested my scenario above.

by EamusCatuli23 on Apr 14, 2010 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't think ties add anything to sports.

the SO would have the same emphasis as OT and regulation, and pretty much the same amount it has now. You either win or lose in the SO right now if you get to that point.

I don’t hate the shootout like many do, as I think there should be a definitive, time-sensitive way to win the games. I’d like to see maybe 10 minute 4 on 4s before going to the SO. Your idea is interesting to me, but I’m not sure how you can guarantee teams would avoid the SO.

In a perfect world, I would like to see them go until someone wins, but it would be a drain on teams during the regular season and just isn’t necessary.

by Katherine215 on Apr 14, 2010 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions

I understand what you're saying

We’ll agree to disagree on SO wins v. ties. In my scenario, there would be no SO. After six minutes of O.T., teams would play two on two until someone scored. If there’s a penalty it’s two on one. It could go forever like playoff hockey, but I would think that two on two hockey would create so many scoring chances that there’s no possible way the game would go more than 10-15 minutes.

by EamusCatuli23 on Apr 14, 2010 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions