If NHL used 3 point (3-2-1-0) system

[The Fonz]

I would love to move to a 3-point system. It makes sense, and it's consistent. I'm not sure anything bothers me more than the inconsistencies of the NHL...



Will 2 or 3 points be awarded in tonight's game?

Will slashing/hooking/holding be a penalty tonight? What if a team is down by 3... is it still a penalty, or are they allowed to cheat now because they're losing by a few goals?

High-sticking is 2:00 min, Elbowing is 2:00 min, Tripping is 2:00 min, and Fighting is 5:00 min. What if blood is drawn? High-sticking penalty doubles in severity, but everything else stays the same. WTF?

Shoulder check to the head, causing a concussion? Suspension. Fist punch to the head, causing a concussion? 5:00 mins.

Center cheats on the draw? Kicked out of the circle. Wingers cheat on the draw? WGAF, apparently.


It's bush league. I can't imagine the confusion and frustration that new fans must experience when trying to tune into this league.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Corral

So for example looking at the current Pacific division, this approach clearly places SJ ahead of the pack even though in the standings they are only 2 points ahead of the Ducks. The Ducks, Oilers, Flames and Kings are bunched together and you can expect them to jossle for the rest of the year. The Canucks are falling off the pace and the Coyotes are clearly out by any measure.

Vancouver are not falling off the pace. They have won four straight, and are 6-2-1 in the last 9 games. That's a .722 winning (points) percentage, and 1.44 PPG pace. If they went at that pace the whole season they'd finish with 118 points. If they continue that the rest of the season, they'd finish with 101 points, based on their current record.

Originally Posted by Corral

Looking at the wildcard race in the West using this approach - it also demonstrates that while the Preds and Stars are within reach of a wildcard position - they are unlikely to make it without either Calgary or LA going into a tailspin.

If Nashville wins its next game, it has a higher winning (points) percentage than Calgary. I'm not sure what you think a tailspin is, but the Predators are very much in the wildcard race right now. Calgary plays Nashville three times this year, with the last two games in Tennessee.

[FanIn80]

Why don't we just drop points altogether and go with winning %? There is no such thing as a tie anymore, since every single game has a winner and loser (regardless of OT/SO), so just eliminate the points system altogether, and make everything about winning percentage.

You play 82 games. You win some of them and you lose some of them, and it shouldn't matter how you lose the ones you lose. (Still track regulation wins for tie-breakers.)



I think this solves everything. There are no more points for holding on to force OT. Your only goal becomes winning the game, with winning in regulation more valuable than winning in OT/SO because of the tie-breaker.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Why don't we just drop points altogether and go with winning %? There is no such thing as a tie anymore, since every single game has a winner and loser (regardless of OT/SO), so just eliminate the points system altogether, and make everything about winning percentage.

You play 82 games. You win some of them and you lose some of them, and it shouldn't matter how you lose the ones you lose. (Still track regulation wins for tie-breakers.)



I think this solves everything. There are no more points for holding on to force OT. Your only goal becomes winning the game, with winning in regulation more valuable than winning in OT/SO because of the tie-breaker.

That's not comparing apples to apples. Not every loss is the same. A loss in regulation is extremely different than a loss in OT/SO. If people want to use the NBA and MLB as comparissons where there aren't ties, then you also have to look at the rules. MLB is exactly the same in extra innings as it is in the first nine innings. They don't switch to having 5 fielders for an inning and then go to a homerun derby. The NBA doesn't go 3 on 3 for five minutes and then have a game of HORSE for the win.

All loses are not the same right now. The biggest way you can tell is that OT/SO losses get points. Why would you say a SOL is the exact same as a regulation loss, even excluding the point differences? One is a coin flip, the other is 60 minutes of 5 on 5 hockey. Also, if you look at the NHL's website (and the NFL's for comparative purposes), a tie/OTL/SOL is worth one point, and thus worth half a win.

