What About 3 pts for a Regulation Win?

[ForeverJerseyGirl]

^^^^^ Excellently put.

Thanks.

 

[Moops]

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.

I'd like to see some actually research if this has been the case over the last ten years.

 

[radapex]

I'd like to see some actually research if this has been the case over the last ten years.

It's not extension research by any means, but let's say that staying within 3 wins (6 points) is "in contention". Then the number of times to miss the playoffs but remain in contention each season has been...


2013-14: 5
2012-13: 4
2011-12: 3
2010-11: 3
2009-10: 5
2008-09: 5
2007-08: 5
2006-07: 5
2005-06: 4

2003-04: 2
2002-03: 1
2001-02: 4
2000-01: 2
1999-00: 3
1998-99: 1
1997-98: 1
1996-97: 4
1995-96: 2

Post Lockout Average: 4.33
Pre Lockout Average: 2.22


So the point system change has kept about twice as many teams "in contention" each season.

 

[crazyforhockey]

good anyalsis

Problem with a three pt system..imo

Is once teams that are big and strong..ot def nsive minded...ie stl or la or Min etc
Once they get a quick couple of goals may just trap.
The rest of the game.

And looking at the spread...you may know the seedings weeks before rhe end of the season.

 

[SabresSharks]

Yes, a thousand times yes.

The league should stop worrying about the OT format, and reward teams that take the risk of going for the regulation win. That will produce fantastic hockey in the last 10 minutes of the 3rd, instead of the above-all-make-no-mistakes snooze-fests we often see.

As noted above, other leagues already have some variation of this in place. Study their experience, fine-tune as necessary, and implement it.

 

[West]

Sounds good to me. Either 3pts for every game or 2pts for every game. Don't really care which.

Edit: Cool post by radapex. 3pt system sounds better.

and to other good post by radapex Soccer is 30% of games end up tied.

 

[Faterson]

3 points for regulation win seems to be an obvious solution to me, adopted all around the world in all sorts of leagues and tournaments. I'm dumbfounded the NHL still hasn't adopted it, before considering exotic novelties like 3-on-3 overtimes. 3 points for regulation wins make 3rd periods so much more exciting to watch. Teams press for regulation wins if going to overtime means the loss of a point. The current NHL point system is too lazy, too lenient to teams unable to win games in regulation.

 

[GKJ]

It's been brought up so many times, the league obviously doesn't want it to happen. 2 points for a win keeps everyone closer together.

 

[GordonGecko]

It's been brought up so many times, the league obviously doesn't want it to happen. 2 points for a win keeps everyone closer together.

Well they're revisiting OT right now, the leading topic is 3 on 3 instead of 4 on 4 for the 5 minute period.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

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

Owners like the false parity that the current system provides.

 

[tony d]

No, 2 points for a regulation, overtime and shootout win and 1 point for a shootout loss, nothing for an overtime loss.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I saw a website that showed that 2 point vs 3 point
Standings didn't change much, maybe 1 team moved. Even though I prefer the 3 point

 

[Bill Waters*]

I'd like to see the shootout extended. Abolish OT, both in the regular season and playoffs. Some of us are getting old and someitmes enough is enough.

 

[GordonGecko]

I think grandpa just lost the remote

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I saw a website that showed that 2 point vs 3 point
Standings didn't change much, maybe 1 team moved. Even though I prefer the 3 point

The position in the standings may not look that different but you have to remember that's a static point in time. What's more important is the gap in points between teams, because a three point system would likely spread out the standings, making it harder to overtake a team and also mathematically eliminating teams from the playoffs earlier.

 

[eklunds source]

The position in the standings may not look that different but you have to remember that's a static point in time. What's more important is the gap in points between teams, because a three point system would likely spread out the standings, making it harder to overtake a team and also mathematically eliminating teams from the playoffs earlier.

You could have a 41 point system or a 1,000 point system and it wouldn't make a difference for overtaking teams or eliminating teams earlier. The only thing that would change is people's perception.

 

[aemoreira1981]

I would have it:

3 points for regulation or OT win
2 points for shootout win
1 point for shootout loss
0 points for regulation or OT loss.

After all, the shootout is really not hockey.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

You could have a 41 point system or a 1,000 point system and it wouldn't make a difference for overtaking teams or eliminating teams earlier. The only thing that would change is people's perception.

That's not true.

 

[Bill Waters*]

I would have it:


After all, the shootout is really not hockey.

It made for some rivetting olympic hockey.

 

[Faterson]

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.

3 pts for regulation win
2 pts for overtime win
0 pts for loss of any kind

Not good, guys. Some games worth 3 points, other games worth 2 points... makes no sense.

If you penalize a team for failing to win in regulation, by giving that team only 2 points instead of 3 points, then that 1 "lost" point should go somewhere. Logically, it should go to the team that prevented the other team from winning in regulation. That is definitely a type of achievement, too. (Especially for underdog teams playing against heavily favorited teams.) It's not a "loser point" that you keep railing against – it's a point rewarding a regulation tie: something that had been traditionally done in the NHL for decades. It's just that nowadays, only one of the teams receives the point for a regulation tie, not both teams. And that's fine – forcing a winner for every game using overtimes or shootouts is a good idea. It's rewarding those OT/SO wins in the same way as regulation wins which is dumb and creating all the problems.

I get the argument about fake parity in the standings, but that's what it is: fake. It's like calling posts hit in a game "good goals". Either your team is good enough to be in contention for a play-off spot all season long, or it's not. Live wiith it and make the necessary adjustments to your team to make it more competitive for next season, instead of and accumulating fake point totals via games worth 50% more points compared to games decided in regulation. In the KHL that uses the 3-point system, most teams remain in contention for a play-off spot until the last few weeks of regular season. If Russians need no fake parity in the standings, why should the NHL pretend to need it?

 

[Faterson]

I saw a website that showed that 2 point vs 3 point
Standings didn't change much

The games themselves would have been played differently, especially in the 3rd periods. Nowadays in a tied game in the 3rd period, teams can just coast to OT, knowing they can still "win it all" in OT/SO. But if failing to win in regulation were penalized with a point loss, you'd see completely different, more exciting, offensive, risk-taking strategies, especially by home teams, in tied games in 3rd periods.

 

[Andre Poodle Lussier]

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

At least you're not awarding points to losers...I'd rather "cheapen" a win that can't be done in 60 minutes than reward teams with parity points for losing in a skills competition.

 

[Andre Poodle Lussier]

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%)

A couple of things though...games played by team wasn't 1230 consistently back prior to 2000. It was 1107 in 98-99 (27 teams), 1148 in 99-00 (28 teams).

Also, the loser point was introduced in '99 (OTL points only).

 

[FlutteringSaucer]

You could have a 41 point system or a 1,000 point system and it wouldn't make a difference for overtaking teams or eliminating teams earlier. The only thing that would change is people's perception.

False. It is easier to overtake in 3 point system. The expected value for a team in one game is 1.5 points in 3 point system (50% of 3 points). With a 10 game winning streak you gain on average 15 points more than the rest of the league.

With the current system the expected value of one game isn't 1.0 point even though the maximum points you can gain is 2 due to some game sharing 3 points combined. Thus you gain less from winning streaks in this system since the rest of the teams get more points on average.

 

[Xamar*]

Someone should post how many points each team would have under this system