Current Standings using 3-2-1

[mr figgles]

Can we complicate it even further? It should be a 4-3-2-1 system. No way a shootout win should be worth as much as an OT win.

 

[absolute garbage]

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.

Yes it would severely diminish the value of extra time, but that's the point. What are the teams going to do about it? Not play and forfeit?

I'd be fine making the gimmick point first tiebreaker. I don't think it's a big deal. Would be lot better than the system nowadays. 3-on-3 and shootouts have nothing to do with hockey.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

care to update this?

 

[Name Nameless]

Can we complicate it even further? It should be a 4-3-2-1 system. No way a shootout win should be worth as much as an OT win.

You mean 5 - 4 -3 -2 - 1 system?

5 for regulation win
4 for OT win
3 for SO win
2 for SO loss
1 for OT loss
0 for regulation loss.

People may oppose this for the backward compatibility.

But I actually think it would have been fair.

 

[swiftwin]

Not complicated, do 3-2-1, but keep the ROW tiebreaker as it is.

3pts for a regulation win
2pts for an OT/SO win (but an SO win doesn't count towards ROW)
1pt for an OT/SO loss
0pt for a regulation loss


This would be better, as there would no longer be 3pt divisional games that make it difficult for teams to climb the standings.

Also, I don't care for the points records. We just saw Tampa tie a wins record off bogus SO wins that would not have been possible in the past.

The only bad thing about this system is that players will have to adjust from saying "getting the two points" in the cliche interviews.

 

[txpd]

Of course the games would be played differently in a 3 2 1 system than the current one. So, the standings would look different. There would be more overtime. Probably significantly more overtime.

 

[swiftwin]

Of course the games would be played differently in a 3 2 1 system than the current one. So, the standings would look different. There would be more overtime. Probably significantly more overtime.

How so? Wouldn't teams want to try to end games in regulation in order to get the 3 points as opposed to a maximum 2 points in OT?

The current system encourages going to OT. There's no downside to play to not lose when the game is tied late in the 3rd, when both sides can get a free point.

 

[Gunnersaurus Rex]

I still say:
3 points for regulation win
1 pt for OT or shootout win
0 for loss of any kind.

This would greatly encourage teams to try to win in regulation and rewards those that do.

 

[Name Nameless]

How so? Wouldn't teams want to try to end games in regulation in order to get the 3 points as opposed to a maximum 2 points in OT?

The current system encourages going to OT. There's no downside to play to not lose when the game is tied late in the 3rd, when both sides can get a free point.

Yeah, both teams stops playing in the last two minutes or so in a tied game now. They just wait for regulation to end.

Can't understand how people have not noticed this. OK, there are excpetions, but it's quite noticable in many, many games.

 

[txpd]

How so? Wouldn't teams want to try to end games in regulation in order to get the 3 points as opposed to a maximum 2 points in OT?

The current system encourages going to OT. There's no downside to play to not lose when the game is tied late in the 3rd, when both sides can get a free point.

Think it thru now. When division and conference rivals play those big 4 pt swing games, they are suddenly 6 pt swing. The NHL is a don't lose first league. Coaches can control defense. Not offense. Coaches don't push the pace in tie games. The later in the season the games are the tighter they get.

Straight forward losing 2 or 3 division rival games in regulation because you went for it and failed is a quick way for a coach to get fired.

3pts for a win driving more offense in the NHL is a fantasy.

 

[txpd]

Yeah, both teams stops playing in the last two minutes or so in a tied game now. They just wait for regulation to end.

Can't understand how people have not noticed this. OK, there are excpetions, but it's quite noticable in many, many games.

And you think that making the price for losing in regulation 50% heavier is going to stop that? It will make the last 10 minutes that way. Not the last 2

 

[StreetHawk]

I still say:
3 points for regulation win
1 pt for OT or shootout win
0 for loss of any kind.

This would greatly encourage teams to try to win in regulation and rewards those that do.

If you blow a lead in the third but win in OT/SO no impact under current system. A 3 point system would ensure you can’t get the maximum points from the game if you got to extra time.

 

[swiftwin]

Think it thru now. When division and conference rivals play those big 4 pt swing games, they are suddenly 6 pt swing. The NHL is a don't lose first league. Coaches can control defense. Not offense. Coaches don't push the pace in tie games. The later in the season the games are the tighter they get.

Straight forward losing 2 or 3 division rival games in regulation because you went for it and failed is a quick way for a coach to get fired.

3pts for a win driving more offense in the NHL is a fantasy.

All games are 3 points for a win in regulation. So, a 6 point swing in a 3 point for a win system is exactly the same as a 4 point swing in a 2 point for a win system.

 

[Name Nameless]

And you think that making the price for losing in regulation 50% heavier is going to stop that? It will make the last 10 minutes that way. Not the last 2

The price will only increase when the team plays someone they believe themselves to be in direct competition with. This means, it won't even apply in all games within the division or conference even, just when they really play someone they think will cost them the last WC-spot or something.

You also have the effect of needing to get three points, which you don't have now.

 

[txpd]

All games are 3 points for a win in regulation. So, a 6 point swing in a 3 point for a win system is exactly the same as a 4 point swing in a 2 point for a win system.

Its not. Its not worth arguing about because it will never happen.

 

[Gunnersaurus Rex]

If you blow a lead in the third but win in OT/SO no impact under current system. A 3 point system would ensure you can’t get the maximum points from the game if you got to extra time.

Exactly my point. Reward teams that win the real game with a full 3 points. Win the 3on3 gimmick scrimmage or shootout skills competition, 1 point only.

 

[supsens]

Dear NHL please create a system so half your fans tune out and know their season is done after 45 games. Lol

How about 10 points for winning on tuesdays 12 if its a back to back and 15 points if you have more intangibles.

Why does everyone feel the need to 'fix' things? Do you really think Tampa being 50 points ahead or 9th place being 14 points out of a playoff spot in January makes things better from the NHL's point of veiw? Or the fans? Checks standings, 10 points back ehhh, well nhl see you next year.
Of course they want the games and standings close, so do the fans, you turn on the tv middle of the second your teams down by one or two you might see if they can come back. Down by four? Who's going to watch that crap?

 

[DrMartinVanNostrand]

Exactly my point. Reward teams that win the real game with a full 3 points. Win the 3on3 gimmick scrimmage or shootout skills competition, 1 point only.

Still would prefer honestly to just write off games as ties rather than go to the shootout, but, judging from your avatar, you're a soccer fan (as am I) so we're probably ok with that. Unfortunately, a lot of North Americans feel so strongly against ties that we'll never go back to that.