Time to make all games worth three points?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

You will never see a shootout in the middle of the 2nd period.

Penalty shot?

[MisterJoji]

A breakaway or penalty shot are the result of a situation that occurred during the regular part of the game (5 on 5). They are also statistically relevant in that it counts as a SOG or goal forthe shooter if scored. The shootout goals mean nothing in the grand scheme. If there was continuos OT, those goals would also be statically relevant. Don't get me wrong, I like the shootout and like the fact that there are no more ties. I just think continuous OT would be an improvement and feel less "gimmicky".

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Are you talking about penalty shots, or breakaways?

Penalty shots.

The loser point takes a lot more credibility away from the game than the shootout does. As it is now, the regular season is more and more decided by the team who can take the most games to ot, and has a good shootout record. Because so many more games are going to the shootout due to the incentive to play to go to ot, and everyone has middling amount of points from taking their games to OT, the shootout ends up being more of a difference maker than it would if they went to straight w-l.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

A breakaway or penalty shot are the result of a situation that occurred during the regular part of the game (5 on 5). They are also statistically relevant in that it counts as a SOG or goal forthe shooter if scored. The shootout goals mean nothing in the grand scheme. If there was continuos OT, those goals would also be statically relevant. Don't get me wrong, I like the shootout and like the fact that there are no more ties. I just think continuous OT would be an improvement and feel less "gimmicky".

And a shootout is the result of a game situation where neither team can win in regulation. I don't see the big difference. Sudden death OT is not even that credible of a way of determining the winner, and is subject to a lot of variance in its own right. Ties have the most credibility. Going to straight W-L would be the best for entertainment. 3 point systems are maybe a little better for crediblity, but a little worse for entertainment value and marketability of the product. But all systems are definitely better than what we have now.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by driveway

The only reasons are either a cynical desire to maximise revenue by artificially condensing the spread in the standings, or a knee-jerk, hidebound resistance to change.

That's such a cop out argument. "This guy doesn't like shootouts determining a winner, he must just hate change." It's almost comical given that nearly everyone against the shootout has proposed some sort of change either in the OT format or the point system, but no we must just hate change.

We get it, it's exciting and logistically it works. There's not many, if any, other ways you can limit the time a game will end without having ties and for those rare occurrences when it does get into double digit rounds they are far and few between that the delay becomes worth it. (Unless of course it's CBC double-header and the stupid Leafs can't lose fast enough to let us watch our game...)

With that said, we still think it's a gimmick and shouldn't factor heavily into the standings. It's not because we hate change or want to go back to a 6 team league in the glory days, we just want real hockey to determine the playoff teams and not a skills competition.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I don't see how you can take this position. 3 on 3 is exactly like 5 on 5 hockey except for the number of players on the ice - the rules are identical. The shootout looks nothing like 5 on 5 hockey.

3 on 3 is really nothing like 5 on 5. 3 on 3 you pretty much play man to man coverage the entire time, there is no system. It would be better than a shootout, but the game is entirely different from 5 on 5. You beat one guy in 3 on 3 and you have pretty much an automatic scoring chance.

[Stay Golden]

make more of a mockery out of the skill contest wins. 2 on none shoot outs. Goalie has very little of a chance, lmao.

[Joborule]

So for fun I wondering what the standings would look like if it were under a basic Win-Loss system or a 3 Points system with no loser points.

How the standings look currently


How it would look if it were a Win % system


And how it would be in a 3 Point System with no points awarded without overtime losses.


Not much to take from it since it's early in the season and teams are extremely close to each other right now aside from the Hawks, Ducks, and Blue Jackets. But it does show the Kings would get benefit for winning their fair portion of their games although playing the least amount of games thus far. Will be interesting to see how this looks later on.

[AR_Six]

Why is Chitown shown as having no losses? They have 3 shootout losses. Makes me wonder about the rest of the data there.

[Roof-Daddy]

How do things look if just Flames wins are worth three points?

Does our outlook get any better then?

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Why is Chitown shown as having no losses? They have 3 shootout losses. Makes me wonder about the rest of the data there.

My bad, forgot to update loss column in that section since it didn't matter in point allocation. Fixed now. Let me know if anything else looks off.

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

How do things look if just Flames wins are worth three points?

Does our outlook get any better then?

2 points behind Canucks.

[Sakari]

My opinion's really simple. Take the shootout out of the game. 4v4, then 3v3. Not just because I'm a Flames fan. The shootout is not a test of a teams skill, but more of a single players skill. A team like the Edmonton Oilers would be extremely deadly in the shootout but, in regulation and OT, they blow.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Sakari

My opinion's really simple. Take the shootout out of the game. 4v4, then 3v3. Not just because I'm a Flames fan. The shootout is not a test of a teams skill, but more of a single players skill. A team like the Edmonton Oilers would be extremely deadly in the shootout but, in regulation and OT, they blow.

Taking away the loser points and making shootout wins worth 1 point could be a simple enough solution for that though. Therefore Oilers could win all the games in shootout they want, but they're not making much gain since there 'wins' wouldn't be worth that much; and if they lose, they gain nothing, making the push to keep the game tied till the very end not much of an incentive for them or a recipe for success to stay in the playoff hunt.

I used to be very opposed to 3 point games since I don't like the imbalance it creates between every matchup due to not every game awarding 3 or even 2 points, but over the past year I've grown to warm up to more that I'm equally in favour of a 3 point system along with a W-L system. They're practically the same thing if you eliminate the loser points. In the end, you still gotta win the game to gain something, and it address the criticism of winning in the shootout or 4 on 4 is not the same as winning in regulation.

[SebC]

It was time to make all games worth three points as soon as they made some games worth three points.

Originally Posted by troutman

IIRC, research has shown such a system does not alter the standings very much.

This argument works both ways, if it doesn't change the standings much (practical perspective), why not make a change that makes a lot of sense from a more idealistic perspective?

[Cheerio]

I don't get why everyone loves having a point system so much. I vote for continuous 5on5/4on4 and go with straight wins and losses, doesn't matter if you lose 7-1 or 3-2 in OT, a loss is a loss.

[stignasty]

How about replacing the shootout with alternating power plays. Team A starts on the PP, if they score Team B has to score or go home. If they tie, Team A goes on the PP again. A short handed goal ends it automatically.

Then I'd be fine with no loser point. I would hate to see 2 points hinge on a shootout.

[Wormius]

In that case, just go with 4v4 for 20 minutes. Most games are decided during the 4v4, anyway. Just extend it to 20 minutes, and that would likely catch all the games that went to the SO.

[mister__big]

As much as I love the idea and how much sense it makes, 3-point games is almost universally loathed by the owners and players, which means it will pretty much never happen.

[thefoss1957]

For me, I'd like to see 3 for win, 1 for Tie, no OT in regular season, no Shootouts...Play to win in regulation, without the bonus point safety net...Teams won't be able to go into a shell to "protect the point", because they'd fall behind in the standings to teams that win...

[UKflames]

Maybe it's a cultural thing but I never understand this theory that you have to have a winner every game, why can't you have a draw. Both teams have fought it out for the required time allowed for the game and neither did enough to get a win, end of.

People say a 3 point system creates an inbalanced league and teams cannot catch up if they fall too far behind, totally wrong. In soccer (sorry for using the example) we have a 3 point system, in one season Team A were 12 points clear of the second placed team with over half of the season gone. The media had Team A as champions, no one would catch them, done deal. Team B not only caught them they took the title, it can be done.

A 12 point lead is only three games, it looks a lot but it really isn't. You go on a losing streak and you drop to the pack pretty quickly.