Why not 3 pts for Reg win; 2 for win in OT & 1 for win in SO

[lazypucker]

Soccer implemented a 3-point system many years ago to discourage boring ties, and it seemed to work - teams are going for the win to avoid losing 2 points.

NHL can implement something similar - 3 points for regulation win (loser 0), 2 points for OT win (loser 0), 1 point each if it is a tie at the end of OT. If they really want SO, then have it as a stat for tie-breaker in the standings. This will encourage teams not to play for a tie and always go for the win.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

You want to see games that incentivize scoring and winning, go to the rugby rules:

Win: 4 pts
Tie: 2 pts
Score 4 trys (we'll use goals for hockey): 1 pt
Lose by less than 7 pts (use by 1 goal for hockey): 1 pt

Each game can be worth anywhere from 4-7 points, and it incentivizes teams to keep their foot on the gas pedal to get the bonus points.

You're in a close playoff race?
Better go hard to get those 4 goals every game.
Better try to put that divisional rival away by 2 goals so they don't make up ground.
Better try to win in regulation so that other guy doesn't get his bonus loser point.

If your complaint is that "some games are worth 3 points, and some are worth 2", just know that another sport has pretty much perfected a scoring system where games are worth a pretty wide range of points and it hasn't ruined anything, it makes teams play to score.

[powderjunkie]

I should also add that 3v3 has now slightly bastardized individual point totals, though they suffer from the same games played and different annual scoring rates anyways.


The artificial parity thing is brutal. The other 3 leagues have all expanded their wildcard playoff formats in recent years to great success.

I was a little confused at first, but the NBA really nailed it in terms of maintaining the value of regular season standings while giving more fringe teams a bit of hope and a challenging path to the dance.

Each division:
3v4 winner is 3 seed, loser plays winner of 5v6 for 4 seed.

Spoiler!

For illustration, current standings int he east by pt%

1. FLA
2. TOR

3. TBL vs. 4 BOS; winner is 3 seed; loser hosts winner of: 5. DET vs. 6. BUF


1. CAR
2. NYR

3. WAS vs. 4 PIT; winner is 3 seed; loser hosts winner of 5. CBJ vs. 6. PHI


Under the current system, the race for the playoffs is pretty much already done in the East...it's just a matter of seeding.

While it's a little silly for BUF to still have a shot at the post season, this system would make every seed matter, and there would even be a race between BUF and OTT for that slot. CBJ/PHI/NJD/NYI would all still be competing for those 5/6 seeds.

Only downside is tempering the TDL, but smart GMs shouldn't change their plans much on wildcard hopes.

or each conference:
4v4 winner is in, loser plays winner of 5v5

or top 3 from each division are in and seed the next four highest pt totals in the conference:
7v8 winner is in, loser plays winner of 9v10

Spoiler!

To take that final scenario to the present standings in the west by pt%:

1. COL
2. NAS
3. MIN

1. VGK
2. CGY
3. ANA

STL (H) vs. DAL (A). Winner is in, loser hosts the winner of: WIN (H) vs. EDM (A)


Right now DAL/WIN/EDM/LAK are essentially tied (gp+4pts) with SJ 1 pt behind. Current system means those 5 teams are fighting for 1 spot (wouldn't be too hard for one team to pull away and the race is essentially dead). The above system would be 5 teams fighting for 3 spots, where seeding makes a huge difference.

It would also make the NAS/MIN/STL race a bit more interesting to guarantee a berth and a little rest.



The only challenging thing here is which division each wildcard winner goes into. STL .653 actually has a higher pt% than VGK .618 right now. COL should get the lowest qualifying pt% as an opponent, but it would also be nice to keep divisions if possible...if by some miracle EDM (or more likely LAK by tomorrow) made it through they should take the 4 seed in their own division.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by CSharp

There's no consolation prize going for the Cup.

The Cup should be awarded based on aggregate individual statistics.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CSharp

There's no consolation prize going for the Cup.

Well, points are really only relevant to get you into the POs, and Montreal got in via single points last year. And look what happened then.

[The Cobra]

The reason that the current system exists is that it makes teams look better than the actually are.

Especially poor teams.

With 32 teams in the league, there should be about half of them below .500. With the extra points, right now there are 9 teams below .500, and that number will go down as the season gets older.

In 2018-2019, there were 7 teams below .500, and 2 of them were 1 game below.

In reality, .500 is closer to 90 points in 82 games.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The reason that the current system exists is that it makes teams look better than the actually are.

Especially poor teams.

With 32 teams in the league, there should be about half of them below .500. With the extra points, right now there are 9 teams below .500, and that number will go down as the season gets older.

In 2018-2019, there were 7 teams below .500, and 2 of them were 1 game below.

In reality, .500 is closer to 90 points in 82 games.

Under the old system those teams wouldn't have lost - they'd have tied. They'd still have a point.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, points are really only relevant to get you into the POs, and Montreal got in via single points last year. And look what happened then.

Don't forget the draft positions.

The thing that gets me is that teams position themselves for playoffs and other division rivals based on the multi-point system. If no points are awarded for losses, teams strategy is to win every single point possible.

For draft positions, I think this should be changed slightly to prevent teams from outright tanking. The league should look at the season in two separate halves. I haven't really thought it through yet and most of the rules put in place to prevent teams from consecutive #1 or #2 overall picks year after year (like from Oilers, Sabres, and Pens). Still, some teams are lining themselves up for a higher lottery pick in certain years (eg: the next 2 draft years). Maybe Cup winners should get the same opportunity as the bottom dwellers. This way, teams would need to compete rather than expect a handout.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Under the old system those teams wouldn't have lost - they'd have tied. They'd still have a point.

