Fixing the three point problem...

[Doggy]

OK...no hockey right now so I thought this would give us something to talk about. I HATE the extra point awarded in OT and will always concede to any change that helps improve the situation whether its a 3-2-1-0 or just wins/losses or 2-1-0. I don't care, anything is better than what we have right now.

That said, a recent article on The Athletic is an interesting concept. It does not get rid of the 2-2-1-0 system but I have conceded the NHL is not giving up this stupid ass point system anytime soon so anything that makes it more intriguing is worth a try.. For those of you who have a sub, go read it...its interesting. For those of you without a sub, here's the basic gist:

The Athletic: Down Goes Brown article about improving the 2-2-1 point system

Pretty simple, its still 2 Pts for a regulation win, 2 Pts for an OT/SO win, 1 Pt for an OT/SO loss and 0 Pts for a regulation loss.

The difference is that teams above the playoff line don't earn loser points while teams below the playoff line do.

Click to read more...

 

[Doggy]

My thoughts:

One of the things I hate about the current system is that despite the appearance of tighter standings, its not. A team 4 points below the playoff line under the current system is probably just as far from a playoff spot as a team 6 points below the playoff line in the old system. The extra point for OT games makes it nearly impossible for teams below the playoff line to catch up. Well...

• this will make the standings even tighter so the NHL will love that
• give teams below the line a real chance to catch up (which has always been a complaint of mine)
• encourages teams above the line to play winning hockey rather than coast and hope for OT/SO games

A 3-2-1-0 system is still ideal, get rid of shootouts, bring back ties, and/or just make it 2 pts for a win and 0 pts for a loss or even 2-1-0 (2 for reg win, 1 for OT win and 0 for any loss incentivizing regulation wins). But knowing the NHL is not going in that direction, I think this is intriguing.

 

[EspenK]

I'd be in favor of of eliminating shootouts as a means of determining wins. Keep a 5 minute OT but make it 5 on 5. 2 points for a win and 1 point for a tie.

 

[CalBuckeyeRob]

Many don't like it, but the solution should be 3 points for a regulation win and 2 for an OT win. That means that every game has 3 points to be dispursed. One rule tweak just to prevent late season problems would be to prohibit a team from pulling their goalie in a tie game or in OT just because they need extra points to make the playoffs.

 

[Viqsi]

OK...no hockey right now so I thought this would give us something to talk about. I HATE the extra point awarded in OT and will always concede to any change that helps improve the situation whether its a 3-2-1-0 or just wins/losses or 2-1-0. I don't care, anything is better than what we have right now.

That said, a recent article on The Athletic is an interesting concept. It does not get rid of the 2-2-1-0 system but I have conceded the NHL is not giving up this stupid ass point system anytime soon so anything that makes it more intriguing is worth a try.. For those of you who have a sub, go read it...its interesting. For those of you without a sub, here's the basic gist:

The Athletic: Down Goes Brown article about improving the 2-2-1 point system

Pretty simple, its still 2 Pts for a regulation win, 2 Pts for an OT/SO win, 1 Pt for an OT/SO loss and 0 Pts for a regulation loss.

The difference is that teams above the playoff line don't earn loser points while teams below the playoff line do.

His article predicts that it'll be hated. And in my case, he's right. I hate it, because it adds a massive amount of extra bookkeeping.

 

[KCbus]

Many don't like it, but the solution should be 3 points for a regulation win and 2 for an OT win. That means that every game has 3 points to be dispursed. One rule tweak just to prevent late season problems would be to prohibit a team from pulling their goalie in a tie game or in OT just because they need extra points to make the playoffs.

I’m pretty sure a rule already exists that a team that loses in OT due to an empty net already forfeits their point.

 

[Columbus Mike]

Many don't like it, but the solution should be 3 points for a regulation win and 2 for an OT win. That means that every game has 3 points to be dispursed. One rule tweak just to prevent late season problems would be to prohibit a team from pulling their goalie in a tie game or in OT just because they need extra points to make the playoffs.

I think a rule like that exists. A long time ago, I think we played at LA, and they needed a non-shootout win, and pulled their goalie. We scored, and they didn't get the loser point because of it.

Found it: Columbus Blue Jackets at Los Angeles Kings Box Score — March 25, 2003 | Hockey-Reference.com

Andrew Cassels with the rare, OT empty net goal.

 

[CalBuckeyeRob]

I’m pretty sure a rule already exists that a team that loses in OT due to an empty net already forfeits their point.

Did not know that but it would also need to apply to regulation. But it can't really be a point forfeiture because you wouldn't get a point. It needs to be prohibited just because the 3 points you may gift to the other team could impact other teams in the playoff chase.

