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

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

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

But crappy teams still try. That's not the same as both teams not trying at all. And it's good for the league and game to have crappy teams able to compete. Otherwise they become unofficial farm teams who lose talent to the good teams. Like what we see with Baseball. But NHL doesn't have MLB money and fanbase so franchises belly-up if there's no ability to win games.

[topfiverecords]

I'd call myself a purist. I'm mostly bothered by the mix of 3 point and 2 point games. I grew up going to the rink with my dad and watching a tie. It was the fact of the sytem and it didn't bother me one bit.

At 10 years old as soon as you had a thought, "too bad we didn't win", it was balanced by "well we didn't lose and got a point". Learned some patience, as you knew in a couple weeks there'd be another game you'd see live and not everything needs to be forced satisfaction.

Have thought a lot about a 3-2-1 system, and I'm just not sure it's the absolute answer to resolve the problems.

Just a random idea, that I'm not sure I even like yet so I'd be curious to your thoughts.
What if a game that goes to beyond regulation is called a tie and both teams get 1 point but the teams still play the OT. The winner doesn't get another standings point, it's just to satisfy the fans entertainment value. There'd have to be something the players would play for besides a ROW tiebreaker, not sure what that could be. Thought about draft lottery ranking but current players don't care about their teams future draft position.

[Steve Bozek]

It's not perfect, but a 3-0 point for RW-RL; 2-1 point split for OT or SO win vs loss; with OT wins beating SO wins in a playoff position tiebreak, seems a more honest method than what we've got.

[genetic_phreek]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

I'd call myself a purist. I'm mostly bothered by the mix of 3 point and 2 point games. I grew up going to the rink with my dad and watching a tie. It was the fact of the sytem and it didn't bother me one bit.

At 10 years old as soon as you had a thought, "too bad we didn't win", it was balanced by "well we didn't lose and got a point". Learned some patience, as you knew in a couple weeks there'd be another game you'd see live and not everything needs to be forced satisfaction.

Have thought a lot about a 3-2-1 system, and I'm just not sure it's the absolute answer to resolve the problems.

Just a random idea, that I'm not sure I even like yet so I'd be curious to your thoughts.
What if a game that goes to beyond regulation is called a tie and both teams get 1 point but the teams still play the OT. The winner doesn't get another standings point, it's just to satisfy the fans entertainment value. There'd have to be something the players would play for besides a ROW tiebreaker, not sure what that could be. Thought about draft lottery ranking but current players don't care about their teams future draft position.

I think this would make it less entertaining because you're essentially watching meaningless minutes. And if we beat the Oilers in this case, Oiler fans would say "doesn't matter we got the same amount of points" and they'd be right.

[savemedrzaius]

Personally I feel a shootout loss is not the same as an OT loss. If you look at the Leafs record you see they have 8 loser points but 5 of those are from shootouts which to me is pretty meaningless because it is a coinflip. I love the 3-on-3 and feel it is way more exciting than a shootout.

I wish they just went back to W-L-T but continue with the 3-on3 in OT.

[FlamesFan68]

Very good solution to the .500 problem that I had. I "hated" it when the Flames players allowed themselves to get off the hook a bit because they were now a .500 team. That .500 term was a very bad team in its present form. Even if radio folks or the players and coaches wouldn't bring up .500 term, I'd be cool with it. .500 with OTL is very misleading. Since, they used it as a term to think they were at least an average team, it doesn't work with me at all.

So, if we were to use the .500 term, I'd be more inclined to like the "3 point system" rather than the one that's in place presently.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

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.



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.

I'm not sure you understood my point. The loser point clouds the standings by making mediocre to bad teams look better than they really are. By the version I follow, the Canucks are 18-21, they will be lucky to get 85 points this year and aren't making the playoffs. Nashville is 16-21 and Dallas is worse at 16-23. I know its not accurate as per the 'points'.

Another good benchmark is the ROW number. Good teams win without the SO.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Corral

I'm not sure you understood my point. The loser point clouds the standings by making mediocre to bad teams look better than they really are. By the version I follow, the Canucks are 18-21, they will be lucky to get 85 points this year and aren't making the playoffs. Nashville is 16-21 and Dallas is worse at 16-23. I know its not accurate as per the 'points'.

Another good benchmark is the ROW number. Good teams win without the SO.

I actually don't follow what you're trying to say then. You said the canucks are falling off the pace. This is literally their best run of the entire season. They've won five in a row, and have 15 points in their last 10 games. That's a 123 point pace. If the Flames hadn't just beat Colorado, the canucks would be one point behind them in the standings. If the Flames lose one game, that's not a tailspin. I don't think the canucks will make the playoffs, as I don't think their roster is good enough. I'm hoping the Flames beat them on both Friday and Saturday night this weekend.

You can concentrate on wins out of games played, but that won't help you pick who makes the playoffs, if you are ignoring the OTL/SOL point. Obviously more wins will give you a better shot at making the playoffs, but it's not just wins. Last year Colorado had more wins than Minnesota, yet finished 5 points behind them and missed the playoffs. Boston had more wins than Philadelphia, and also missed the playoffs. In 2011-12 the Kings had less wins than two non-playoff teams, but had 7 and 8 points more than they did. They also won the Cup.

When it's points that determine the playoffs, I don't understand why focusing on partial data will predict final records and playoff competitors. You may as well show faceoff win percentage.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I actually don't follow what you're trying to say then. You said the canucks are falling off the pace. This is literally their best run of the entire season. They've won five in a row, and have 15 points in their last 10 games. That's a 123 point pace. If the Flames hadn't just beat Colorado, the canucks would be one point behind them in the standings. If the Flames lose one game, that's not a tailspin. I don't think the canucks will make the playoffs, as I don't think their roster is good enough. I'm hoping the Flames beat them on both Friday and Saturday night this weekend.

You can concentrate on wins out of games played, but that won't help you pick who makes the playoffs, if you are ignoring the OTL/SOL point. Obviously more wins will give you a better shot at making the playoffs, but it's not just wins. Last year Colorado had more wins than Minnesota, yet finished 5 points behind them and missed the playoffs. Boston had more wins than Philadelphia, and also missed the playoffs. In 2011-12 the Kings had less wins than two non-playoff teams, but had 7 and 8 points more than they did. They also won the Cup.

When it's points that determine the playoffs, I don't understand why focusing on partial data will predict final records and playoff competitors. You may as well show faceoff win percentage.

Like many discussions here - we are turning something into an argument that would be settled in 3 seconds by talking. You and I agree fully on the 'get 96 points' and don't worry about what everyone else is doing to ensure you make the playoffs. The OTL/SOL point is obviously part of that equation.

I'll concede on Vancouver - my choice of words was poor - they are not currently falling off the pace - but they are comfortably on the outside looking in because their absolute win-loss ratio is sub-500. The ducks and oilers are also sub-500, which tells me one or both of them will also slip out of the playoff spots in the near future - no doubt the greasers will.

All I was really trying to say is that I think total points in the NHL standings is misleading as to how teams really measure up against each other. So while SJ is only a couple points in front of the Pacific division - looking at absolute wins and losses shows me they are by far the better performing team so far and you can expect them to stay #1. The 2 point gap is wider than it seems.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

4 teams ahead of the Flames with less wins. That doesn't feel right.

Regulation wins should be 3 points.

If the 3-2-1-0 point system was used, it still looks similar. Calgary and Edmonton would be tied with 60 points, but Edmonton has a game in hand. Calgary would be 6 points behind Anaheim, which is the same as being 4 points back in the current format. They would only be 5 back of San Jose, instead of the current 4.

Calgary's current point percentage is .550 (points won/points available) and win percentage is .525 (wins/games played). In the 3-2-1-0 system, they are only .500, garnering 60 points out of 120 possible points.

