3 point games

[55fan 5,133]

Thanks for taking the time to do that, Wombat. I found it interesting how little actually changes, yet what impact those small changes make.

Just an question: If all losses are worth 0 points, does it make a difference how many points a win is worth? I'm not a math person, but it would seem to me that it wouldn't make any difference in the order of things if a win was worth 1 or 2 points if all losses were even.

Edited March 6, 2009 by 55fan

[Echolalia 2,961]

2 points for a win, regardless of when/how you got it

1 point for a loss in a shootout

0 points for a loss in regulation or overtime

[Wombat 26]

Thanks for taking the time to do that, Wombat. I found it interesting how little actually changes, yet what impact those small changes make.

Just an question: If all losses are worth 0 points, does it make a difference how many points a win is worth? I'm not a math person, but it would seem to me that it wouldn't make any difference in the order of things if a win was worth 1 or 2 points if all losses were even.

You're right... if you only have wins and losses, and losses = 0 points, then it doesn't matter what wins are worth. Basically it'd be the same as the W/L record of every other sport.

I do think those subtle changes can be important as well. Clearly, Dallas under the current system is getting a bit of a bonus over other teams in that tier by being in so many OT/SO games (5 more than EDM, 4 more than ANA/MIN). And it does seem to me that making each game worth the same value (all 3 points, winner take all, etc) does pull out separation between the teams which is artificially missing thanks to extra points for OT games.

While outwardly the Top 8 doesn't really change, it does change the race for the last couple playoff spots. Perhaps we can revisit this issue once the final standings are complete (or if I'm really bored, I can look at last year's data).

[Wombat 26]

2 points for a win, regardless of when/how you got it

1 point for a loss in a shootout

0 points for a loss in regulation or overtime

1. SJ - 88

2. DET - 88

3. CAL - 80

4. CHI - 77

5. VAN - 72

6. NSH - 69

7. CBJ - 69

8. EDM - 66

9. DAL - 64

10. ANA - 64

11. MIN - 64

12. STL - 61

13. LA - 61

14. PHX - 58

15. COL - 57

Edmonton separates by 1 win away from the Dallas/Anaheim/Minnesota pack. St. Louis falls a point further back from the playoffs, and Columbus/Nashville inch a point closer towards Vancouver.

[Guest Shoreline]

The method the league has now is perfectly fine. However, it's simply the teams playing for the SO that needs to be more difficult. 20 minute OT 4 on 4, then shootout. I find this a compromise as I would personally prefer them play continuous OT like basketball and baseball until someone wins, but that would mean more tired teams, i.e. more injuries, and play would suffer. But with significantly longer OT's than 5 minutes I bet there will be FAR less shootout outcomes.

Just for experimenting's sake, regardless of where it would put the Wings, there should be little reward as possible for not ending a game in regulation. So, without reading any previous posts, I'm thinking this sounds far more logical:

OT = 20 minutes, 4 on 4. Possibly another experiment where the first whistle after the 10 min point becomes 3 on 3. Although, 20 mins of 4 on 4 should bring more than enough scoring. There would be far more emphasis on winning the game by a goal in regulation or OT than by shootout.

Regulation win = 3pts

OT win = 2 points

SO win = 1 point

Regulation loss = 0 points

OT loss = 1 point

SO loss = 0 points

[Dano33 41]

The method the league has now is perfectly fine. However, it's simply the teams playing for the SO that needs to be more difficult. 20 minute OT 4 on 4, then shootout. I find this a compromise as I would personally prefer them play continuous OT like basketball and baseball until someone wins, but that would mean more tired teams, i.e. more injuries, and play would suffer. But with significantly longer OT's than 5 minutes I bet there will be FAR less shootout outcomes.

Just for experimenting's sake, regardless of where it would put the Wings, there should be little reward as possible for not ending a game in regulation. So, without reading any previous posts, I'm thinking this sounds far more logical:

OT = 20 minutes, 4 on 4. Possibly another experiment where the first whistle after the 10 min point becomes 3 on 3. Although, 20 mins of 4 on 4 should bring more than enough scoring. There would be far more emphasis on winning the game by a goal in regulation or OT than by shootout.

Regulation win = 3pts

OT win = 2 points

SO win = 1 point

Regulation loss = 0 points

OT loss = 1 point

SO loss = 0 points

So the standings would look something like: 25-5-6-12-4-2.

I dont like it, too complicated.

[Guest Shoreline]

So the standings would look something like: 25-5-6-12-4-2.

I dont like it, too complicated.

Yeah, so rather than say the record, you'd say how many points they have.

Sounds like my mini-golf scores.

