Bleacher Report - Articles by Daren Bukator

Why the NHL Needs a Better Point System

Daren Bukator — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:00:11 -0400

March is a great time for hockey fans. The playoffs are just around the corner and the race is on for several teams trying to secure their spots for a chance at the Stanley Cup.

In today's NHL, with 82-game schedules and points for overtime losses, it usually takes about 92 points for a team to advance to the sweet 16. It doesn't matter HOW you get the points; it matters THAT you get the points.

And there's the problem.

One team could go 46-36-0, and another could go 10-0-72 and they would both make the playoffs. Based on that fact alone, it is easy to see how flawed and unfair the system really is.

Regulation ties should not be valued nearly as much as regulation wins, but it seems too many teams are content with taking their chances in overtime, where they are guaranteed to come out of the game with at least a point. Even if they lose the game.

That's right. A reward for a loss. A fundamental contradiction to the world of sports.

The theory is that three-point games keep the standings close and make the playoff drive more meaningful for more teams. But at what cost? A watered down form of competition seems to be the result.

It is an illusion; a very unnecessary fabrication of parity for two reasons.

Firstly, it really isn't enough to just make the playoffs. The large majority of teams who win the Stanley Cup are the ones that finish very high up in their conference. Teams sneaking into the playoffs because of some overtime games generally don't pose much of a threat in the spring.

Secondly, it can be fixed without losing those great playoff races.

Tweaking the point system so that teams are awarded two points for a hockey win (regulation or overtime), one point for a shootout win, and none for a loss of any kind would bring a little reality to the NHL's standings.

Awarding teams points based on how they win rather than how they lose creates a higher standard for competition, without sacrificing anything that hockey fans love during this time of year.

However, having a three-two-one system differentiating regulation wins from overtime wins would be a little extreme. Overtime is just a few extra minutes of play to try to settle the game honestly before the circus shootout show rolls in.

Under this system, the standings would change quite a bit, but they would better represent which teams really deserve to be in the playoffs, and which don't.

As of the games ending Mar. 17, the standings look like this:

EASTERN CONFERENCE WESTERN CONFERENCE

BOS 99 DET 103

NJ 95 SJ 100

WSH 94 CAL 86

PHI 84 CHI 83

PIT 84 VAN 83

NYR 82 CLB 78

MON 81 EDM 75

CAR 79 NSH 74

----------------------------- -----------------------------

FLA 78 MIN 74

BUF 76 DAL 74

TOR 71 STL 73

OTT 68 ANA 68

ATL 64 LA 68

TB 61 PHX 64

NYI 56 COL 64

Under the new system, with adjusted points based on overtime games this year, the standings would look like this.

EASTERN CONFERENCE WESTERN CONFERENCE

NJ -8 87 DET -15 88

BOS -13 86 SJ -14 86

WSH -10 84 CAL -9 77

CAR -10 71 VAN -12 71

PHI -13 71 CHI -13 71

PIT -14 70 CLB -11 69

MON -10 65 NSH -10 65

FLA -13 65 ANA -9 61

----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

NYR -18 64 MIN -13 61

BUF -15 61 EDM -14 61

OTT -13 55 DAL -14 61

ATL -11 53 STL -14 59

TOR -18 53 PHX -8 56

NYI -11 45 LA -14 54

TB -18 43 COL -11 53

These numbers can be analyzed many different ways and benefit some teams more than others, but the fairness can not be overlooked.

Interestingly, the playoff races in the new model are even tighter than before, and the teams in those races are much more deserving to be where they are. Also, the teams at the top are much closer together as well, though they remain the league's elite and will likely continue to fair better in the playoffs year after year.

The point of all this is to end the NHLs manufactured parity and replace it with the real thing, making it more fair to the organizations, players and fans.

It is a small change that would significantly enhance the competition and reality of the NHL. Wins would be more valuable, as they should be, and teams would make the extra effort to try to win games before it gets to the shootout for maximum points, especially during the playoff drive.

2008 NHL Playoffs: More Arguments Against the Shootout

Daren Bukator — Sun, 11 May 2008 04:50:02 -0400

Overtime in sports is exactly that: extra playing time to determine a winner, not an opportunity to change the rules.

In baseball, they play extra innings to award a victory, not a home run derby.

In basketball, it’s the same thing. The teams play until one ends up with more points than the other, not a slam dunk competition.

In football, the rules don’t change after regulation to see who can kick the longest field goal. The game remains the same.

Hockey should be no different. In the past, fear of marathon games that sometimes occur, as seen in the playoffs, halted the play after a five minute overtime at the most. But most games don’t go past one extra period, and that’s in the playoffs, when a loss can cripple a team.

This season especially has made that very clear. So far in this year's playoffs there have been 15 games to go beyond regulation. The average time it has taken to score the overtime winner is 10:28.

Excluding the four-overtime game between Dallas and San Jose in Game Six of the Western semifinals, the other 14 overtime games have ended in an average of just 6:45, with only one of them going past the first extra period.

Now put the teams in a 4-on-4 situation during the regular season and see how many last beyond ten minutes. Of course some will, but that is the nature of the game. No one should fight it, because overtime is the most exciting part of hockey. A 17- or 18-inning baseball game is not unheard of, either.

Sudden death is the ultimate emotional roller coaster for a fan, as every single play can result in triumph or catastrophe. Think of the greatest games in NHL history and why they stand out.

