Current Standings using 3-2-1

[A1LeafNation]

So Leafs are the second best team in the league and they are 1-1 against Tampa this year.

Awesome.

 

[MikeyMike01]

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.

Sort by ROW on NHL.com

 

[Auston Marlander]

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.

Real standings are what the NHL says they are, not what you want them to be.

 

[My Special Purpose]

What's wrong with wins/losses, like every other sport in North America? You either win or you lose. How and when you win or lose is irrelevant. That will create *really* close standings. If you want to count a SO win as less than a full win, just keep track of them and use them in tiebreakers. But I don't see any reason for *any* points system. Wins and losses. It's good enough for baseball, basketball and football (with the odd exception), it's good enough for us.

 

[ES]

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.

And this must be considered for whatever point standings change.

 

[ijuka]

3-2-1 makes so much more sense it's ridiculous how NHL still uses 2-1. One point appearing out of nowhere makes no sense, whereas there always being 3 points to allocate is perfectly logical. OT wins would be less valuable than regulation wins. Right now both are worth the same but OT losses are worth more than regulation wins, which also makes zero sense. Additionally, teams would be able to better gauge where they stand and would know what to do at trade deadline better.

NHL is so bush league in so many ways it's pretty absurd.

 

[supsens]

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.

Or less goals because you wouldn’t want to make mistakes and give your rival 4 points

 

[General Fanager]

I liked the older way, 2 points for a win and too bad if you lost in OT.

No more of this play for the point and then hope for the best in OT

 

[ijuka]

I liked the older way, 2 points for a win and too bad if you lost in OT.

No more of this play for the point and then hope for the best in OT

That too.

The most important thing wrong with the current system is that it's really stupid that an OTW is worth the same as a regulation win but an OTL is worth more than a regulation loss. That needs to be fixed desperately. There are many viable solutions but it shouldn't stay like this.

2-0 with 0 points to both for a draw after OT might be a fun one too. At least there would be no loser points. Not like "ties" exist in playoffs so why would the inability to win be rewarded? Still, the 3 point system has the upside of valuing regulation wins more than OTWs, which still is IMO quite accurate because winning "more clearly" could be worth more in the regular season.

 

[txpd]

I always bring this up. The NHL is a don't lose first league. You play defense first. If you make a regulation win worth 3 points, its not going to push teams to try and win in regulation. It will have the opposite effect. Teams will pull back and play for the tie. Those divisional and conference 4 pt games become 6 pts. You will get more of what you don't want this way.

Example teams have not figured out how to score more 3 on 3 ot goals. Coaches have figured out how to defend them better instead.

 

[Machinehead]

Wonder what they would look like with wins and losses

 

[SotasicA]

Sort by ROW on NHL.com

It counts 3-on-3 OT win as a W...

 

[Mark Stones Spleen]

Ah **** we're still last.

 

[SotasicA]

If the NHL insists on using gimmick OT's and shootouts, then points won via both those ways should be worth significantly less than regulation wins.

20pts for a regulation win.
11pts for OT/shootout win (tie w/gimmick pt)
10pts for OT/shootout loss (tie)
0pts for a regulation loss

That way those extra points would essentially only act as tie-breakers in the standings.

 

[A Real Barn Burner]

The problem with 3-2-1 is teams will still play for overtime with 10 or 5 minutes left in the third. Unless they absolutely need the extra point towards the end of the year; they will take a 50-50 chance they will get the bounce and push games to OT/SO to get two points and be glad to get one if they lose.

I think a better system would be a double down system in which no extra point was awarded for overtime and no shootout. If teams end overtime tied the 2 point for that game get rolled over to next game between the clubs. So next game would be worth 4 points.

If it is the last game of the season between two clubs go sudden death until there’s a winner. With 3vs3 can’t see that taking that long when 60 to 70 percent of regular season games end in OT.

Would be interesting some day if an 4, 6, 8, or 10 point game was played in late March early April between division opponents. Would be great for ratings the networks would love it even if an east-west game in December went to double OT and messed up primetime.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

(My sense of symmetry/OCD is on full alarm at the constant switching between city name, nickname, and three letter acronym up there...)

