Alternative Point System

[CTHabsfan]

Except a team gets 0 points for OTL, they get 1pt for regulation tie....standings doesn't show that, but it's there.

There is no such thing as a "regulation tie", all games have a winner and a loser. It's still a loss if a team is defeated in OT, they just happen to get a point, which is why the phrase "loser point" is fair.

 

[CTHabsfan]

it’s wrong to call it that though. It’s a point for being tied at the end of regulation.

Are you old enough to remember when it was instituted?

Yes, I'm old enough to remember when there were ties. I'd like the NHL to be like the NFL, where OT is played and a the game is a tie if the score remains tied at the end of OT.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Yes, I'm old enough to remember when there were ties. I'd like the NHL to be like the NFL, where OT is played and a the game is a tie if the score remains tied at the end of OT.

I don’t see the NHL going to 15-20 minute OT, NFL only plays once a week.
Agree just eliminate the loser point, like they did after got rid of ties, and OT winner got 2 points and loser zero.

Agree, if you think something is broken......I never had a problem with ties though. That said, agree, if you are going to force a winner, by any means, I think 3pt system makes sense. The question will be whether that really changes who finishes where though.....no one will ever know because you can recast standards using a new scoring system, but that's not a fair comparison as the prior games would have been played under a different scoring system and it will most certainly impact how teams play towards the end of the 3rd period.

There will be people that don't like 3pt games due to historical comparability, but what are we evening looking at? How many points a team finishes the year with? Do people really spend any time thinking about that vs. teams of the past? It's already not comparable due to the current scoring system vs. the way is has been in prior years or the number of games played being 82 vs. 80 vs. 84 vs. 70 vs. 50.....why is this a point of contention?


Couldn't agree more....hate reference to "loser point" - comparison I literally just thought of and perhaps it doesn't make sense.....but think about a touchdown in football...you get 6pts and then you go for the extra pt.....if you miss the kick for the extra point, you don't lose the 6pts you earned on the touchdown.

You’re discussing what NFL does in regulation time lol, poor analogy.
That has zero to do with loser point.

 

[dirtydanglez]

just wins and losses. no need to reward players for dragging a game to overtime

 

[StreetHawk]

There is no such thing as a "regulation tie", all games have a winner and a loser. It's still a loss if a team is defeated in OT, they just happen to get a point, which is why the phrase "loser point" is fair.

Those who are old enough to have watched an NHL with ties, most of us have no issues with them. And OT back in those days was 5x5 and thus if you lost in OT you got nothing for the game. Once the NHL started to play with the game in turning it into 4x4 was when they started to hand out an imbalance of points.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Those who are old enough to have watched an NHL with ties, most of us have no issues with them. And OT back in those days was 5x5 and thus if you lost in OT you got nothing for the game. Once the NHL started to play with the game in turning it into 4x4 was when they started to hand out an imbalance of points.

I’m old enough to remember ties, and was a long time season ticket holder, 90+ % of STH I talked to hated leaving games after a tie, likened it to kissing your sister.
The fans that went to 2-3 games a year didn’t seem to care though.
Just go back to wins and losses, and stop the stupid loser point and having games worth different values.

 

[cowboy82nd]

Ever take a look at NHL standings?

W=wins
L=losses
OTL=overtime losses (not ties)

There is a winner and a loser. It's perfectly fair to refer to it as a "loser point" if a team loses and still receives a point.

But according to the NHL, both teams get a point for being tied at the end of regulation. So, it’s not a loser point but a point for being tied.

 

[KeydGV21]

Yes, I'm old enough to remember when there were ties. I'd like the NHL to be like the NFL, where OT is played and a the game is a tie if the score remains tied at the end of OT.

As would I…

But you should remember that the point was giving to both teams as soon as regulation ended…and a bonus point was awarded for then winning the game.

Calling it a loser point is flat out inaccurate

 

[wetcoast]

As a former math professor always looking for ways to get students interested in math, I'm consistently fascinated by how much people get into this.

The thing is that for most people it's not about the math.

 

[Golden_Jet]

As would I…

But you should remember that the point was giving to both teams as soon as regulation ended…and a bonus point was awarded for then winning the game.

