GM meetings in Florida

[Canada 02]

"One of the concepts that we talked about is how we spent a lot of time over the years over how to create more offense, but should we go about [it] differently?" Treliving said. "Should we look at ways to legislate defense?"

Treliving said in particular they talked about congestion in front of the net and shot blocking.

"You need an act of God to get a puck through from the point into where a goalie has to make a save," Treliving said. "That's something that perhaps can be addressed."

Treliving said they even discussed enlarging the size of the zone.

"We always talk about creating rules to create offense, create offense, and then we give it to our coaches and 10 minutes later they've figured out a way to kill that idea," Treliving said. "But what if we find a way to limit defense. Instead of giving them tools for the toolbox, take a few out. We spent a lot of time on that."

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-general...re/c-287441518

[Rubicant]

The league needs to make sure the same number of points are available each game. I'd be for making every win 2 points and loss 0 points but they would need to get rid of the shootout as it would be absurd to award one team 2 and the other 0 based on that ridiculousness.

Given that the shootout sadly doesn't seem to be going anywhere they might as well make it a 3 point system. The added bonus of teams going for it in regulation to get an extra point could be interesting as well.

They need to change the coaches challenge system too. Way too often it's a coach just making a questionable challenge because they get a timeout during the challenge even if they are unsuccessful. Make it a 2 minute delay of game if you're wrong and it should force the challenge to be what it's supposed to be about - correcting clearly wrong calls.

One thing I would also like to see change is a modification to the no change on icing rule that the ohl uses. If the team ices it from their own end they can't change, but if it's iced from the neutral zone they can change.

[White Out 403]

Id rather get rid of the loser point. If we went to a 3 point system it would really muddy up the whole history of most points by a team etc.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Id rather get rid of the loser point. If we went to a 3 point system it would really muddy up the whole history of most points by a team etc.

Saving one of the least important records isn't as important as having every game being of equal value. Just by having loser points those records are already muddied anyways.

[Enoch Root]

I am strongly in favour of the 3 point system - every game has to be worth the same amount.

And the thing of it is that it really won't impact the standings all that much, it's just the sheer optics of it that needs to be addressed.

[csnarpy]

Originally Posted by getbak

For reference, here's what today's standings would look like with the same results but 3 points for a regulation win (keeping in mind that teams would likely play differently late in a close game if there were 3 points on the line). The first column is Regulation Wins (3 points); the second is OT/SO Wins (2 points); third is OT/SO Losses (1 point); and fourth is Regulation Losses (0 points).

TEAM			RW	OW	OL	RL	P
Washington Capitals	36	8	7	44	131
Pittsburgh Penguins	32	8	8	40	120
Columbus Blue Jackets	31	10	6	41	119
					
Montréal Canadiens	27	10	8	37	109
Ottawa Senators		28	7	6	35	104
Boston Bruins		28	6	6	34	102
					
New York Rangers	34	7	2	41	118
New York Islanders	26	4	11	30	97
----------------------	---	---	---	---	---
Toronto Maple Leafs	22	6	14	28	92
Tampa Bay Lightning	23	7	8	30	91
Florida Panthers	18	11	11	29	87
Philadelphia Flyers	18	12	8	30	86
Buffalo Sabres		20	7	12	27	86
Carolina Hurricanes	20	6	10	26	82
New Jersey Devils	17	8	12	25	79
Detroit Red Wings	14	11	11	25	75
					
					
Minnesota Wild		35	7	6	42	125
Chicago Blackhawks	31	11	5	42	120
Nashville Predators	28	4	9	32	101
					
San Jose Sharks		31	7	7	38	114
Anaheim Ducks		29	4	10	33	105
Edmonton Oilers		26	9	8	35	104
					
Calgary Flames		25	11	4	36	101
St. Louis Blues		25	7	5	32	94
----------------------	---	---	---	---	---
Winnipeg Jets		25	5	6	30	91
Los Angeles Kings	19	12	6	31	87
Dallas Stars		23	3	10	26	85
Vancouver Canucks	18	10	7	28	81
Arizona Coyotes		14	9	7	23	67
Colorado Avalanche	11	6	3	17	48

The only significant change to the standings is that LA would drop two spots from the 2nd Wild Card position and St Louis would move into the 2nd Wild Card spot. Also, home ice in the Pittsburgh-Columbus and Anaheim-Edmonton series would switch.

Some of the non-playoff positions would also change, which would impact draft positions.

This point is moot. If you initiate the 3 point system, gameplay would change significantly in the final period and results would be different. The only comparison that could come close is the old point system before OT was in the league. I'm pretty sure there would be a big seperation between the crap teams and the good teams. Unfortunately those owners wouldn't want that lack of parity and thus the 3 point game will once again get swept aside.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by csnarpy

This point is moot. If you initiate the 3 point system, gameplay would change significantly in the final period and results would be different. The only comparison that could come close is the old point system before OT was in the league. I'm pretty sure there would be a big seperation between the crap teams and the good teams. Unfortunately those owners wouldn't want that lack of parity and thus the 3 point game will once again get swept aside.

