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

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

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

The NHL hasn't had regular season overtimes longer than 5 minutes since the 40's.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

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.

I think ties in soccer are ok because it's low scoring and its played once a week. Plus soccer is about the experience and the 'almost goal' then actual goals. Ties in an 82 game schedule is kind of dumb.

[JTech780]

Under the current system if you are 6+ points out of it with 20 or less games to go, you are pretty much done. How is that exciting?

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by JTech780

Under the current system if you are 6+ points out of it with 20 or less games to go, you are pretty much done. How is that exciting?

How would this be any different under a new system?

Instead of being 6 points back with 20 games remaining, you might be 12 or more points back depending on your regulation wins.

[JTech780]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

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.

Sure they do if your team lands a key player for the playoff run, it creates excitement. Same if your team gets a new prospect into the lineup.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

You realize the NHL used to have ties right? They sucked.

I was a fan of NHL hockey for decades when they had ties, and I was sorry to see them replaced by the shootout (which sucks far worse).

Soccer is the most popular sport on Earth, and it has ties – loads of them, since it's such a low-scoring game.

[Kiran403]

Shootouts are the worst. Just have 3 on 3 until a goal is scored. I doubt many OT's would get past 10 minutes.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

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

Yeah, I would probably find shootouts entertaining if I had enough booze in me while watching.

[Weitz]

Nothing worse than sitting for 3 hours watching your teams tie.

Mostly because it is the same as it would be now. No offense in the 3rd period or overtime to risk giving up the point. But instead of a winner both team get participation points.

[JTech780]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

How would this be any different under a new system?

Instead of being 6 points back with 20 games remaining, you might be 12 or more points back depending on your regulation wins.

I might be alone on this, but I would prefer to know where my team stands come the trade deadline, so the GM can make a more informed decision on what to do with the team.

The false parity causes the waters to be muddied.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Nothing worse than sitting for 3 hours watching your teams tie.

Mostly because it is the same as it would be now. No offense in the 3rd period or overtime to risk giving up the point. But instead of a winner both team get participation points.

Historical data contradicts your view. Games were more likely to be decided in regulation before the OTL point was introduced, because winning in regulation was the only possible way to get 2 points.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

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.

On the flip side, a few seasons ago Chicago only made the playoffs because Dallas lost in regulation on the last game of the season.

Perhaps now you gain ground quicker, because teams are more equality in parity, but the hockey of past showed that loser clubs would lose. The current inflation of points give casual fans the sense of chance, even if in all likelihood the loser point keeps their team from gaining ground. I think only hardcore fans have a problem with the point system. And the NHL is not in the business of pandering to the purests. They want a game where an outsider observes the sport and falls for it.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Historical data contradicts your view. Games were more likely to be decided in regulation before the OTL point was introduced, because winning in regulation was the only possible way to get 2 points.

Yah but coach's these days would coach to keep the points you have not risk losing them for another point. Same reason 3 on 3 is slowly getting more boring. Coaches kill the excitement.

[McG]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

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.

Sorry, but what year were you referring to and what were you watching? Teams realize that one win with two losses, is the same as three draws, so they push for the win. Soccer is not notorious for teams settling for a point; it is notorious for diving in the box to try to get that goal that gives the three points. Those three points can be worth millions of pounds, and so teams are willing to have any effort to get the win. If anything, parity in the major leagues in Europe has lead teams to do whatever it takes to get the 3 points without risking a loss; hence diving which has little cost to the offending team with potentially massive rewards (Champions League, staying in the division, getting promoted, etc.). As an example, if a team were to have drawn all of their games in the Premier League last season, they would have survived relegation by one point. So, no one is safe looking for draws. If that makes it unwatchable for you that's absolutely fine, but to blame teams chasing draws is incorrect imho.

Basketball is exciting when the score is close at the end, but it isn't built into the sport that every game is close and has buzzer beaters deciding the outcome. the 3 point shot has done a lot to keep basketball games close imho, which was a great innovation however purists probably didn't like it.

I think that the nfl 2 minute drill can be crazy exciting, as can be the last few minutes of any sport that has a close game.

On thread, the nhl likes the parody of parity, and an OT/SO loss itself generates teams seeking those out particularly out of conference. for example, the flames win in a shootout vs a division rival or flames win in OT vs a team from the other conference. I personally want the flames to win in regulation in conference, and as long as they win out of conference I am good with that.

