Current Standings using 3-2-1
- Thread starter gtforepro
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play.
This would be an improvement. But, I agree, the league wants falsely created parity because they believe it helps moves tickets at the end of the year. It's a joke, but it is what it is. While I love watching NHL level hockey, the league is arguably the biggest joke in the crap it does to get attendance compared to MLB, NFL, and NBA, although Baseball may be getting there.
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,727
One disclaimer that always needs to get thrown out whenever this is done [and it's done every year]: Those point totals assume that everyone plays games the same way in a "whatever point system is different from today" format. Some games - especially 1-goal games - might not play out like that.
That said, the table illustrates pretty much what's been true in past years. Standings wouldn't change materially, you'd just have larger gaps between teams in the standings.
That said, the table illustrates pretty much what's been true in past years. Standings wouldn't change materially, you'd just have larger gaps between teams in the standings.
Materially no. But if still like to see either the echl or ahl adopt this point system to see how it impacts coaching decisions.
As for separation it also has to consider that you can gain 3 points in 1 night. And more importantly there would be the same number of point awarded each season.
ellja3
Registered User
This x 100000. Also, I would support this system just to stop current crap where some games hand out 2 points, and some - 3.
DistantThunderRep
Registered User
- Mar 8, 2018
- 20,387
- 17,460
Would you mind also doing one with the current divisional and old card format? Would be interesting to see also. Thanks!
AvsFan29
Registered User
- Mar 15, 2018
- 17,869
- 16,052
Honestly, It's like the team completely forgets how to play hockey in OT. MacKinnons speed? Never uses it.
Most teams score on their first shot against us.
We've lost while being on a 4v3 PP.
Teams know that they just have to play for the tie, and then absolutely embarrass us in the OT.
We have 1 win, and it was on the PP, with like 2 seconds left.
We have been in 1 shootout, and we lost that, too.
It makes no sense, and our coach has no idea what to do, and basically admits it.
If we were .500 in OT, we would be playing for the 3rd spot in the West, but instead, we're likely to miss the playoffs.
KingsFan7824
Registered User
So nothing really changes, other than on paper? The artificial parity is simply replaced with an artificial gap? People make a big deal about it, why?
At the start of every season, all teams can currently get no more than 164 possible points. Even with the random 3 point games. Which, over the course of a full season, it all tends to cancel out. Unless you're really good, or really bad, in OT or the SO. However, if your season comes down to OT/SO results, you haven't done enough in the larger 60 minute sample size of regulation, and you only have yourself to blame as a team if you miss the playoffs. Can't blame the point system, which is equal for everyone. Nobody can get more than 164 points.
I’m talking total points awarded for all 31 teams, not the max any one team can earn. I believe it’s 1260 games a season. Times 2 it would be 2520 points. So if you added all the points for last season it’s what like 2780 or whatever. Different every year since they instituted it. If you made it all 3 points you end up with 3780 total points awarded for the league each season.
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,727
Agreed. The only tweak I would add is that I would like to see that system incentive winning in regulation over winning in OT, and winning in OT over winning in the shootout.
See my point above. I don't have a problem with games being worthy different numbers of points based on their respective outcomes. I get why it bothers some, and I respect that, but speaking for myself I don't have a problem with it
SotasicA
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2014
- 8,489
- 6,405
The REAL standings are the 60 minute standings. 2pts for a win, 0pts for a loss, 1pt each for a tie game. Ignore the extra gimmick point.
Can you give us these real standings? Standings that show us how good each team is at playing hockey.
Can you give us these real standings? Standings that show us how good each team is at playing hockey.
pabst blue ribbon
🇺🇦🤝🇵🇱
To Make The Playoffs, Hockey Teams Play Not To Win
Ths current point system does impact the way coaches approach the game
Ths current point system does impact the way coaches approach the game
They are playing to not lose, that's different then not trying to win. No team would pass up a chance for 2 points and holding their opponent to 0 points, but they will take less chances.
That said, I fully support 3-2-1.
Would be nice if this chart had one additional column for standing movement (ie +/- how many spots under this system)
Nashville moved from 8th to 6th in the NHL, but still in the same spot in the WC. They wouldn't gain anything in playoff position!
Gobben
Registered User
- Jan 22, 2019
- 188
- 121
Because of the below article. With the current system, teams play to make it to overtime, because they will get 1.5 points per game in the long run, compared to only 1 if there is a decision in normal playtime. So it is not about converting a table into one with a different point system, but about how coaches and teams approach the games.
What a surprise...
JianYang
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 19,413
- 18,654
I was one of those guys that liked the idea of 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for a OT win, 1pt for a shootout win, and zero points for any type of loss.
The idea was to reward to teams for winning games while playing actual hockey and making them worth less the more you got into the gimmicks.
I liked this idea when we still had 4 on 4 ot. But the 3 on 3 is way too gimmicky to be awarding 2 points for it as it feels almost on par as the shootout itself.
The idea was to reward to teams for winning games while playing actual hockey and making them worth less the more you got into the gimmicks.
I liked this idea when we still had 4 on 4 ot. But the 3 on 3 is way too gimmicky to be awarding 2 points for it as it feels almost on par as the shootout itself.
