What About 3 pts for a Regulation Win?

[roboninja]

The most equitable and rational manner

3 pts for a regulation win
2 pts for an OT win
1 pt for a shootout win

Loser do not get any point ever. Having a point and moving up the in the standings while losing a game makes no sense to me.

That's even worse than what we have now. A game can be worth anywhere from 3 points to 1 point? Ludicrous.

 

[el2ik]

Why not just eliminate the loser point altogether? 2 pts if you win at any point, 0 if you lose. I can't see any reason to not go for the win at any point of the game if this was the case, because you're constantly at risk of not getting any points at all.

No other league gives any incentive for going to OT. I don't think it really makes sense.

I don't really see any changes happening though if the league wants parity, even if it comes in an artificial form.

 

[Blood On The Ice]

That's even worse than what we have now. A game can be worth anywhere from 3 points to 1 point? Ludicrous.

Winning in regulation is more valuable than winning in OT, which is more valuable than winning in a shootout.

So yes, a game can be worth anywhere from 3 points to 1 point.

 

[Brainiac]

The current format keeps the playoffs race tighter right up until the season's end. And it is of absolutely no consequence with regard to the cup winner.

So it doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things, but it generates more interest in a lot of bubble teams markets.

It's gonna stay like this forever. Better get used to it.

 

[AlphaCatalyst]

http://hockeystandings.info/?page=threepoints&year=2015&view=lea

 

[Oan]

What an original idea OP. Oh wait, all the european professional hockey leagues have been using that system for YEARS now.

 

[The Legend]

Here's how it would work:

Regulation game: Winner 3 pts, Loser 0 pts
Overtime game: Winner 2 pts, Loser 1 pt

The idea here is to crank up the incentive to win in regulation and stop teams from coasting to the free point and eventually in the shootout. Teams who make the effort would be putting distance in the standings forcing the slackers to try harder to make up ground.

Just putting it out there, don't know myself yet if I think it would be a good idea

Thoughts?

It would also serve to make every game worth the same amount of points - leagues that don't do this are bananas to me.

 

[ForeverJerseyGirl]

I'd be in support of moving to a point system where every game was worth three points and the breakdown was as follows:

3 points regulation win
2 points overtime/shootout win
1 point overtime/shootout loss
0 point regulation loss

I believe that the current point system is illogical because not every game is worth the same amount of points, since some are worth three while others are only worth two. A three point system for every game would make the playoff race more interesting (since it would make it more conceivable that a team could make up lost ground from earlier in the season near the end) and it would also give teams more of an incentive to finish games in regulation for an extra point rather than just keep a tie game and settle for at least one point (because doing so would automatically mean surrendering a point to a team that won in regulation).

 

[MuckOG]

Why is this even a topic? There is no way the NHL will change the current format because this system creates more parity in the standings which means more fan-bases staying glued to their teams (and televisions) later into the season.

This is what they wanted, why would they EVER change it?

 

[ForeverJerseyGirl]

Why is this even a topic? There is no way the NHL will change the current format because this system creates more parity in the standings which means more fan-bases staying glued to their teams (and televisions) later into the season.

This is what they wanted, why would they EVER change it?

Actually I disagree about this system creating more parity in the standings. I think that a three point regulation win would make the playoff race more tight since it would make it easier for teams to gain ground on one another with the possibility of a three point regulation win instead of a regulation win being worth the same as an overtime win (so it's harder to catch up with a team ahead in the standings). With three point regulation wins, more teams might be able to make the post-season after sluggish starts to the season. That's just my perspective, and obviously it has zero sway with the NHL.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Just bring back the ties ffs

 

[txpd]

I'm not sure why this isn't the format the NHL has now. Been asking myself this for a long time.

this idea that creating more incentive to win in regulation overcomes the disincentive to lose in regulation boggles my mind.

this is a defense first league.

right now losing in regulation to a conference/playoff spot rival is 2pts to none and these teams play for the OT guaranteed point. You make the damage 3pts to none and teams are going to go for the brass ring?? Hell no.

 

[radapex]

2 pts if you win at any point, 0 if you lose.

Then why award points at all?

No other league gives any incentive for going to OT. I don't think it really makes sense.

