35 replies to this topic

[Doohickie]

I'm tired of every third game being a 3-point game due to overtime.  Enough of that siht.

What's the solution?

I propose reinstituting the tie.  Every game is worth two points and only two points.  You tie?  Each team gets a point.  Period.




What say you?

Edited by Doohickie, 19 March 2013 - 10:56 PM.

[carpandean]

Might as well throw out the usual suggestion:

3 points - regulation win
2 points - OT/SO win
1 point - OT/SO loss
0 points - regulation loss

Every game is worth the same (3 points), but there is still some of the extra excitement from the OT/SO.

[Hawerchuk]

I think it should change to: Losing in 4 on 4 OT you get nothing. If you survive to the shootout you get 1 for loss, 2 for win. 2pts for Reg win as usual.
Just my 2cents here.

[Doohickie]

I mean, I like the idea of the OT/shootout.  It's just that so many games end up with loser points, you can almost just skip ahead to OT and not bother with the rest of the game.

[skaught]

3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, like soccer.

[Eleven]

Doohickie, on 19 March 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

I'm tired of every third game being a 3-point game due to overtime.  Enough of that siht.

What's the solution?

I propose reinstituting the tie.  Every game is worth two points and only two points.  You tie?  Each team gets a point.  Period.




What say you?

Fine with this, but...

skaught, on 20 March 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, like soccer.

This is even better.

[shrader]

Continuous overtime

[LGR4GM]

Doohickie, on 19 March 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

I'm tired of every third game being a 3-point game due to overtime.  Enough of that siht.

What's the solution?

I propose reinstituting the tie.  Every game is worth two points and only two points.  You tie?  Each team gets a point.  Period.




What say you?

carpandean, on 19 March 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

Might as well throw out the usual suggestion:

3 points - regulation win
2 points - OT/SO win
1 point - OT/SO loss
0 points - regulation loss

Every game is worth the same (3 points), but there is still some of the extra excitement from the OT/SO.

I hate the loser point and the easiest way to get rid of it and make teams fight hard to avoid a shootout is
2pts - Win/OT
1pts - So
0pts for losing

I dont know why everyone is so hot on the 3pt system but I like devaluing the shootout because it is basically a skills competition... it would be like MLB deciding games by a home run derby.

[SwampD]

Doohickie, on 19 March 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

I'm tired of every third game being a 3-point game due to overtime.  Enough of that siht.

What's the solution?

I propose reinstituting the tie.  Every game is worth two points and only two points.  You tie?  Each team gets a point.  Period.




What say you?

I don't really mind the system as it is now. I'm guessing that I would mind it even less if we just won more in regulation. I actually liked the old system, though. Some of those ties felt like wins (and loses).

carpandean, on 19 March 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

Might as well throw out the usual suggestion:

3 points - regulation win
2 points - OT/SO win
1 point - OT/SO loss
0 points - regulation loss

Every game is worth the same (3 points), but there is still some of the extra excitement from the OT/SO.

skaught, on 20 March 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, like soccer.

I don't think these will ever happen. The Sabres this year by all rights should be out of the playoffs, but for the loser point. 3 point wins will have teams eliminated by January. The league needs as many teams as possible to at least have the appearance of being in the playoff hunt as late in the season as they can.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

skaught, on 20 March 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, like soccer.

I like it.  I like it a lot.

Eliminate the OT nonsense.

[Eleven]

SwampD, on 20 March 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

I don't really mind the system as it is now. I'm guessing that I would mind it even less if we just won more in regulation. I actually liked the old system, though. Some of those ties felt like wins (and loses).


I don't think these will ever happen. The Sabres this year by all rights should be out of the playoffs, but for the loser point. 3 point wins will have teams eliminated by January. The league needs as many teams as possible to at least have the appearance of being in the playoff hunt as late in the season as they can.

You make a fair point; part of the reason that it works in soccer is that the relegation battles at the bottom of the table are as exciting as the title race.  Actually, often, more exciting.

[d4rksabre]

Haven't we crunched the numbers and determined that changing the value of the points system produced negligible change in results?

Edited by d4rksabre, 20 March 2013 - 09:18 AM.

[Spndnchz]

I thought this thread was about Raffi Torres.  My bad.

[Robviously]

carpandean, on 19 March 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

Might as well throw out the usual suggestion:

3 points - regulation win
2 points - OT/SO win
1 point - OT/SO loss
0 points - regulation loss

Every game is worth the same (3 points), but there is still some of the extra excitement from the OT/SO.

This is the solution.  Incredibly simple and intuitive, and could lead to a lot of new in-game strategies for teams that are both behind and ahead in the standings.

Of course the NHL will never do it.  They're still trying to figure out if head injuries are bad.

[weave]

Spndnchz, on 20 March 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

I thought this thread was about Raffi Torres.  My bad.

I thought it was about Pat Kaleta.

[sabills]

My proposal:

No loser point. 2 points for regulation win. 1 point for OT/SO win.

[TrueBluePhD]

d4rksabre, on 20 March 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

Haven't we crunched the numbers and determined that changing the value of the points system produced negligible change in results?

Yes, I believe this has been done.  It's an argument over semantics because people hate the loser point and/or shootouts determining things.

[Potato]

I think the NHL likes the current system because it keeps teams bunched up in the standings.  So more games are meaningful for more team longer into the season.

I never had a problem with ties and don't particularly need to see a skills competition at the end of games.  The soccer system makes sense to me since there is a big reward for playing to win at the end of games instead of packing it in defensively.

They could give 3 points for a regulation win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a regulation loss...  then keep the overtime period and offer 1 point for an OT loss (same as a tie) and 2 points for an OT win.  Since an OT loss = a tie (1 point), both teams should be incentivized to take chances and open it up in the OT to try to capture the extra point.

[carpandean]

d4rksabre, on 20 March 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

Haven't we crunched the numbers and determined that changing the value of the points system produced negligible change in results?

That's not possible to determine since teams' in-game decisions are directly influenced by the scoring system in place.  Right now, especially when playing a team that you are less concerned about (e.g., cross-conference or against a team at the top or bottom, not in the battle to make it), there is no incentive to take a risk in regulation, because a win is worth two points in either regulation or OT/SO.  In fact, there is incentive to play for OT/SO, because it is weakly dominant (no difference if you win, better if you lose.)

With, for example, the 3-point system that I mentioned, neither strategy is dominant (unless you factor in risk aversion.)  The winner gets more in regulation than OT/SO, while the loser gets less.  Even if the teams aren't on the same level, while the weaker team might still play for OT/SO, the stronger team would now push harder to win in regulation.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

TrueBluePhD, on 20 March 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Yes, I believe this has been done.  It's an argument over semantics because people hate the loser point and/or shootouts determining things.

I don't think it can be proven. A change in the point structure might change the last 5 minutes of regulation in a lot of games.

Edit: Carp beat me to it....and used a lot more words!!

Edited by LastPommerFan, 20 March 2013 - 01:13 PM.

[Robviously]

carpandean, on 20 March 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

That's not possible to determine since teams' in-game decisions are directly influenced by the scoring system in place.  Right now, especially when playing a team that you are less concerned about (e.g., cross-conference or against a team at the top or bottom, not in the battle to make it), there is no incentive to take a risk in regulation, because a win is worth two points in either regulation or OT/SO.  In fact, there is incentive to play for OT/SO, because it is weakly dominant (no difference if you win, better if you lose.)

With, for example, the 3-point system that I mentioned, neither strategy is dominant (unless you factor in risk aversion.)  The winner gets more in regulation than OT/SO, while the loser gets less.  Even if the teams aren't on the same level, while the weaker team might still play for OT/SO, the stronger team would now push harder to win in regulation.

+1

[carpandean]

COSabre, on 20 March 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

They could give 3 points for a regulation win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a regulation loss...  then keep the overtime period and offer 1 point for an OT loss (same as a tie) and 2 points for an OT win.  Since an OT loss = a tie (1 point), both teams should be incentivized to take chances and open it up in the OT to try to capture the extra point.

That's the basic 3/2/1/0 point system described above.

[TrueBluePhD]

LastPommerFan, on 20 March 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

I don't think it can be proven. A change in the point structure might change the last 5 minutes of regulation in a lot of games.

Edit: Carp beat me to it....and used a lot more words!!

And he did a hell of a job at it! I still like shootouts though. I don't care if people think they're a gimmicky skills competition; I find them highly entertaining, and at the end of the day, I watch sports to be entertained.

[Robviously]

TrueBluePhD, on 20 March 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

And he did a hell of a job at it! I still like shootouts though. I don't care if people think they're a gimmicky skills competition; I find them highly entertaining, and at the end of the day, I watch sports to be entertained.

