Time to make all games worth three points?

[boggledepot]

Last season I calculated what the playoff race would look like if there was

3 points = regulation win
2 points = overtime/shoot-out win
1 point = overtime/shoot-out loss
0 point = regulation loss

The playoff race was very similar with the modified system to how it was with the system being currently implemented. There was some variance, but the top teams were still the top, the playoff bubble teams were playoff bubble teams, and playoff races were competitive. In the end I concluded that with either system, the playoff race would be exciting.

I should mention one team could have benefited from the modified, more logical system last year (and this is why I was curious about in the first place): The Calgary Flames. They were awful in overtime and shootouts last year, but won their games in regulation; so in some respects the Flames got screwed by the system.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Nope. This will never happen.

I wouldn't be too sure, if you asked any knowledgable fan of the 80's/early 90's "do you think they'll ever get rid of ties and use a shootout?" pretty much everyone would've gave an emphatic NO.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by driveway

I've been on the straight Win-loss bandwagon since '05. Get rid of the loser point, wins are wins and losses are losses.

Even with shootouts, this is the way it should be. You win, you win. You lose, better luck next time. That's sports.

In the end, shouldn't the teams that can way the most games, no matter the method, be the ones that make it to the post season? Why should there even be a possibly of a team that has less wins, fail to make the playoffs to a team that has less wins as well, but lost in overtime enough? That's the flaw with the current system.

There's flaws in 3 point system since it can penalize teams unfairly due to needing extra time. Especially if those two teams are battling for playoff spot/positions late in the season when games can become tighter. We don't penalize them in playoffs, and those games that go the extra time tend to be exciting. So why penalize them during regular season?

But then again, overtime is a whole different game on it's own since it's a different style of play than regulation. And then shootout is completely different. It's because of that I could understand and support a 3 point system with no loser point(s), since it represents the change in play. And there's no scenario where losing in overtime/shootout can be beneficial to you.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Even with shootouts, this is the way it should be. You win, you win. You lose, better luck next time. That's sports.

But a shootout loss shouldn't count the same as a regulation loss. You lost by virtue of a gimmick (this coming from a guy who actually likes the shootout). Why doesn't baseball just have a quick home run derby to decide a winner after 9 innings? The 3 point system or the aforementioned 1/2 point system would be an improvement. Reward teams who can win without having to have a skills competition.

[BigNumbers]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

First two posts nailed it, it makes the most sense but it won't happen.

All games should be worth three points. When the game goes past regulation the teams split those three points.

I agree - This makes the most sense, but since our Flames are generally considered a "bubble" team, I can live with the increased parity that the 3 point system generates. It allows me to believe that much longer!

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

But a shootout loss shouldn't count the same as a regulation loss. You lost by virtue of a gimmick (this coming from a guy who actually likes the shootout). Why doesn't baseball just have a quick home run derby to decide a winner after 9 innings? The 3 point system or the aforementioned 1/2 point system would be an improvement. Reward teams who can win without having to have a skills competition.

You still loss though. You had opportunity to win the game for 65 previous minutes. Any reward of making it to a certain point of the game gives incentive to teams to play safe to make sure they get at least something if they want too. 1 point is better than 0 right? Because you get nothing if you lose in regulation.

With no loser point, there is no incentive to play safe, and full incentive to go balls to the walls to get the most points possible for the game, because it's all or bust. Therefore you should get more competeitive action during regulation since that's 3 points up for grabs. If you can't get it then, then you have overtime to get 2 points. If you still can't get it, then you go to shootout since the game can't go on too long, and play for a single point. At this stage, the 'gimmick' isn't beneficial to anyone since it's a single point and isn't much help at all, but at least you can still get an official victor and award them something.

With a 3 point system that has no loser point reward, the shootout is actually very detrimental and not an attractive result since you gain very little from it. Therefore teams will push harder to win the game before reaching that stage. Shootouts can't be a safe blanket option anymore, which was a strategy for some teams (like Oilers).

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by boggledepot

Last season I calculated what the playoff race would look like if there was

3 points = regulation win
2 points = overtime/shoot-out win
1 point = overtime/shoot-out loss
0 point = regulation loss

The playoff race was very similar with the modified system to how it was with the system being currently implemented. There was some variance, but the top teams were still the top, the playoff bubble teams were playoff bubble teams, and playoff races were competitive. In the end I concluded that with either system, the playoff race would be exciting.

I should mention one team could have benefited from the modified, more logical system last year (and this is why I was curious about in the first place): The Calgary Flames. They were awful in overtime and shootouts last year, but won their games in regulation; so in some respects the Flames got screwed by the system.

Hard to say, those games would be played differently if there was a different point system.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Wins 3 points, Ties 1 point, Losses 0 points.


Works for the most popular sport on the planet, and it would work great for hockey too.

Should we put 11 players per team on the ice as well? Cause, you know, it works for "the most popular sport on the planet."

How about taking away the sticks and making the players kick the puck everywhere?

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Should we put 11 players per team on the ice as well? Cause, you know, it works for "the most popular sport on the planet."

How about taking away the sticks and making the players kick the puck everywhere?

On the ice? Take that away and have them play on grass. It works for the most popular sport in the world!

Kick the puck? Take that away and have them play with a ball. It works for the most popular sport in the world!

[driveway]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

But a shootout loss shouldn't count the same as a regulation loss.

Yes. It. Should.

The "skills competition" argument is as outdated as arguing against composite sticks. The shootout has been part of the sport of hockey for as long as I've been alive and has been part of the NHL game for the better part of a decade.

Shootouts are hockey; there is no sporting reason to treat them any differently than any other part of the game. 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.

[YYC in LAX]

There was a time when...

