What About 3 pts for a Regulation Win?

[fastvoteman]

How about:

Reg or OT win = 2 points
Reg or OT loss = 0 points

SO win = 1.5 points
SO loss = .5 points

Every game worth 2 points and shootout wins are devalued compared with winning during actual hockey play. Teams still get something for the "tie" after OT.

 

[GordonGecko]

To Make The Playoffs, Hockey Teams Play Not To Win

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/to-make-the-playoffs-hockey-teams-play-not-to-win/

There was 1:49 on the clock, and the Washington Capitals and the Anaheim Ducks were tied, with two goals apiece. Both could have used the two points a win would bring: The Capitals were in a tight battle with the New York Rangers, the New York Islanders and the Pittsburgh Penguins for control of the Metropolitan division, and the Ducks could further extend their Pacific division lead.

But rather than try to score the game-winner, neither team took a shot on goal in the final 1:49, content to let the Feb. 6 game go to overtime, when both teams would be guaranteed at least one point.

...

Since 2010, the Caps have played 125 games that were tied at the end of regulation, including a remarkable 28 during the 2013-14 season. That number puts them, fittingly, in a tie with the Islanders, atop the league. Those two teams are not alone in their quest for extra hockey, however; 25 percent of games this season (through Tuesday) have reached overtime. If that number stands, it will be the highest yearly percentage of overtime games in the league’s history.

At the end of tie games, teams across the league don’t play to win — they play not to lose.

...

In today’s NHL, overtime frequently benefits both teams, which is why teams that are tied often holster their sticks. Take a look at this chart, which shows the expected goal (EG) rate per minute2 over the course of an NHL contest. EGs use shot distance and location from the NHL’s play-by-play data to estimate the number of goals that we expect the two teams to combine for during each minute of play. There’s something different about that third period.

The expected goal output is nearly identical between tied games and one-goal games from the 15th through 55th minutes of the game. But for the last five minutes, the number of EGs rises for one-goal games and drops for tied games.

...

Take a look at this chart, which shows the overtime rates in the league’s old and new point systems by the day of the season in which the game was played. (The shaded regions represent 95 percent confidence intervals for the smoothed lines.)

While overtime rates have been consistently higher in the current point system, the late-season change is dramatic. Roughly two-thirds of the way through the season, OT rates spike; in the old system, without the loser point, rates plummeted late in the season. Spring is now the NHL’s overtime season.

 

[Faterson]

Something I said today elsewhere reminded me of this thread:

The World Championships these days nicely show how lame the NHL is for giving 2 points for both regulation wins and overtime/shootout wins. It's the demand for regulation wins that creates a sense of urgency that makes the games so much more exciting to watch for the fans. The ability to win games in regulation is what helps separate good teams from excellent teams. Right now, it shows Slovakia's relative weakness. (Very similar to Slovan's weakness in the most recent KHL season – inability to get 3-point regulation wins even in "must-win" games against "easier" opponents.)

 

[Auguste McEscoffier]

I would like to see the NHL adopt the NBA's point structure. It is truly better than the NHL's.

 

[KCC]

I'd be fine with it. Not sure how much this system has been discussed at the GM meetings. You know it has been. I'm thinking they're fine with the current format, it's just the shoot out most don't care for. I guess that's why the change to OT could be coming.

 

[GordonGecko]

I would like to see the NHL adopt the NBA's point structure. It is truly better than the NHL's.

you mean no point structure?

You can't compare the NBA to the NHL. The NHL is such a grind there's no way you can let them play indefinite overtimes in the regular season. You have to have a way to settle points in the standings accordingly

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

Any system that awards points to losing teams makes no sense.

 

[GordonGecko]

Any system that awards points to losing teams makes no sense.

I consider a tie losing

 

[roboninja]

This is the only solution that makes sense while retaining the shootout. It should be in place next year; the current system is bush league.

 

[Faterson]

Any system that awards points to losing teams makes no sense.

Why "losing"? Being able to tie a game in regulation is definitely an achievement, well deserving the point. After 60 minutes of regulation, neither team is a losing team, and neither team is a winning team, either, so both teams get a point. Makes perfect sense. The bonus point would be there for the OT/SO winner. If you need no OT/SO to win a game, you get all 3 points.

