GDT: #66 – Wild at Sabres – Sat Mar 5, 1:00PM ET – MSG-B, Bell TV

[Havok89]

But why?

Because an overtime/shootout loss is worth more than a regulation loss when you consider it's more of a gimmick.

In this system, a game is worth 3 points every time. The loser point is justified because the winning team sacrifices the point.

 

[OkimLom]

Because an overtime/shootout loss is worth more than a regulation loss when you consider it's more of a gimmick.

In this system, a game is worth 3 points every time. The loser point is justified because the winning team sacrifices the point.

I'm not a fan of giving points to teams that lose. I get it for a tie, but with the league wanting a winner and wanting teams to play for the win, why reward teams for not winning a game?

Shoot, I can compromise on a 3-2-0 system(3 pts for reg win and 2 points for ot/shootout win and 0 for any loss. Make it more important for teams to win in regulation , but I also understand that the more important you make the wins the more likely the games will become less "risky" or entertaining and quite a defensive stalemate with coaches coaching to not lose and not making mistakes.

 

[Havok89]

I'm not a fan of giving points to teams that lose. I get it for a tie, but with the league wanting a winner and wanting teams to play for the win, why reward teams for not winning a game?.

Because 3 on 3 and shootouts aren't really hockey. If overtime was sudden death 5 on 5 or maybe even 4 on 4, I might agree with you.

 

[Flamer12]

Just make it a 10 minute 3v3 OT with a tie at the end if nobody scores. Not many games would make it past 10 minutes of 3v3.

I agree. Tie may be like kissing your sister but after getting to watch 10 minutes of 3 on 3, most still go home happy.

 

[joshjull]

To incentives a regulation win you make it 3 pts, OT win 2 pts, OT loss 1 pt.

No you make it 3pts for a win and 1 pt for a tie. Or 2pts for a win and you play until someone wins. No points if you lose, NONE.

Not sure why this is so confusing. If you give points of any kind for losing you're not doing it right.

 

[Husko]

No you make it 3pts for a win and 1 pt for a tie. Or 2pts for a win and you play until someone wins. No points if you lose, NONE.

Not sure why this is so confusing. If you give points of any kind for losing you're not doing it right.

If you do that couldn't we just get rid of points and go based on wins?

 

[joshjull]

If you do that couldn't we just get rid of points and go based on wins?

Yep but I don't think they would do that due to time constraints to get games over by a certain time. I just throw it out there because the idea of getting loser points is idiotic IMO. You want to reward winning then make a win worth enough that teams go for it instead of sitting back. 3pts for the win and 1 for a tie. Don't bother with OT and SOs. Then you don't have to get into the convoluted point systems.

But the league will never go for that. Instead we'll get some asinine set of rules (if we get any changes) with 3,2 and 1 pt(s) available every game. Because the league wants teams to be in the playoff hunt for as long as possible. From a business pov I get it.

 

[joshjull]

You're saying teams play more defensive just to get to OT? I don't buy that. They might in a tight game once it reaches the third period, but teams aren't going into games with the mindset to get to OT.

Its well known thats why OT was added in the first place, then tweaked over the years and a shootout added. Teams game plan to get a point. Thats just the way it is and has been for years. Its a play not to lose league for the most part.

 

[La Cosa Nostra]

The current way is fine the way it is. I mean when has the current system ever screw over a deserving playoff team and let an inferior undeserving one in instead? I can't think of any that jump out at you. It's not like we have seen a 42-37-3 team miss it while a 36-28-18 made it instead. In that scenario a team that won more games then it lost would miss the playoffs while a team that won 36 games and lost 46 made it instead because of when it lost 18 of those games. Nothing that far fetched / drastic has happened and therefore it really isn't a big deal.

If the NHL really wants to shake it up, we can keep Ot and SO but a loss in either just counts as a loss. The other big 3 don't have a points system and they seem to be OK (aside from a division winner with a losing record making it over a 10-11 win team in the NFL or a 37 win team making it in one conference and a 45 game winner in the the other missing it in the NBA every once in awhile)

And since we are talking about records, I do not consider a team that goes 35-32-15 a team with a winning record. Technically they got more then 50% of the available points but at the end of the day they lost 47 games and only won 35.

In my eyes you only should be considered having a winning record if you have 42 or more wins in a season in today's format since every game ends in a W-L. The old way was different because winning less then 42 games could still leave you as a winning team because of ties. Plain and simple , more wins then losses = winning record.

 

[Husko]

ROW: 3 points
ROL: 0 points
SOW: 2 points
SOL: 1 point

Every. Game. Same. Value.

 

[Jim Bob]

ROW: 3 points
ROL: 0 points
SOW: 2 points
SOL: 1 point

Every. Game. Same. Value.

It would make for some interesting decisions late in regulation, too.

 

[DazedandConfused]

ROW: 3 points
ROL: 0 points
SOW: 2 points
SOL: 1 point

Every. Game. Same. Value.

This is the plain as day obvious answer.

 

[Gras]

Regulation Win: 3 points
OT Win: 2 Points
SO Win: 1 Point

 

[B U F F A L O]

Win: 2 pts
Lose: 0 pts

Standings tiebreakers: ROW

 

[Husko]

Win: 2 pts
Lose: 0 pts

Standings tiebreakers: ROW

If you're making all wins equal and all losses equal you don't need points. You just have 'wins.'