QOTD: 3 Point Games

[Igster]

Originally Posted by _Q_

How about this:
Win in regulation or overtime = 2 points
Loss in regulation or overtime = 0 points

If a game goes to a shootout, both teams get only one point, but the winner registers a W in their record. That way at the end of the season, if two or more teams are tied in terms of points, the first tie breaker goes to the team with more SOWs.

I like it. But, it pushes teams to not really go for it in OT if the standings are close, so they can at least try to get a point in the SO.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Igster

I like it. But, it pushes teams to not really go for it in OT if the standings are close, so they can at least try to get a point in the SO.

I think the opposite. Maybe if you only needed 1 point, yeah. But that stage where 1 point (or 1 W) is the difference between you making the playoffs and not, that would be a fairly rare occurrence and only happen in the last game or two of the season.

If you're on a stretch drive and close with teams, needing as many points as possible, getting just 1 in the shootout isn't going to cut it. Much more likely that teams need 2 points than 1 to leapfrog a team.

**EDIT** Didn't see the last part. I think the point of giving the W and no extra points is to keep Wins as the main tiebreaker. It shouldn't be most SOW, just W in general. Which would include those gained from the shootout, but the more SOW you have, the less points you have because you only have 1 point from each of those vs 2 now.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think the opposite. Maybe if you only needed 1 point, yeah. But that stage where 1 point (or 1 W) is the difference between you making the playoffs and not, that would be a fairly rare occurrence and only happen in the last game or two of the season.

If you're on a stretch drive and close with teams, needing as many points as possible, getting just 1 in the shootout isn't going to cut it. Much more likely that teams need 2 points than 1 to leapfrog a team.

But, you risk losing the one point you might get in the SO if you pinch a little too much or whatever and the other team beats you in OT. Dunno...I would think some more d-minded coaches would play for the 1 point.

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by Murph

Really wish I could paste excel tables in here and keep the formatting. I have the standings calculated for the various scenarios, and the side by side results would really add to the discussion... oh well.

One thing that really jumps out though, is just how much Colorado is benefittng from the shootout. They have 10 fewer regulation and overtime wins than the Flames, but only find themselves 4 points out of a playoff spot.

Throw it into a Google Spreadsheet, and share the public link!

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Igster

But, you risk losing the one point you might get in the SO if you pinch a little too much or whatever and the other team beats you in OT. Dunno...I would think some more d-minded coaches would play for the 1 point.

But, if the point is to limit the impact of the shootout, this does exactly that. Playing for the 1pt (outside of the rare situation that it is all you need) wouldn't make any sense at any point in the season outside the last game or two, and in a tight playoff race. Not only do you automatically drop your potential (albeit guaranteed) points in half, there's nothing to be gained but the extra W.

Right now, playing for the shootout happens much more frequently as there is more reward by being there and a greater chance of walking away with the W AND 2 pts than with a strong push in OT that could cause you to be open to losing it then. In this situation, you take away the main point of purposely to the SO, which is a greater chance at the extra point.

Really, I would still prefer no points for losing at all, but if they must, this is as interesting a proposition as I've seen.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by _Q_

How about this:
Win in regulation or overtime = 2 points
Loss in regulation or overtime = 0 points

If a game goes to a shootout, both teams get only one point, but the winner registers a W in their record. That way at the end of the season, if two or more teams are tied in terms of points, the first tie breaker goes to the team with more SOWs.

Don't mind that idea at all, though I'd have it second to the 3/2/1/0 one I like. Very fair, very simple. It does eliminate the tie point though, which the NHL has always had in one variation or other, and would probably make the races less exciting because teams are going to probably have bigger cushions simply because of variance. A 'lucky' team in the SO (and you see them every year) is going to have a massive lead and an unlucky team is going to fall out very quickly. Yes, winning in OT/SO is still winning, and yes, it would even out from year to year, but on a single year basis, you're going to get some interesting stories based on what comes down to close to a coin flip.

Still, one of the better ideas in my opinion.

[Igster]

I get what you're saying Matty, but at the end of the day, many coaches may think 1 point is better than nothing if the game is in OT and they don't want to open it up. If they go for the 2 points and lose, they get nothing. I like the overall idea, but I still think coaches would get their team to play it safe, for at least 1 point in OT.

