Alternative Point System

[thegazelle]

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.

I agree 3 on 3 is similarly gimmicky and reminds me of what they did on the all star game. Sure it is more wide open but a typical game does not have the constant odd man rushes. I am sure if OT was 5 on 5, it would likely result in many situations where they would have to go to a shootout, unless they change the rules whereby it's 5 on 5 sudden death with no time limit, but therein also lies a shortcoming - few will want to watch an earlier or mid season game between two low standings teams that will go to a fifth overtime.

But I will concede I will take any of the above gimmick-try, over that thing I saw years ago on a US network whereby they put a sensor in the puck and then the puck became this bright red or blue thing on the TV. Probably to placate American audiences, which no doubt many of these changes are supposed to be directed.

 

[NikolaTesla]

3 point system is the best and most logical fix.

But... a fix to what?

 

[CanadienShark]

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.

Time to come out of retirement.

 

[GrumpyKoala]

I'm fine with the way it is.

A win is 2 points. Give the people what they want.

You get a point for losing the gimmicky parts.

What's wrong with it?

The gimmicky part.

 

[NYRfan85]

Either go to the IIHF 3-point system, or go back to the pre-1999 system. As long as every game has the same amount of points up for grabs, the system will work. I don't get why so many of you hate the idea of ties, the NHL had them for nearly a century! It just means both teams were evenly matched and each earned that point, or both teams sucked and neither deserves a second point.

The IIHF 3-point system incentivizes teams to win in regulation, especially if they are in a playoff race and points are especially crucial.

3 pts Regulation Win
2 pts OT/SO Win
1 pt OT/SO Loss
0 pts Regulation Loss

Or, go back to the old system, ditch the shootout, go back to 5v5 OT, bring back ties.
2 pts Win in any fashion
1 pt Tie
0 pts Loss in any fashion

 

[Toby91ca]

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.

Of course there is such a thing....every game that goes into OT is a regulation tie. Not only that, going for an OT win or or SO win is always discussed as the team going for the extra point....they aren't going for 2pts, they already got a point for tie in regulation. This is all semantics of course.....what I'm fairly passionate about it that teams are not getting points for losing games. Losing a shootout is simply not equivalent to losing a hockey game....to give 2pts to the winner for that and 0 to the loser the same way you would for a game that is finished in regulation holds no logic whatsoever.

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

I'm discussing NFL....so it already doesn't have much comparability.....but whether it happens during regulation or not doesn't matter (i.e. what if they held the shootout in the middle of the game just in case they needed it? Stupid, I know, but it doesn't really change anything. The analogy was simply to an "extra point" after other points already awarded.

This probably isn't much of the issue though.....I think the main issue is you have a group of people that feel passionately that you should get 0 pts for losing, whether that be in regulation, OT or SO and then you have a group that feel passionately that you should not get 0 points in that scenario because 3v3 OT and SO bear no resemblance to a hockey game.

 

[CTHabsfan]

Of course there is such a thing....every game that goes into OT is a regulation tie. Not only that, going for an OT win or or SO win is always discussed as the team going for the extra point....they aren't going for 2pts, they already got a point for tie in regulation. This is all semantics of course.....what I'm fairly passionate about it that teams are not getting points for losing games. Losing a shootout is simply not equivalent to losing a hockey game....to give 2pts to the winner for that and 0 to the loser the same way you would for a game that is finished in regulation holds no logic whatsoever.


I'm discussing NFL....so it already doesn't have much comparability.....but whether it happens during regulation or not doesn't matter (i.e. what if they held the shootout in the middle of the game just in case they needed it? Stupid, I know, but it doesn't really change anything. The analogy was simply to an "extra point" after other points already awarded.

This probably isn't much of the issue though.....I think the main issue is you have a group of people that feel passionately that you should get 0 pts for losing, whether that be in regulation, OT or SO and then you have a group that feel passionately that you should not get 0 points in that scenario because 3v3 OT and SO bear no resemblance to a hockey game.

