TigerDan 20 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 I've thought about this a lot and after tonight's games, I really need to get this off my chest: the three point disadvantage (or advantage) really needs to be addressed. I've heard a lot about ways to reduce the number of shoot outs, but to me the biggest problem with the shoot out is that three points are awarded in the game. I understand that the NHL doesn't want to go back to the boring 5 minute, no shot OTs where both teams get one point with a tie. My question is this: why don't they make all games worth three points like they do in international hockey? For anyone worried about historical point records, those were obsolete the minute they introduced the three point game. It used to take 80 to 84 points to make the playoffs and only 2-3 teams each year had 100+ points. Now, 98 points could miss the playoffs and 10-12 teams will finish with at least 100 points. Make every game worth 3 points and the anxiety over shootouts, ROWs, etc. will go away. 1 Izzy24 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themcityblues 249 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 I don't get it? 3 points... how are they divvied from W, L, OTL? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hack & Whack Rule! 160 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 But why? So that it can go back to 80-84 points to reach the playoffs? So there can be a wider gap between the winning and losing teams overall? I couldn't really care less, either way, to be honest. The entire league plays by the same system, so it isn't giving any team an advantage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteLightning91 105 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 My rebuttal to this qualm is pretty basic. As most of us are aware, if you get rid of 3 point games, less teams stay in the hunt for the playoffs as the season wears on. This leads to teams, and more importantly fans, realizing their season is over. Less fan interest in the last 20-30 games of the season results in less tickets being bought, therefore, less overall revenue for teams is generated. When less revenue is generated, owners ***** and moan that they are unable to afford buying another beach house for their mistresses to stay at. Guess what we get at that junction. Yup, more lockouts. A vote against the 3 point system is a vote for future lockouts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DickieDunn 2,571 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 3 for reg win, 2 for ot win, 1 for ot loss. Better is win or lose period. 2 MrazekFanBoy and TigerDan reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiteLightning91 105 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 3 for reg win, 2 for ot win, 1 for ot loss. Better is win or lose period. A nice compromise. Although, the cynic is me believes if the owners were interested in this compromise, it would've happened already. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) There are no 3 point games, period. Winner = 2 points, loser either 1 or 0. Losing in OT is just like a draw in soccer. Edited April 8, 2015 by frankgrimes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DickieDunn 2,571 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 There are no 3 point games, period. Winner = 2 points, loser either 1 or 0. When the winner gets 2 and loser gets one, three points get awarded instead of two. Three point game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 When the winner gets 2 and loser gets one, three points get awarded instead of two. Three point game. well we are arguing over semantics here but: the max a team can get is 2 points. So if peopl e are looking at the game as a whole (from both sides) then I agree, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,794 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 2 points for a win in either regulation or OT. No points for OT loss. No shootouts. 5 on 5 OT. I've been saying this for years and refuse to go back on it. I like the pre-1999 system, ties and all. 4 haroldsnepsts, F.Michael, chaps80 and 1 other reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VM1138 1,921 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 There's really no point in awarding a loser point. I get that they are afraid of ties, but if they eliminate the loser point suddenly coasting and potentially losing doesn't look so good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 I like the points the way they are today. The parity in the league is incredible and I love the play of the teams on the bubble down the stretch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 My rebuttal to this qualm is pretty basic. As most of us are aware, if you get rid of 3 point games, less teams stay in the hunt for the playoffs as the season wears on. This leads to teams, and more importantly fans, realizing their season is over. Less fan interest in the last 20-30 games of the season results in less tickets being bought, therefore, less overall revenue for teams is generated. When less revenue is generated, owners ***** and moan that they are unable to afford buying another beach house for their mistresses to stay at. Guess what we get at that junction. Yup, more lockouts. A vote against the 3 point system is a vote for future lockouts. I'm not sure I agree with the lockout conclusion but absolutely agree with your points about keeping teams in the playoff race. Owners likely love the loser point because it creates false parity, which does all the things you mention. So I don't think they're at all interested in changing it to a system that makes more sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TigerDan 20 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) Dickie was able to summarize my position. In international competition, a regulation win is worth 3, an OT or shoot out win is worth 2 and an OT or shoot out loss is worth 1. And there is a benefit to teams playing three point games with the current system. We saw it last night. The Wings won in regulation, but were only able to gain one collective point on two teams that played each other, who both happen to be chasing them for a playoff spot. So, either way, the Wings should have gained two points. That could be via both Ottawa and Pittsburgh earning one each or Ottawa gaining two while Pitt gets 0. However, since I don't think going back to the boring auto-ties is a good option, I say go for the three point system for all games. In this example, the Wings would have gained the full amount of points a win should normally bring: they would have gotten 3 for the regulation win, Ottawa would have gotten two and Pitt one. Hence, we would gain one on Ottawa and two on Pitt for a three point total gain earned by winning in regulation. Over the course of the season, this would be a benefit to true hockey. The teams that win more in regulation get an advantage, while teams that win a lot of shoot out games are disadvantaged, as that is not a real example of the game of hockey. For those that say this would create more separation and fewer close races, I