Open it up and hope for 2 points or play it safe and collect a point.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

If you went straight win/loss, that wouldn't be an issue.

Or go soccer style. No OT, but 3 points for a win and 1 point for ties.

See, it doesn't bother me that a team gets rewarded for playing the other team to a standstill after 60 (or 65) minutes. Think of a Buffalo tying Anaheim after 60 - a great effort.

I just don't like some games being worth 3 points total and others being only 2.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Igster

I get what you're saying Matty, but at the end of the day, many coaches may think 1 point is better than nothing if the game is in OT and they don't want to open it up. If they go for the 2 points and lose, they get nothing. I like the overall idea, but I still think coaches would get their team to play it safe, for at least 1 point in OT.

Open it up and hope for 2 points or play it safe and collect a point.

Yeah I see what you're saying too. I just think there would be no reason to forgo the chance for 2 for a guaranteed 1 outside of rare circumstances. Even mid-season, the only reason a team would do that if they really thought they had no chance to win in OT. And if that was the case, it's likely a lower level team playing a higher level team (one who needs 2 points and likely wants to avoid only ending up with one). So I think you take into account the teams that would do that, without taking into account the teams who would want avoid leaving with no chance at 2 points, which I think would far outnumber the teams who would be satisfied with 1 and only 1.

You could throw in the OTL point I guess, but that turns a 2 point game into 3 for 5 minutes and then back to 2.

[Steve Bozek]

Like many have said, it doesn't make any sense for some games to award more points in the standings than others. Therefore, you either have to go to a winner gets 2 points irrespective of regulation time, overtime, or shootout, and loser gets zero; or else use a 3 point system.

I hate the shootout, but like hockey fights, regardless of whether you want to see them in or out of the game, they are exciting, and therefore, the league is not going to get rid of them.

[Parallex]

Two points for winning, loser gets nothing.

[albertGQ]

2 points for a win. All games go to a shootout whether its tied or not. Extra point goes to the shootout winner.

I know it's exagerated, but that's how dumb I think the shootout is.

I liked the 5 minutes of 5 on 5 hockey. If no one scores, the game ends in a tie & each team gets a point in the standings.

[You Need a Thneed]

Play the shootout first, three shooters each. Winner gets two points, loser gets none.

If it's tied after three shooters, each team gets a point. Play a 60 minute hockey game to determine which team gets the bonus point.

[Murph]

Originally Posted by OBCT

Throw it into a Google Spreadsheet, and share the public link!

It's on my work desktop, so I'll do it in the morning. But thanks for the tip, I'll use that to post tables from now on!

[EldrickOnIce]

You can cry about shootouts all you want, but no game should end tied. Ever.
You have to declare a winner and a loser.
In regular season, if not by shootout, then how?

The NHL exists to maximize revenue for the member teams. Keeping the standings close helps to accomplish this. Can't see it changing.

[Yamer]

3 points for regulation win.
2 points for OT/SH win.
1 point for OT/SH loss.
0 points for regulation loss.

I don't think parity would be as impacted as has been argued. Moreover, it still encourages competitiveness and doesn't penalize a team for losing a shoot-out.

Also, although I'm a traditionalist, I like this format because I hate watching a game end in a tie. It's more encouraging to watch a game knowing there will be a definite winner and loser.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Befoer though, you had teams encouraged to play for the tie, to preserve one point. So you had neither a winner nor an exciting finish. You just had 5 minutes of regulation before the end of the game which was boring.

No, there was no encouragement to play for the tie. If you played for the tie (and succeeded), you preserved one point; but you also guaranteed that you would not get two points. Under the current system, teams can play for the guaranteed point at no cost, because they still have the chance to get two points in OT or SO.

I have been at games late in the season, before pity points came along, where the score was tied late in the game but the action was terrific. Both teams needed two points, either to make the playoffs, or to get a better seed; neither team was satisfied with the tie. Nowadays, if that happens, both teams play it safe till the buzzer sounds, then open up and go for the extra point.

When the league introduced pity points, the number of ties went down, but the percentage of games decided in regulation also went down. When the shootout came in, the percentage decided in regulation went down again. No less a hockey authority than Scotty Bowman warned the NHL that this would happen, but they refused to listen. Now they are searching for even more gimmicks to help them out of the hole they dug for themselves.

[#-3]

Every Game should be worth the same amount of points.