Should the NHL get rid of the Point system overall?
- Thread starter DaBadGuy7
- Start date
- Status
Cropduster
Registered User
DaBadGuy7 said:
I dont think this will fly. Do you mean like the NBA has? I am with you that the stupid point system is annoying. I am not sure if your topic will be a topic in the NHL discussions day and tommorow or not.
Welcome to these boards
Welcome to the Boards!
I dunno if the pts system is the most pressing issue in the needed reformation of the NHL. As such, I think those more pressing issues need to be dealt with. Smaller goaltending equipment, less obstruction, and less games on the sched would be where I would start.
Oh ya, getting the players to stop listening to Bob and accept a CBA would be a nice place to begin as well
I dunno if the pts system is the most pressing issue in the needed reformation of the NHL. As such, I think those more pressing issues need to be dealt with. Smaller goaltending equipment, less obstruction, and less games on the sched would be where I would start.
Oh ya, getting the players to stop listening to Bob and accept a CBA would be a nice place to begin as well
Definitely expand the points system. Games back is a weak statistic in Basketball, as it's relevance is only pertained to Major League Baseball's playoff structure of division winners and wild card.davemess said:
I think the points system is going to be of debate in the meetings, but only in regards to helping elimiate OT ties....not to totally scrap it..
I think its important for hockey to have a points system that rewards for ties... You cannot go to a sudden death/till someone scores in hockey like football, because often times teams will play a game a day or two later, where as football games are a week or so apart...Baseball is sort of the same as there is more depth on a baseball roster, and it is not as physically draining as hockey..
Hockey needs ties... or a shootout system to work and not kill the players(Goalies might disagree that a shoot out won't kill them)
I personally like the idea of playing 5 min of 4-4...5 min of 3-3...5 min of 2-2... I would not mind seeing how that works out in the AHL..I don't think there would be too many ties off of that... and its not quite as cheap to me as a shootout.... if after 15 min of chaos, its still a tie..fine..
I think its important for hockey to have a points system that rewards for ties... You cannot go to a sudden death/till someone scores in hockey like football, because often times teams will play a game a day or two later, where as football games are a week or so apart...Baseball is sort of the same as there is more depth on a baseball roster, and it is not as physically draining as hockey..
Hockey needs ties... or a shootout system to work and not kill the players(Goalies might disagree that a shoot out won't kill them)
I personally like the idea of playing 5 min of 4-4...5 min of 3-3...5 min of 2-2... I would not mind seeing how that works out in the AHL..I don't think there would be too many ties off of that... and its not quite as cheap to me as a shootout.... if after 15 min of chaos, its still a tie..fine..
A thought I had earlier today...
It seems that the idea of 5 mins of 4-on-4, followed by 5 mins of 3-on-3, followed by a shootout is the way the wind is blowing. I'm not a big shootout fan, but that's another thread.
How about this idea? 2 points for a win (regular time, overtime, or shootout) and 0 for a loss. No points for "ties", which are really overtime losses or shootout losses. Even if they don't do a shootout, still go with 2 for a win, 0 for a loss or tie.
You'll see teams playing a lot harder for a win in the 3rd period and OT, since they get a big goose-egg for a tie and the standings become a LOT simpler to understand
I haven't really thought this through yet, but I'm sure everyone will respond and shoot it down, so feel free to fire at will
It seems that the idea of 5 mins of 4-on-4, followed by 5 mins of 3-on-3, followed by a shootout is the way the wind is blowing. I'm not a big shootout fan, but that's another thread.
How about this idea? 2 points for a win (regular time, overtime, or shootout) and 0 for a loss. No points for "ties", which are really overtime losses or shootout losses. Even if they don't do a shootout, still go with 2 for a win, 0 for a loss or tie.
You'll see teams playing a lot harder for a win in the 3rd period and OT, since they get a big goose-egg for a tie and the standings become a LOT simpler to understand
I haven't really thought this through yet, but I'm sure everyone will respond and shoot it down, so feel free to fire at will
if you are going to give 0 points for an OT loss you have to do 5-5 OT's...
If you change the rules from regulation, you must give a team a shot at one point at least if they lose.....