I'm not sure I buy this argument.

What would change exactly? Leading teams would play tighter? Nope. The prospect of giving up a lead and not gaining the full benefit of the two points is already causing teams to tighten up. With so many 3 point games winning in regulation is important enough. The idea that teams aren't already doing everything possible to protect the lead is asinine.

Trailing teams would push just as hard as they do now knowing that they need to not give up the 3 points.

Tied games are already extremely cautious because neither team wants to give up that precious two point swing when they can get their guaranteed loser point. I guess you could argue things would get tighter because now they'd be avoiding a 3 point swing but as the season progresses the team needing the 3 points the most would have more incentive to push harder due to the benefit of the extra points. So even that argument has holes. That benefit isn't quite there right now because it is only 1 extra point vs OT. So a team trailing in the standings doesn't have as much incentive to open things up in the current system.

[jayswin]

"One of the concepts that we talked about is how we spent a lot of time over the years over how to create more offense, but should we go about [it] differently?" Treliving said. "Should we look at ways to legislate defense?"

Treliving said in particular they talked about congestion in front of the net and shot blocking.

"You need an act of God to get a puck through from the point into where a goalie has to make a save," Treliving said. "That's something that perhaps can be addressed."

Treliving said they even discussed enlarging the size of the zone.

"We always talk about creating rules to create offense, create offense, and then we give it to our coaches and 10 minutes later they've figured out a way to kill that idea," Treliving said. "But what if we find a way to limit defense. Instead of giving them tools for the toolbox, take a few out. We spent a lot of time on that."

Treliving's a smart hockey mind. The point system is peanuts compared to what the game of hockey has become, and Brad nailed the major issues right there. Hockey is now a perfectly executed systems based game, where scoring chances are so few over the course of a million blocked lanes and blocked shots that it has even the most hardcore supporters bored during most games.

[jayswin]

Just think of how this presents itself to the casual/new/potential fan. Not very well. Hockey is losing (and I begrudgingly agree it has to) what attracted so many people to the game; it's toughness.

The hard hitting, glove dropping nature of the game that separated it from it's competition is going the way of the dodo. Which would be fine if fast paced, edge of your seat, chance swapping action was in it's place, but instead I'd argue we're back to where we were in the late 90's/early 2000's where coaches have mastered the offense out of the game in favour of perfect defense.

I don't see why it isn't time to revamp the game a little, just like we did over a decade ago, to reset the game so to speak, and force coaches to have to adapt all over again.

Tre nailed it, literally as soon as the teams are set in the zone it's like shooting into a brick wall and a good chunk of a 60 minute hockey game is players just kind of skating and passing around aimlessly, hoping for a shred of daylight. Sure, it feels great when one finally does get through, but there's very little threatening offense in the game today. It's just about boringly keeping possession until maybe something opens up.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Treliving's a smart hockey mind. The point system is peanuts compared to what the game of hockey has become, and Brad nailed the major issues right there. Hockey is now a perfectly executed systems based game, where scoring chances are so few over the course of a million blocked lanes and blocked shots that it has even the most hardcore supporters bored during most games.

Originally Posted by jayswin

Just think of how this presents itself to the casual/new/potential fan. Not very well. Hockey is losing (and I begrudgingly agree it has to) what attracted so many people to the game; it's toughness.

The hard hitting, glove dropping nature of the game that separated it from it's competition is going the way of the dodo. Which would be fine if fast paced, edge of your seat, chance swapping action was in it's place, but instead I'd argue we're back to where we were in the late 90's/early 2000's where coaches have mastered the offense out of the game in favour of perfect defense.

I don't see why it isn't time to revamp the game a little, just like we did over a decade ago, to reset the game so to speak, and force coaches to have to adapt all over again.

Tre nailed it, literally as soon as the teams are set in the zone it's like shooting into a brick wall and a good chunk of a 60 minute hockey game is players just kind of skating and passing around aimlessly, hoping for a shred of daylight. Sure, it feels great when one finally does get through, but there's very little threatening offense in the game today. It's just about boringly keeping possession until maybe something opens up.

I don't really buy either of your arguments. It honestly just sounds like you don't like hockey and your version of it isn't the actual sport. Too many video games? Too high of expectations? Or maybe you're just a pessimist. You do seem to crap on the NHL, flames and Calgary at every chance you get.

Hockey will never be teams just trading chances back and forth and it never has been. And any rule that legislates river hockey into the game will just ruin it. Want ringette rules that mandate player positioning in the offensive zone? Eliminate shot blocking? Vastly change the size of the ice surface? Go permanent 4 on 4? May as well just create a new sport because that's not NHL hockey anymore.

It isn't fair to reference the Olympics, unless you want to eliminate 25 teams, or the world juniors, unless you want to eliminate 25 teams and make the NHL a U20 league.

Hockey after the lockout sucked. It was nothing but power plays for 3 hours.


All that being said I'd be in favour of some minor tweaks. Slimming goalie equipment, slimming player equipment, slight tightening of obstruction rules again.

