QOTD: 3 Point Games

[JiriHrdina]

I hate the shootout already, and if my team didn't get any points because they lost in that gong show - that would be tough to swallow

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I hate the shootout already, and if my team didn't get any points because they lost in that gong show - that would be tough to swallow

Over the course of the season, there would be far less shootouts if you didn't have an OTL encouraging teams to play for OT.

My hypothesis would be that less games going to a shoot out would mean that shoot out records have less impact on the standings than they do now.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Over the course of the season, there would be far less shootouts if you didn't have an OTL encouraging teams to play for OT.

My hypothesis would be that less games going to a shoot out would mean that shoot out records have less impact on the standings than they do now.

Maybe - but it would still suck.
Plus bad teams could still try to get into the shootout knowing that at that point it's basically a luck thing.

Nope. You can't get rid of the loser point as long as you have the shootout.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Over the course of the season, there would be far less shootouts if you didn't have an OTL encouraging teams to play for OT.

My hypothesis would be that less games going to a shoot out would mean that shoot out records have less impact on the standings than they do now.

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.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Maybe - but it would still suck.
Plus bad teams could still try to get into the shootout knowing that at that point it's basically a luck thing.

Nope. You can't get rid of the loser point as long as you have the shootout.

bad teams could do that now.

So even if they could prove over a course of a season that ditching the OTL would cause the shootout to have less impact on the standings, you'd still want to keep the OTL?

[nfotiu]

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.

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.

[Yrebmi]

Voted other. Codynw summed it up.

Originally Posted by codynw

The ideal solution for me would be

2 points for regulation / OT win.
1 point for tie.
0 points for loss.
No shootout.

If they want to minimize the number of ties, have five minutes of 4 on 4, followed by five minutes of 3 on 3.

Edit. Only thing I would add is make OT penalties half length (ie 60 sec instead of 2min) so refs are not quite so reluctant to call obvious infractions.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Maybe - but it would still suck.
Plus bad teams could still try to get into the shootout knowing that at that point it's basically a luck thing.

Nope. You can't get rid of the loser point as long as you have the shootout.

There's a lot of things that suck. Puck over the glass=penalty=GWG= that rule sucks.... for the person it's used against. Awesome for the other team.

Does any other professional league give points for losing?

It's points for losing. That's all I need to know that it doesn't make sense.

I feel the grief of the shootout, but we have to live with it. And I agree with Resolute, the NHL either gives it legitimacy by making it worth the same, or admits its not legitimate by giving a point for losing in it.

You play 5 extra minutes on top of a 60 minute game (8% of the full 60) and get half the points? No.

I can get on board with a 3pt tiered system:

3 - Reg/OT Win
2 - SO win
1 - SO Loss

Even there I would rather have no points for the SO loss. Making SO WINS worth less than Reg/OT wins would have teams dying to end it in OT. But we have to keep the points even...oh wait...the NHL says we don't.

[_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.

[Imported_Aussie]

All games worth same amount of points.

Model A
3 for Reg. Win
2 for OT/SO Win
1 for OT/SO Loss
0 for Reg. Loss

Model B
2 for Reg. Win
2 for OT Win
1 for Tie*

*If tied after OT, a shootout is taken. Shootout results are final standing tiebreaker (after Head to Head and Goal Diff.)


This removes earning 2 points for a skills contest, but keeps the shootout there as a last resort standings tiebreaker

[Enoch Root]

Regulation wins should be more valuable than OT. And an OT loss not as bad as a regulation loss. How about this as a way to abolish the SO?...

3 pts regulation win
2 pts for OT win (and 1 for the loser)
1 pt each if undecided in OT
0 pts for a regulation loss.

That way, if it goes to OT, both teams have a pt and are playing for a bonus pt if they can win it, with no negative consequences (i.e. just go for the win).

If no one scores in 10 minutes (4 on 4 followed by 3 on 3), then each team gets 1 pt for the tie

[Inglewood Jack]

I'm surprised there's still a bit of support out there for going back to ties. I really hated those. when I leave a game I want to be either ecstatic or punch holes in the wall pissed...if there's ties, then the only emotion you leave with is shrug.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Bring back ties, but have 4 on 4 for 5 mins followed by 3 on 3 for 5 mins so the number of ties is limited.

2pts for a win
1pt for a tie

[Maritime Q-Scout]

If I were named NHL Commissioner tomorrow I'd leave things as is. The extra points make the playoff races that much tighter.

Personally (which is how I answered the poll). I like win/loss.

If you win in regulation you get a tally in the win column, if you lose you get a tally in the loss column.

What's that? You lost in overtime? Tally in the loss column.

Oh but you made it to the shootout then lost? Well that's completely different, tally in the loss column.

Just like baseball, you don't get extra points by going to extra innings, you either win or you lose. If you lose in OT/SO, well then it's an extra hard loss as now you're more tired and used extra energy, etc.

Moral of the story... win.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No team should be punished for losing a gimmick skills competition. So long as there is a shootout, no one should walk away from it empty.

I agree with that but really you have to apply that to 4 on 4 as well seeing it doesn't reflect the 60 minute game which is 5 on 5 as 4 on 4 benefits some teams and is a weak point of other teams much like some teams may have better shootout players than others. It you eliminate the loser point you have to go 5 on 5 OT or go back to ties.

My opinion is that things should stay as they are as it keeps teams in it until the end of the season which keeps the interest level higher across the league.

[kermitology]

Put me in the camp where if you lose, you get 0.
Win in regulation or OT: 2 points.

Shootout: you won the tie. 1 point.

[Daradon]

The only way it makes mathematical sense if you want to keep the OT/SO point bonus is 3 points for a regular win, 2 points for an OT/SO win, 1 point for an OT/SO loss, and of course 0 for a regular loss.

That is my favorite idea for a few reasons. One, it eliminates the elevated value of the loser point and brings it back in line. That's my biggest beef right now. I also like it because I do believe a team should be rewarded for being tied at the end of regulation. We used to have ties. They were one point. Still seems like a kick in the teeth to lose your tie point for losing in SO. Though I would not be upset if they wanted to go back to the old way of winner takes all points in the 5 min overtime. Which, if people recall, was changed when they went to 4 on 4, even before the shootout was introduced.

The downside to this plan is of course, it messes up historical point totals and records. However, lets be honest, ever since they introduced the loser point (like 18 years ago now?), those have been messed up anyway.

[Coach]

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.

This is actually an interesting idea.

[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.

[FlamesAddiction]

If they are intent on giving a point for a SO or OT loss, then I would prefer a 3 point system as described in the poll.

I really don't like that some games are worth more points than others.