Huh? But there wouldn't be any 3 point games. each team would get 1 point. Now, one of them gets 2 points. Teams don't lose when it's tied after regulation, they get credit point wise with a tie.

Fans see .500 as 82 points when it's not due to the extra points.

The average team gets about 90 points.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Don't forget the draft positions.

The thing that gets me is that teams position themselves for playoffs and other division rivals based on the multi-point system. If no points are awarded for losses, teams strategy is to win every single point possible.

For draft positions, I think this should be changed slightly to prevent teams from outright tanking. The league should look at the season in two separate halves. I haven't really thought it through yet and most of the rules put in place to prevent teams from consecutive #1 or #2 overall picks year after year (like from Oilers, Sabres, and Pens). Still, some teams are lining themselves up for a higher lottery pick in certain years (eg: the next 2 draft years). Maybe Cup winners should get the same opportunity as the bottom dwellers. This way, teams would need to compete rather than expect a handout.

And the best teams would continue to be the best teams. Can you imagine Tampa getting Bedard?

Teams should be prevented from rebuilding?

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Have you seen overtime lately? It's awful.

There needs to be some incentive to take chances and avoid going to a shootout instead of skating it out of the zone 10 times and passing back to your goalie to keep possession.

I initially thought 3 on 3 OT was awesome. I’ve been wrong about a lot of things, but this stands out as being horribadly wrong.

I get why they do it, but it is as lame as the shootout. I hate tied games, but I’d prefer to just award a point to each team at the end of 60 minutes.

Assuming of course that its a tie after 60 minutes.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Don't forget the draft positions.

The thing that gets me is that teams position themselves for playoffs and other division rivals based on the multi-point system. If no points are awarded for losses, teams strategy is to win every single point possible.

For draft positions, I think this should be changed slightly to prevent teams from outright tanking. The league should look at the season in two separate halves. I haven't really thought it through yet and most of the rules put in place to prevent teams from consecutive #1 or #2 overall picks year after year (like from Oilers, Sabres, and Pens). Still, some teams are lining themselves up for a higher lottery pick in certain years (eg: the next 2 draft years). Maybe Cup winners should get the same opportunity as the bottom dwellers. This way, teams would need to compete rather than expect a handout.

Simpler answer is to smooth the lottery odds a lot more. For example:

10% odds each team under .400pt%. No incentive to be as embarassing as ARI or MTL. (5 teams right now)

5% for each team .401-.450 (only CHI right now)

Remaining odds are spread evenly among all non-playoff teams (including the above) - 45%/16 teams = 2.8% each.

Draw for all spots (starting with #1) - max drop 4 spots from final standings place (the only time the worst of the worst will benefit a bit)

Based on current standings:
ARI/MTL/OTT/SEA/BUF = 12.8% each
CHI = 7.8%
Other 10 teams: 2.8%


Obviously you could tweak it a bunch more and add a .351-.400 category (or .451-.500), and give/take away odds based on previous years draft luck (ie. 1OA last year loses 5%, 2OA loses 4%, etc.)

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

And the best teams would continue to be the best teams. Can you imagine Tampa getting Bedard?

Teams should be prevented from rebuilding?

I thought about that one a bit more than any other alternatives. The reason why I felt that would be best is to prevent teams trying hard not to be competitive. If teams decide to line up for handouts like BC residents looking for welfare cheques, the system has failed. YOu'd want a system to have teams competing each game rather than purposely sucking to draft high each season. I think if winning teams gets an almost equal opportunity at the draft rather than bottoms up approach, you may see teams having a different approach rather than status quo. Also, it's way better for fans if their respective team tries to win every rather than see their team half-arsed on any given night. It's like in real life, you do your job and you'll get rewarded. I know every league tries to equalize the teams so that every team gets to be competitive but it's an easy out for bottom teams to just continually give up and try for a rebuild for over a decade when their culture is a losing one or if they relying on losing to try and build for the future.

This is a tough one as there is no simple solution. But I think simplifying the point system to a binary setup will probably work and it'll make teams more competitive rather than positioning placing for the playoffs - still can happen by it's a lot more risky.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Huh? But there wouldn't be any 3 point games. each team would get 1 point. Now, one of them gets 2 points. Teams don't lose when it's tied after regulation, they get credit point wise with a tie.

Fans see .500 as 82 points when it's not due to the extra points.

The average team gets about 90 points.

Oh, I get what you were proposing now. Interesting.

[hariton]

Why not to drop and add teams like in a capitalist country?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Its such a weird thing to complain about.

The system is the same for every team for every game all regular season.

There is no benefit to any single club over any other.

I hate the shootout with a passion after initially thinking it would be great.

Truth is though, that teams dont win or lose games because of them, they win or lose shootouts. Which is why awarding a point to the losers makes sense.

It's terrible because it rewards teams that play for ties. The last 5-10 minutes in a tied playoff game is the most intense part of the game. The last 5-10 minutes of a tied regular season game, teams just try not to do anything stupid because going to OT makes the game worth 50% more points.

Also by creating an incentive to play for OT, it makes more games go to OT, and
therefore makes the 3v3 OT and SO records a bigger differentiator in the standings.

A .500 team that decides all its games in regulation gets 82 points. A .500 team that goes to OT half their games gets over 100 points. It is dumbest possible point structure that creates incentives for all the things you don't want to encourage.