[jayswin]

Well now we know your take on my post. I'd be interested in others, as it doesn't feel like I'm the only one from past discussions, not by a long shot.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by AC

I think the biggest argument for a 3 pt regulation win is that it results in the same amount of points handed out each game. Removes the ability for some games to be worth more in the standings than others.

Regulation win: 3 pts
Regulation loss: 0 pts

OT/SO win: 2 pts
OT/SO loss: 1 pt

I don't like this because while it makes sense mathematically, it devalues an overtime win and makes it less exciting.

All or nothing. Use the "games back" system like Major League Baseball and the NBA. Part of the thrill of extra innings is it's still all or nothing. You win or you lose, no more in between.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Well now we know your take on my post. I'd be interested in others, as it doesn't feel like I'm the only one from past discussions, not by a long shot.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. You just want some reassurance that other people think the NHL sucks in its current form? What exactly does that prove?

Unless someone has concrete ideas on how to fix it, I'm not sure what taking sides accomplishes. Right now, I've never seen or read anything that could magically turn the NHL in this years world junior gold medal game.

The sport is what it is. Hockey maybe just isn't the most exciting end to end sport around. I don't know how you could ever mandate teams give up odd man rushes against to make the game exciting.

Romanticizing the past doesn't do much to improve the game now.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I'm not sure what you're getting at. You just want some reassurance that other people think the NHL sucks in its current form? What exactly does that prove?

Unless someone has concrete ideas on how to fix it, I'm not sure what taking sides accomplishes. Right now, I've never seen or read anything that could magically turn the NHL in this years world junior gold medal game.

The sport is what it is. Hockey maybe just isn't the most exciting end to end sport around. I don't know how you could ever mandate teams give up odd man rushes against to make the game exciting.

Romanticizing the past doesn't do much to improve the game now.

Well, the point of a discussion board is to discuss ideas, so I presented what I felt was wrong with the NHL, (which btw is shared by Brad Treliving in that quote, so it's not me just romanticizing the past) to see where others sit and what ideas they may have.

My post was a little dismissive, as I was just looking to get past discussing it with you and see what others had to say as I generally really dislike your discussion style and didn't feel like getting into a back and forth with you. Nothing personal.

But I guess to touch on your idea that there's no point in discussing it unless someone has concrete ideas to fix it. That was kind of where I was going by opening up the discussions. And to say "hockey is what it is" is silly, because hockey always is what it is until it changes.

[PaperBagger'14]

What would you think of this breakdown for points:
3 points for regulation win
2 points for an overtime win
1 point for a shootout win

No points for any losses. Keep both teams hungry and not coasting through the last few minutes of a game to guarantee one point. No guarantees for anyone and it encourages teams regulation wins.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

What would you think of this breakdown for points:
3 points for regulation win
2 points for an overtime win
1 point for a shootout win

No points for any losses. Keep both teams hungry and not coasting through the last few minutes of a game to guarantee one point. No guarantees for anyone and it encourages teams regulation wins.

So some games would be worth only 1 point?

No.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

What would you think of this breakdown for points:
3 points for regulation win
2 points for an overtime win
1 point for a shootout win

No points for any losses. Keep both teams hungry and not coasting through the last few minutes of a game to guarantee one point. No guarantees for anyone and it encourages teams regulation wins.

The biggest problem with the current system is that not all games are awarded the same number of points. This simply exacerbates that issue.

[MoBiBu]

1 points, 2 points, 3 points - all small potatoes; how about 15 point games?

2 Per period based on goal differential; 2 pts to winner, 1 pt for ties - no more of this lame effort when down by only a goal at the end of the period or coasting because the team has a cushion

2 shutout points - each team starts with 1 pt; first goal scored by either team steals the other teams point; let's make shut outs really mean something!

2 icing points - team with least icings takes the points unless the differential is a certain smallness; fans don't pay to watch players go for a skate and game the linesmen for more rest time

5 victory points - so the winning team still takes away the most points; closest points would be 8-7

overtime/shoot out points - nothing... and most of the points for the game have probably been given out so you're just wasting everyone's time stretching it out.

[JerryUnderscore]

^^ Hard to argue with that logic.

[hummdeedoo]

Originally Posted by MoBiBu

1 points, 2 points, 3 points - all small potatoes; how about 15 point games?

2 Per period based on goal differential; 2 pts to winner, 1 pt for ties - no more of this lame effort when down by only a goal at the end of the period or coasting because the team has a cushion

2 shutout points - each team starts with 1 pt; first goal scored by either team steals the other teams point; let's make shut outs really mean something!

2 icing points - team with least icings takes the points unless the differential is a certain smallness; fans don't pay to watch players go for a skate and game the linesmen for more rest time

5 victory points - so the winning team still takes away the most points; closest points would be 8-7

overtime/shoot out points - nothing... and most of the points for the game have probably been given out so you're just wasting everyone's time stretching it out.

I bet you like cribbage😋
Definitely a creative point system but keeping it simple is essential