 

[cgf]

It makes too much sense from a fair sporting standpoint, and would encourage the most open and exciting type of hockey...but it would be bad for parity. The current system means that only the oilers and yotes were out of the playoff race out west this year. That wouldn't be the case with a 3-2-1-0 system that some of us advocate for and the NHL seems to value parity over quality of play/fairness; which isn't unreasonable, it does help sell the sport with the smaller teams' fanbases.

I consider a tie losing

That's silly. To lose one team has to win. If neither team earns the win then it is impossible for there to be a losing team. A tie is a tie.

Why "losing"? Being able to tie a game in regulation is definitely an achievement, well deserving the point. After 60 minutes of regulation, neither team is a losing team, and neither team is a winning team, either, so both teams get a point. Makes perfect sense. The bonus point would be there for the OT/SO winner. If you need no OT/SO to win a game, you get all 3 points.

It's a NA - Europe thing. We can talk around each other for days, but they'll never come around to the idea of a win being something that someone has to earn, and we'll never come around to the idea of a win being something that's handed to one side by default.

 

[GordonGecko]

That's silly. To lose one team has to win. If neither team earns the win then it is impossible for there to be a losing team. A tie is a tie.

Says the guy with the soccer avatar

 

[mbar]

I always get annoyed when I think of the point system. The 3 point system actually makes sense and awards points based on level of accomplishment. A real win is worth more then a shootout win which is worth more then a shootout loss which is worth more then a real loss. It's logical and I like that.

I usually console myself with the knowledge that at the end of the day the point swings that would occur converting the current system into the 3 point system are relatively minor. I.e., it's not that huge a deal.

Then this year happened and under a 3 point system the Kings would have made the playoffs

 

[Ttracer*]

it really doesn't matter at all. over 82 games the cream rises to the top

 

[Faterson]

which isn't unreasonable.

But it's weak-assed. I find it amusing that North Americans who keep priding themselves on how supposedly "tough" they are compared to "soft Euros" employ an endlessly forgiving point system that obviously rewards lazy, leisurely play, for the sake of some fake, commercial parity.

I usually console myself with the knowledge that at the end of the day the point swings that would occur converting the current system into the 3 point system are relatively minor.

I doubt that they are minor. All those sites I've seen so far (also earlier in this thread) supposedly converting the current NHL standings into the 3-point system are fake. I have seen no conversion so far that would truly distinguish between regulation and overtime wins. You can't see that distinction in the NHL's regular standings, either, because they keep putting regular and OT wins together as "ROW".

it really doesn't matter at all. over 82 games the cream rises to the top

It absolutely matters. You'd get a regular season of 82 more exciting games as opposed to a regular season of 82 leisurely games.

 

[cgf]

Says the guy with the soccer avatar

Yes, I have an attention span that lasts longer than 3 seconds, and come from a country that participates in the world's game. Now, was there a point to this post, guy with the GordonGecko-jersey avatar?

 

[cgf]

But it's weak-assed. I find it amusing that North Americans who keep priding themselves on how supposedly "tough" they are compared to "soft Euros" employ an endlessly forgiving point system that obviously rewards lazy, leisurely play, for the sake of some fake, commercial parity.

I get a chuckle out of it to, but it's because football is just different in europe. Ideas like fairness and justice have a bigger role than they do in NA sports, which are much more purely entertainment, even though they are interpreted in a radically different way than the perception here that fairness and justice mean parity. At least in america, I haven't lived in canada to be able to include them in the comparison.

You can only find the kind of bond that exists between club and supporter in germany in the US when you look at College or High School AmericanFootball. There the sport is sometimes more than just entertainment, and there you'll find people much more receptive to arguments based on morality, rather than entertainment.