[Selke13 0]

ive thought since the inception of the one point over time loss/2 point over time win that the nhl should go to a 3 point regulation win, like soccer. it puts more importance on winning in regulation, and i feel that a shootout win is not as good as a regulation win. if this is implemented, i think more teams will go for the harder towards the end of a game.

a breakdown of points:

3 for regulation win-0 for regulation loss

2 for overtime win-1 overtime loss

same for shoot out as overtime.

i would be interested to see how point totals would be at seasons end, and have more separation from great teams, than those who barely manage a shoot out win.

any thoughts?

[Selke13 0]

already mentioned i see.... did not read entire thread............

[Wombat 26]

OT = 20 minutes, 4 on 4. Possibly another experiment where the first whistle after the 10 min point becomes 3 on 3. Although, 20 mins of 4 on 4 should bring more than enough scoring. There would be far more emphasis on winning the game by a goal in regulation or OT than by shootout.

Regulation win = 3pts

OT win = 2 points

SO win = 1 point

Regulation loss = 0 points

OT loss = 1 point

SO loss = 0 points

I altered this one slightly... IMO it's strange to get a point for losing in OT while getting 1 point for a SO win and 0 for a SO loss. So the last game of the season, a team needs 1 point to make it into the playoffs. If they get to OT, then it would be best for them to lose the game on purpose to guarantee the 1 point rather than risk losing it all in the SO.

Instead, here is Regulation win = 3 points, OT win = 2 points, SO win = 1 point, any loss = 0 points:

1. SJ - 117

2. DET - 115

3. CAL - 110

4. CHI - 100

5. VAN - 90

6. NSH - 86

7. CBJ - 84

8. EDM - 84

9. ANA - 84

10. MIN - 82

11. PHX - 80

12. DAL - 77

13. STL - 71

14. LA - 71

15. COL - 66

Phoenix shoots up the standings and is only 4 points out of the playoffs (thanks to them not having many OT games). Dallas falls 7 points out of the last playoff spot instead of being tied for it.

I have to say, although I am a proponent of having each game be worth 3 points, I actually like this system too. It rewards teams for winning earlier. It does not provide any loser points. It makes the SO give a point but it is not equal to a win. This one has a lot of advantages I think in actually ferreting out which teams are the best.

The soccer system gives 3 points for a win and 1 point for a tie... therefore they have an uneven number of points per game (some 3, some 2). It really rewards winning outright. The above system would really reward winning in regulation, reward winning in OT, and only sort of reward winning a shootout. It would have a stupid 4-column record (W-L-OTW-SOW) but then you just need to put the number of points in bold.

[Zetterling 16]

Look how Edmonton, the 8th seed, went to game 7 of the Stanley cup finals in 2006 and Calgary, a lower seed went to the finals the year before. One year the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th seeds all won in the first round. This was all in the current point system. I think that throws out any concept of kiddy points and bonuses.

I guess heightening the stakes for a regulation loss would be interesting. But being in a bad division wouldn't allow an accurate depiction of things. Look at how bad the central division used to be. If you wanted to up the stakes, take away a point for a regulation loss. That would get you jacked up.

Regulation loss = -1 point

Overtime loss = 1 point

Overtime/SO/regulation win = 2 points

This would be disastrous in the current NHL though. The season is too long for this. Teams would be out of the playoff hunt earlier and have a bunch of meaningless games to play. Competition would decrease and the great teams would get bored. Teams like Nashville and Columbus have shorter learning curves with the current system and are competing at higher levels with the current system.

[Electrophile 3,554]

Yeah, I don't think teams should get rewarded for losing. Remember in preschool or kindergarten when you'd play sports or games, even the losing team got a trophy or a ribbon or some little token saying "Good job!"? You know, to make sure no one got their feelings hurt.

The NHL isn't preschool. If you lose, you lose. You get no points. To the victor go the spoils.

[Hockeytown_Ryan 122]

This is what i HATE, to be honest. The game has yet to be decided, you didn't earn anything.

after regulation.. a tie is decided...you earned a point for being as good as your opponent for 60 minutes

playing your A$$ off and being in the game.....to me thats worth one point and a win (no matter how you win) is worth the extra point....

That's how I look at it anyway. I don't understand how not liking 3 point games is combated by making each game worth 3 points!

[Dano33 41]

after regulation.. a tie is decided...you earned a point for being as good as your opponent for 60 minutes

playing your A$$ off and being in the game.....to me thats worth one point and a win (no matter how you win) is worth the extra point....

That's how I look at it anyway. I don't understand how not liking 3 point games is combated by making each game worth 3 points!

How can a tie be decided if there are no ties? I think there should be, but only after overtime (and no shootouts).