What About 3 pts for a Regulation Win?

[SladeWilson23]

Best way to do it.

3 - RW
2 - OSW
1 - OSL
0 - RL

 

[eklunds source]

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.

The poster I was quoting said a 3 point system would spread out the standings and make it more difficult to overtake teams because the gaps would be larger.

When you change the parameters of the system, yes, I agree -- you're changing the value of an overtime/shootout win, from 1:1 (same value as winning in regulation) to 2:3 (worth 67% of a regulation win).

Just changing how many points are given out doesn't affect anything.

 

[txpd]

what would happen is the really good teams will win more games in reg and extend. the bad teams will lose more in reg and drop out faster. most of the teams will continue to play these tight battles of structure and goaltending and play a lot of overtime.

reality is that nhl teams that play a defense first game, which is most of them, are not going to start playing like they are behind in the second half of a tied 3rd period.

it is totally unrealistic.

 

[HOLDITHERE*]

This makes it easier to rack up points during a hot streak. It wouldn't prove a best team over 82 games any better than what we have now, if anything, it'd be further skewed.

So no.

 

[Faterson]

reality is that nhl teams that play a defense first game, which is most of them, are not going to start playing like they are behind in the second half of a tied 3rd period.

it is totally unrealistic.

I don't think so. Winning only 66% of points, especially in a home game, instead of 100%, is surely unacceptable to any NHL team, never mind if defence-first or not.

what would happen is the really good teams will win more games in reg and extend. the bad teams will lose more in reg and drop out faster.

And you came up with that theory how? I've been following the KHL, which uses the 3-point system, intently the last 3 seasons, and I can't see indications of this happening. On the contrary: with a few weeks left in the regular season, all 14 teams in the KHL's Western Conference this year still had some play-off hopes left, as opposed to Arizona, Buffalo, Edmonton, Carolina, Toronto being engaged in a month-long tanking battle in the NHL. Precisely because you get 3 points for regulation wins, this seems to keep the play-off hopes alive longer than in this snail's pace fake parity 2-point system. Of course, to keep the hope alive, you need those 3-point regulation wins, even if you're a supposedly weaker, "defence-first" team.

And if anything is skewed, Holdithere, it's the current fake parity with OT/SO games awarding 50% more points to both teams than regulation games. I don't see how removing that absurdity can make anything "more skewed". If anything, it would help reflect reality better, wouldn't it?

 

[txpd]

Its really a simple question. NHL teams play not to lose first. They look for turnover and attempt to avoid their own turnovers. Scoring is dropping into a decades low number where each goals is so valuable.

That is the reality. It is what is. Now, you project that making a regulation win worth more and the penalty for failing even greater will make these current decision makers more likely to take risks??? Why?

 

[Frenchy]

With the NHL thinking about longer OTs being played 3 on 3 , i'm guessing that we'll see a lot more OT wins and a lot less games decided by shootouts. Therefore , if the NHL get their wish , they wont need to change their points system .

 

[684]

There should never even be loser points to begin with.

 

[Frenchy]

There should never even be loser points to begin with.

Thank you , i thought i was alone

 

[hotcarle]

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

The only argument I've heard is that it'll force us to throw out our record books (90s wings and 70s Canadiens point totals), but seeing how teams used to play 50 games, we can evolve in terms of what is greatness.

 

[Eye Test Approved]

or heck, you can even make an OT win 3 points, and only do the 2-1 split for the shootout

This is what I want

 

[LeafsLegendAkiBerg]

or heck, you can even make an OT win 3 points, and only do the 2-1 split for the shootout

I like this idea better. Maybe something like:

Regulation/OT period win: 3 points
Shootout win: 2 points
OT/Shootout loss: 1 point
Regulation loss: 0 points

 

[Faterson]

Its really a simple question. NHL teams play not to lose first.

No wonder, since the difference between "not losing" and "winning in regulation" is so meagre – just a single point. So why bother, really?

Now, you project that making a regulation win worth more and the penalty for failing even greater will make these current decision makers more likely to take risks??? Why?

Because 2-point wins would be seen as failures, especially for teams playing at home. Whereas now, if a game goes into overtime or a shootout, everyone just shrugs it off, as long as the 2 points are won eventually. And even if they aren't – well, no big deal, because 2 points and 1 point are not very far apart. I believe this creates an atmosphere of complacency, instead of an atmosphere of urgency. I believe this atmosphere of urgency would be there for all 30 NHL teams if 3 points were awarded for regulation wins. Failing to get all 3 points in a home game would be frowned upon in all 30 NHL franchises, I'm sure. Overtime/shootout wins for 2 points would be nice consolation prizes, but no more than that – consolation. There'd be some stigma attached to them; they'd be viewed as losses, in a sense – losses of potentially important points. Whereas today, there is no stigma attached to overtime/shootout wins, which creates that atmosphere of complacency, or lack of urgency.