 

[Anglesmith]

What's wrong with wins/losses, like every other sport in North America? You either win or you lose. How and when you win or lose is irrelevant. That will create *really* close standings. If you want to count a SO win as less than a full win, just keep track of them and use them in tiebreakers. But I don't see any reason for *any* points system. Wins and losses. It's good enough for baseball, basketball and football (with the odd exception), it's good enough for us.

Basketball and baseball have their CBAs done up so they can play the actual game ad nauseam until someone wins. Football does not, and lo and behold, they are the other league with a different point structure.

Hockey used to have a simple system, but then decided that fans would rather see no ties. Playing real hockey until someone wins is not something that will ever be in the CBA for the regular season, so we have gimmicks instead.

Looking back historically, a point has always been awarded for being tied at the end of regular 5-on-5 hockey. What has changed and now sets hockey apart is moving on to a tiebreaker gimmick for one extra point.

 

[absolute garbage]

If the NHL insists on using gimmick OT's and shootouts, then points won via both those ways should be worth significantly less than regulation wins.

I think your system was overly complicated but I agree with the idea.

There's no need to go 3-2-1.

What should happen is that instead of the ROW column, there would be a "gimmick point" column. It would not be counted towards team's total points in the standings, it would only be a tiebreaker.

So whenever a game goes past 60 minutes, it is treated as a tie and both teams get 1 point in the standings. Then whoever wins the following circus (OT or shootout) gets 1 point in the "gimmick" column, and that column will be the first tiebreaker (well second tiebreaker after points%, but first when everyone has played 82 games). So no more 3 standings point games, only 2 points + that gimmick point.

 

[gtforepro]

Thanks for the replies. I thought about it a bit more watching Leafs/Blues last night. I'd either like 3-2-1 or 2-0 with no shootout, just keep playing 3 on 3 until you get a winner. Keeping everyone bunched up with some games counting for 3 points is stupid.

 

[CanadianPensFan1]

I wonder what the Art Ross race would look like if goals were 7 points, like a touchdown.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Still 2nd place. Wooo

Edit: Missed Tampa at the top with them being grey instead of white background.

 

[AaronDellForPrez]

I think they should implement a scoring system like the Continental Basketball League's 7 point system (it would be a 6 point system for hockey)

• the "7 Point System". During each game, seven points are awarded—three for winning the game, and one point for each quarter in which a team outscored their opponent. Team standings were determined by the number of points, rather than win-loss percentage.

So, 3 pts for win + 1 pt for each period you outscore the opponent except OT

So you could get anywhere from 0 to 6 points

If you lose the game, you could still get 0-2 points.

 

[StreetHawk]

I think your system was overly complicated but I agree with the idea.

There's no need to go 3-2-1.

What should happen is that instead of the ROW column, there would be a "gimmick point" column. It would not be counted towards team's total points in the standings, it would only be a tiebreaker.

So whenever a game goes past 60 minutes, it is treated as a tie and both teams get 1 point in the standings. Then whoever wins the following circus (OT or shootout) gets 1 point in the "gimmick" column, and that column will be the first tiebreaker (well second tiebreaker after points%, but first when everyone has played 82 games). So no more 3 standings point games, only 2 points + that gimmick point.

That would work, as it keeps the total points awarded each season the same year to year.

But i don’t know if that would make teams care about extra time. First tie breaker would be wins in regulation vs “ties”. So, this extra effort would be for the second tie breaker. Unless you’re going to make this the first tie breaker over regulation wins.

 

[Seanaconda]

I always bring this up. The NHL is a don't lose first league. You play defense first. If you make a regulation win worth 3 points, its not going to push teams to try and win in regulation. It will have the opposite effect. Teams will pull back and play for the tie. Those divisional and conference 4 pt games become 6 pts. You will get more of what you don't want this way.

Example teams have not figured out how to score more 3 on 3 ot goals. Coaches have figured out how to defend them better instead.

Meh idk as soon as the league expanded and you couldn't just have teams of just all stars it became a defense first league.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Why do people always complicate it? Just use winning percentage.