Keep the shootouts but make the 4 on 4 overtime ten minutes.  A sudden death goal is still the most exciting end to a game (unless it's f-ing Darius Kasparitis ending our GD playoff run in Game 7 of Round 2 in 2001 -- then it's bullcrap.  Thanks, Eleven.)

[Potato]

carpandean, on 20 March 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

That's the basic 3/2/1/0 point system described above.

Ah, yes.  I didn't read the whole thread.  If we arrived at the system independently then it has even more merit.  

[sabregoats]

I think the shoot out should become part of the tiebreaker criteria.  Point system should be simplified. I would like to see a 3-2-1 system but different than proposed above. The system would be as follows: 3 for winning regulation; 2 for winning in OT with 0 to loser; 1 for winning in SO again with 0 to loser. Then make shoot out losses as the first tie breaker.  No rewards for "ties" and both teams are going to want to end things before the next stage of the game.

[carpandean]

COSabre, on 20 March 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

If we arrived at the system independently then it has even more merit.  

Good call.

[X. Benedict]

They should only use the gimmick to see if the home crowd gets free burritos.

or use my free idea....

10 min. overtime, sudden death, no goaltender, half-sized nets.

[Robviously]

X. Benedict, on 20 March 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

They should only use the gimmick to see if the home crowd gets free burritos.

or use my free idea....

10 min. overtime, sudden death, no goaltender, half-sized nets.

with hockey pucks the size of laptops.

[X. Benedict]

Robviously, on 20 March 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

with hockey pucks the size of laptops.

that's a good idea........or howzabout a frozen rainbow trout for a puck.
That would be something. I'd watch that.

[SDS]

X. Benedict, on 20 March 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

that's a good idea........or howzabout a frozen rainbow trout for a puck.
That would be something. I'd watch that.

Paging PETA...

[pkwwjd]

How about 2 points for regulation win, 0 points for loss ... If it goes to OT or SO, each get one point regardless ... The only benefit to the winner is if it is needed to break a tie in the standings.

[Tondas]

Hawerchuk, on 19 March 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

I think it should change to: Losing in 4 on 4 OT you get nothing. If you survive to the shootout you get 1 for loss, 2 for win. 2pts for Reg win as usual.
Just my 2cents here.

I like this idea except with a 10 minutte 4 on 4 OT.

[Meathead]

agreed. i hate seeing teams playing for the tie

ive been campaigning for the three point system for a decade. i really like the idea of teams desperate for points to let it all hang out near the end of the game, especially when they are playing a team ahead of them in the standings

LGR4GM, on 20 March 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

2pts - Win/OT
1pts - So
0pts for losing

i assume you mean zero points for the loser in any situation

this is an interesting possibility that effectively is similar to the 3 point system except its more punitive to the loser in tie games after regulation. i think it solves the main problem of teams playing for ties so if they went with that id be ok with it

[rickshaw]

Folks, the NHL loves the "sometimes" 3 point game because it falsely makes the standings very tight and gives the perception that more teams have a shot at the playoffs.
If they do the right thing and give 3 for reg win, 2 for ot win and 1 for ot/so loss, zero for reg loss, the standings will look like the English Premier League (soccer) and have 3 or 4 teams at the top and everyone else way behind.  The NHL won't do the 3 teams are relegated route and teams that start poorly and are buried lose fans interest.

The current way lets the league tout the "parody" jargon and makes everyone who's not blind, think the league is amazing.
Personally if you are gonna give points it should be 3 reg win, 2 ot win, 1 ot loss, 0 reg loss or go the NBA/MLB route.

Sadly we are dealing with the NHL. The league that doesn't allow a hair in the crease goal all year long, until the deciding goal in the Stanley Cup Finals. The league that doesn't realize that 2 mins for hooking shouldn't equal 2 minutes for elbowing someone in the face. The same league that has 3 lockouts in less than 20 years.

Edited by rickshaw, 21 March 2013 - 12:06 AM.

[skaught]

TrueBluePhD, on 20 March 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

I still like shootouts though. I don't care if people think they're a gimmicky skills competition; I find them highly entertaining, and at the end of the day, I watch sports to be entertained.

Me too, I enjoy watching Vanek lazily skate towards the goalie and put him to sleep just before ripping a shot past him.