[FanIn80]

Shootouts aren't going anywhere, so it's time to stop thinking of them as novelty acts and start thinking of them in terms of a necessary evil you need to be good at in order to (potentially) win a game. If you're a strong 3/3 OT team or a strong S/O team, then to me that's no different nowadays to being a good PP or PK team. It's just another aspect of the game that you have to be good at to make the playoffs. Rewarding teams for not being good at those things is not spurring them to be better at them. It's just allowing them to continue not giving a **** about them.

How much more exciting would a S/O be if the only thing that matters now was if you WON it? I'd imagine teams would actually start practicing 3/3OT or S/Os. Maybe it adds shootout skills to a goalie's chart when you're drafting them. Maybe teams that have clear-cut #1 goalies start looking for backups that really good in shootouts...

I guess what I'm getting at is that overtimes and shootouts have been here for a while now, and they aren't going anywhere, so now it's time to take the training wheels off. Being good at 3-on-3 or shootouts should be another advantage that teams strive for to help them WIN games, just like being good on the PP does. The only thing that should ever matter at the sound of the final horn is if you WON the game, and that's a much closer representation of playoff hockey than the current system is.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

That's not comparing apples to apples. Not every loss is the same. A loss in regulation is extremely different than a loss in OT/SO. If people want to use the NBA and MLB as comparissons where there aren't ties, then you also have to look at the rules. MLB is exactly the same in extra innings as it is in the first nine innings. They don't switch to having 5 fielders for an inning and then go to a homerun derby. The NBA doesn't go 3 on 3 for five minutes and then have a game of HORSE for the win.

All loses are not the same right now. The biggest way you can tell is that OT/SO losses get points. Why would you say a SOL is the exact same as a regulation loss, even excluding the point differences? One is a coin flip, the other is 60 minutes of 5 on 5 hockey. Also, if you look at the NHL's website (and the NFL's for comparative purposes), a tie/OTL/SOL is worth one point, and thus worth half a win.

I would ####ing love this!!!

[GirlySports]

curling should go to 4 rocks and just the 4 foot

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

curling should go to 4 rocks and just the 4 foot

OK, but 87% of the world's population would still have absolutely no clue what's happening.

[N-E-B]

Should be straight wins-losses. None of this loser point stuff. None of this 3 points for a regulation win stuff. All or nothing. You don't get .25 of a game in baseball for losing in 10 innings. You don't get a point for an overtime loss in football. Basketball is all or nothing. Unlimited 3on3 until there's a goal. All or nothing. Simple and fair. No need to further complicate the standings. All wins should be equal.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Shootouts aren't going anywhere, so it's time to stop thinking of them as novelty acts and start thinking of them in terms of a necessary evil you need to be good at in order to (potentially) win a game. If you're a strong 3/3 OT team or a strong S/O team, then to me that's no different nowadays to being a good PP or PK team. It's just another aspect of the game that you have to be good at to make the playoffs. Rewarding teams for not being good at those things is not spurring them to be better at them. It's just allowing them to continue not giving a **** about them.

How much more exciting would a S/O be if the only thing that matters now was if you WON it? I'd imagine teams would actually start practicing 3/3OT or S/Os. Maybe it adds shootout skills to a goalie's chart when you're drafting them. Maybe teams that have clear-cut #1 goalies start looking for backups that really good in shootouts...

I guess what I'm getting at is that overtimes and shootouts have been here for a while now, and they aren't going anywhere, so now it's time to take the training wheels off. Being good at 3-on-3 or shootouts should be another advantage that teams strive for to help them WIN games, just like being good on the PP does. The only thing that should ever matter at the sound of the final horn is if you WON the game, and that's a much closer representation of playoff hockey than the current system is.

Exactly. I remember a few seasons ago the Flames would miss the playoffs by like 6 or 8 points, all while they would have 12 or 16 OT losses in the season. They just kept putting Iginla and Tanguay in the shoot-out because they were leaders even though they sucked, while Kipper was easily beat. But the year the Flames went to the playoffs, they had secret weapon Colborne who was responsible for at least 4 points in the regular season.

