Why hasn't the NHL changed to a 3 point system for regulation win? Are they considering it?

[Nasti]

The NHL argued for a 3 point system in 2004. The proposal was put on hold until 2007 when every team owner rejected it.

It's easy to ignorantly blame the NHL, when it's the owners who want as much parity as possible.

The owners ARE the NHL.

 

[Sparty]

It's so they can still compare current teams with historically great teams, even though they're not competing under the same systems (OT was added, then shootouts were added, then OT was changed to 3vs3). It's the only logical reason I can think of for leaving it at two points for wins.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

Not at all. You just value regulation wins in tie breakers and move on with life.

Tiebreaker is such a minor thing in the big picture, off the top of your head you won't be able to name the last 3 teams that were tied for #8/9 spots.

As long as the game has gimmick to decide games the point system will remain.

 

[BLNY]

Honest question - is there a reason why NHL hasn't shifted to that? I know a lot of fans are wanting this, and it seems like a natural and obvious change to me.

There's probably two main ways of doing this.

Option 1:

Regulation win 3 points
OT win 2 points
shootout win 1 point
Loss (any type) 0 points

Option 2:

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

I personally prefer the first, as teams will always be trying to win, since regulation win is worth more than OT win, and OT worth more than shootout, and loss worth 0 points. So teams are always going all out to win, whether at the end of regulation, or in OT, which makes the game more exciting. But - option 2 could work too, as it would allow all games to have the same number of points awarded (3), and still rewards team for seeking a win in regulation vs playing it safe to reach OT.

So the question is - why has the NHL not shifted to this? Have there been reports that they are seriously considering this, or have? Is there pushback for certain reasons? Or has it never even been seriously considered by owners?

What's your opinion - do you think NHL should change to one of those 2 systems? And which one makes more sense if so? And if not - why not?

I know some posters will comment about how they don't like shootouts and wish NHL would get rid of those, but I think that's highly unlikely. They're very marketable, and I don't think they're going away anytime soon, so seems like a moot point.

We've seen this topic so many times.

Leave three pointers to the NBA. The change the league should be making is to get rid of the loser point. They won't though because it artificially inflates weaker teams in the standings longer into the season. Bettman's attempts at parity are more of a parody.

 

[FerrisRox]

Honest question - is there a reason why NHL hasn't shifted to that? I know a lot of fans are wanting this, and it seems like a natural and obvious change to me.

There's probably two main ways of doing this.

Option 1:

Regulation win 3 points
OT win 2 points
shootout win 1 point
Loss (any type) 0 points

Option 2:

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

I personally prefer the first, as teams will always be trying to win, since regulation win is worth more than OT win, and OT worth more than shootout, and loss worth 0 points. So teams are always going all out to win, whether at the end of regulation, or in OT, which makes the game more exciting. But - option 2 could work too, as it would allow all games to have the same number of points awarded (3), and still rewards team for seeking a win in regulation vs playing it safe to reach OT.

So the question is - why has the NHL not shifted to this? Have there been reports that they are seriously considering this, or have? Is there pushback for certain reasons? Or has it never even been seriously considered by owners?

What's your opinion - do you think NHL should change to one of those 2 systems? And which one makes more sense if so? And if not - why not?

I know some posters will comment about how they don't like shootouts and wish NHL would get rid of those, but I think that's highly unlikely. They're very marketable, and I don't think they're going away anytime soon, so seems like a moot point.

I would much rather they revert to the original system where you receive two points for a win and zero points for a loss.

 

[Foppberg]

How about dump the point system entirely and go to a W/L system.

I'd probably have a points system just so regulation games are worth more than OT.

Regulation win = 2 points
OT/SO win = 1 point
Any loss = 0

 

[Henkka]

5 Points - Win by Paul Maurice in Regulation with St. Laurent or Lambert Reffing
4 Points - Win by Paul Maurice in OT/Shootout with St. Laurent or Lambert Reffing
3 Points - Win in Regulation
2 Points - Win in OT/Shootout
1 Point - Loss in OT/Shootout
0 Points - Loss in Regulation

I laughed.

 

[StreetHawk]

Option 2 is the most fair 3 pt system.

Winning a gimmick shouldn't be the same pts as winning an actual hockey game.

Likewise losing a skills gimmick shouldn't be punished like losing in regulation. You didn't get beat in a hockey game.

Option 2 also ensures the same number of points are awarded each season. If there are 1260 games each season and each is worth 3 points then we know there are going to be 3780 points total for the season. Right now it can vary between 25-50 or something each season given the number of lost regulation games.

Some people don’t like the extra columns. But right now you will see teams with fewer wins ranked behind teams with more wins if they have the same point total. Then you need to see the ROW column to understand why.

 

[Henkka]

Option 2 also ensures the same number of points are awarded each season. If there are 1260 games each season and each is worth 3 points then we know there are going to be 3780 points total for the season. Right now it can vary between 25-50 or something each season given the number of lost regulation games.

Some people don’t like the extra columns. But right now you will see teams with fewer wins ranked behind teams with more wins if they have the same point total. Then you need to see the ROW column to understand why.

Everything has been like a bubble-gum fixes. Fix after another failure fix.

 

[SUX2BU]

The current system is fine

 

[swissdude]

I think it's to keep the standings artificially close didn't calculate it but I guess with 3 points system too many teams are out of the playoff race too early

 

[BigEezyE22]

Doesn't 1 of the fancy stats page give the option of displaying standings with a 3 point system? I think it only really flips a couple bubble teams every now and then.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I just never understood why you would get a point if you lost in OT/SO. You lost the game, so why be rewarded for it?

