What About 3 pts for a Regulation Win?

[Fig]

Or maybe use a system based on the olympic medals?

Win
OT win
SO win


Wins essentially are worth 2
OT wins are essentially worth .02
SO win are worth a thousand .00000000001

Most wins move on to post season, tied wins compare OT win and SO win.

Only thing that counts is wins.

 

[Faterson]

Regulation, OT, or Shootout Win = a win

Not really. There should be some reward for being able to get a win in regulation. It's an important "team skill", if you will. That's what's wrong with today's system: that there's no reward for regulation wins, so teams can just sit back in a tied game in the 3rd period, waiting for the crapshot OT/SO lottery that might still give them the maximum points available in that game. And to make regulation wins a potential tie-breaker is not enough of a reward/incentive, in my opinion. 3 points definitely would be.

 

[GordonGecko]

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.

I like that the NHL has points, makes it different from the other 3 leagues

 

[Hobble]

How drastically would this point system change the current standings?

 

[GordonGecko]

How drastically would this point system change the current standings?

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

 

[Faterson]

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

Those standings are incorrect. They show "0 overtime wins" for every NHL team this season, which is clearly nonsense.

That's exactly the trouble: nobody is distinguishing between regulation wins and overtime wins in today's NHL. Probably the guys behind the hockeystandings.info website have trouble getting that information easily. You'd likely have to compile the information manually for every team by going back to the first game day in October.

 

[optimus2861]

http://hockeystandings.info/?page=winloss2

Aside from the missing "SOW" data this is actually my favorite. No points. SOW only count as tiebreakers. You want to move up in the standings, you need to win the game within 65 minutes. It really separates the teams that can win hockey games from the teams that squeak out SO wins:

TB holds a 3-game lead over MTL;
NYR has their division all but clinched;
FLA is long-gone from the playoff race and OTT has slim chances;
CHI & LA are in, WPG is out.

Seems about right.

 

[SenzZen]

The NHL was afraid of becoming too much like soccer so they tried to figure out a way to get rid of ties.

They adopted a shootout.

Going to a 3 point regulation win system can only further their distancing themselves from soccer.

amirite?

 

[Butch 19]

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.

Are you aware that both teams actually "try hard to win" right now?


no

really

 

[QuadrupleDeke]

2 points for a regulation or overtime win
1 point for a shootout win
0 points for a loss of any kind

Rewards winning.
Doesn't reward losing.
Removes the incentive to play for overtime in close games.
Removes the incentive to play for a shootout once you make it overtime.
Keeps total points about the same, allowing for easy comparison between eras.


All of this assumes we have to have the shootout. A 2 points for a win, 0 points for a loss, 1 points for a draw, no shootout system is definitely the best.

 

[Butch 19]

2 points for a regulation or overtime win
1 point for a shootout win
0 points for a loss of any kind

Rewards winning.
Doesn't reward losing.
Removes the incentive to play for overtime in close games.
Removes the incentive to play for a shootout once you make it overtime.
Keeps total points about the same, allowing for easy comparison between eras.


All of this assumes we have to have the shootout. A 2 points for a win, 0 points for a loss, 1 points for a draw, no shootout system is definitely the best.

this is no better than what we have now: you are awarding different point amounts for a game.

 

[QuadrupleDeke]

this is no better than what we have now: you are awarding different point amounts for a game.

It's way better than what we have now, for the reasons I listed.

 

[roboninja]

It's way better than what we have now, for the reasons I listed.

But those reasons are not important to many. I could care less about this idea of a "loser point". Sounds like the same people that do not want the crappiest team to get the first pick; it's more about punishing poor teams rather than being fair.

Being fair is having a known number of points available in each game. That is fair. What is not fair is being in the playoff race, watching 2 teams you are chasing play, and then they go to OT and they both get points. In a game that is now worth 3 total points instead of the expected 2. That is unfair. The goal of a points system should be consistency and known outcome. Not to punish teams you think are squeaking by.

 

[QuadrupleDeke]

But those reasons are not important to many. I could care less about this idea of a "loser point". Sounds like the same people that do not want the crappiest team to get the first pick; it's more about punishing poor teams rather than being fair.

Being fair is having a known number of points available in each game. That is fair. What is not fair is being in the playoff race, watching 2 teams you are chasing play, and then they go to OT and they both get points. In a game that is now worth 3 total points instead of the expected 2. That is unfair. The goal of a points system should be consistency and known outcome. Not to punish teams you think are squeaking by.

Your example is solved by my system.

 

[Butch 19]

But those reasons are not important to many. I could care less about this idea of a "loser point". Sounds like the same people that do not want the crappiest team to get the first pick; it's more about punishing poor teams rather than being fair.

Being fair is having a known number of points available in each game. That is fair. What is not fair is being in the playoff race, watching 2 teams you are chasing play, and then they go to OT and they both get points. In a game that is now worth 3 total points instead of the expected 2. That is unfair. The goal of a points system should be consistency and known outcome. Not to punish teams you think are squeaking by.

This is true.

And by "known number of points available", I assume you mean the same number of points available for each game.

 

[Chrisinroch]

Simply put...Every game should be worth the same amount of points in the standings.

 

[txpd]

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..

I ask a question. You respond with another question and no answer.

the penalty for losing in regulation right now is 2pts. in a conference game between two teams tied in the standings, say 40pts each. the winner gets to 42 and the loser remains and 40. at 3pts for a reg win, the winner gets to 43. the penalty for losing in regulation is to fall 3pts behind.

in today's defense first league, you are saying that these same two teams are going to change their basic style of play in the 3rd period of a tie game to get that extra point. they wont. they are much more willing to fight over one point. the penalty for losing post regulation is 1pt.

for the 3rd time, I ask you. what makes you think these defense first teams are going to change their basic identity and take the risk of losing 3 standings points to a rival? It makes no sense. Answer that question first.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

I think a 3-point regulation win is even more necessary if they decide to move to 3-on-3 overtime. League will never go for it though, in order to push parity.

 

[Butch 19]

I think a 3-point regulation win is even more necessary if they decide to move to 3-on-3 overtime. League will never go for it though, in order to push parity.

I'm scared to ask, but why would it be necessary?

I think they're both bad ideas.

 

[stampedingviking]

Got to have the same number of points available in each match, therefore if you're going to give a 'loser' point it has to be 3, 2, 1, 0 or alternatively 2 points for any win, 0 for any loss.

 

[cujoflutie]

the obvious solution is to reduce shootout wins from 2 points to 1 and keep everything else the same as it is now.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Best thing the league can do is this.

Go with 10 minutes of OT whether it's 4 on 4 or 3 on 3.

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

 

[Sonofamitch]

Take out points in general. Roll with the classic win loss records.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Take out points in general. Roll with the classic win loss records.

Only way this would work is if you go with continuous OT 5 on 5 like in the playoffs.

 

[Faterson]

I ask a question. You respond with another question and no answer.

I'm sorry you have reading comprehension issues. I answered your question clearly and in meticulous detail, several times. You even quote my reply, and then ask, "Where is your reply?" I'm sorry I can't help you any further on this; I'm not your teacher of English, unfortunately.