 

[MoeBartoli]

OK...no hockey right now so I thought this would give us something to talk about. I HATE the extra point awarded in OT and will always concede to any change that helps improve the situation whether its a 3-2-1-0 or just wins/losses or 2-1-0. I don't care, anything is better than what we have right now.

That said, a recent article on The Athletic is an interesting concept. It does not get rid of the 2-2-1-0 system but I have conceded the NHL is not giving up this stupid ass point system anytime soon so anything that makes it more intriguing is worth a try.. For those of you who have a sub, go read it...its interesting. For those of you without a sub, here's the basic gist:

The Athletic: Down Goes Brown article about improving the 2-2-1 point system

Pretty simple, its still 2 Pts for a regulation win, 2 Pts for an OT/SO win, 1 Pt for an OT/SO loss and 0 Pts for a regulation loss.

The difference is that teams above the playoff line don't earn loser points while teams below the playoff line do.

Among the alternatives I’ve seen, I maybe hate this one the most. So far the only proposal I prefer over the current structure is to make every game worth 3 points 3/0 split for regulation and 2/1 split for OT/SO wins/losses. This still awards the “old OT point” while reducing the points earned for failing to win in regulation and winning under an alternative play (3on 3 or SO) win. It also assures every game has the same number of points -3- up for grabs.

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

What is this? The NBA?

*guffaw*

 

[KCbus]

Among the alternatives I’ve seen, I maybe hate this one the most. So far the only proposal I prefer over the current structure is to make every game worth 3 points 3/0 split for regulation and 2/1 split for OT/SO wins/losses. This still awards the “old OT point” while reducing the points earned for failing to win in regulation and winning under an alternative play (3on 3 or SO) win. It also assures every game has the same number of points -3- up for grabs.

3-2-1-0 is the only format that I think is enough of an improvement over the current one to make it worth changing. For all the reasons you pointed out. Equity of points available per game, incentives for each level of victory.

 

[Dumais]

1 point for a win
0 points for draws/losses.

How it should be...

 

[KCbus]

1 point for a win
0 points for draws/losses.

How it should be...

Well... if that's what you're getting at, then you don't need points at all. Just keep track of wins. And there are no "draws" anymore.

 

[Finner]

In Finland it goes like this. Reg win 3pts, OT/SO win 2pts, OT/SO lose 1pts, Reg lose 0pts

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

In Finland it goes like this. Reg win 3pts, OT/SO win 2pts, OT/SO lose 1pts, Reg lose 0pts

I think that’s what many would like here.

 

[Ms Maggie]

Well... if that's what you're getting at, then you don't need points at all. Just keep track of wins. And there are no "draws" anymore.

This. Or the current system. As long as the same rules apply to everyone, not an issue.

 

[Dumais]

That's the whole point of playing the game and nobody likes going home empty handed.

 

[Xoggz22]

My opinion, not that it matters, but if you're going to actually play shootout hockey (not really hockey at all) then you reward a hockey win with 3 points and a S/O win with 2 pts, 1 pt to loser in all cases but regulation loss....

R/O W - 3 pts
SW - 2 pts
O/S L - 1 pt

So while it's nice to get a shootout win, it's more drive to get a win in regulation or overtime. Then you don't need to keep the ROW totals vs total wins. Points would truly dictate position. Tie breakers go to head to head, conference play, etc.

 

[Doggy]

My opinion, not that it matters, but if you're going to actually play shootout hockey (not really hockey at all) then you reward a hockey win with 3 points and a S/O win with 2 pts, 1 pt to loser in all cases but regulation loss....

R/O W - 3 pts
SW - 2 pts
O/S L - 1 pt

So while it's nice to get a shootout win, it's more drive to get a win in regulation or overtime. Then you don't need to keep the ROW totals vs total wins. Points would truly dictate position. Tie breakers go to head to head, conference play, etc.

So an OT (non-SO) game is worth 4 points?

 

[Long Live Lyle]

His article predicts that it'll be hated. And in my case, he's right. I hate it, because it adds a massive amount of extra bookkeeping.

DGB’s (Sean McIndoe) proposal was satire, making fun of the league’s reasoning that the purpose of the loser point is to “keep the playoff races close.” He doesn’t actually want to implement what he proposed. He originally said in the article that the current system, ultimately, doesn’t really have much of an impact on that anyway. It might change which teams are in the race (e.g., we wouldn’t be this year) - and he wants that anyway - but it wouldn’t change the number of teams or cause more separation than currently exists. There are other negative effects of the current system, too (e.g., teams playing conservative at the end of regulation).

But his main point was that keeping the playoff races artificially close is a stupid and unfair reason to keep the current system, and he showed that by his satirical example. People have bought into the NHL’s reasoning as if there’s nothing wrong with it... but there is definitely something wrong with it. If the system was changed (to 3-2-1-0, or simply W-L) and teams became more separated in the standings than now, so what? That’s the way it should be.