disagree. There were plenty of close playoff races in the past and there still would be. Based on the games this year, I believe the race we have now would still be in similar shape between the current teams. In the west, I think LA might be ahead of Winnipeg, and the race might actually be closer (it's about over now). I do think Detroit might have a point or two more separation than they currently have, but this current situation is not the reason for my beliefs. I have had these thoughts since they started the shoot outs. Having some games worth two points and others worth three is not a good system, as all games are not created equal and they should be. They should have all games worth two points or all games worth three. My vote is for three. IMO, this would also alleviate some of the current concern in the NHL regarding shoot outs. Edited April 8, 2015 by TigerDan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,794 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 It's not a bad proposal the more I think of it. I too like history, but the current system has jacked around with history already. This 3 point system might be the next best proposal from the pre-1999 system I've advocated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kliq 3,755 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 If I had a vote, I would say ditch the shootout and have 1 OT that is 20min (or maybe try 10 first). Sure you would get some ties, but if they had a 20min OT, MANY games would end. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,794 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 If I had a vote, I would say ditch the shootout and have 1 OT that is 20min (or maybe try 10 first). Sure you would get some ties, but if they had a 20min OT, MANY games would end. Would be a nightmare for injuries and wear and tear. Pretty sure the players wouldn't want to play that many minutes extra during the season. If they do this, they'd need to shorten the season to 70 games (which owners would never allow because they'd lose revenue). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 I like the idea of making every game 3 points. If a Regulation win gets you the full 3 then there's more motivation to get get it done before OT. When it's tied late in a game, you can see some teams play it safe to get it to OT so that they get at least 1 point. With 3 points, both teams would be pressing more and it might cut down on OT/shootout games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftWinger 4,963 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 There was honestly nothing wrong with the old system.... 2 points for a win Reg/OT, 1 point each for a tie, 0 points for loss Reg/OT. Switch to the 7 minute 4 on 4, then 3 on 3 format in OT, eliminate the SO, eliminate the loser point. Like mentioned above, it used to mean something to get 100 points and teams that could do it for 4 or 5 years in a row were truly the elite teams. 90-95 points was great, 80-90 was flirting with missing the playoffs. Right now in to old format, the Rangers would lead the league with 100 points...Detroit would have 80. Here would be your 1-8 standings in the East, with one team still vying to make it in: Rangers - 100 Tampa - 94 Montreal - 90 Islanders - 84 Washington - 83 Detroit - 80 Penguins - 80 (Detroit won season series 2-1) Boston - 78 Ottawa - 76 If you wanted to sort by current playoff format then: Atlantic Tampa Montreal Detroit Metro Rangers Islanders Washington Wildcard Pitt Boston Looking for last spot Ottawa ...I prefer the old point system. 100 points means something and after the season only the Rangers would have over 100. Give back the prestige of getting 100 points, end the loser point. A team can go 0-82-0 with all SO or OT losses and still have 82 points, that is absurd. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedWingsRox 614 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 3 for reg win, 2 for ot win, 1 for ot loss. Better is win or lose period. I don't see how this system will motivate teams to try any harder than they do now. Seriously. I've seen websites where they actually award points using this 3 point system on this season's records and the rankings come out about the same with maybe #8 and #7 switched around ... so I don't think this will make one iota of difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kipwinger 8,527 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 Close playoff races are exciting. Am I missing something? Do you think any of us would give a s*** about game 75-79 of an 82 game season if it weren't close? Everyone ******* about parity, but it's way more exciting. Kinda like how close games that go down to the wire are more fun than blowouts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WingsallTheway 383 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 My rebuttal to this qualm is pretty basic. As most of us are aware, if you get rid of 3 point games, less teams stay in the hunt for the playoffs as the season wears on. This leads to teams, and more importantly fans, realizing their season is over. Less fan interest in the last 20-30 games of the season results in less tickets being bought, therefore, less overall revenue for teams is generated. When less revenue is generated, owners ***** and moan that they are unable to afford buying another beach house for their mistresses to stay at. Guess what we get at that junction. Yup, more lockouts. A vote against the 3 point system is a vote for future lockouts. Good insight, actually Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted April 8, 2015 Would be a nightmare for injuries and wear and tear. Pretty sure the players wouldn't want to play that many minutes extra during the season. If they do this, they'd need to shorten the season to 70 games (which owners would never allow because they'd lose revenue). Funny you guys should bring this up. Nate Silver actually just took a look at this approach: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-radical-proposal-to-destroy-the-nhls-loser-point/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted April 9, 2015 Close playoff races are exciting. Am I missing something? Do you think any of us would give a s*** about game 75-79 of an 82 game season if it weren't close? Everyone ******* about parity, but it's way more exciting. Kinda like how close games that go down to the wire are more fun than blowouts. Because it encourages teams to play for OT in the third period. So the tradeoff for the excitement of an artificially close playoff race at the end of the season is to have less exciting third periods throughout the season. Also, it's seems contrary to competitive sport that teams get a point for losing. And that a league hands out points in the standings before a game is even finished. 1 krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chaps80 1,591 Report post Posted April 9, 2015 A team can go 0-82-0 with all SO or OT losses and still have 82 points, that is absurd. Haha Never thought of it like that. Not that it would ever happen, but it is true nonetheless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites