Wall Street Journal column: NHL Teams are Learning How to Love the Tie
by Hawerchuk on Dec 21, 2009 9:00 AM EST
12 comments
I've discussed the post-lockout Overtime/Shootout combination several times over the last month. In particular, I pointed out that teams could vastly improve their records by pushing games into OT, and that over the last four seasons, there's been no correlation between team winning percentage and OT and Shootout performance. Overall, I find the entire system anti-competitive.
Today, I have a piece in the Wall Street Journal on a change in NHL team strategy this season that has resulted in a 20% increase in extra-time. In particular, teams have simply stopped trying to win in the last three minutes of regulation.
To be clear, nothing has changed in the way that the game is played in the first 57 minutes. But teams have simply stopped scoring tie-breaking goals in the last three minutes of the game: the scoring rate has dropped to roughly 2 goals per 60, less than half what it was over the last four seasons. Scoring rates have dropped in OT, too, perhaps reflecting a preference for the shootout, but the biggest change is simply the number of games that go to OT in the first place. Whether any team will admit it, they've started to take advantage of the extra points available to them if they play for the tie.
1 recs |
12 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
The shootout is completely random!
I largely agree with you, but I’m not sure that J.S. Giguere is the poster child for hard luck in shootouts — he’s not very good on the breakaway, comparable to other netminders.
http://www.battleofcali.com/
How has the drop in scoring affected trailing teams vs. leading teams. Your thesis proposes that the leading team scores a lot less, is this right?
I only wonder because the other (and equally interesting) trend seems to be that more trailing teams tie the game and take it to OT this year than last year. There is also quite an impressive slope on the curve in the final seconds of the game.
Overall, the leading team scores less than the trailing team. But in the last two minutes of the game, the trailing team is usually playing with the goalie pulled. So the leading team dramatically outscores the trailing team then.
Would it be correct to say that the dramatic gap has been tightened this year, or am I reading the data wrong. After all, what I see is more ties coming about in the final 3 minutes, meaning to me that the trailing team must be scoring.
I guess what I was asking is whether this rise is due entirely to a loss of the usually balancing effect of leading teams increasing the lead or re-breaking the deadlock, or whether trailing team scoring is up as well?
Want to check my thinking and math here:
The current system runs like this, a regulation win is worth 2 points (1 win) getting to OT is worth 3/4 of a win or 1.5 points (50% of 2 points and 50% of 1 point) and a regulation loss is worth nothing of course. This is based on 50:50 chance of winning once OT is reached.
Now the common idea of a three point game breaks down as:
A three point system works as 3 points for win (1 win of course) reaching OT is worth 1/2 win (50% of 2 points and 50% of 1 point) and a loss is worth 0.
And the win or lose:
The system of 1 and naught presents an incentive to reach OT or at least a SO for a bad team (1, 1/2 (50% of 1, 50% of 0) and 0).
I don’t know if the drop from 3/4 to 1/2 is enough to change behaviour. If it is then these might be a solution that doesn’t change that much of how the game is currently played. However if the change is not enough to change behaviour than the only solution is to increase how much of a rule skill and not chance plays in the outcome of OT and that means playing more hockey.
Or another more out of the box solution within the realm of changing point systems is to return to a tie the game ends at regulation and a win gets 1 pt and a tie or lose gets 0. This way there is no reward for playing to a tie. It’s the same as losing just for both teams.
I’m still all about the baseball/basketball W-L system: it’s all or none, no charity points, no allowances for losing after an arbitrary point in the game. You gambled on the shootout and you lost. Get over it. Maybe next time you’ll try harder in OT.
The three-point system incentivizes regulation wins; it seems to me that the W-L system incentivizes winning before the coin-flip, which I think is the best for all involved.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Pressed post too quickly. This system still benefits the weaker team due to the 50/50 SO. If we could get OT back to where it reflected regulation skill, this would be great. But we want to eliminate incentives for bad teams to slow the pace. Bad teams initially feared OT and voted against it in 1983.
20 minutes of OT, sudden death. After that 0 for a loss, 1 for the win. I could see the 3, 2, 1 , 0 but it still leaves too much for the getting to the coin flip. Maybe 2 for a winning b/f the shootout 1 for winning in the shootout and 0 for a loss. That reduces the value of getting to the shootout a bit more.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