Kane One
Registered User
KingsFan7824
Registered User
As of this morning, and based on points%...
| TB | 34 | 11 | 13 | +23 |
| CAL | 29 | 16 | 12 | +13 |
| TOR | 30 | 18 | 9 | +12 |
| SJ | 28 | 17 | 13 | +11 |
| NYI | 26 | 17 | 14 | +9 |
| WPG | 28 | 19 | 11 | +9 |
| BOS | 26 | 17 | 15 | +9 |
| NAS | 28 | 21 | 11 | +7 |
| MTL | 25 | 19 | 13 | +6 |
| WAS | 25 | 19 | 14 | +6 |
| PIT | 25 | 20 | 12 | +5 |
| CLB | 25 | 21 | 10 | +4 |
| CAR | 26 | 22 | 10 | +4 |
| STL | 25 | 22 | 9 | +3 |
| DAL | 24 | 23 | 10 | +1 |
| VEG | 25 | 24 | 10 | +1 |
| MIN | 24 | 25 | 9 | -1 |
| COL | 22 | 23 | 12 | -1 |
| PHI | 21 | 24 | 12 | -3 |
| BUF | 18 | 22 | 17 | -4 |
| NYR | 18 | 24 | 15 | -6 |
| VAN | 18 | 26 | 15 | -8 |
| ARI | 19 | 27 | 11 | -8 |
| CHI | 16 | 25 | 17 | -9 |
| FLA | 15 | 24 | 17 | -9 |
| NJ | 18 | 28 | 12 | -10 |
| ANA | 15 | 27 | 16 | -12 |
| EDM | 16 | 28 | 13 | -12 |
| LA | 16 | 28 | 13 | -12 |
| DET | 14 | 28 | 16 | -14 |
| OTT | 17 | 31 | 9 | -14 |
How long has it been since teams didn't try to play conservatively? At the very least, they want players to control the puck, not just wing around up and down the ice. If they're on the pond, who cares. There are millions of dollars at stake though, for coaches, players, and teams. If you make it a 3-2-1-0 system, my guess would be that we'll see even more teams playing for OT. Why wouldn't we?
Want to get crazy? Before the season, the league randomly chooses X number of games per team to be worth 3 points if they win in regulation, but the teams/coaches don't know which games they are.
Gaylord Q Tinkledink
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2018
- 33,108
- 36,373
3 point system would make games much more entertaining especially late in the season when teams need to make up ground
DrMartinVanNostrand
Kramerica Industries
When I was playing NHL 2004 several years ago, I played a season of Swedish hockey and, momentarily, was confused when I saw what the standings were spitting out at me. I wasn't aware of a 3-2-1-0 system at the time, but once I became aware of it, it became my personal favorite.
I had a brief chat here about a week ago discussing some other alternative regarding a points system, one that doesn't reward losing in any way whatsoever, and I can go with that one as well, but the biggest benefit of a 3-2-1-0 points sytem is that every game has equal points value which, in turn, means that every season will see the same amount of points handed out as the one before it and the one that follows it. We've all been in that situation before with our team, scoreboard watching a game with two teams we're in contention with, and hoping that, whoever wins, that the game just doesn't go to overtime. We've also been annoyed many times when, predictably, that's exactly what happens. There's no reason for that. If the game goes to overtime, fine. Overtime (and shootouts), as it is in it's modern form, only vaguely looks like professional hockey anyway these days. You should be penalized for having to go to the extra session to win a hockey game.
It's just nonsense that some games are worth two points and some are worth three. And it's even more nonsensical that we've had this problem for, jeez, about 20 years now I think, and the problems with it were glaringly apparent on day one, and nothing has been done to fix it. I understand part of what makes the NHL the NHL is fixing the things that aren't broken (hello, offside challenges) while leaving the broken things undisturbed. Doesn't mean I have to enjoy that they're like that, though.
I had a brief chat here about a week ago discussing some other alternative regarding a points system, one that doesn't reward losing in any way whatsoever, and I can go with that one as well, but the biggest benefit of a 3-2-1-0 points sytem is that every game has equal points value which, in turn, means that every season will see the same amount of points handed out as the one before it and the one that follows it. We've all been in that situation before with our team, scoreboard watching a game with two teams we're in contention with, and hoping that, whoever wins, that the game just doesn't go to overtime. We've also been annoyed many times when, predictably, that's exactly what happens. There's no reason for that. If the game goes to overtime, fine. Overtime (and shootouts), as it is in it's modern form, only vaguely looks like professional hockey anyway these days. You should be penalized for having to go to the extra session to win a hockey game.
It's just nonsense that some games are worth two points and some are worth three. And it's even more nonsensical that we've had this problem for, jeez, about 20 years now I think, and the problems with it were glaringly apparent on day one, and nothing has been done to fix it. I understand part of what makes the NHL the NHL is fixing the things that aren't broken (hello, offside challenges) while leaving the broken things undisturbed. Doesn't mean I have to enjoy that they're like that, though.
Gobben
Registered User
- Jan 22, 2019
- 188
- 121
Because the incentive would not be there. In such a situation there is no point in going to overtime, for you will get your 1.5 points per game whatever you do. It is not a very difficult concept to understand.
Point systems can change the way coaches and teams approach games? That is what the article is trying to prove.
If we had a system with 4 points for a winner in regular time, 1 in overtime and none for losses. It would create different match situations. And probably one that would create more goals in regular time.
