Adjust the standings system

[Langdon Alger]

That's not how other sports do it. Other sports don't treat a tie the same as a loss. 20-13-7 is really 20-13. It's the same as not having played the game.

If we wanted to create a points system that was similar to how MLB standings are calculated, then a win = 1 pt, a tie = 0 pt, a loss = -1 pt. Points would then be equal to your number of games "over .500".

What are you talking about Willis? Since when is an OT or shootout loss a tie game? It’s a loss. There are no ties anymore. Just wins and losses. Getting a point for losing is stupid.

 

[Butch 19]

I don't understand why people can't come to the conclusion that the teams were deserving of an equal result. I guess I grew up with ties, and realize they are reasonable. Expediating a result is a joke because it isn't the game that is played for 60 minutes previously. Some teams may be better at 3 v 3 than they are at 5v5. The game is played at 5v5, why change that just so some people can't handle an equal result.

I also grew up with ties and I realized that they sucked. I got tired of teams going into a defensive shell with 10+ minutes to go.

Bringing in OT and SO are two of the best things the NHL has ever done.

 

[MikeK]

Getting rid of the tie game is one of the best things the NHL did. The problem I have is a team getting a point for a loss. Too many teams will lock it down and play for that point after a certain time.

The NHL either needs to removed the loser point or give the winner 3 points. It's current system is an artificial way of creating parity.

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

The 3-2-1 system really doesn't make a huge difference in the standings though. Every year someone brings it up towards the end of the season because they think they're team is getting screwed and there are always a couple teams that would move up or down a few places in the standings but for the most part the standings look pretty similar. The point system isn't what causes parity, it's the Cap you can thank for that.

The 3-2-1 system doesn't make a difference because that's not the current system. The current system rewards teams by tying the game in regulation by guaranteeing that you wak away woth 1 point (50% worth as a win) and have an opportunity to get a 2md point (full value to a win). It's logical that coaches lock down the game and don't try to end it in regulation if they face no negative consequences for not winning in regulation.

3-2-1 creates a tradeoff where both teams lose a point by not winning in regulation and the OTL is only 33% worth a regulation win

 

[StoneHands]

The 3-2-1 system doesn't make a difference because that's not the current system. The current system rewards teams by tying the game in regulation by guaranteeing that you wak away woth 1 point (50% worth as a win) and have an opportunity to get a 2md point (full value to a win). It's logical that coaches lock down the game and don't try to end it in regulation if they face no negative consequences for not winning in regulation.

3-2-1 creates a tradeoff where both teams lose a point by not winning in regulation and the OTL is only 33% worth a regulation win

Sure, changing the point system may change a teams mentality in the last 5 minutes or so of a game but it doesn't mean it's going to change the outcome as often as you'd think. Teams can try to score all they want but they've been trying to score all game and 55 minutes in they're tied so why would the "better" team all the sudden have the ability to score at will? It would obviously affect the standings but I just don't think it would change it as much as people think.

 

[Paperbagofglory]

3 points for a regulation win would work well. 2 for overtime, 1 for a shootout loss. That big gap between winning before overtime and anything after would make teams have a bigger sense of urgency later in the season when they are in an important playoff race.

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

Sure, changing the point system may change a teams mentality in the last 5 minutes or so of a game but it doesn't mean it's going to change the outcome as often as you'd think. Teams can try to score all they want but they've been trying to score all game and 55 minutes in they're tied so why would the "better" team all the sudden have the ability to score at will? It would obviously affect the standings but I just don't think it would change it as much as people think.

Nobody is arguing that changing the point system will cause radical changes in the standings. The argument is that teams will play more aggressively in tied games under a 3-2-1-0 than in the current system which would in the end create different end results and that trying to apply 3-2-1 system on games that were already played under the current system is a very bad analysis

 

[StoneHands]

Nobody is arguing that changing the point system will cause radical changes in the standings. The argument is that teams will play more aggressively in tied games under a 3-2-1-0 than in the current system which would in the end create different end results and that trying to apply 3-2-1 system on games that were already played under the current system is a very bad analysis

The post I replied to claimed that the current point system creates "artificial parity" and that the 3-2-1 system would change that. I would be fine with the 3-2-1 system but I was simply pointing out that there's no evidence that changing the point system would have a big affect on the standings or eliminate parity because parity in the NHL is more a result of the salary cap than anything else.

 

[phillydownsouth]

The best thing would be 5 points for a regulation win, 4 points for a overtime win, 3 points for a shoot out win, 2 points for a shoot out loss, 1 point for a overtime loss and 0 points for a regulation loss. That way teams would be extra motivated with the big 5 point price for winning a game in regulation.

its a no from me, dawg.

 

[Hatrix]

did i mention otherwise?

The point he's making is that this already gets brought up several times a year and although a lot agree it's not going to change.

 

[stealth1]

Until they get the coaches mindset of playing not to lose nothing will change.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Reg. Win - 3
OT Win - 3
SO Win - 2
SO Loss - 1
OT Loss - 0
Reg. Loss - 0

Extend 3on3 OT to 8 or 10 minutes, 2 4/5 min halves with a quick scrape in between, then shootout.

 

[Butch 19]

The 3-2-1 system really doesn't make a huge difference in the standings though. Every year someone brings it up towards the end of the season because they think they're team is getting screwed and there are always a couple teams that would move up or down a few places in the standings but for the most part the standings look pretty similar. The point system isn't what causes parity, it's the Cap you can thank for that.

But it would (eventually) make MAJOR changes to the NHL and each teams' record books.

Keep 2 points per win, with a twist:

reg win: 2.0
OT or SO win: 1.5
OT or SO loss: 0.5
reg loss: 0

Record books stay about the same, and reg win is worth more than OT or SO win

 

[Papplebeast]

What are you talking about Willis? Since when is an OT or shootout loss a tie game? It’s a loss. There are no ties anymore. Just wins and losses. Getting a point for losing is stupid.

There are no ties anymore, but people in this thread are talking about bringing ties back and you used the record of 20-13-7 as an example in your post. The third number in a record represents a tie in pretty much every sport, and you mentioned other sports in your post. Put those together and it sure looks like you're talking about ties in your post.

 

[Phrazer]

Reg. Win - 3
OT Win - 3
SO Win - 2
SO Loss - 1
OT Loss - 0
Reg. Loss - 0

Extend 3on3 OT to 8 or 10 minutes, 2 4/5 min halves with a quick scrape in between, then shootout.

Don't like it. Teams always seem to gravitate toward "damage control" unless it is absolutely necessary. This would lead to more conservative play in OT to guarantee 1 and go for 2, especially if a team deemed themselves strong in shootouts. Rather than "risk it" for 3 and potentially end up with 0.

 

[Langdon Alger]

There are no ties anymore, but people in this thread are talking about bringing ties back and you used the record of 20-13-7 as an example in your post. The third number in a record represents a tie in pretty much every sport, and you mentioned other sports in your post. Put those together and it sure looks like you're talking about ties in your post.

Ok, but I think it was pretty clear I wasn’t talking about ties. Perhaps you should read my post again.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Don't like it. Teams always seem to gravitate toward "damage control" unless it is absolutely necessary. This would lead to more conservative play in OT to guarantee 1 and go for 2, especially if a team deemed themselves strong in shootouts. Rather than "risk it" for 3 and potentially end up with 0.

I have doubts that it is possible to play all that conservative at 3on3.

 

[sinDer]

The current system is perfect for what the NHL wants: creating the illusion of parity.

So it's not going to change anytime soon