Today the last playoff spot for this year's Stanley Cup Finals was given to the Chicago Blackhawks, and I say given because they lost in their chance to claim the spot themselves only to have Dallas lose it as well later in the day. This turn of events however, just as having Carolina lose yesterday, could have prevented what would have been a major point of controversy in the hockey world. If either of those outcomes would have been different then a team with an equal number of points but fewer total wins would have been in the playoffs.
There is still some cause for a bit of controversy as the Pittsburgh Penguins finish the regular season with an equal number of points as the Philadelphia Flyers and also found themselves with more total wins, however they find themselves finishing second in the division rather than first. This however is the only such case this year and at least both teams are in the playoffs, a completely different scenario than if one team had made it where the other hadn't.
So what brings about this potential for controversy? A rule change at the beginning of last year that changed how the tiebreaker system worked should two teams have equal points is the answer to that. That change would make regulation and overtime wins more valuable than regulation, overtime and shootout wins. However it wasn't until the last few weeks that I and many other hockey fans found out that it wasn't quite how we thought. The first tiebreaker wasn't total wins, then regulation/OT wins but rather total wins was no longer a tiebreaker. Thus two teams tied in points would look at the new ROW column for the first tiebreaker, then move on to head to head. However there is the problem.
Using the standings that we had just this year, and the Pittsburgh/Philadelphia example, we can see just where the problem lies. Both teams this year finished with 106 points. Pittsburgh however had more total wins 49 to 47. However 10 of those came in the shootout where Philly only had 4 such wins. The equalizer in points was the 4 additional overtime or shootout losses that Philadelphia had. Now one would think that 49 wins is better than 47 and Pittsburgh would win the division, but no, the new rule doesn't take into account total wins at all. Thus Philly's advantage when shootouts are removed puts them in first despite having fewer total wins.
It is pretty obvious the flaw in the system. A team with a bunch of overtime losses can end up above a team with more wins as long as their wins come before the shootout. The system gives more weight to the extra four extra session losses a team like Philadelphia had than to the actual won games that Pittsburgh had in the shootout.
The rule change isn't completely bad, and non-shootout wins should be given more weight than shootout wins, however any win should be worth more than losing. The tiebreaker system should go to total wins if the teams are tied in points, then to "ROWs", then to the head to head. The NHL should see clearly the error in the system as it is now after avoiding a major controversy this year and only having a minor one regarding a division title. Next season this certainly needs fixed.
No comments:
Post a Comment