 

[LeHab]

3pts will not happen, people are simply used too much to have those 90's-100's pts seasons. Too big of a change.

 

[txpd]

its still simple. sarcasm doesn't answer the basic question. these teams play defense first. you are suggesting that by making the regulation win worth more and penalty for losing in regulation greater that these defense first teams are going to change their basic style with 10 minutes to go in a tie game.

it makes no sense.

 

[featherhawk]

why not go back to the way it was before the change under Spock Ears regime.....

2 for a win
1 for a tie
0 for a loss

nobody needs to see gimmicks that are not inline with the team game...get rid of the 4-4 fiasco and the shootout which is like ending an NBA game after OT with a Dunk contest...

 

[Eye Test Approved]

There should never even be loser points to begin with.

That does seem like a good option too

 

[ashenhigh]

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

In that link TBL have 131 points already, that's a lot....

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?

My problem with it is that there are just way too many points. Its one thing with the KHL only playing 50 games, or in soccer where seasons last anywhere from 35-38 games.

Using the Bruins from 2013-2014:
54-19-9 ROW: 51 for 117 points.

Using your system, they would have 168 points right? 132 is currently the all-time NHL high. 168 points to give out is just insane. Lets just remove the loser point and call it a day.

95-96' wings went 62-13-7 with only 3 OT wins. That would be a 183 point season using your model. You do not need to give out 180+ points to decide a playoff race. That's flipping crazy.

 

[stars33]

The argument that the existing system (2 point win and 1 point otl) is good because it keeps playoff races tight is a terrible reason for keeping the status quo. This means you are saying that you are in favor of artificially created standings. What is the point of having a professional sports league if we are going to skew with the standings? I watch sports for the drama that unfolds from the struggle of winning and losing. Not winning, losing and half of losing. The OT point must go in my opinion. This is not the Middle East crisis where we have appease two warring factions. This is sports.

 

[MarkGio]

6 Pts - Regulation Blow Out
5 Pts - Regulation Win
4 Pts - OT Win
3 Pts - SO Win
2 Pts - OT Loss
1 Pt - SO loss
0.5 Pts - Regulation loss but you tried really hard

There's incentive at every corner!

 

[Atoyot]

I like this idea better. Maybe something like:

Regulation/OT period win: 3 points
Shootout win: 2 points
OT/Shootout loss: 1 point
Regulation loss: 0 points

OT games are worth 4 points here, which is very similar to the problem we already have, some games being worth more than others.

 

[Ducks DVM]

There should never even be loser points to begin with.

Thank you , i thought i was alone

You guys LIKE boring hockey with both teams playing for ties?

 

[Faterson]

these teams play defense first. you are suggesting that by making the regulation win worth more and penalty for losing in regulation greater that these defense first teams are going to change their basic style with 10 minutes to go in a tie game.

it makes no sense.

What do you mean by "penalty for losing greater"? Nothing would change compared to today. 0 points for losing is 0 points for losing. It's rarely about the other team. It's about your own team getting a regulation 3-point win, about not losing any point (especially not at home) by going to OT/SO.

In games played tonight, both Ottawa and Minnesota won in OT on the road. What do they care about points won by Carolina and Nashville in those games? It's irrelevant for Ottawa and Minnesota. But in a tight play-off race, both Ottawa and Minnesota would be pushed to go for the 3-point regulation wins. The potential reward of doing so would be 2 extra points, while if they failed, the loss would only be 1 point, not "greater penalty than today" as you say. The incentive to get all 3 points should clearly have the upper hand in a common scenario like this.

In contrast, it's rarer for 2 direct play-off contenders to play against each other (what is called "4-point games" today) – only in those situations, the "fear of giving the other team all 3 points" might possibly be relevant. But that's a distinct minority of games throughout a regular season. You mostly just focus on your own team, on getting all 3 points for a regulation win, regardless of the opponent you play any night.

 

[Top 6 Spaling]

IMO 3-2-1-0 is the best way to do this. Every game is worth three points. Teams will try hard to win before overtime instead of sitting back like they do now.

 

[rt]

For a win you get a W. For a loss you get an L. No ties, no points. Keep OT and shootout formats for regular season and playoffs exactly as they are. Simple.

Regulation, OT, or Shootout Win = a win

Regulation, OT, or Shootout Loss = a loss

Wins and losses. No points.