ESPN looks at the standings with different point systems

[Windy River]

Wouldn't going to W-L also get rid of this (perhaps mythical) gaming of the system where teams settle in for the regulation tie to get that point?

If it's just W-L then there's no advantage to holding back anything, ever. A Win will always be the goal regardless of the timeclock, and the losing will have the same value at any point. So there'd never be any reason to hold back or go ultra-defensive or whatever. And it makes it easier to look at the standings and figure out what your team needs to do to make the playoffs or win the division etc without having to pull out the calculator and spreadsheet.

 

[Dekes For Days]

And take a look around the rink the next time a shootout is taking place. For so many despising it as u claim, the fans and players sure seem to get into it.

All I've seen when a shootout is taking place is a bunch of people walking toward the exits.

 

[notDatsyuk]

The biggest advantage of the 3-2-1 system is that there is a good chance someone will finally eclipse the Canadiens record of most points in a season!

 

[AD Skinner]

This is the perfect point system:
-maintains compression of the standings, therefore maximizes market/fan interest/revenue.
-eliminates the 'loser point'

2 pts - Regulation Win
0 pts - All losses
1 pt - Regulation tie
1 pt - OT/SO win

If points are tied - the tie breaker is Regulation Wins... so adds a little importance there.

This is the current system. Both teams get 1 point for a regulation tie. One team gets another point for the ot/shootout win. Regulation wins is the tiebreaker.

 

[DL44]

This is the current system. Both teams get 1 point for a regulation tie. One team gets another point for the ot/shootout win. Regulation wins is the tiebreaker.

Winner winner chicken dinner
Perfect system.




They just made a mistake trying to be efficient with 3 columns.
They didn't foresee such a loud portion of the the population failing so hard at understanding it wasn't a loser point.

Also.. notice how you were the first one in like 36 hrs to notice.. wonder how many people against the current system read my post and thought it was good. More than they would ever admit.

 

[Avelanche]

It barely changes. Who cares.

 

[NDiesel]

So, basically, there’s no significant difference, just like every single other time this topic comes up.

That's what I got from this. Essentially we can change the points system, but it'll still be the same teams at the top and at the bottom, so why do we need to complain about the system every year?

 

[MoeBartoli]

Every game needs to be worth the same amount of points. The current system is ridiculous as would the 2-1-0 system. 3-2-1-0 makes most sense AINEC

Agree the “selling point” of 3-2-1 is that the same number of points is at stake in each game.

 

[Dexter Colt]

There are approximately the same amount of OT games in leagues using 3 point system. Expecting more games to end in regulation is a myth.

Getting no points at all and giving up 3 to a team you’re in race with is a lot of pressure. Nobody is going to say ”okay its the final 5 minutes of the 3rd lets take more chances to score to break this tie”.

No matter what system they use the game is the same.

You're spot on. I still advocate the 3pt wins due to logic and a reward to a strong team that gets its job done in 60', but saying it would drastically change in-game dynamics is a stretch.

Just to add: if not 2,0/1,1 or 3,0/2,1, just go f***ing 90's NASCAR. 175 for a win, triple digits for a loss, random points for player with most hits/shots/etc.

 

[PlayMakers]

I like the 3-2-1 system. It creates a bigger disparity between the good teams and the bad teams. I think that would be good for the league. The bad teams would be out of the race earlier, which would help create more trades, and trades generate buzz. I guess I see the point about it being bad for business, I'm sure teams in the hunt sell more seats than teams that are out of the hunt, but rebuilds can also be exciting if marketed the right way, if you acquire promising young players during the season... The Bruins are always in the hunt and some of the most enjoyable games to watch during the regular season are when they call up young kids from the minors.

 

[57special]

Eliminate OT, and do the soccer system of 3=win, 1=tie, 0=loss . The extra points earned for a win will provide incentive for teams to try for a win in regulation rather than settle for a tie, especially for the fringe playoff teams near the end of the season. Teams are already gaming the 3v3 system by endlessly possessing the puck by circling back in their own zone, playing to their goalie, etc. It's become about who changes lines the best.

3x3 is cute, but it's a different game than hockey, and it's ridiculous that it is used to determine who does, and doesn't, make the playoffs.

 

[Mr Positive]

A good one would be winning percentage

 

[coolboarder]

Just stop giving out loser points. Winner gets 2 loser gets 0 regardless of OT or shootout.

