My Proposed New Point System for the NHL

[19Yzerman19]

I'm not clear about that. First, in the system I'm talking about (3-2-1 for Reg/OT/SO wins, 0 points for a loss) losses are worth the same all the time. But I'd say a Reg win IS worth more than an OT win which IS worth more than a SO win. And I prefer to motivate teams to try to beat their opponents, rather than to play conservatively and wait for the next stage of play.

[Coach]

Agree with Wins/Losses. No other sports league that I can think of give points for losing. It's ridiculous.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

I'm not clear about that. First, in the system I'm talking about (3-2-1 for Reg/OT/SO wins, 0 points for a loss) losses are worth the same all the time. But I'd say a Reg win IS worth more than an OT win which IS worth more than a SO win. And I prefer to motivate teams to try to beat their opponents, rather than to play conservatively and wait for the next stage of play.

I understand. In this system, a win is valued appropriately but the loss isn't. Scaling both wins and losses would take care of that, if you believe in the underlying principle.

[Jacks]

Good a place as any for a quick question regarding playoff seeding.

I get the first round, the top division winning team plays the lower wildcard and the other two division teams play each other. The winner of the top seed series plays the winner of the 2-3 series even if the wildcard team wins and is from another division.

My question is in regards to the second round. If the wildcard team beats the #1 seed and faces the #2 team then I assume the home ice advantage is still based on who has more points?

Example: Based on current standings the Pacific division would be:
Anaheim (home) vs Dallas
San Jose (home) vs L.A.

If Dallas and San Jose won their respective series then the second round would be San Jose (home) vs Dallas correct?

Thanks in advance.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Locke

I remember this a long, long time ago:

3 points for a win
2 points for a tie

Regardless of OT or SO.

Then....now, stick with me because this is where things get crazy...

What happens to that mysterious left-over point? What do you do with it? Does it disappear into the ether?

What should happen is that the left-over point goes into a pot and they hold a short 30-team side tournament where the winner gets the pot of leftover points.

Huh? Huh? Lets turn the whole league into a circus sideshow! Face it, its Edmonton's only chance....

So basically like soccer, where they stop playing league games to play some other thing part way through?

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

This would make overtime even less entertaining as teams would still push for a conservative style with the hope of getting at least a point in the S/O rather than getting nothing by losing in OT

Conservative hockey doesn't have to be boring hockey. I would rather not have a flawed points system so we can be "entertained".

[hummdeedoo]

any system that:

- makes all games worth the same number of points
- creates incentive for team to win in regulation
- limits the number of point scenario's per game

If you had 5 or more possible different point scenario's per game this would send the "Draft Positionist" into a tizzy trying to figure out all the possible outcomes.

[sun]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Why? You've provided no explanation for this.

I couldn't care less if different wins are worth different amounts. The ideal point system is the one that accurately rewards teams for their play and motivates teams to play entertaining hockey. The best way to do that is to encourage teams to try to win the game as early as possible - first by going all out to win in the 3rd, then by going all out to win in OT so as to avoid a shootuout.

It just is! My explanation is that it is non-sensical. I can't explain it any further because it is just a universal truth.

If you think the shootout is bogus, well that's your opinion, but it's here to stay. Your concept of "entertaining" hockey is different than the league's or else we would still have ties. I'm not commenting on any of that or offering any solutions, but the games all have to be worth 3 points (or 2) because it makes sense. I can't explain it any further because I can't see it from any other point of view. Maybe someone else can.

You couldn't care less how much the games are worth, well I couldn't care less how the points are divvied up. You're arguing about how points should be rewarded based on your opinion of what makes for exciting hockey. I offer no opinion at all.

[snipetype]

It should be like soccer, 3 for reg win, 0 for reg loss. 1 point for each team if it's a tie. With an additional bonus point for overtime. This makes every game worth 3 points. It allows more movement up and down the standings. And it gets coaches playing more aggressive in the final minutes in attempt to get all three points.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by sun

It just is! My explanation is that it is non-sensical. I can't explain it any further because it is just a universal truth.
I'm not commenting on any of that or offering any solutions, but the games all have to be worth 3 points (or 2) because it makes sense. I can't explain it any further because I can't see it from any other point of view.

So just for the record, this is the first clue that you should probably re-evaluate your position. If you have no defense for it, good chance you're wrong.

If you think the shootout is bogus, well that's your opinion, but it's here to stay.

This is also wrong - there's obviously political will around the league to get rid of it, or they wouldn't have talked about 3 on 3 at the GM meetings.

You couldn't care less how much the games are worth, well I couldn't care less how the points are divvied up. You're arguing about how points should be rewarded based on your opinion of what makes for exciting hockey. I offer no opinion at all.

Entertaining hockey and a reasonably fair representation of the achievements of each team. I'm not sure what else a standings system should accomplish besides that.

[dying4acup]

It's simple. 5-4-3-2-1-0
5-regulation win
4-overtime win
3-shoot out win
2-shoot out loss
1-overtime loss
0-regulation loss

Every game worth 5pts. Very little incentive for shoot out, big incentive for regulation win.

I doubt owners buy-in though, bigger playoff seperations. Sabres may have been out before new year, oilers by winter classic.

[N-E-B]

Why not do what baseball does and use GB? Use a straight win-loss and eliminate points altogether. No one complains when a team loses in 15 innings and doesn't get anything. Same thing here. Keep the shootouts and overtime but only have a win or a loss column. There's no "extra innings loss" column in baseball so no more need for an OTL column in hockey. It's also the most fair way to do it.

[saXon]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

Points are stupid. Wins and Losses would make it so simple.

NBA: Wins/Losses. NO POINTS
NFL: Wins/Losses. NO POINTS
MLB: Wins/Losses. NO POINTS

NO MORE POINTS!!!

Basketball, Football, and Baseball are stupid.