Equilibrium On The Ice

The Opposite

Jerry : Yeah, I know; like yesterday I lost a job, and then I got another one, and then I missed a TV show, and later on they re-ran it. And then today I missed a train, went outside and caught a bus. It never fails! I always even out!

Sigh. Another night, another frustrating shootout loss for the Wild. I know that his shootout numbers aren't great, but it's beyond me why you wouldn't have Gaborik take a turn. Oh and Rolston, that slap shot bit is played. Very played. But hey, at least they got a point out of it, right?

Ever since the NHL adopted the shootout rules a few years ago, I've been of two minds on the matter. It's impossible to deny the excitement of the mano a mano showdown and the skills that you get to see displayed. And I like the idea of not having ties. But I've always been bothered by the fact that the "losing" team still gets a point. It just doesn't seem right. While mulling this over in more detail last night, I realized what really bothers me about it: the numbers don't add up.

Professional sports (unlike economics) is or at least should be a zero-sum game. Two teams begin the contest. One wins, one loses. In professional baseball, basketball, and football (usually) this is how it works. At the end of the season, if you add up all the teams wins and losses (and occasional tie in the NFL) they balance out. No matter how individual teams do, there will be X number of games, 1/2 X number of wins, and 1/2 X number of losses. You know this at the beginning of the season and it is not subject to change.

The NHL used to be this way (college hockey still is). There were two points available on the table at the beginning of each game. The winner would receive two. The loser zero. If the game ended in a tie, the teams split the points. But the total number of points available did not change.

Each year there are 1230 regular season NHL games (thirty teams in the NHL playing eighty-two games each). That meant that there would be 2460 points available. It didn't matter how many games ended in a tie, that overall number stayed the same. Which allowed you to compare year over year point totals in a meaningful way.

Now, consider what happens when a game goes into overtime. Suddenly, the skies open and another point is added to the pot. After battling for sixty minutes to win two points, the teams are now competing for five minutes (and maybe the shootout) to see how they split three. Now, every time a game goes into overtime, a point is added to the overall total available for the season. By my calculations, 234 such "extra" points have already been added this year. Next year, more may be added. Or less.

So Detroit is having a great year with 100 points based on 47 wins, 18 losses, and 6 overtime losses. But what does this mean historically? How many of their wins would have been ties in the old NHL? The points just don't mean the same thing they used to.

So what's the answer? Keep the OT and the shootout. But only award two points to the winner. If you lose in OT or the shootout, you get nada. If teams aren't good at shootouts, maybe this would lead them to take more risks in OT or the third period to win the game. This would also allow for more separation and meaningful games within the divisions. You want some intensity at the end of the season? Ensure that the games are two point swings instead of the one point advantage that we see too often today.

For the sake of numerical balance and symmetry, the NHL needs to even it out.