Which is why I hate shootouts... I don't like the fact that a shootout= the same as a regular win
You could be outplayed the whole game, but if you have that star sniper or two and a good goalie its over come shootout time...
If you change the rules from regulation, you must give a team a shot at one point at least if they lose.....
Which is why I hate shootouts... I don't like the fact that a shootout= the same as a regular win
You could be outplayed the whole game, but if you have that star sniper or two and a good goalie its over come shootout time...
3 points for a regulation win.
2 points for an OT win.
1 point for a shootout win.
0 points for a loss.
Lets get the onus back on winning and away from the "we'll try not to lose" mentality. The goal for the game has always been the guy who scores the most goals wins, period. A tie is a non-result.
2 points for an OT win.
1 point for a shootout win.
0 points for a loss.
Lets get the onus back on winning and away from the "we'll try not to lose" mentality. The goal for the game has always been the guy who scores the most goals wins, period. A tie is a non-result.
jaws
Registered User
How about 2 for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss. I really don't see the point of expanding or altering this. Its bad enough they give teams a point for losing just because they made the game last longer than 60 minutes. Go back to the way it was before, it was just fine then.
5 poins total for a game:
1 pt for each won period (say if you beat a team 2-1 in the 1st.. you get 1 point)
2 points for a win.
So if you win all 3 periods, (and of course the game) you get 5 points.
It'll make people not sit back, and make opposing teams never quit.
1 pt for each won period (say if you beat a team 2-1 in the 1st.. you get 1 point)
2 points for a win.
So if you win all 3 periods, (and of course the game) you get 5 points.
It'll make people not sit back, and make opposing teams never quit.
Yes, let's ditch the points system. Currently points are awarded in order to determine which teams get to play hockey during the Stanley Cup playoffs. The NHL is moving away from actually playing hockey games during the regular season in favor of deciding games with 4-on-4 and shootouts. It's plain to see that the point system would not reflect the actual hockey playing ability of teams. So losing the points system in no great matter.
After ditching the points system, an alternate approach for the Stanley Cup playoff seedings is needed. I think that the 16 teams that garnered the largest TV ratings throoughout the regular season should be selected. It may make fans from some markets mad, but it would be a good revenue enhancer. And it would also be as fair as seedings done by shootouts.
After ditching the points system, an alternate approach for the Stanley Cup playoff seedings is needed. I think that the 16 teams that garnered the largest TV ratings throoughout the regular season should be selected. It may make fans from some markets mad, but it would be a good revenue enhancer. And it would also be as fair as seedings done by shootouts.
jaws
Registered User
Or...1000 points a win!!! Or how about participation points, like those participation trophies they give out in kids tournies.
Seriously folks, increasing the point value of a win, game or period, does nothing but confuse the hell out of us math challenged people. Besides, I thought we all agreed that its the game that needs fixing, so why not focus on that. We're almost as bad as the NHL in taking away from the issue that actually needs attention (the game) and focusing on other stupid stuff (shootouts, nets, points per win).
Seriously folks, increasing the point value of a win, game or period, does nothing but confuse the hell out of us math challenged people. Besides, I thought we all agreed that its the game that needs fixing, so why not focus on that. We're almost as bad as the NHL in taking away from the issue that actually needs attention (the game) and focusing on other stupid stuff (shootouts, nets, points per win).
CantHaveTkachev
Legends
I personnaly HATE the 3 pt system
whats the Wild gonna do when they have a 1-0 lead at the end of 1 knowing that a win is IMPERATIVE cause it garners 3 points
defend it to the death.
more points for a win will mean teams play not to lose cause they got so much more to lose
whats the Wild gonna do when they have a 1-0 lead at the end of 1 knowing that a win is IMPERATIVE cause it garners 3 points
defend it to the death.
more points for a win will mean teams play not to lose cause they got so much more to lose
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
The old (pre OTL ) point system was just another way of expressing a winning percentage. Every game was worth the same - 2 points - and a pt/game avg was exactly 0.500. In a way it was a strict winning percentage - with ties counting effetively as 1/2 of a win and 1/2 of a loss.