Bring back the ties. No OT, no shootout, if it's ends with a tie, game's over.

 

[North Cole]

But I was told the pacific was trash and all pacific teams would be the bottom in other divisions.

 

[Butch 19]

I remember the days before gimmick points when the NHL had a perfect system. Then they went and "fixed" what wasn't broke and as a result, we'll have these threads forever.

You mean when the teams were tied with 10 minutes to go in the 3rd, and both teams went into a defensive shell?

Yeah, NOT good times.

The NHL's added OT and SO have been mostly very successful.

 

[Gary Nylund]

You mean when the teams were tied with 10 minutes to go in the 3rd, and both teams went into a defensive shell?

Yeah, NOT good times.

That was never an issue until OT was introduced, giving teams motivation to do just that.

The NHL's added OT and SO have been mostly very successful.

How so? When a playoff spot was decided by penalty shots one season, is that your idea of success?

I guess is you like 3on3 and shootout gimmicks then yay, success. I don't likes games being decided by gimmicks and that's why I liked it better when points were handed out for hockey results only. The game somehow seemed to have more integrity back then.

JMHO.

 

[Butch 19]

That was never an issue until OT was introduced, giving teams motivation to do just that.

It was an issue in EVERY tied game late in the 3rd.

How so? When a playoff spot was decided by penalty shots one season, is that your idea of success?

82 games to make the playoffs, it's not an issue.

I guess is you like 3on3 and shootout gimmicks then yay, success. I don't likes games being decided by gimmicks and that's why I liked it better when points were handed out for hockey results only. The game somehow seemed to have more integrity back then.

integrity? LOL. OT and SO provides more entertainment, that all I care about.

 

[Gary Nylund]

It was an issue in EVERY tied game late in the 3rd.

That's right, after they introduced these gimmicks giving teams motivation to go to OT. Before that you couldn't just cruise to the end of regulation because if you wanted two points, you only had 60 minutes to earn it.

82 games to make the playoffs, it's not an issue.

When a shootout in the last game of the season decides the last playoff spot, it's very much an issue.

integrity? LOL. OT and SO provides more entertainment, that all I care about.

To each his own. I've always liked good old fashioned hockey myself and shootouts have too much variance for me to take them seriously. Giving a team a point for winning a shootout is basically a joke as far as I'm concerned. 3 on 3 isn't quite as bad but still has the same issues.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Agree the “selling point” of 3-2-1 is that the same number of points is at stake in each game.

If we can't go back to the way it was, I still say shootouts must go and would go with 3-2-1.5-1 system awarding 3 points every game.

Regulation win 3-0.

OT win 2-1.

If no winner in OT then a 1.5-1.5 tie.

Keeps 3on3 OT for the many who love the entertainment. There's motivation to keep playing for a win at all times so there wouldn't be many ties. 3 points awarded every game and best of all, no shootouts which are a complete joke. If we must keep OT, this is something I could live with.

 

[Butch 19]

When a shootout in the last game of the season decides the last playoff spot, it's very much an issue.

Embrace the fun and excitement.

 

[MessierII]

Just stop giving out loser points. Winner gets 2 loser gets 0 regardless of OT or shootout.

Can’t decide 2 points in a skills competition.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Embrace the fun and excitement.

I just can't get past the stupidity. Shootouts suck, I have a strong preference for hockey.

 

[SK13]

That was never an issue until OT was introduced, giving teams motivation to do just that.
.

I'm going to assume you mean until the OT point was introduced because 1982 hockey isn't a real barometer for anything that could or would happen now.

The only reason the OT point exists is because teams shelled up for the tie. The league wanted to incentivize them to actually play.

Ties are trash. The worst of a bunch of bad options. The first two games I attended as a child were ties and I loved the game less after them for it.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I'm going to assume you mean until the OT point was introduced because 1982 hockey isn't a real barometer for anything that could or would happen now.

The only reason the OT point exists is because teams shelled up for the tie. The league wanted to incentivize them to actually play.

Ties are trash. The worst of a bunch of bad options. The first two games I attended as a child were ties and I loved the game less after them for it.

Then the league failed. If teams were playing to tie before, they were doing it much more after OT was introduced.

Shootouts are trash, the worst of all options IMO.

 

[Coastal Kev]

Well that definitely exposed the Islanders for who they really are. It's almost like Trotz understands the secrets of manipulating the NHL>