It's Calgary's 17 regulation losses that are causing them issues. Only the bottom four teams in the west have more than Calgary does.

[CroFlames]

I'm more of a 3-1-0 pts system man myself. 3 points for a win, nada for losing.

[GirlySports]

i think shootouts are not a coin flip, teams that aren't good at them will suffer in this system.

[speede5]

I like the 3 point system, it doesn't change much in the example presented, but in reality I think it could have a slight effect on how games are played. Closer to the playoffs division games need to be won in regulation, you should see harder play as the third point may be extremely valuable.

You may even see some gambling, pulling a goalie in a tie game against a non division rival perhaps, as teams desperate to make the playoffs try for the 3rd point.

All in all though, the more things change the more they stay the same.

[bossy22]

I'm old. I like the 2 point system, BUT I would like 2 points for a non-SO win, 1 pt for a SO win, and 0 pts for any type of loss. I hate the loser point.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Corral

Like many discussions here - we are turning something into an argument that would be settled in 3 seconds by talking. You and I agree fully on the 'get 96 points' and don't worry about what everyone else is doing to ensure you make the playoffs. The OTL/SOL point is obviously part of that equation.

I'll concede on Vancouver - my choice of words was poor - they are not currently falling off the pace - but they are comfortably on the outside looking in because their absolute win-loss ratio is sub-500. The ducks and oilers are also sub-500, which tells me one or both of them will also slip out of the playoff spots in the near future - no doubt the greasers will.

All I was really trying to say is that I think total points in the NHL standings is misleading as to how teams really measure up against each other. So while SJ is only a couple points in front of the Pacific division - looking at absolute wins and losses shows me they are by far the better performing team so far and you can expect them to stay #1. The 2 point gap is wider than it seems.

For the Record in December:
- Flames played at a 113 point/season pace
- Oilers played at a 111 point/season pace
- Ducks played at a 93 point/season pace

If all teams keep up their December play I see the Ducks falling.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by FlamesFan68

Very good solution to the .500 problem that I had. I "hated" it when the Flames players allowed themselves to get off the hook a bit because they were now a .500 team. That .500 term was a very bad team in its present form. Even if radio folks or the players and coaches wouldn't bring up .500 term, I'd be cool with it. .500 with OTL is very misleading. Since, they used it as a term to think they were at least an average team, it doesn't work with me at all.

Did I miss something? When did this happen?

[Ace]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Maybe the biggest change would be how the end of games are played. Would teams go for it more in regulation to try and get 3 points, especially over a division rival?

This is ultimately the reason they should go to a 3 Point System IMO, it should make the game play better.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Don't lie. You can't tell me you didn't like the Schlemko goal. There has been some of the best highlights in hockey history from shoot-outs.

I don't care about the highlight reel. The shootout itself is mostly a matter of waiting for the next shooter to get his rear in gear, or (after the first three rounds) for the coach to quit picking his brains and send someone out.

The only reason I have ever been interested in shootouts is because I have already invested three hours of my life in watching the damned game and want to see the final score.

[Enoch Root]

I like the 3 point system if you're going to have OT. I don't think a regulation loss equals an OT loss, so they shouldn't be worth the same thing (zero).

However, I hate the shootout. I would like to see a 3 on 3 OT and if no one scores, it ends a tie. So...

3 points for a regulation win
2 points for an OT win
1 point for an OT loss
0 points for a regulation loss

and if there is no OT winner, each team gets 1 point for the tie

So every game is worth 3 points, unless there is no OT winner, then it ends in a tie and only 2 points are awarded.

[PepsiFree]

Love the Win % system, genius. Despite all losses not being created equal, all losses are equal. If you can't close out a game, you can't close out a game. Period.

The 3-2-1-0 system is interesting too (being 3 for a win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for a SO win, 0 for a loss). I think it encourages teams to go out and go for the win as early as possible. If you can close out a game in regulation you should be rewarded more so than a team that can't.