Last season Philly had 3 points over Boston for the last wild card spot. They also had 3 wins in the shoot-out (despite being an abysmal 3 for 8). Its become pretty important in today's game.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Why don't we just drop points altogether and go with winning %? There is no such thing as a tie anymore, since every single game has a winner and loser (regardless of OT/SO), so just eliminate the points system altogether, and make everything about winning percentage.

You play 82 games. You win some of them and you lose some of them, and it shouldn't matter how you lose the ones you lose. (Still track regulation wins for tie-breakers.)



I think this solves everything. There are no more points for holding on to force OT. Your only goal becomes winning the game, with winning in regulation more valuable than winning in OT/SO because of the tie-breaker.

I agree, I think there would be less games going into OT or a SO since the win in regulation is crucial and there is no benefit to going to OT or a SO (no loser point). Would make the standings easier to follow as well for new fans or potential new fans.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I would ####ing love this!!!

Horse would be boring. Maybe a game of bump?

[Philly06Cup]

I say this every time.

Every team should literally sit on their butts for the first 60 minutes of an NHL game. This would maximize their expected points under the current point structure. This is why the system is seriously broken and needs to be fixed.

Every system suggested here is better than the current system.

[McG]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Well there was the disgrace of Gijon. And in 2004, Denmark and Sweden deliberately played to a draw. But I don't follow Premier to be honest with you.

I could actually point to a few more than this, which is why they now play tournaments and final matches at the same time. it gives the real time pressure of results, such as when manutd lost the title because mancity scored in injury time to beat qpr, who themselves didn't know if they were staying in the premier league until the end of the match. that was pretty compelling sport.

if a person doesn't like soccer/football I don't think that you can blame the points system for that.

[afc wimbledon]

Cant stand three points in soccer as it lends itself to dominant teams running away with the season early, of course soccer has little parity it might be different in the NHL.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

I say this every time.

Every team should literally sit on their butts for the first 60 minutes of an NHL game. This would maximize their expected points under the current point structure. This is why the system is seriously broken and needs to be fixed.

Every system suggested here is better than the current system.

No. Think game theory and prisoner's dilemma. If you sit on your butt cooperatively, it only takes one side to try harder for the win and therefore benefit greater than the party who didn't try. Therefore the equilibrium is for both sides to try and win.

Since hockey games are repeated indefinitely, game theory certainly applies here. This doesn't include the human factor either, which almost always supports victory over defeat. No professional athlete trained their whole lives to make it to the NHL just to seek defeat or lethargy.

[McG]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Cant stand three points in soccer as it lends itself to dominant teams running away with the season early, of course soccer has little parity it might be different in the NHL.

can you imagine going to a 6 v 6 full pitch and then going to the old NASL "breakaway" shootout to decide it further?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

No. Think game theory and prisoner's dilemma. If you sit on your butt cooperatively, it only takes one side to try harder for the win and therefore benefit greater than the party who didn't try. Therefore the equilibrium is for both sides to try and win.

Since hockey games are repeated indefinitely, game theory certainly applies here. This doesn't include the human factor either, which almost always supports victory over defeat. No professional athlete trained their whole lives to make it to the NHL just to seek defeat or lethargy.

If you have a crappier team you just draft/buy as strong a defence as you can and play for a draw, it has the same effect without needing cooperation

[genetic_phreek]

Since there are no such thing as ties anymore, I think points should just be awarded for wins.

In my opinion I would like it if no more "loser" points are rewarded altogether.

Regulation Win = 2 pts
OT/SO Win = 1 pts
Loss/OTL/SOL = 0 pts

This would have teams trying to win every game in regulation and if you can't beat a team in 60 minutes then at least you could try to get 1 point out of it.

In a lot of companies if you don't deliver the work by the time defined in the service level agreement, you get penalized for dollars.

I just applied the same principle, if you don't beat a team in 60 minutes you get penalized for a point.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

curling should go to 4 rocks and just the 4 foot

That's a really good comparison if curling did that in the extra end. It's pretty close to mixed doubles. Both teams get 5 rocks, and there is one rock from each team placed at specific spots before the end starts. No hitting until the 4th delivered stone of the end.