Calling it a loser point is flat out inaccurate

You should remember the part where losing in OT got zero loser points then,

 

[Qurpiz]

I will repeat this ad nauseum

3pts for regulation win
2pts for OT/SO win
1pt for OT/SO loss
0pts for regulation loss

Find a flaw

 

[KeydGV21]

I will repeat this ad nauseum

3pts for regulation win
2pts for OT/SO win
1pt for OT/SO loss
0pts for regulation loss

Find a flaw

That people are eventually going to be upset that shootout wins are valued the same as OT wins and demand a 5 for regulation 4 for overtime 3 for shootout 2 for shootout loss and 1 for overtime loss

 

[Golden_Jet]

I haven’t seen one poster who likes loser points, explain why there should be different amounts of points rewarded, as opposed to equal points for every game played.
It’s Mickey Mouse system, or for grade school participation ribbons.

 

[thegazelle]

this point system would make sense if overtime was 5 on 5

but with 3 on 3 overtime this would be like 10 times worse than the current system, 3 on 3 is every bit as gimmicky as the shootout

Agree with the above. When read through the proposal, it sounds all right, except the overtime for 3-on-3 is just not comparable to a 5 on 5. Otherwise I like the OP's proposal. I too, have never been a fan of the loser point and while I agree, keeping ties like what happened in the 80s and part of 90s or whenever introduced teams that were content with the point and just basically coasted when the score was tied. I think a loss is a loss, regardless if it happens in regulation, overtime or shootout and just like in real life, you shouldn't be half rewarded. Reminds me too much of school, watching my kids get partial credit for showing all their work even though the answer is wrong. I am sure others will disagree. Certainly the goal is to try to get teams to settle it in regulation. Despite the fact that my kids love the shootout I find it too gimmicky and reminds me too much of soccer, which I hate with a passion.

 

[sbhnur]

Only personal rewards: just play the 3vs3 OT for the fans who like it and gift the game winner a nice car. Points are spread equally: 1 for both teams. If the game goes to the shootout every player who scores gets a bag of sweets. Sounds fair.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Remove the loser points, and let them be some part of the tie breaker rules at end of season.

 

[StreetHawk]

Agree with the above. When read through the proposal, it sounds all right, except the overtime for 3-on-3 is just not comparable to a 5 on 5. Otherwise I like the OP's proposal. I too, have never been a fan of the loser point and while I agree, keeping ties like what happened in the 80s and part of 90s or whenever introduced teams that were content with the point and just basically coasted when the score was tied. I think a loss is a loss, regardless if it happens in regulation, overtime or shootout and just like in real life, you shouldn't be half rewarded. Reminds me too much of school, watching my kids get partial credit for showing all their work even though the answer is wrong. I am sure others will disagree. Certainly the goal is to try to get teams to settle it in regulation. Despite the fact that my kids love the shootout I find it too gimmicky and reminds me too much of soccer, which I hate with a passion.

How is 3x3 any less gimmicky than a SO?
You see more PS taken than instances of 3x3 in regulation. Would require offsetting penalties then each team taking a subsequent penalty to get some 3x3 action.

End of the day nhl likes keeping races close. New 0.500 is closer to 90 points than 82. Somewhere around 20% of games are ending up in extra time.

 

[BLNY]

2 points for a win
0 points for a loss
The only way a point is awarded is if they bring back games that end in ties

 

[Korpse]

just wins and losses. no need to reward players for dragging a game to overtime

Do you like the idea of rewarding teams for winning 3v3 or a shootout? If I'm trying to determine the best 16 teams for the playoffs, anything beyond regulation is useless given the current playoff format.

 

[dirtydanglez]

Do you like the idea of rewarding teams for winning 3v3 or a shootout? If I'm trying to determine the best 16 teams for the playoffs, anything beyond regulation is useless given the current playoff format.

a win is a win to me. i just dont like the idea of teams playing it safe in the 3rd just to get an extra point. id rather they go all in for a win no matter how much time is left on the clock

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

No points. Winning percentage.

 

[Korpse]

a win is a win to me. i just dont like the idea of teams playing it safe in the 3rd just to get an extra point. id rather they go all in for a win no matter how much time is left on the clock

Who says teams aren't playing it safe in the 3rd to win get a win beyond regulation?

 

[CTHabsfan]

As would I…

But you should remember that the point was giving to both teams as soon as regulation ended…and a bonus point was awarded for then winning the game.

Calling it a loser point is flat out inaccurate

Teams do not receive a "bonus point" for winning in OT. Teams receive two points when they win a game, be it in regulation or OT. Teams that do not win are the loser, but they do get a point if they lose in OT rather than losing in regulation. Calling it a loser point is completely fair.

 

[snag]

So we go from a magical 3rd point coming out of Bettmans ass to some mystical force eating one?

Every game should have the same amount of points up for grabs.

 

[NikolaTesla]

Whats wrong with rewarding a losing team with 1 point for being competitive for 60 minutes? Why are so many of you couch warriors so against it exactly?