GM Meetings - video review, OT and $68M cap

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Red John

Quarter points. Really?

How about this. 5 minutes of 4-on-4, 5 minutes of 3-on-3, or it's a tie. Zero points for OT losses.

Each game is back to being worth 2 points.

Agreed. I really don't get the 3 point for a win thing. You win, 2 points. You lose, 0. End of story.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I don't think you should be rewarded for any type of loss, and that proposal gives incentive to play it safe in OT since you still have a chance at getting 2 out of 3 points. I think 3 points for a reg. win, 2 for OT, and 1 for shootout, with no loser points at all, would be the best system. It encourages teams to finish the game as quickly as possible since the points up for grabs regress the longer the game takes.

In the past, I was in the camp that was alright with shootouts deciding games, but I've changed my opinion and now think it's dumb to reward points for winning a skill competition after playing a team game all night long. It's the regular season, so a tied game isn't the end of the world. I feel any game that went to shootout ended in a draw anyway since they could get it done under normal play of hockey.

Your 3, 2 or 1 point for a win system is interesting but I don't like that teams get nothing for losing in a shootout. Having the game tied after 65 minutes and losing in a skills competition should be worth more than losing 6-1 in regulation.

I also understand your point about teams still playing for OT but a 3 point regulation win, 2 point OT/SO win and 1 point OT/SO loss would help eliminate some of this and create much fairer standings. The current system encourages you to go to OT while this new one wouldn't as I will try to explain below:

Think of it this way, there are two teams A & B. Team A tries to end every game in regulation. They end up never playing an OT game but win half their games in regulation. Team B tries to get every game into OT. They end up having all their games go to OT and win half of them. Under the current system both teams have the same number of wins but Team B would be 41 points (!!!) ahead of Team A in the standings. This rewards playing for a regulation tie. Now look at the 3-2-1 system like at the Olympics. In this case Team A and Team B still have the same number of wins but will finish the season with the exact same amount of points and Team A wins the tiebreak with more regulation wins. You are not discouraged from going to OT but there is no benefit like the current system.

[metroneck]

If shoot outs suck, and ties even worse, then penalize a tie...

4 on 4, then 3 on 3. Winner gets 2, loser 1. If it ends in a tie, both get 0.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

Your 3, 2 or 1 point for a win system is interesting but I don't like that teams get nothing for losing in a shootout. Having the game tied after 65 minutes and losing in a skills competition should be worth more than losing 6-1 in regulation.

I also understand your point about teams still playing for OT but a 3 point regulation win, 2 point OT/SO win and 1 point OT/SO loss would help eliminate some of this and create much fairer standings. The current system encourages you to go to OT while this new one wouldn't as I will try to explain below:

Think of it this way, there are two teams A & B. Team A tries to end every game in regulation. They end up never playing an OT game but win half their games in regulation. Team B tries to get every game into OT. They end up having all their games go to OT and win half of them. Under the current system both teams have the same number of wins but Team B would be 41 points (!!!) ahead of Team A in the standings. This rewards playing for a regulation tie. Now look at the 3-2-1 system like at the Olympics. In this case Team A and Team B still have the same number of wins but will finish the season with the exact same amount of points and Team A wins the tiebreak with more regulation wins. You are not discouraged from going to OT but there is no benefit like the current system.

The same solution is found by not giving loser points at all. And technically, they shouldn't have the same number as wins since a 3 point system would have a result lined up as Wins (Reg)-OTW-SOW-Loss since each win doesn't award the same amount of points.

It's a matter of principle for me. There shouldn't be any reward for losing a game, and there should be as much encouragement as possible to break ties late in regulation so the games don't have to go to OT. Although they may end up losing a point for going to extra time, having a loser point guarantees them one that they may have not gotten if they lost the lead late, which is better than nothing. Move that out of the equation then there's no incentive to buy time and play it safe.

