Should the NHL get rid of the Point system overall?

Status
Not open for further replies.

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
If the goal of the NHL is to increase the offence in the game, why not keep the basic point system the same: 2 pts for a win, 1 pt for a tie/OT lose, 0 pt for a reg lose, but and a bonus for goals scored.

If each goal added 0.1 pts, teams are encouraged to score goals. This would really pick things up at the end of the season as teams are pushing to get in the playoffs and the only way to make up the points is to win and score lots of goals.

Winning would still be the most important factor in making the playoffs, but point totals will be increased about 20 pts. (200 goals) for the worst teams, while the teams with the most offensive talent can maybe get 40 additional points.

The draw back is that some teams may completely abandon defence to try to score goals, but those teams will have a hard time making the playoffs unless they are very good offensively.

Not really sure if this is doable. Just trying to think outside the box...
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
jaws said:
How about 2 for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss. I really don't see the point of expanding or altering this. Its bad enough they give teams a point for losing just because they made the game last longer than 60 minutes. Go back to the way it was before, it was just fine then.

Again.. I don't really disagree with that.. its just that if you are going to change how the game is played come OT(i.e. going to 4-4 and/or shootouts) its NOT hockey. If you want a loser to get 0 points at ALL times you must play OT 5-5.

Another thing is that in theory, the 1 point for a loss in OT is supposed to help increase the odds that there is a winner...Because.. again.. in theory a team can "risk it" more and not worry about getting nothing... If you got 0 points for an OT loss.. you would see teams "hold on" for the tie in OT rather than send 3 guys up to attack....= less OT wins..


If they want to end it...NO POINTS FOR A TIE....its either a win or a loss/tie
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
edmontonoilers89 said:
If a team has a 1 goal lead, and 3 points are up for grabs, that team will most definately trap like there's no tomorrow, to try and preserve the win that now will push them even further up in the standings.

The fallacy in this argument is that teams already do this now, with just 2 points on the line. This league is already full of teams that willingly play for the tie, rather than risk losing their one point by going for a win.

By going to 3 points for a regulation win, we reward those teams that don't play that way with more points, higher standings, home ice advantage etc.

Teams that play for the tie will find themselves being left behind.
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,452
29,189
St. OILbert, AB
PecaFan said:
The fallacy in this argument is that teams already do this now, with just 2 points on the line. This league is already full of teams that willingly play for the tie, rather than risk losing their one point by going for a win.

By going to 3 points for a regulation win, we reward those teams that don't play that way with more points, higher standings, home ice advantage etc.

Teams that play for the tie will find themselves being left behind.

they'll play hard for the win...as long as the two teams are tied.

if one team goes up by 1 or 2 goals, they're not gonna risk getting scored on by giving up chances and losing those 2 extra points. I seriously believe they'll trap you blue in the face.

doesn't soccer have this 3 pt system? how many ties are there? (yes, I know it's easier to tie in soccer..)
 

Guest

Registered User
Feb 12, 2003
5,599
39
At very least, I would love to see the NHL scrap the point systems even if they only go to Win-Loss-Tie format.

However, I would like to see an even more radical change in the standings, and that is ranking the standings based on wins only. I think it has the potential to change the game to a more offensive mindset. If teams are tied during a game, and know that a tie will not advance them in the standings, teams might take more chances to secure the win. Instead of sitting back and playing for the tie, which unfortunately happens too much today -- especially with the guaranteed point once overtime is met -- teams will fight it out that much harder when they get to overtime to make sure they don't defacto "lose" the game. Essentially, if only the wins count in the standings, then anything else is considered a loss.

If you think about it, a winner must be determined in the playoffs, it takes 16 wins to get the Stanley Cup, not 12 wins and 4 ties. Plus, they are trying to get more definitive final scores in the games as to who is the winner and loser. If a game starts with a score of 0-0, and ends in a score of 2-2, has anything really been determined?

I think having a wins-based standings would change the psychology of the game. Teams would be less likely to sit on their backs with a lead in a game, because if they allowed just one goal, that could equate to losing the game.

I'd settle for Wins-Loss-Ties in the standings, and don't want anything to do with the shootouts. However, making the best of the shootouts no doubt includes getting close up's of the players, without helmets, taking the penalty shots.
 

Master Shake*

Guest
The Iconoclast said:
3 points for a regulation win.
2 points for an OT win.
1 point for a shootout win.

0 points for a loss.

Lets get the onus back on winning and away from the "we'll try not to lose" mentality. The goal for the game has always been the guy who scores the most goals wins, period. A tie is a non-result.


I agree.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
e-townchamps said:
if one team goes up by 1 or 2 goals, they're not gonna risk getting scored on by giving up chances and losing those 2 extra points. I seriously believe they'll trap you blue in the face.

Right. But that's what they do now. As I said, the fallacy in the argument is thinking that things will change. You'd have to show that there are teams that presently think "Gee, 2 points is hardly worth protecting, so we'll play all out offensively and risk it" that would suddenly switch to "Gosh, 3 points is a lot, we'll play stifling trap defense".

I don't think such a mythical team exists.

The Iconoclast said:
3 points for a regulation win.
2 points for an OT win.
1 point for a shootout win.
0 points for a loss.

If we have to have a shootout, this is really the best system. Fantastically rewards teams who win in regulation, a slight penalty for needing 4 on 4 overtime, and a circus shootout that hardly counts at all. Teams that rely on shootouts will fall behind.
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,452
29,189
St. OILbert, AB
The Iconoclast said:
3 points for a regulation win.
2 points for an OT win.
1 point for a shootout win.

0 points for a loss.

Lets get the onus back on winning and away from the "we'll try not to lose" mentality. The goal for the game has always been the guy who scores the most goals wins, period. A tie is a non-result.

not a bad idea although I'd say O.T wins and regulation wins are the same cause a win is a win no matter how long it took you

shootout win is another story, it's an individual battle and isn't hockey so i agree that less points should be awarded

point system:
Reg/O.T win: 2pts
Shootout win:1 pt.
loss:0 pts.
 

Tb0ne

Registered User
Nov 29, 2004
5,452
33
Victoria
I agree any point system that encourages a team taking that extra step to winning..

3 points for a win
2 points for an overtime win
1 point for a tie or overtime loss
0 for a loss

If that would help then they should go far it.

It should be a shame to not be able to compare "Team Season Points" stats across era's but in that case people can just look at the W, L, T totals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->