If NHL used 3 point (3-2-1-0) system

[squiggs96]

I was thinking about the .500 thread, if loser point is a good description for when a team loses in OT or a shootout, and what the standings would look like if the NHL gave 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime or shootout win, 1 point for an overtime or shootout loss, and 0 points for a regulation loss.

As documented in the .500 thread, I think .500 represents amount of points won out of points available. Opponents of this line of thinking debate that it's wins out of games played.

I dislike the term loser point because I don't think that's what it represents. Currently the NHL awards two points in each regulation game. If you're ahead after 60 minutes you get both of them. If you are tied you split the points, and if you are behind you get nothing. No matter what happens in OT or the SO, you already have earned your point. The NHL doesn't take away a point for losing in OT/SO. The OT/SO winning point is a bonus. Maybe this is just semantics/optics.

Part of what people don't like about the term .500, is that if you go by my version, there are 26 out of 30 teams that are at/over.500, because of the difference in number of points awarded in each game. If an equal number of points were awarded in each game, you'd think about 15 teams would be at/over .500. If the three point system was used, then 13 teams are at/over .500 based on points won out of total points available. The side that doesn't like my version of .500 states it's not meaningful, since 87% of teams are at/over .500. The three point system would bring it back closer to it "meaning" something. I'm not sure it's necessary, nor am I sure I'd care.

I redid the current NHL standings to go with the 3 point system. Obviously they wouldn't be exact, as teams wouldn't play the games the exact same way, but I think they'd be fairly close. What changes? Not much.

In the Western Conference seven of eight playoff teams are the same. Minnesota and Chicago flip the division lead, but that could happen once games even out anyways. Minnesota is one point behind Chicago, with four games in hand. In the wildcard standings, Calgary goes from 8th to 7th. Nashville also beats out LA for 8th spot due to the huge difference in regulation vs. OT wins.

In the Eastern Conference, again, seven of eight playoff teams are the same. The top six teams are the same. Once the games even out, Ottawa likely is back in front of Boston. The big change is Tampa moves from 10th in the conference, to the last wildcard spot, with Philadelphia dropping out of the playoffs.

So what does this mean? Not much, I guess. There has been debate here, and many other hockey sites that the NHL should go to a 3 point system. I still think they should, but I'm not sure that much changes. Maybe the biggest change would be how the end of games are played. Would teams go for it more in regulation to try and get 3 points, especially over a division rival? If traditionalists want only 2 points given for each game, I think OT has to go back to 5 on 5 (maybe 4 on 4), and the SO eliminated. I don't know how you can tell a team they played even with another team for 60 (65?) minutes, but lose in a SO, and they get nothing for that.

Here are the present and adjusted standings:

WESTERN CONFERENCE



EASTERN CONFERENCE

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I do think the 3 point system makes the most sense, notwithstanding not much would change. The current system of some games with 3 points available (2 for the win and the "loser" point) and some with only 2, (2 for the win) just isn't sensible in my opinion. A regulation win should be worth more than an overtime win, similar to that where an overtime loss is currently worth more than a regulation loss.

[dino7c]

makes too much sense for Gary to consider

the loser point was introduced to encourage teams to "got for it" in overtime instead of sitting back for the tie.

Ties no longer exist so now teams are sitting back to get to the OT/SO

[CroFlames]

My opinion is so unpopular I am almost embarrassed to post it. But I think the NHL should do what soccer does: Win - Loss - Tie. 3 points for a win, a point each for a tie, and nothing for a loss. Do away with OT and SO completely. I think 3rd periods would become more exciting with teams trying to chase 3 points instead of one.

Would be interested to see the standings if that point system was used.

Playoffs are great just the way they are.

[MarkGio]

The loser point has also helped parity in the league. The really bad teams who lose a lot of games are technically still the mix in the standings if they have a lot of loser points. This makes the game more appealing, because when a team is only 8 points out of a playoff spot in January, at least they're putting in an effort and not mailing it in.

It also makes the playoff chase harder. It's harder to gain ground on a team when teams are gaining points for their loses, so a win is only a one point gain against a loser point. This puts more teams in the mix, more rivalries, more drama, etc.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

My opinion is so unpopular I am almost embarrassed to post it. But I think the NHL should do what soccer does: Win - Loss - Tie. 3 points for a win, a point each for a tie, and nothing for a loss. Do away with OT and SO completely. I think 3rd periods would become more exciting with teams trying to chase 3 points instead of one.

Would be interested to see the standings if that point system was used.

Playoffs are great just the way they are.

it's the purist way but maybe unfair in an unbalanced schedule. If you're in a tough division you would fall behind the wildcard race really fast.

it's tough to have ties in this society. Paying $200 (plus food, plus babysitting) on a Tuesday night to see a tie... blech.

[JTech780]

I would go straight wins and losses, use regulation wins as a tie breaker.

IMO winning is what is important regardless of how you do it. If you lose you lose, that's it you get nothing.

I would compromise to the 3-2-1-0 system if it meant doing away with the nonsensical system currently being used.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

My opinion is so unpopular I am almost embarrassed to post it. But I think the NHL should do what soccer does: Win - Loss - Tie. 3 points for a win, a point each for a tie, and nothing for a loss. Do away with OT and SO completely. I think 3rd periods would become more exciting with teams trying to chase 3 points instead of one.

Would be interested to see the standings if that point system was used.

Playoffs are great just the way they are.

You realize the NHL used to have ties right? They sucked. And OT is creating way more goals which is what both the NHL and fans want to see.