[Burner]

Part of the problem with a longer OT and then still having the possibility of a shootout means that the average length of a TV broadcast could be over the normal 3 hour window allotted to a game. If you add a commercial break in the OT it also lengthens it even more. Would mean a lot of issues where you miss the beginning of the second game etc.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Hockey needs to add a quarter point...Regulation win you get three points. OT game winner gets 2, loser gets 1. Shootout, winner gets 1.75 and the loser gets 1.25. All games are equal points, winning in a shootout is a lesser advantage.

Quarter points are silly, just multiply everything by 4. 12 points for a regulation win, 8 points for an OT win, 7 points for a SO win, 5 points for a shootout loss and 4 points for an OT loss.

It is a completely ridiculous system but is still much better than the current version where some games are worth more points than others.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Joborule

The same solution is found by not giving loser points at all. And technically, they shouldn't have the same number as wins since a 3 point system would have a result lined up as Wins (Reg)-OTW-SOW-Loss since each win doesn't award the same amount of points.

It's a matter of principle for me. There shouldn't be any reward for losing a game, and there should be as much encouragement as possible to break ties late in regulation so the games don't have to go to OT. Although they may end up losing a point for going to extra time, having a loser point guarantees them one that they may have not gotten if they lost the lead late, which is better than nothing. Move that out of the equation then there's no incentive to buy time and play it safe.

By wins I mean total wins (regulation plus OT/SO wins). Team A goes 41-0-0-41 for 121 points and Team B goes 0-41-41-0 for 121 points.

I agree you get the same result going with a 2 point only or winning % system however this is not fair if you are going to decide ties with 4-on-4 OT and a SO. Hockey games are played 5-on-5 for 60 minutes so if you end up tied after 60 minutes you should get a point. You are not being rewarded for losing, you are rewarded for being tied after 60 minutes. Yes, some teams might play for the guaranteed point however they then lose the opportunity for 3 points and have to settle for 2 or 1. They are being punished for not winning in regulation.

This is a good discussion and am happy for anything better than the current system. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT/SO win and 1 just seems to be the fairest. I would also consider tweaking it to make regulation and OT wins 3 points with shootout wins 2 points as long as OT was changed back to 5-on-5.

[devo22]

maybe only a little tweak to OT rules would help:

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
Damien Echevarietta of NHL Hockey Ops/Player Safety will be making his annual push for all OT to be always played with the "long change."

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
There's more NHL goal-scoring in 2nd periods (long change) than 1st or 3rd. He believes making that one change may settle more games in OT.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
USHL had 23% of its games go to OT (roughly same as NHL). USHL went to long-change OT, settled 10 per cent more games with that one change.

You just let teams switch sides before OT ... could very well affect how things go.

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

The biggest news is the 68 mill cap. I hope Burke feasts on teams with this at the draft, we are set up perfectly to take advantage of bad deals to gain significant young assets and picks.

while i agree that the flames are in a unique position, I have been waiting to see it used as an advantage in a one sided deal. It does always feel like the time is right but teams just don't seem willing to participate in an assets for bad money deal. Here's hoping though

[$ven27]

10 minute OT, then shootout and change OT losses to 0 points instead of one.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by metroneck

If shoot outs suck, and ties even worse, then penalize a tie...

4 on 4, then 3 on 3. Winner gets 2, loser 1. If it ends in a tie, both get 0.

In that scenario, it would make sense for both teams to pull the goalie (loss better than a tie). Pretty silly.

[darthma]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Yes, more goals are scored in the 2nd period than other period. Goal scoring by period from 97/98 (that is as far back as NHL.com went) until now is broken down as follows:

1st Period: 29.700%
2nd Period: 34.691%
3rd Period: 33.809%
Overtime: 1.800%

Edit: to add to this, 7-8% of all 3rd period goals are empty netters as well. So realistically the 2nd period shows significantly higher scoring with the 3rd period actually being the lowest scoring.