Once Overtime Losses got you a point, the system got screwed up - some games awarded a total of two points, others 3. A "0.500" team was really something like 1.1-something pts/game, really dependent on the number of regulation ties and OTLs.
The obvious fix, assuming you want to keep the point for OTLs, is to adjust it to some scale where the number of points per game is constant.
For example:
4 pts for a regulation win
3 pts for an OT win
2 pts for a tie
1 pts for an OT loss
0 pts for a regulation loss
Now, the points are effectively a winning percentage again with 2pts/game being a 0.500 club. An OT win counts as effectively 3/4 of a win and an OT loss as 1/4 of one.
Once Overtime Losses got you a point, the system got screwed up - some games awarded a total of two points, others 3. A "0.500" team was really something like 1.1-something pts/game, really dependent on the number of regulation ties and OTLs.
The obvious fix, assuming you want to keep the point for OTLs, is to adjust it to some scale where the number of points per game is constant.
For example:
4 pts for a regulation win
3 pts for an OT win
2 pts for a tie
1 pts for an OT loss
0 pts for a regulation loss
Now, the points are effectively a winning percentage again with 2pts/game being a 0.500 club. An OT win counts as effectively 3/4 of a win and an OT loss as 1/4 of one.
Regarding 3 points for a win:
The same way that some people state 3 points for a win may open up the game because of those extra points, do they take into account that this may actually DECREASE the flow of the game?
If a team has a 1 goal lead, and 3 points are up for grabs, that team will most definately trap like there's no tomorrow, to try and preserve the win that now will push them even further up in the standings.
As well, because of the increased value of each game with higher points in the standings being offered, teams might just crack down and play an even more boring and low tempo game to try to preserve any mistakes from being made.
These point total discussions swing both ways.
The same way that some people state 3 points for a win may open up the game because of those extra points, do they take into account that this may actually DECREASE the flow of the game?
If a team has a 1 goal lead, and 3 points are up for grabs, that team will most definately trap like there's no tomorrow, to try and preserve the win that now will push them even further up in the standings.
As well, because of the increased value of each game with higher points in the standings being offered, teams might just crack down and play an even more boring and low tempo game to try to preserve any mistakes from being made.
These point total discussions swing both ways.
I'd be ready to consider a unique point system. 1 point for a win, no point for a loss or tie. Added to this a 10 min. 4-on-4 OT. No need for shootouts. This might force coaches to play to win instead of playing not to lose. Purest form of point system. Only wins are rewarded. If you don't win, you fail, no logic in giving points for ties.
Munchausen said:
I don't mind that idea either.
One thing the NHL needs to do is change the approach to the tie breaker to get into the playoffs. I think the record between teams should be tossed out the window and the team that scores the most goals, with a plus diffential, during the season gets the berth. To me there are just too many reasons for teams to play kitty-bar-the-door hockey these days. You have to give incentive to score and have teams play balls-to-the-wall hockey where scoring counts as much as keeping them out. Frankly if you know that having that big difefrential is the key to your chances in getting to the playoffs you are going to do your best to blow the other team off the ice.
The Iconoclast said:
I think the goals for should indeed be the #1 deciding factor for season ties. And the thing is, with a 1 pt system, all the teams with an equal number of wins have automatically an equal number of points in the rankings. So I think we can assume there will be some ties at the end of a regular season, enough to force coaches to have their backs covered in such case, by scoring the most goals they can throughout the season. If we get 5-6 teams with an equal number of points at every season ending and the #1 factor for tie breakers is goals for, I think it's safe to say coaches will play a more aggressive game and make sure they win with a decisive number of goals scored.
Last edited by a moderator:
Munchausen said:
Yes! I posted similar above, but suggested two points. One would be fine. Or, like the original post suggested, get rid of the points and go straight wins/losses.
The Iconoclast said:
Yes! Another simple change that I think would help a lot.
Steve L*
Registered User
Actually when it was introduced, teams attacked more even when they were 1 goal up because a bit of bad luck can lose you 2 points.e-townchamps said:
If a win and a loss is better than 2 ties, you will see lots more attacking hockey because the 3 points is worth the risk of losing the game but it isnt now.
- Status
