What About 3 pts for a Regulation Win?

heuve

Registered User
Nov 21, 2013
2
0
Hey guys, long time lurker, first time poster.

I actually made a spreadsheet earlier this season to present a "normalized points percentage" measurement to try to communicate what I consider to be ".500 Hockey". Just briefly, I don't think W/GP or Points % are appropriate percentages to use to say your team is "above .500" with the wonky points system in the league. The post I made discussing "normalized points %" can be found here.

Well I figured it would be pretty easy to take it a step further and see how the standings would look if this 3-2-1-0 system were implemented. I think this is a great idea! It really kills me how games do not have a set value--you can only earn 2 points in a game, but the average game is worth somewhere around 2.25 points right now. The spreadsheet for the normalized % and the standardized 3pt value to each game can be found here. The 3-2-1-0 standings should be on the second tab.

I'm actually a bit surprised how little the standings change with this system. The only differences I'm seeing is MTL/TB and LA/WPG. LA is significantly more secure in their playoff position as well. Not surprising they benefit the most from this with only 3 OT wins.

Edit: Actually I forgot to sort by Points per Game when I was comparing the standings. There are a few inconsistencies in Points% and there may be a few teams flipped in playoff seeding, but overall the same teams are in the hunt, and they still have life for the most part. LA is better off and SJ has life; WPG, CGY, and SJ are all within 2pts. BOS and OTT are actually closer as well.
 
Last edited:

KCC

Registered User
Aug 15, 2007
18,196
9,065
NHL GM and owners don't want this. It had been discussed years ago, and they preferred the current method as it encouraged parity. They preferred that the teams stay closer in the standings, so that fans would continue to see the live games and so that the playoff races are closer.

As bad as the current system is, this does make sense. Tweaking OT so less shoot outs is probably the best solution at the moment.
 

ashenhigh

Registered User
Aug 27, 2008
1,960
1
Los Angeles
I feel like those who are advocating for a 3-point system aren't really looking at historical records and what that would do.

Again, a team with 50 regulation wins would have 150 points. You do not need to give out a zillion more points to decide a playoff race. A 3 point system is just making everything more complicated.

Remove loser point. Stop complaining.
 

Faterson

Delayed Live forever
Sep 18, 2012
3,653
1,476
Bratislava
What's "complicated" about 150 points instead of 110? :amazed: Hello? Are there any schools that only teach kids to count to 120?

There are no "loser points". They are points given for tying a game, something that has always existed in hockey. Canceling points for tied games would be nuts. Forcing a winner via OT/SO is fine, but shouldn't be worth as much as a regulation win. Hence, the 3-point system as the logical solution.
 

SotasicA

Registered User
Aug 25, 2014
8,489
6,402
Because less teams would still be in the race. The current system is great for making it hard to fall out of the playoff race. Whether you deserve to be part of the race or not.

This is a misconception. With a 3pt system you can make up ground faster. You can be down 10pts, and then go on a run of 5-0-1 and WHOA you just got 16pts just like that and are probably right up there with the teams ahead of you.

It just looks like the difference is larger because, well, the numbers are bigger. But being down 10pts in the current system is extremely hard to make up for.
 

radapex

Registered User
Sep 21, 2012
7,766
528
Canada, Eh
I feel like those who are advocating for a 3-point system aren't really looking at historical records and what that would do.

Again, a team with 50 regulation wins would have 150 points. You do not need to give out a zillion more points to decide a playoff race. A 3 point system is just making everything more complicated.

Remove loser point. Stop complaining.

I'm sure the teams will go for that. They already despise the shootout. Many coaches describe it as "deciding the game by a coin flip", so I'm sure they'd be completely accepting of receiving either 2 or 0 points based off that...
 

ashenhigh

Registered User
Aug 27, 2008
1,960
1
Los Angeles
What's "complicated" about 150 points instead of 110? :amazed: Hello? Are there any schools that only teach kids to count to 120?

There are no "loser points". They are points given for tying a game, something that has always existed in hockey. Canceling points for tied games would be nuts. Forcing a winner via OT/SO is fine, but shouldn't be worth as much as a regulation win. Hence, the 3-point system as the logical solution.


That's not what I wrote in my post... a 3-point system would further complicate the system, would ruin all historical records, and would give out hundreds more points (in total) to teams during the season.

To quote myself:

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.

183 points for a 3 point system to the 95-96 wings record. Utterly unnecessary to give out that many points.
 

JonBonesJonesBonino

Registered User
Jun 25, 2006
437
1
How about just wins and losses like every other sport, don't need to complicate it with points at all.