If you weighted this as a per minute value (OT is only 5 mins), it becomes

1st: 28%
2nd: 33%
3rd: 32%
OT: 6.8%

So yes, it is still low for OT after factoring in 'per minute' scoring. Just working off the numbers that Alberta_Beef provided.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Looks like not much will changing in the near future.

The league's 30 GMs met in three separate groups of 10 Monday morning at Boca Beach Club to discuss a variety of topics, including changing overtime to reduce shootouts, expanding video-review criteria and looking at goaltender interference.

Making changes to overtime led to a lot of talk but not much agreement. Ideas like adding time and possibly a three-on-three element were thrown around, but a consensus was difficult to reach and GMs left with the feeling that doing a dry scrape of the ice and/or changing ends would be more realistic options.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=445819

[ForeverFlameFan]

Are we all giving up on the shootout because Berra left? Because if that's the case, that's understandable!

Seriously though, the shootout is the worst way to end a game. Leave the shootout to the skills competition during the All Star break.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Ten minute OT and if they're sticking with it then a shoot out.

3 points are given out for every NHL game. If the game goes past regulation then those three points are split, 2 for the winner, one for the loser.

Teams that win in regulation time should be awarded accordingly with the full three points via going past that point.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Ten minute OT and if they're sticking with it then a shoot out.

3 points are given out for every NHL game. If the game goes past regulation then those three points are split, 2 for the winner, one for the loser.

Teams that win in regulation time should be awarded accordingly with the full three points via going past that point.

The resistance to move to a 3 point regulation win pisses me off. I swear they just don't want to do it since it is a "European" rule that the NHL didn't adopt first.

It is a fix to such an obvious problem that occurs now with the unbalanced point distribution but still nobody wants to move to that system.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The resistance to move to a 3 point regulation win pisses me off. I swear they just don't want to do it since it is a "European" rule that the NHL didn't adopt first.

It is a fix to such an obvious problem that occurs now with the unbalanced point distribution but still nobody wants to move to that system.

The hosts of Sirius Radio's war room program did the math, and over the last three years, switching to a the point system changes very, very little.

The current system pushes teams to the middle of the curve by adding an extra point that is distributed relatively randomly. That means more playoff races which is good for business. I certainly don't see that changing

[dash_pinched]

Burkie looking good at the GM meetings:

[devo22]

did a quick calculation of how the Western Conference standings would look like right now if the 3-2-1-0 system was implemented. There were only two positional changes: Anaheim taking the lead from St Louis, and Colorado overtaking San Jose. What it does, though, is stretch out the standings, of course.

Pos  Team             W-OTW/SOW/L-OTL/SOL  New Points  Old Points  Change

1.   Anaheim Ducks         38-5-14-7          131 p      (93)      [+38]
2.   St Louis Blues        33-11-14-6         127 p      (94)      [+33]
3.   Chicago Blackhawks    33-5-13-14         123 p      (90)      [+33]
4.   Colorado Avalanche    31-10-18-5         118 p      (87)      [+31]
5.   San Jose Sharks       28-13-17-7         117 p      (89)      [+28]
6.   Los Angeles Kings     27-10-22-6         107 p      (80)      [+27]
7.   Minnesota Wild        25-9-22-8          101 p      (76)      [+25]
8.   Dallas Stars          27-4-23-10          99 p      (72)      [+27]
9.   Phoenix Coyotes       22-7-24-11          91 p      (69)      [+22]
10.  Vancouver Canucks     20-9-27-10          88 p      (68)      [+20]
11.  Winnipeg Jets         20-10-28-7          87 p      (67)      [+20]
12.  Nashville Predators   23-3-28-10          85 p      (62)      [+23]
13.  Calgary Flames        15-10-32-7          72 p      (57)      [+15]
14.  Edmonton Oilers       16-6-35-8           68 p      (52)      [+16]

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by dash_pinched

Burkie looking good at the GM meetings:

Someone tell Burke that he is allowed to leave his tie at home.