The 3-2-1-0 is more fair from a sporting perspective, but the 2-1-0 keeps things more fair from a business perspective. Look at the Oilers right now; if they got zero points from their OT/SO losses, where would they be?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Nothing worse than sitting for 3 hours watching your teams tie.

Mostly because it is the same as it would be now. No offense in the 3rd period or overtime to risk giving up the point. But instead of a winner both team get participation points.

They can modify the points system and still have ties. Split the OT difference and go seven minutes of 3v3. If you can't score with that much time and space, neither side deserves the win.

4-on-4 OT is lame. So I was rarely that bothered when a game went to a shootout. 3v3 is the most entertaining thing to happen to hockey in a decade. Stopping play to have shootout of all things just so we 'have a result' makes the night feel worthless.

Just my feeling though.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yeah, I would probably find shootouts entertaining if I had enough booze in me while watching.

When does a break away dangle happen in regulation? It's usually so fast the player fumbles and it's rare you see a penalty shot. It happens a handful times a seasom.

Those Datsuk shoot-out goals are epic. He took his time delivering it, and only because of the shoot out did you see pure one-player dangling skill. A player like Datsuk wouldn't have practiced these moved unless there was a need for it, and that need was provided by the importance of gaining two points from the shoot-out.

Don't lie. You can't tell me you didn't like the Schlemko goal. There has been some of the best highlights in hockey history from shoot-outs.

[Corral]

I tend to look past the NHL win loss OTL records and try to concentrate on percentage based on wins out of total games played. I find it gives a much better look at where teams stand amongst their peers and a more accurate picture of what to expect going forward.

So for example looking at the current Pacific division, this approach clearly places SJ ahead of the pack even though in the standings they are only 2 points ahead of the Ducks. The Ducks, Oilers, Flames and Kings are bunched together and you can expect them to jossle for the rest of the year. The Canucks are falling off the pace and the Coyotes are clearly out by any measure.

Looking at the wildcard race in the West using this approach - it also demonstrates that while the Preds and Stars are within reach of a wildcard position - they are unlikely to make it without either Calgary or LA going into a tailspin.

[MisterJoji]

If Gary is so hell bent on preserving the historical aspect why not go with a

2 - 1.5 - 0.5 - 0

At least then all games are worth an equal 2 points.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by McG

Sorry, but what year were you referring to and what were you watching? Teams realize that one win with two losses, is the same as three draws, so they push for the win. Soccer is not notorious for teams settling for a point; it is notorious for diving in the box to try to get that goal that gives the three points. Those three points can be worth millions of pounds, and so teams are willing to have any effort to get the win. If anything, parity in the major leagues in Europe has lead teams to do whatever it takes to get the 3 points without risking a loss; hence diving which has little cost to the offending team with potentially massive rewards (Champions League, staying in the division, getting promoted, etc.). As an example, if a team were to have drawn all of their games in the Premier League last season, they would have survived relegation by one point. So, no one is safe looking for draws. If that makes it unwatchable for you that's absolutely fine, but to blame teams chasing draws is incorrect imho.

Basketball is exciting when the score is close at the end, but it isn't built into the sport that every game is close and has buzzer beaters deciding the outcome. the 3 point shot has done a lot to keep basketball games close imho, which was a great innovation however purists probably didn't like it.

I think that the nfl 2 minute drill can be crazy exciting, as can be the last few minutes of any sport that has a close game.

On thread, the nhl likes the parody of parity, and an OT/SO loss itself generates teams seeking those out particularly out of conference. for example, the flames win in a shootout vs a division rival or flames win in OT vs a team from the other conference. I personally want the flames to win in regulation in conference, and as long as they win out of conference I am good with that.

The 3-2-1-0 is more fair from a sporting perspective, but the 2-1-0 keeps things more fair from a business perspective. Look at the Oilers right now; if they got zero points from their OT/SO losses, where would they be?

Well there was the disgrace of Gijon. And in 2004, Denmark and Sweden deliberately played to a draw. But I don't follow Premier to be honest with you.

[GirlySports]

aside: Denmark and Sweden did not deliberately play to a 2-2 draw. Denmark hit the post to nearly go up 3-1. That was one of the better games of the tournament.