No other league has games go to OT as much as the NHL. Here's a breakdown of the latest seasons:

NHL: 1041 games, 257 went to OT (24.7%)
MLB: 2430 games, 232 went to extra innings (9.5%)
NFL: 128 games, 11 went to OT (8.6%)
NBA: 998 games, 64 went to OT (6.4%)

Even prior to the addition of the "loser point", there was a high number of games that went to OT.

2003-04: 1230 games, 315 went to OT (25.6%)
2002-03: 1230 games, 313 went to OT (25.4%)
2001-02: 1230 games, 270 went to OT (22.0%)
2000-01: 1230 games, 274 went to OT (22.2%)
1999-00: 1230 games, 275 went to OT (22.4%)
1998-99: 1230 games, 245 went to OT (19.9%)
1997-98: 1230 games, 246 went to OT (20.0%)

 

[umwoz]

Is it factually true though? Is goal scoring actually down in the final 10 minutes of tie games, or is it just a hunch? Do teams demonstrably take/allow less scoring chances?

If it IS true, is it definitely because teams are playing for OT? Is it because players are tired late in the game?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was true (NHL Coach + Loss Aversion = safe hockey), but you should do the legwork before throwing out rule change suggestions to fix a problem that might not exist..

That's a pretty naive view. You're also ignoring the other half of the equation. Teams aren't going all out to get that last minute regulation goal, because there is no incentive to do so.

 

[CrashBartley]

Why is this even a topic? There is no way the NHL will change the current format because this system creates more parity in the standings which means more fan-bases staying glued to their teams (and televisions) later into the season.

This is what they wanted, why would they EVER change it?

Rather than mess with how many points a game should be worth, since ties are eliminated, why even have a point system? A won/loss column is all that is needed. Then use regulation wins, OT wins and SO wins as tiebreaker method. That way, it's important to win the game as fast as possible.
But as you said, they won't change because they've created false parity.

 

[umwoz]

No other league has games go to OT as much as the NHL. Here's a breakdown of the latest seasons:

NHL: 1041 games, 257 went to OT (24.7%)
MLB: 2430 games, 232 went to extra innings (9.5%)
NFL: 128 games, 11 went to OT (8.6%)
NBA: 998 games, 64 went to OT (6.4%)

Even prior to the addition of the "loser point", there was a high number of games that went to OT.

2003-04: 1230 games, 315 went to OT (25.6%)
2002-03: 1230 games, 313 went to OT (25.4%)
2001-02: 1230 games, 270 went to OT (22.0%)
2000-01: 1230 games, 274 went to OT (22.2%)
1999-00: 1230 games, 275 went to OT (22.4%)
1998-99: 1230 games, 245 went to OT (19.9%)
1997-98: 1230 games, 246 went to OT (20.0%)

I don't quite understand what the number of games going to overtime has to do with why it's incentivized?

 

[GordonGecko]

http://hockeystandings.info/?page=threepoints&year=2015&view=wild

wow, under the 3 point system the Islanders would be exposed and the Kings would get a lot more credit

 

[Fig]

How about 2 for regulation (losing team = 0)
2 for OT win (losing team =0) ie: Sudden death win. No OTW or OTL stats tracked, just win or lose on the column like a regulation win.
Shoot out 1 - 1 (or 1-0 if we want to penalize and discourage shoot out?); (either no such thing as OT win or loss, or tracking OTW as worth less points and a loss just a loss)

Games are all worth 2 points (unless shoot out at 1 total?), incentive to win to have more points, shoot out is "meaningless" so say both either get a lower point (incentive to win in OT), or the points are penalized (1 pt game) if it goes to shoot out (1-0)?

Going 1-0 in shoot out might possibly even make shoot out a higher stakes part of the game and getting more high risk shots etc. 1-1 shoot out points might make for lots of record breaking for the longest pointless (pun intended) shoot out streaks.

I think some of the frustration is that extra time OT must be treated differently than regulation win. What if we got rid of this distinction? I can agree to shoot out being treated differently though.

I personally like the (2-0), (2-0), (1-0) option the best.

Thoughts?