I don't like shootouts, but the fact remains each NHL game ends with a winning team and a losing team and there is a system in place where a losing team can still get a point. I'd like there to be OT for ten minutes (don't really care if it's 3, 4, or 5/side) with the game ending in a tie if no one scores. Winning teams would receive two points, a tie results in each team receiving one point, and losers get zero.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

How about...

2 points for a regulation win
1 point for a OT/SO win
1 point for a OT/SO loss.
0 points for regulation loss.

It's clean. It awards two points regardless of how the games plays out. It produces a winner and, at the same time, acknowledges the gimmickry of post-regulation play by not over-rewarding any of it.

 

[Golden_Jet]

How about...

2 points for a regulation win
1 point for a OT/SO win
1 point for a OT/SO loss.
0 points for regulation loss.

It's clean. It awards two points regardless of how the games plays out. It produces a winner and, at the same time, acknowledges the gimmickry of post-regulation play by not over-rewarding any of it.

That’s no different than a tie, win or lose, no point in playing OT in that scenario.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

That’s no different than a tie, win or lose, no point in playing OT in that scenario.

Exactly.

You play OT to produce a winner, not to influence the standings.

 

[ON3M4N]

Never understood why people care so much about the Presidents Trophy. If you look at the history of the trophy, its been awarded 37 times. Of those 37 President Trophy winners only 8 went on to win the Stanley Cup. Nearly as many President Trophy winners were eliminated in the first round (7).

 

[weastern bias]

Just do wins and losses like every other respectable sport

If a win in 3-on-3 or the shootout is worth a full win then a loss in those formats should be worth a full loss, the point system is dumb and creates artificial parity

OT and SO wins/losses could still be used as tie breakers without having a direct effect on the season standings

 

[Hire Sather]

How about...

2 points for a regulation win
1 point for a OT/SO win
1 point for a OT/SO loss.
0 points for regulation loss.

It's clean. It awards two points regardless of how the games plays out. It produces a winner and, at the same time, acknowledges the gimmickry of post-regulation play by not over-rewarding any of it.

Of any suggestion ever made about a points system, this one is the worst I've ever seen.

Play OT just for fun?

 

[Mattilaus]

But... a fix to what?

To fix the issue of games being worth different amounts of points depending on the outcome. There is no rational argument as to why some games should be worth 3 total points and some should only be worth 2.

 

[Toby91ca]

I don't like shootouts, but the fact remains each NHL game ends with a winning team and a losing team and there is a system in place where a losing team can still get a point. I'd like there to be OT for ten minutes (don't really care if it's 3, 4, or 5/side) with the game ending in a tie if no one scores. Winning teams would receive two points, a tie results in each team receiving one point, and losers get zero.

That's a bit better than current system, but still isn't great. If OT was 5v5, fine, perhaps even 4v4 as that is a situation that happens during regulation games often enough, but if it's 3v3, it doesn't make sense. If the league was willing to end with ties, they wouldn't go to 3v3 though as they only do that to try to get a result.

 

[Toby91ca]

Of any suggestion ever made about a points system, this one is the worst I've ever seen.

Play OT just for fun?

It doesn't impact points, but does impact standings for tiebreakers......generally agree though, not the greatest suggestion.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

Of any suggestion ever made about a points system, this one is the worst I've ever seen.

Play OT just for fun?

No, play OT for a winner.

 

[Channelcat]

Sigh...... what's wrong with ties.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

Sigh...... what's wrong with ties.

Agree.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Just do wins and losses like every other respectable sport

If a win in 3-on-3 or the shootout is worth a full win then a loss in those formats should be worth a full loss, the point system is dumb and creates artificial parity

OT and SO wins/losses could still be used as tie breakers without having a direct effect on the season standings

That’s what I said. Winning percentage. No points.

 

[Mattilaus]

No, play OT for a winner.

But you don't get anything if you win, so it IS just for fun.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

But you don't get anything if you win, so it IS just for fun.

You get a single winner point for winning post regulation, plus the satisfaction of knowing you're a winner.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Just do wins and losses. And if you think that an overtime format is too gimicky to decide the difference between a win and a loss, then that's an argument for having a new overtime format.

This, and I cannot believe this is a sticking point for the NHLPA. I think it’s about tv time slots and the nhl just being lazy on what you’d do, there.