Many times a great individual effort such as a 10-point game, or a team that comes back from a five-goal deficit in the third period makes a game unforgettable. In many cases, it’s the overtime hero fans remember most, because it’s that one play that stands out in the memories of fans like no other.

Now try to think of a shoot-out that has had the same impact. There might be one or two. Can we really not live without the shoot-out? And what about the team that makes the playoffs because of the shoot-out? Those teams really don’t deserve to be there because it’s not part of the playoffs at all.

Plain and simple, the shoot-out has no place in professional hockey. It should not exist in NHL, because it’s a terrible excuse for excitement. Intensity cannot be fabricated as it is in the current post-overtime game, since the entire process is made up of only two outcomes; goal or no goal. That is not excitement. That is fear.

As a fan, when the opposing team comes down the ice on a breakaway, many fans are not watching with enthusiasm hoping to see a remarkable save by the goaltender. Instead they are more often hoping for a no-goal situation by way of a mistake by the shooter.

A hockey game cannot be ended without playing hockey, and the shoot-out is not hockey. There is no defensive part of the game. There is no physical part of the game. And most importantly, there is no teamwork involved. Hockey is a team sport, and that should not be brushed aside.

As for the argument that teams can't afford to chance missing a post-game flight and that travel is a major issue in this debate, there are always the odd times where a game must be postponed. It might happen five times per year at the most. A week at the end of the season can be reserved for these few games that need to be played.

This does not need to extend the season either. It is not like the old days, when a player waited until training camp to get ready for the season. The players today train 12 months per year and are ready to go when September rolls around.

For this reason, seven, eight, nine preseason games are no longer required. Cut the preseason to about four or five games, and it will clear room for any games that need to be postponed by moving the season ahead one week.

When it comes to the games on TV going to overtime, during double-headers for example, most networks have regional broadcasts allowing viewers to see the game they want anyway, whenever games overlap.

Bonus coverage during intermissions or using alternate network feeds provide viewers with all they need to avoid missing anything.

Continuous overtime does not have to be sacrificed because of a few minor issues. The shoot-out must go.

Of course, ties are no fun either, which is another reason for the continuous play whether it’s the regular season or the playoffs.

During the regular season, the NHL should continue using a 4-on-4 structure for overtime but with a minor change. Instead of going to a 4-on-3 situation during penalties, a player would be added to the ice in favour of the team on the power play, creating a 5-on-4 situation, simply because 4-on-3 results in a goal almost half of the time, where a 5-on-4 power play goal ends up in the net only about 20% of the time.

A penalty in overtime should give a team any more or any less chance of scoring than it does during regulation. That just doesn’t make sense. A slash is a slash. It’s not a regulation slash vs. an overtime slash which is what the current NHL has in fact created. This fixes that problem.

As for the playoffs, 5-on-5 is the way to go throughout the entire game. Since time and travel is not such a factor as it is during the regular season, it is best to leave the game alone and keep the rules the same until a winner is decided.

How To Fix the NHL Playoffs

Daren Bukator — Sat, 10 May 2008 12:21:39 -0400

There are a few things wrong with the way the NHL structures its playoffs. They are too long, they lose the fans' interest as they progress, and not every team has an opportunity to face each other in the Finals.

A couple of minor adjustments could fix all of these problems very easily.

First, in terms of excitement, the NHL’s most exciting round of the playoffs is the first round. That's when most people watch. The run to the playoffs and the first round is a major highlight in the season, but after that the playoffs lose their flair substantially.

Many fans would love to get right to the finals after the first round without having to wait another month and a half to decide a champion.

The NHL playoffs are simply too long and need to be refined. Compared to the Super Bowl, there is basically no hype surrounding the Stanley Cup Finals.

That in large part has to do with the fact that the Super Bowl is a one-game, winner-take-all championship. Adopting such a technique in the NHL would bring more attention to the big game.

The format that would work best would be a 7-5-3-1 format, where the first round is a best of seven. The second round is a best of five. The third round is a best of three and the Stanley Cup Final is a one game showdown between the league’s elite.

This way, a team only needs to win 10 games to be declared champion instead of 16. It adds excitement as the playoffs progress since there is more emphasis put on each round to perform.

To be honest, by the time a team has won a seven-game playoff round and then another five-game round, there is no debate on whether they deserve to be in the final four. They have earned their spot. Plus, through the first two rounds, only one win is being eliminated, so not much change there.

By the time the third round comes along, the two teams on each side should only need three games to decide whose best and earn a ticket to the big show. Let’s face it, they have proved they belong; now it’s time to raise the stakes and perform immediately.

This format solves two problems. It shortens the playoffs and adds interest as the postseason progresses.

As for the third problem of each team not being able to face each other in the finals due to conference restrictions, a simple tweak is all that is necessary to change that. A crossover in the third round.

Once the playoffs reach the point of getting down to the final four, the two top teams in each conference would switch over and play the two bottom remaining teams in the opposite conference. This way it gives any two teams the ability to face each other in the finals in any given year.

An added bonus that this format allows is the guarantee that the two conferences will have teams playing against each other in at least two playoff series and possibly a third, rather that just once every year in the finals.

It brings the league closer together and unites the two conferences further which are important to a league attempting to achieve parity.