Now we can debate whether it's more entertaining to watch teams squeezing out points to all stay in the mix, or if it's more entertaining to watch teams really trying to achieve greatness every time they step out onto the field because they know that the 3 points have to be earned. But in america, at least, more people respond to the artificial parity than they do to the pursuit of greatness. This system is also more conducive to underdogs, and there's nothing america loves more than pretending they're still the underdogs.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

Being able to tie a game in regulation is definitely an achievement

 

[CanadienShark]

To Make The Playoffs, Hockey Teams Play Not To Win

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/to-make-the-playoffs-hockey-teams-play-not-to-win/

There was 1:49 on the clock, and the Washington Capitals and the Anaheim Ducks were tied, with two goals apiece. Both could have used the two points a win would bring: The Capitals were in a tight battle with the New York Rangers, the New York Islanders and the Pittsburgh Penguins for control of the Metropolitan division, and the Ducks could further extend their Pacific division lead.

But rather than try to score the game-winner, neither team took a shot on goal in the final 1:49, content to let the Feb. 6 game go to overtime, when both teams would be guaranteed at least one point.

...

Since 2010, the Caps have played 125 games that were tied at the end of regulation, including a remarkable 28 during the 2013-14 season. That number puts them, fittingly, in a tie with the Islanders, atop the league. Those two teams are not alone in their quest for extra hockey, however; 25 percent of games this season (through Tuesday) have reached overtime. If that number stands, it will be the highest yearly percentage of overtime games in the league’s history.

At the end of tie games, teams across the league don’t play to win — they play not to lose.

...

In today’s NHL, overtime frequently benefits both teams, which is why teams that are tied often holster their sticks. Take a look at this chart, which shows the expected goal (EG) rate per minute2 over the course of an NHL contest. EGs use shot distance and location from the NHL’s play-by-play data to estimate the number of goals that we expect the two teams to combine for during each minute of play. There’s something different about that third period.

The expected goal output is nearly identical between tied games and one-goal games from the 15th through 55th minutes of the game. But for the last five minutes, the number of EGs rises for one-goal games and drops for tied games.

...

Take a look at this chart, which shows the overtime rates in the league’s old and new point systems by the day of the season in which the game was played. (The shaded regions represent 95 percent confidence intervals for the smoothed lines.)

While overtime rates have been consistently higher in the current point system, the late-season change is dramatic. Roughly two-thirds of the way through the season, OT rates spike; in the old system, without the loser point, rates plummeted late in the season. Spring is now the NHL’s overtime season.

As someone who's relatively new to stats (and more specifically econometrics), I think this is really cool stuff. The funny thing is, I know virtually nothing about advanced stats in hockey, but generally understand everything you've said and totally understand every bit of the charts. Cool stuff, and this might motivate me to start delving into advanced stats over the summer so I'll still be ready for courses in September.

 

[AvroArrow]

I was thinking about the same idea, as i think a lot of nhl fans were

It makes the most sense IF they want to keep the shootout. I would like to see either what the OP proposed or a simple win vs loss format like in the nba/nfl. Having some games worth 3 points and others only 2 makes absolutely no sense.

 

[roboninja]

I was thinking about the same idea, as i think a lot of nhl fans were

It makes the most sense IF they want to keep the shootout. I would like to see either what the OP proposed or a simple win vs loss format like in the nba/nfl. Having some games worth 3 points and others only 2 makes absolutely no sense.

It is the shootout that keeps me from supporting any thought of "0 points for any loss" idea. Playing 60 minutes, then some OT, and then losing a shootout and you get nothing? Ruins the game for me, and you would see coaches and GMs getting apoplectic.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

It is the shootout that keeps me from supporting any thought of "0 points for any loss" idea. Playing 60 minutes, then some OT, and then losing a shootout and you get nothing? Ruins the game for me, and you would see coaches and GMs getting apoplectic.

Then they should win.

 

[Auguste McEscoffier]

you mean no point structure?

You can't compare the NBA to the NHL. The NHL is such a grind there's no way you can let them play indefinite overtimes in the regular season. You have to have a way to settle points in the standings accordingly

If you lose in OT or the shootout you receive an L in your column. There would be no need for continuous OT periods.

51 W 31 L etc.

 

[GordonGecko]

If you lose in OT or the shootout you receive an L in your column. There would be no need for continuous OT periods.

51 W 31 L etc.

Can't do it, the shootout is not a legitimate loss