Why Changing the Point Format Will Improve the Fan Experience
In the Eastern Conference right now, there is a mere 10 points that separates 4th from 13th. On the surface, it looks like the league accomplished it’s goal from the 2005 lockout: to increase parity and work towards a league that brings competitive hockey games each and every night. To some degree, it has worked. At the end of January bottom teams such as Carolina and Philadelphia were able to defeat two of the leagues best: Chicago and Washington, respectively.
But is the current point format really suggesting an equal and more balanced playing landscape? Or is it all smoke in mirrors, with three point games diluting who the best clubs really are?
We’re here to tackle the point system and some of the implications it has on the standings, and more importantly, the fan experience.
As I’m sure most of you are aware, currently in the NHL teams are awarded 2 points for a win, 1 point for losing in overtime/shootout, and 0 points for a regulation loss.
In the standings, it provides a beautiful mirage for the teams fighting for a wild card position. Many teams right now are only 6 points out of a wild card spot, which means all they have to do is go win 3 more games than the club they’re chasing. 3 wins x 2 points/win = 6 points, right?
Wrong.
In the existing scheme, 6 points actually can be quite difficult to overcome. The point system rewards teams more for not losing in regulation than it does for actually winning a hockey game. Despite the fact there is a winning team and a losing team every single night, the difference between a regulation win and an overtime win is nothing. They’re exactly the same. For some reason, it is infinitely better to lose in overtime than it is to lose in regulation. Why? Why are teams awarded half of a win for losing a hockey game?!
In any sport, the league should almost perfectly be sorted by wins when you sort it by points. It makes sense: the goal of every game is to win. If you win, you should be ranked higher than a team who has won less games.
Take soccer, for example. If you go organize the standings of the English Premier League (EPL) by points, only 2 of the 20 teams will be out of place based on wins.
In hockey, this isn’t so. There are a whole jumble of teams that have more points than other teams, despite having won fewer hockey games. Winning is the goal, isn’t it?
Despite having won the same amount of hockey games, the Vancouver Canucks have 6 more points (equivalent to 3 more wins) than the Edmonton Oilers. I guess the league really, really likes it when teams make it to overtime.
I’m going to continue comparing with soccer here because it’s the only other major sport that uses a point system. Baseball, football, and basketball are based solely on wins and losses (football technically isn’t but there wasn’t a single draw this year). If you hate or don’t care about soccer, bear with me (or hit the back button), but this is about comparing the point structure rather than the sports themselves.
From the perspective of the fan experience, hockey fans are really getting gypped when it comes to the point distribution. Part of what dampens the experience is for a league that is fairly high scoring (~5.5 goals/game), the payout per goal is minuscule.
In the EPL, there is an average of 2.77 goals per game. They’re awarded 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 for a loss. So think about it, what makes soccer so widely adorned isn’t just the game, but the drama that the point system condones. In a 1-1 soccer game, if you score a goal in the last minute that wins the game, that single goal was worth an extra two points for your team. The goal is absolutely massive: if you don’t score it, your team has to settle for a single point, far less than the succulent reward of a 3 point victory. So with less goals than hockey, but more points for victory, the ratio of goals-to-points creates and encourages moments of high drama and incredible tension. The value of every goal, and therefore every climactic point, is higher than what we receive.
Hockey doesn’t encourage the same fan experience.
If you have a 2-2 hockey game and someone scores a goal to win it with 30 seconds left, you’ve really only earned your team 1 point. Sure, you got 2 points for the win, but in reality, had you not scored your team still would have received a point for participating (I guess), with a chance for victory. The completely twisted thing about hockey’s system is that winning in regulation actually benefits you in no way, it only stops your opponent from getting a sympathy point. Yes, in your division it matters, but against most opponents you’re not too worried about handing out a free point so long as you get 2. How can the NHL be so blind to rewarding teams (and their fans) adequately for victory? Why is the reward so pitiful? How can losing be half as valuable as winning?!
Take the flip side of the coin: losing in an overtime or shootout. Are fans ever really that disappointed? Sure, “earning” those single points add up, but the consolation of the point is too great, and thus dampens what should be a heart wrenching experience. And as Mr. Isaac Newton once proclaimed, every force has an equal and opposite reaction, so if losing isn’t as bad in overtime/shootout, then of course, winning isn’t quite as good either. It’s all softened for us, and instead of feeling the pain of loss, the thought often is “at least we got a point”. Yuck.
I do not understand your pain Miss Soccer Fan because we get points for losing in our league.
Part of what captivates the soccer audience is the pain of dropping 3 points, or the jubilee of winning a game, no matter how it plays out. The points feel like they really matter because they do: you simply cannot make ground in the standings without winning. And, even better, the game is only worth 2 total points when a draw occurs. Teams are leaving points on the table, so the incentive to push for the game winning goal is as strong as anything.
Aside from the fan experience, there are also sports morals and ethics that have to be questioned when awarding a point to a losing cause. You can lose, and for some reason still be able to move up in the standings. That should explain enough, but to further my point, let’s look at a snippet of last year’s standings:
25. Philadelphia, 33-31-18, 84 points
26. New Jersey, 32-36-14, 78 points
In the 2014-2015 season a team theoretically could have gone 0-0-82, not winning a single hockey game, and finished 26th in the league. Yikes. Via simple math, the league has declared that losing twice in the extra frame has equivalent value to a win, whether it’s a 2-1 nail biter or a 7-0 blowout. It doesn’t make any sense.
NHL, hear my plea. Give us the heartache and devastation of having 3 points stolen, and give us that feeling of dissatisfaction after a tie game. Bestow upon us the joy of triumph, the jubilation of meaningful ascension in the standings after a 3 point victory. Rid us of the shootout. Let us fans experience the emotional roller coaster throughout the regular season, not just the playoffs. Encourage teams to compete for victory, not mediocrity.
Make each game – each result – each goal, mean more.