Also remove the shootout and have 5 minutes of 4 on 4 followed by 3 on 3 forever until there's a goal.
 
Last edited:

SotasicA

Registered User
Aug 25, 2014
8,489
6,402
That's not obvious at all. :laugh:

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

Not obvious, I agree, but it is genius. Keep the shootout, but don't reward teams for getting there. It should be discouraged. Win the game in regulation and the spoils are yours - and if you don't, you only get scraps, if those.
 

Banana Sandwiches

Registered User
Jul 18, 2011
2,664
1
Can we just bring ties back? 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for any sort of loss.

I really don't need to see a winner in every game in the regular season. If the league wants to cut down on ties, just make OT 10 mins instead of 5.
 

SotasicA

Registered User
Aug 25, 2014
8,489
6,402
Can we just bring ties back? 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for any sort of loss.

I really don't need to see a winner in every game in the regular season. If the league wants to cut down on ties, just make OT 10 mins instead of 5.

Yes! THIS! The ultimate solution for regular season hockey. And it was always there! Ties.

The original idea behind shootouts was that a tie was somehow "unsatisfying". Well, that's just not true. Just look at the people leaving the arena after a shootout loss now? They think it's ********. Their team didn't REALLY LOSE PLAYING A GAME OF HOCKEY!

And a tie doesn't have to be unsatisfying. It can be a really good result for an underperforming talentless team - they get to celebrate getting a point out of this game against a better team. Or a young team that's just finding their legs - they play against the best team in the league and don't lose. They don't win, but they get a tie. They earn a tie.

And a tie can feel as bad as a loss to the team that felt they deserved to win, or to a team that, coming to the game, felt like they were the superior side.
 

Butch 19

Go cart Mozart
May 12, 2006
16,526
2,831
Geographical Oddity
Yes! THIS! The ultimate solution for regular season hockey. And it was always there! Ties.

The original idea behind shootouts was that a tie was somehow "unsatisfying". Well, that's just not true. Just look at the people leaving the arena after a shootout loss now? They think it's ********. Their team didn't REALLY LOSE PLAYING A GAME OF HOCKEY!

And a tie doesn't have to be unsatisfying. It can be a really good result for an underperforming talentless team - they get to celebrate getting a point out of this game against a better team. Or a young team that's just finding their legs - they play against the best team in the league and don't lose. They don't win, but they get a tie. They earn a tie.

And a tie can feel as bad as a loss to the team that felt they deserved to win, or to a team that, coming to the game, felt like they were the superior side.

proof that ties still suck. ^^^^

You need to write all that to show how cool you think they are.
 

optimus2861

Registered User
Aug 29, 2005
5,044
531
Bedford NS
I really don't need to see a winner in every game in the regular season. If the league wants to cut down on ties, just make OT 10 mins instead of 5.
The trouble with 10:00 of OT during the regular season is, you have to get the zamboni out to resurface the ice. Now instead of a quick 5-10 minute add-on to the game for the OT, plus another few minutes for a SO if it comes to that, you're talking 15-25 minutes to do the flood and play the 10 minutes, then potentially the SO on top of that. TV networks won't like it. Families with kids won't like it. Teams who have to hop a charter flight to their next city for a game tomorrow night won't like it.

It's just not logistically feasible to lengthen OT in the regular season.
 

radapex

Registered User
Sep 21, 2012
7,766
528
Canada, Eh
Also remove the shootout and have 5 minutes of 4 on 4 followed by 3 on 3 forever until there's a goal.

It'll never happen due to (a) broadcasting time constraints, and (b) the already overly intense NHL schedule. Could you imagine a team playing a hard-fought 5OT game ending at 3am then having to hop on a 3 hour flight to go play the second of back-to-backs against a team that's had 2-3 days off? They'd be better off not even showing up for that second game, take the loss that's coming anyway, and get some rest.

Continuous OT works in the playoffs because opponents have the same schedule and broadcasters are willing to allow playoff games to run over the window. Neither of those hold up for the regular season.
 

The Nuge

Some say…
Jan 26, 2011
27,335
7,242
British Columbia
That's not what I wrote in my post... a 3-point system would further complicate the system, would ruin all historical records, and would give out hundreds more points (in total) to teams during the season.

To quote myself:



183 points for a 3 point system to the 95-96 wings record. Utterly unnecessary to give out that many points.

Why does it matter how many points the teams finish with? It's not hard to count to 180 instead of 120. And if you're that concerned about the historical records, you just apply the 3 point system to the old records.
 