But just go 4-on-4 for 3 minutes, 3-on-3 for 3, 2-on-2 for 3, then friggin 1-on-1 till someone scores a damned goal. Don’t care if it’s a spectacle or not really hockey, it ends the game with a winner and a loser without being a separate side event, there’s no loser point, everyone talks about the crazy new structure.

Or do 10 minutes, then a tie. I really don’t care, but incentivizing OT with stupid points is stupid.

 

[Djp]

As most of you know the President's Trophy is up for grabs between about 8 teams right now, which is something that I don't remember seeing before, especially this late in the season. Just a few days ago the Bruins sat at number 1 in the league, but they had a huge boost due to them getting 15 extra points for losing in OT/SO. In my opinion, teams should not be rewarded for losing games at all, so I decided to try and create a new points system.

2 points for regulation wins. Nothing changes here, it's been this way for a long time, so I'm cool with it.

2 points for OT wins. I debated whether or not to tweak this to award 1.5 points, but half points would be stupid.

1 point for SO wins. I think that shootouts are clearly a completely different type of competition than 5v5 or 3v3. Some people say to bring back ties if a game isn't decided in OT, but I think ties are stupid. So, if a game goes this far then I think awarding just 1 point to the winner is fair enough so that it is not weighed as heavy as a typical win.

0 points for OT/SO losses. I hate loser points because it causes teams who lose more games than other teams to be ahead in the standings.

This system gets rid of 3 point games, and it makes shootouts only 1 point games. So, you will see lower point totals than we are used to, but it also closer resembles point totals that you might have seen before the 2004 lockout so it's not a gigantic change.

Obviously, there will still be flaws, as there would be with any proposal, but I felt like this one kept things relatively fair by not rewarding teams for losing beyond regulation as well as acknowledging that shootouts are not quite the same as 5v5 or 3v3 OT. I also have thought about the 3-2-1 point system because it seems pretty logical, but at the same time it's hard to wrap my brain around teams routinely having 150+ point seasons, so that's why I kept regulation and OT wins at 2 points.

Oh yeah, I also am an advocate for 1v8 seeding, so I am bringing that back as well.

Here is what the standings would look like as of March 26 using this system:

EASTERN CONFERENCE
NYR- 92
FLA- 90
CAR- 88
BOS- 79
TOR- 75
TBL- 75
DET- 70
NJD- 70
---
PHI- 68
WSH- 66
BUF- 66
NYI- 59
PIT- 58
OTT- 57
MTL- 48
CBJ- 44


WESTERN CONFERENCE
COL- 90
VAN- 90
WPG- 88
DAL- 85
EDM- 82
NSH- 82
LAK- 74
VGK- 74
---
STL- 72
CGY- 66
MIN- 65
ARZ- 56
SEA- 53
ANA- 47
CHI- 39
SJS- 31

Not all teams have played the same number of games, so prorated point totals might see a few teams trade spots, but other than that this is what the playoff picture would look like. Detroit and New Jersey would both leapfrog Philly and Washington, Boston would drop out of the President's Trophy picture as well as Dallas slipping further away. There's still no hope for San Jose though, they are clearly the worst lol.

It would be better to fo

3-0 reg win
2-0 3 on 3 win
1-1 for OT T
Bonus point if you can W the shootout with a nax of 10 shooters/rounds. If still tied then no bonus

 

[NikolaTesla]

To fix the issue of games being worth different amounts of points depending on the outcome. There is no rational argument as to why some games should be worth 3 total points and some should only be worth 2.

But.... what is wrong with a game awarding a winner 2 points and the loser 1 point? Does it make it so that a team deserving to make the playoffs ends up not making the playoff?

If so, what makes a team deserving of making the playoff?

A team with a few more wins but less competitive when they loses?
A team with a few less wins but more competitive when they loses?

There is no right or wrong answer to that and that why i think theres nothing wrong with the current point system and I have yet to see a good argument that explains why its wrong.

I personally rather have only 1 point at stake during OT/SO because thats not real hockey like its played in the playoffs. Having 2 points at stake during a 3v3 or SO is wrong. So the current system is perfect.