He thinks the real reason for the current system - which is probably actually true - is it allows 25 teams to claim they’re above .500. Teams can say they went on a “7-game point streak” even if they went 4-3. GMs like it for job security. Owners like it because they can sell it more easily to fans, even if their team is actually mediocre-bad. Fans like it because it makes them think their team is better than they actually are. The “keep the playoffs races close” is just a front from the NHL. And that reconciles with the major point of the article - while it’s not true, even if it was, it’s a dumb reason anyway that we shouldn’t accept.

 

[Xoggz22]

So an OT (non-SO) game is worth 4 points?

technically, yes. Separation of the winner if by 2 pts instead of 1 though. STill keeps the loser point for getting to OT but rewards the winner for winning before going to a S/O.

 

[Long Live Lyle]

I think a rule like that exists. A long time ago, I think we played at LA, and they needed a non-shootout win, and pulled their goalie. We scored, and they didn't get the loser point because of it.

Found it: Columbus Blue Jackets at Los Angeles Kings Box Score — March 25, 2003 | Hockey-Reference.com

Andrew Cassels with the rare, OT empty net goal.

That was pre-shootout. LA did it because they needed 2 points - 1 (via tie) would eliminate them. I think the league implemented the rule way back when because they didn’t want teams to think (and this could apply to any point of the season, October or March): “well, I get 1 point if I tie. And I get 1 point if I lose. So I might as well pull the goalie with 30 seconds left” and then lead to another team “unfairly” getting 2 points.

This isn’t really an issue anymore with the shootout - no team is going to pull the goalie in OT, even if they wouldn’t have to forfeit the loser point, given the shootout coming up. Really the only time a team possibly would be would be a tiebreaker situation in like the last game or two of the year. And that’s now even further mitigated that ROW is now the second tiebreaker, with RW the first. Further EVERY game now has a team get 2 points, anyway. That wasn’t the case pre-shootout.

 

[Long Live Lyle]

Did not know that but it would also need to apply to regulation. But it can't really be a point forfeiture because you wouldn't get a point. It needs to be prohibited just because the 3 points you may gift to the other team could impact other teams in the playoff chase.

I don’t think something like that would have to be implemented. I think the main reason for that rule originally was that there was no difference between a tie and losing in overtime, so why not pull the goalie? That wouldn’t be the case under the 3-2-1-0. A team would virtually never pull their goalie in OT, if they can get 2 points in a shootout still (they might on the very rare occasion in the last game or two, depending on tiebreaker, but vary rare. And even if they do, the other team still only gets 2 points, whether they won in OT via EN or a shootout).

Likewise, a team would virtually never pull their goalie in a tie game. Maybe an extremely desperate/far back team/on the verge of mathematical elimination that basically needed 3 points, but it would only happen a couple times a season max, and how do you enforce that, since it’s 0 points if they were to get scored on? Make it an automatic penalty to pull your goalie in a tie game? That has its own issues (pulling a goalie on a delayed penalty; a rule that’s only enforced in a certain game situation but not in others; etc.)

 

[Monstershockey]

In Finland it goes like this. Reg win 3pts, OT/SO win 2pts, OT/SO lose 1pts, Reg lose 0pts

I like this, but I don't think you should get a point for any kind of loss. 3 points for reg. win, 2 for OT, 1 for SO win. You lose you get zero. Maybe it cuts down on playing just to get to OT, teams will play harder to get that 3rd point.

 

[CalBuckeyeRob]

I don’t think something like that would have to be implemented. I think the main reason for that rule originally was that there was no difference between a tie and losing in overtime, so why not pull the goalie? That wouldn’t be the case under the 3-2-1-0. A team would virtually never pull their goalie in OT, if they can get 2 points in a shootout still (they might on the very rare occasion in the last game or two, depending on tiebreaker, but vary rare. And even if they do, the other team still only gets 2 points, whether they won in OT via EN or a shootout).

Likewise, a team would virtually never pull their goalie in a tie game. Maybe an extremely desperate/far back team/on the verge of mathematical elimination that basically needed 3 points, but it would only happen a couple times a season max, and how do you enforce that, since it’s 0 points if they were to get scored on? Make it an automatic penalty to pull your goalie in a tie game? That has its own issues (pulling a goalie on a delayed penalty; a rule that’s only enforced in a certain game situation but not in others; etc.)

Your rule could make an exception if you were on a delayed penalty. It is not like that time is a mystery to the officials during the game. The penalty for pulling your goalie in a tie game otherwise would be a 5 minute penalty against the team violating the rule. That would prevent it from ever happening.