 

[wintersej]

The most equitable and rational manner

3 pts for a regulation win
2 pts for an OT win
1 pt for a shootout win

Loser do not get any point ever. Having a point and moving up the in the standings while losing a game makes no sense to me.

The loser point is a holdover from ties. I think in your scenario you create the opposite problem we have now, instead of unfair 3 point games, you have created unfair 1 point games. I like where your head is at with trying to force people to go for the win, though, but I don't like the idea that some games are 3 point games and some are 1 point games anymore than I like the current system.

I like the system where all games have 3 points up for grabs whether it ends in OT or shootout or regulation.

 

[wintersej]

I'd be in support of moving to a point system where every game was worth three points and the breakdown was as follows:

3 points regulation win
2 points overtime/shootout win
1 point overtime/shootout loss
0 point regulation loss

I believe that the current point system is illogical because not every game is worth the same amount of points, since some are worth three while others are only worth two. A three point system for every game would make the playoff race more interesting (since it would make it more conceivable that a team could make up lost ground from earlier in the season near the end) and it would also give teams more of an incentive to finish games in regulation for an extra point rather than just keep a tie game and settle for at least one point (because doing so would automatically mean surrendering a point to a team that won in regulation).

^^^^^ Excellently put.

 

[MetalMind]

The NHL seems to want to keep devaluing the shootout, and avoiding it by considering 3 on 3 overtime, but won't get rid of it altogether, so I say let's just take away the shootout point.

What if, instead of valuing ROWs as the tiebreaker and keeping 3 point games, we go back to strict 2 point games, and use the shootout as the tiebreaker? (I'd be all for just getting rid of the shootout altogether and reinstating ties, but I doubt the NHL goes for that)

Right now we have:
2 points for win, regardless of how
1 point for OT/SO loss
0 points for regulation loss
ROW as a tiebreaker

What about changing to:
2 points for ROW
1 point for shootout win
1 point for shootout loss
0 points for regulation/overtime loss
Use shootout wins as a tiebreaker

Essentially, this reinstates the tie in terms of points, but keeps the shootout to provide the game a "winner".

Under this system, every game is worth 2 points, so you don't have the problem of most teams being over 0.500 win percentage. Every game still has a winner, so fans can go home satisfied (since that's why we have the shootout to begin with). And teams have incentive to win in regulation or overtime, since going to a shootout loses them a point.

 

[Moops]

Honestly, and this will never happen in the real world, but I wouldn't mind seeing an end to overtime completely. Three points for a win, one for a draw. Without overtime, players end up with about 1-1.5 fewer games of wear and tear on the body over the course of the season. It's not much, but it's something.

If you want to "Americanize" it because Murica loves sudden death, then an OT win could be worth 2 points instead. That way, a regulation tie is worth 1 expected point, maintaining the reward for staying aggressive in regulation.

Edit: To the OP, a 3-2-1-0 system would be pretty nice as well.

 

[radapex]

I don't quite understand what the number of games going to overtime has to do with why it's incentivized?

It's the same reason they're unwilling to go to the 3-2-1-0 point system -- it'd kill any parity in the standings. The whole reason they went with the current point system was to try to keep more teams in the playoff race for a longer period of time, thus keeping fans more engaged as the season goes on. It's not as big of an issue for the other leagues because they don't have nearly as many games going to OT. I mean, we're talking about 1 in 4 NHL games going to OT (even pre-"loser point") versus 1 in 11 to 1 in 16 games going to OT in the others.

I'm not a fan of the current point system myself and wish they'd switch to the IIHF 3-2-1-0 system, since that would make all games worth the same number of points, but I understand why they're unwilling to do it.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

0 points for losing, ffs.

 

[FlutteringSaucer]

Actually the way we have 3-point system in Finland there's no "loser points".

The standings consist of wins, ties, losses and extra points. Wins are worth 3 points, losses 0, ties and extra points both worth 1 point. If you win on OT/SO you get a tie point and an extra point. So teams have a record of wins-ties-losses and then there's an extra column for extra points. And wins are naturally the first tie-breaker.

Also the theory that teams are earlier out from playoffs is false. Mathematically they stay in the hunt just as long and in practice it's a lot easier to catch teams in front in 3-point system due to it rewarding win streaks a lot more.