JonBonesJonesBonino

Registered User
Jun 25, 2006
437
1
It'll never happen due to (a) broadcasting time constraints, and (b) the already overly intense NHL schedule. Could you imagine a team playing a hard-fought 5OT game ending at 3am then having to hop on a 3 hour flight to go play the second of back-to-backs against a team that's had 2-3 days off? They'd be better off not even showing up for that second game, take the loss that's coming anyway, and get some rest.

Continuous OT works in the playoffs because opponents have the same schedule and broadcasters are willing to allow playoff games to run over the window. Neither of those hold up for the regular season.

There will never be a 5 OT 3 on 3 game. There will never be one that even comes close to going 20 minutes. NBA games can technically go 5 OTs. MLB games can technically go 80 innings. These aren't real dangers.
 

The Nuge

Some say…
Jan 26, 2011
27,335
7,242
British Columbia
There will never be a 5 OT 3 on 3 game. There will never be one that even comes close to going 20 minutes. NBA games can technically go 5 OTs. MLB games can technically go 80 innings. These aren't real dangers.

Ya 3 on 3 should be high scoring. The defense would tire out, and forwards would stay fresh, because of the huge gap between the minutes they'd play (12 forwards used 1 at a time, vs 6 dmen used 2 at a time)
 

JonBonesJonesBonino

Registered User
Jun 25, 2006
437
1
Ya 3 on 3 should be high scoring. The defense would tire out, and forwards would stay fresh, because of the huge gap between the minutes they'd play (12 forwards used 1 at a time, vs 6 dmen used 2 at a time)

Ya they could even add a no changing at whistles rule and not have any commercials to really make sure it ends in a jif.
 

Kirikanoir

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
1,576
40
There are no "loser points".

And calling it a tie point rather than a loser point is just splitting hairs. Bottom line is a team losing in OT/SO is still the loser of the game and should not be receiving any points. The NFL/CFL NBA, and MLB all manage to deal with games going to extra time without giving the losing team a point. It`s time the NHL did as well.

They are points given for tying a game, something that has always existed in hockey.

Tie points were given out when at the end of a game be it regulation or OT two teams had identical scores and there was no winner or loser.
And it was okay to give out tie points when ties still existed in the game.

However that is not the case anymore. First OT was brought in to reduce the number of ties, then the shootout was installed in order to completely eliminate tie games. Now all games must have a winner and a loser. Therefore to continue to hand out a archaic tie point for something that no longer exists is ridiculously stupid, and IMO makes the league look like a joke.

Canceling points for tied games would be nuts. Forcing a winner via OT/SO is fine, but shouldn't be worth as much as a regulation win.

Why not? I can somewhat see that argument being valid regarding the shootout but not in regards to overtime. In OT two teams are at least still playing a hockey game. Be it 5 on 5, 4 on 4 or changing to 3 on 3 the two teams are still playing a game with the rules being identical for both teams in that overtime. The points should remain the same as regulation.

As to shootouts, I understand why people feel they should not be equal to a regulation or OT win.
There is a very simple solution to that issue that would encourage teams to decide games before the shootout.

Regulation Win 2 Points
Regulation Loss 0 Points

Overtime Win 2 Points
Overtime Loss 0 Points

Shootout Win 1 Point
Shootout Loss 0 Points

The other solution is simply to make the SO win 2 points as well thereby keeping all games worth the same points, and all wins no matter how they are achieved worth the same points. I can live with either way to decide SO games.

Hence, the 3-point system as the logical solution.

Adding more points, to an already flawed system with only make those flaws even worse.

Hypothetical example two teams 82 game schedule.

Team A 35 Reg/Wins-32 Reg/Losses-15 OT/SO/Losses = 120 Points

Team B 55 OT/Wins-17 Reg/Losses-10 OT/SO/Losses = 120 Points

Last I checked 55 wins is a higher number than 35 and should not equal out to the same amount of points in any logical point system.

While it might be a unfair example since it`s unlikely one team would have all their wins in reg and one win all their`s in OT it does hi-light the problem the 3 point system has. Why should a team be rewarded more say for winning in the last second of regulation rather than the 1st minute of OT. In the playoffs we don`t reward a team a game and a half lead in a series for winning in regulation compared to only a game lead for winning in OT. Nor do we reward or punish the losing team depending on when they lose the game.
 
Last edited:

ashenhigh

Registered User
Aug 27, 2008
1,960
1
Los Angeles
Why does it matter how many points the teams finish with? It's not hard to count to 180 instead of 120. And if you're that concerned about the historical records, you just apply the 3 point system to the old records.

Yes thank you, I understand its not hard to count to 180. My point is 180 points to be awarded to teams during the season is a ridiculous amount when the current system has teams coming in around 100. Too many points for team sports. That's like NASCAR status.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->