IMO, I would have it as:

Reg. win - 2
OT/SO win - 1
Loss (any kind) - 0

That would give the most accurate standings and where teams are at. Tiebreaker would just be who had more Regulation wins and less OT/SO wins.

No you didn't lose the game. You lost a gimmick. 3 on 3 and the shoot out are not hockey.

 

[HofT]

Still has the problem of the loser point, and not every game being the same number of points.

It does make a slight impact though. Like Tampa would have 85 points and Leafs have 88. So, Tampa would only be 1 win away instead of being currently 2 wins away. But yea, it's not that bad of a difference.

 

[StreetHawk]

No you didn't lose the game. You lost a gimmick. 3 on 3 and the shoot out are not hockey.

Agreed. How many PO games have 3 on 3 situations? If they went to that in PO thorn you can make that argument that a loss is a loss.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I was curious how both a system that was [Reg W-3, OT/SO W-2, OT/SO L-1, Reg L-0] and a system that was [Reg/OT W-3, SO W-2, SO L-1, Reg/OT L-0] would play out, so I spent a very useless half hour pulling, mathing, and sorting this data. Here it is, hopefully I haven't messed up any numbers:

Team	Normal Standing	Team	First Scenario	Team	Second Scenario
Bruins	72	Bruins	101	Bruins	103
Hurricanes	62	Devils	85	Devils	87
Devils	61	Leafs	84	Jets	87
Leafs	61	Stars	82	Lightning	84
Stars	59	Hurricanes	82	Leafs	82
Jets	59	Jets	81	Knights	82
Knights	58	Lightning	79	Hurricanes	80
Lightning	57	Kraken	78	Stars	79
Rangers	57	Knights	78	Kraken	79

Kraken	56	Rangers	77	Oilers	76
Kings	56	Oilers	76	Rangers	75
Wild	54	Capitals	74	Capitals	74
Capitals	54	Wild	74	Wild	74
Oilers	53	Kings	74	Islanders	72
Flames	51	Islanders	70	Kings	72
Penguins	50	Penguins	69	Penguins	65
Islanders	50	Flames	69	Flames	65
Predators	48	Panthers	67	Avalanche	65
Avalanche	47	Predators	64	Blues	64

Blues	47	Flyers	63	Panthers	63
Panthers	47	Blues	62	Sabres	62
Sabres	45	Sabres	61	Predators	62
Flyers	45	Avalanche	61	Flyers	58
Red Wings	44	Red Wings	59	Senators	56
Senators	41	Senators	56	Red Wings	56
Canadiens	41	Canadiens	53	Canadiens	53
Canucks	39	Canucks	50	Canucks	52
Sharks	35	Sharks	45	Sharks	43
Coyotes	33	Coyotes	44	Coyotes	42

Ducks	29	Blue Jackets	37	Blue Jackets	39
Hawks	28	Hawks	36	Hawks	38
Blue Jackets	28	Ducks	33	Ducks	35

Overall, I like the second scenario (3 points for a Regulation or Overtime Win, 2 for a Shootout Win, 1 for a Shootout Loss, and none for a Regulation or Overtime Loss). I don't see why teams should get rewarded for losing in OT rather than Regulation; I'd just consider OT to be an extension of Regulation, as it's basically like if you're tied in the last minute of a game and then you score, it's almost definitely going to be the last goal of the game. That way, teams are punished for stalling out the last few minutes of Regulation to get to OT and for dipsy-doodling around in OT just waiting for the Shootout. And since the Shootout is literally a 50/50, it makes sense to reward winning during actual hockey instead of a Shootout, although in this scenario I might move back to 4v4 OT instead of 3v3.

Just my two cents.

 

[bossram]

How about dump the point system entirely and go to a W/L system.

No, absolutely not. That would weight a gimmick contest (3v3 or SO) the same as an actual, regulation hockey win.

The 3-2-1-0 system makes by far the most logical sense. But the NHL will never do it because it's incongruent with historical records and it doesn't artificially compress the playoff race like the 2 point system.

 

[SladeWilson23]

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

 

[DearDiary]

The owners ARE the NHL.

The NHL said they want a 3 point system, then the entire NHL voted and said no? How do you explain this?

 

[PunchImlach is Alive]

A goal should count for 6 points. After the goal is scored, the team should be allowed to shoot the puck from center ice for an extra point.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

Probably because they don't care whether games give out the same number of points or not

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

5 Points - Win by Paul Maurice in Regulation with St. Laurent or Lambert Reffing
4 Points - Win by Paul Maurice in OT/Shootout with St. Laurent or Lambert Reffing
3 Points - Win in Regulation
2 Points - Win in OT/Shootout
1 Point - Loss in OT/Shootout
0 Points - Loss in Regulation

-1 point - Lose in OT/SO against Paul Maurice with St. Laurent or Lambert Reffing.
-2 points - Lose in regulation against Paul Maurice with St. Laurent or Lambert Reffing.
0 points - Lose in any other scenario.

 

[Kingfan1967]

Doesn't 1 of the fancy stats page give the option of displaying standings with a 3 point system? I think it only really flips a couple bubble teams every now and then.

LA missed the PO one year and i think it was MTL another year, until 2-3 teams miss in the same year because of the unbalanced points system the NHL won't change.

 

[Ace]

This mickey Mouse league trades in phony forced parity because unlike any other major sport…they need people to buy tickets. The worst thing for them is great teams being great and out of reach while bad teams are bad and out of it.

A decision made to take the actual sport out of sport in hopes a handful of fools will buy a ticket to a sport that already is so easily ruled by randomness, luck and horrid officiating.

 

[Homesick]

It keeps the teams close for more of the season

Which sucks for us that like to bicker about trade proposals