You won, you got 2 points.
You lost, you got 0 points.
You tied, you got 1 point.

That's the system.

Shootouts? We don't need no stinking shootouts!

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by driveway

The "skills competition" argument is as outdated as arguing against composite sticks. The shootout has been part of the sport of hockey for as long as I've been alive and has been part of the NHL game for the better part of a decade.

While it is impressive that you signed up to this place as a toddler you really should leave this sort of discussion to the grownups who grew up when the skills competitions were left for All Star games.

[Hemi-Cuda]

just introduce a half-point system (2 points for win, 1.5 for SO win, 0.5 for SO loss). same effect, but you don't mess with historical point totals

[UKflames]

I never understand the arguement against having a tied game, why do you have to have a winner, 3pts for a win, 0pt for a loss, 1pt each for a tie.

Surely that will make teams go all out for the win if they know there is a 2pt difference to be had between winning and just playing for the tie. Some of the most exciting games I have been to have been because of a tieing goal in the last few minutes/seconds.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Should we put 11 players per team on the ice as well? Cause, you know, it works for "the most popular sport on the planet."

How about taking away the sticks and making the players kick the puck everywhere?

The point is that soccer has a similar amount of ties, and the game is often played where one team is "holding on for a tie." Obviously, the games are different (but remarkably have a number of similarities), but the point system would make sense. A win should be worth more than two ties, but a tie should still be worth more than a loss. The extra points for a win would be good motivation for teams not to play for ties. In the current system, you are rewarded for having lots of "ties" (OT/SO losses), in the system i suggested, teams would be punished for having lots of ties.

Frankly, I think it's a good system for soccer, but I think due to the fact the goals are slightly easier to come by in hockey, that the system would work even better in hockey. I think that the number of ties would go down, making most games have a winner.

[troutman]

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

[Flashpoint]

I support at 3-2-1 point system with 0 points for losing. It's not "gimmicky". It's logical, and it's needed.

• 3 points for winning a regulation ("real") hockey game.
• 2 points for winning OT (because it resembles "real" hockey).
• 1 point for winning the SO novelty act.
  
• 0 points for losing. You're a loser. You get nothing.

What does this give us? Teams playing to win as quickly as possible. No more mailing it in for the last 10 min of the 3rd for their loser point. No more Oilers contending (LOL) all season because they win the shootout.

If you're good at actual hockey, you'll have a lot more points than a team that's good at Shootouts. Which is how it should be. Obviously the SO isn't going anywhere - it's how the NHL gets it's highlight package on TV. Ties are a non-starter.

Only other wrinkle I'd add is to have the shootout before the game. There won't be any pressure, and it might not even count, so the players will take more risks and be more innovative.

3-2-1 with no points for losers is the only way to go.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The point is that soccer has a similar amount of ties, and the game is often played where one team is "holding on for a tie." Obviously, the games are different (but remarkably have a number of similarities), but the point system would make sense. A win should be worth more than two ties, but a tie should still be worth more than a loss. The extra points for a win would be good motivation for teams not to play for ties. In the current system, you are rewarded for having lots of "ties" (OT/SO losses), in the system i suggested, teams would be punished for having lots of ties.

Frankly, I think it's a good system for soccer, but I think due to the fact the goals are slightly easier to come by in hockey, that the system would work even better in hockey. I think that the number of ties would go down, making most games have a winner.

I agree that it would work better in hockey.

Soccer has a HUGE home advantage (not sure why) and also a HUGE disparity between teams. So little teams are holding on for ties. Heck a small team goes on the road to Manchester United, a tie might be a miracle. They are holding on for dear life from the opening whistle.

Plus there's relegation! so those odd points picked up for ties could really come in handy at the end. And it's a balanced schedule so if you got a tie against XXX and your fellow bottom feeder did not, that could make the difference!

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

I support at 3-2-1 point system with 0 points for losing. It's not "gimmicky". It's logical, and it's needed.

• 3 points for winning a regulation ("real") hockey game.
• 2 points for winning OT (because it resembles "real" hockey).
• 1 point for winning the SO novelty act.
  
• 0 points for losing. You're a loser. You get nothing.

What does this give us? Teams playing to win as quickly as possible. No more mailing it in for the last 10 min of the 3rd for their loser point. No more Oilers contending (LOL) all season because they win the shootout.

If you're good at actual hockey, you'll have a lot more points than a team that's good at Shootouts. Which is how it should be. Obviously the SO isn't going anywhere - it's how the NHL gets it's highlight package on TV. Ties are a non-starter.

Only other wrinkle I'd add is to have the shootout before the game. There won't be any pressure, and it might not even count, so the players will take more risks and be more innovative.

3-2-1 with no points for losers is the only way to go.

The shootout is only a gimmick because the NHL treats it like a gimmick by making it only 3 shots and giving the loser a point. The shootout is no more gimmicky then continous 5 minute basketball overtime where guys are fouling out or the tennis 12 point tiebreaker. Yet those sports believe in their process by declaring a winner no matter how it is achieved. Basketball doesn't give a point for losing in overtime and tennis doesn't value tiebreak sets less than 6-0 sets. A set is a set, a win is a win. The NHL should embrace the shootout and make those games equal value or get rid of it.

[AR_Six]

Re: Flashpoint's 3 point system, I have no problem with that either. Works for me.

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The shootout is only a gimmick because the NHL treats it like a gimmick by making it only 3 shots and giving the loser a point. The shootout is no more gimmicky then continous 5 minute basketball overtime where guys are fouling out or the tennis 12 point tiebreaker.

This is nonsense. In those examples, the players are still playing the sport. The more accurate analogy would be if basketball overtime were contested by means of a three-point shooting competition, or if tennis tie-breakers were won by who could serve the most aces.