This 3 point system sucks to a lesser extent, but fans of both teams will still feel like they lost just by a game going to overtime. You've officially left points on the table so no matter the result it won't be as satisfying. Rule changes should make the game more entertaining, not increase the amount of displeased fans.

[Frank MetaMusil]

LA always manages to weasel into/close to a playoff spot with the loser point. I hate that team.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

My opinion is so unpopular I am almost embarrassed to post it. But I think the NHL should do what soccer does: Win - Loss - Tie. 3 points for a win, a point each for a tie, and nothing for a loss. Do away with OT and SO completely. I think 3rd periods would become more exciting with teams trying to chase 3 points instead of one.

Would be interested to see the standings if that point system was used.

Playoffs are great just the way they are.

Soccer is notorious for teams chasing a tie and just sitting back doing nothing. It's the point system that makes the sport almost unbearable to watch. Basketball, on the other hand, is exciting in the last few minutes where the "buzzer beater" makes or breaks an epic victory.

I remember back in the day a team would go into triple overtime or whatever and despite all that effort, if they lost there was no consolation. And both teams were dead tired and barely skating by the 2nd overtime, especially western teams. It was hard on the fans to finish watching a late game too. I like knowing the latest I'll stay up is 11:30 for an 8:00pm start.

The shoot-out and 3-on-3 are also good highlight reels. Ever since the shoot-out came out, it made watching highlights at the bar much more entertaining

[JTech780]

If the 3-2-1-0 system creates more of a separation in the standings, one side effect might more trades. If there is a clearer line between buyers and sellers at the trade deadline, it might result in more trades. Trades equal more publicity for the league.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

LA always manages to weasel into/close to a playoff spot with the loser point. I hate that team.

It's probably their system. I would guess they only lose by one goal at the very end. There's probably less variance in their scores.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

it's the purist way but maybe unfair in an unbalanced schedule. If you're in a tough division you would fall behind the wildcard race really fast.

it's tough to have ties in this society. Paying $200 (plus food, plus babysitting) on a Tuesday night to see a tie... blech.

Or imagine spending several grand on season tickets and your team has no chance by Christmas. You think you'll renew next season's? Like it not, the loser point keeps franchises healthy.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I remember back in the day a team would go into triple overtime or whatever and despite all that effort, if they lost there was no consolation. And both teams were dead tired and barely skating by the 2nd overtime, especially western teams. It was hard on the fans to finish watching a late game too. I like knowing the latest I'll stay up is 11:30 for an 8:00pm start.

Triple overtime only happens in the playoffs. There is no consolation for losing a playoff game, but it's five on five the entire time (unless penalties). The longest OT that the NHL ever had in the regular season was 10 minutes. Since 1983-84, it's been 5 minutes.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by JTech780

If the 3-2-1-0 system creates more of a separation in the standings, one side effect might more trades. If there is a clearer line between buyers and sellers at the trade deadline, it might result in more trades. Trades equal more publicity for the league.

This probably true, except I don't think trades cause publicity. I don't think people follow the games because of trades. You're either entertained by the 60+ minutes gameplay, or you're not. I doubt someone who finds hockey boring is excited about the trades. However, someone who enjoys hockey will continue to do so despite trades or not.

[memphusk]

2 for a win 0 for a loss. 2 points for an overtime win 1 for the loss. 1 point for a shootout win 0 for the loss

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Triple overtime only happens in the playoffs. There is no consolation for losing a playoff game, but it's five on five the entire time (unless penalties). The longest OT that the NHL ever had in the regular season was 10 minutes. Since 1983-84, it's been 5 minutes.

I could have sworn I've encountered at least double OT in the regular season, but I'll take your word for it.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Or imagine spending several grand on season tickets and your team has no chance by Christmas. You think you'll renew next season's? Like it not, the loser point keeps franchises healthy.

Arizona and Colorado are already out of it, no matter what system of points you use. Look at the Western Conference teams not in the playoffs right now. Under the current format, 4 teams not in a playoff position need two wins to get in. With the 3 point system, three of those teams only need one win. If they won two games they are only one back of 3rd in the division.The fourth team (Vancouver) is still two wins back, just as they are in the current standings.

You can also gain on your opponents quicker in the 3 point system. Say you win two games against division rivals. That's six points. In the current system it's tough to gain ground, because two teams above you can both move ahead of you when you lose if that game goes into OT. How many nights do you watch the OOT scoreboard and hope the game ends in regulation? I know I do it lots. If each game is worth the same, it can actually help teams not in a playoff spot.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Or imagine spending several grand on season tickets and your team has no chance by Christmas. You think you'll renew next season's? Like it not, the loser point keeps franchises healthy.

maybe, im all for suffering though and watching the team get better. instead of fake chasing 8th place and not able to make up ground. Loser points work in reverse too, harder to chase teams down.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Or imagine spending several grand on season tickets and your team has no chance by Christmas. You think you'll renew next season's? Like it not, the loser point keeps franchises healthy.

I would argue it's the salary cap that keeps teams competitive and why there is parity in the league.

It just never sat right with me that you get a consolation point for losing. You should get nothing, no matter how you lose. Just like in the playoffs. I realize this is unpopular opinion, but I don't think ties are as bad as people think they are. On the other hand, I've thought to myself many times how OT or SO cheapened a rather great game of hockey between two teams who seriously battled it out.

The three points for a win is the key though, versus 2 points for a win. Teams need that extra incentive to avoid playing for a tie. Teams that win are rewarded, and teams that play for ties are punished because only 2 total points are awarded for that game.