Jump to content

A different point system


Leafs Suck

Recommended Posts

If the goofy NHL wants to keep to the shootout, I think( and many others do as well), that they should change the point system.

I one I like the best is this:

-3 points for a regulation wins

-2 points for an overtime win

-1 point for a shootout win

-0 points for losing in a shootout/overtime

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by simonus

2pts for a win

0pts for a loss

simple.

:/):/):/):/):/):/) I agree.

WTF is this OTL or OT thing that gives the Leafs so many points?

Now the Habs get a point for OT loss... Sort of like the CFL giving away a point for missed Field goals, punt singles. Should be no reward for failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An overtime win, IMO, is not as equivalent to a regulation win. And certainly a shootout win isn't equivalent to an overtime win. If the NHL wants teams to "go for it", you don't thinking getting 3 points in regulation won't make teams play for the win? Hell yah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are two different objectives one ought serve in creating a point system:

1) Conduct control

2) Ease of reading

If you believe that a reg win is better than a OT win which is better than a shootout win, then your pt system makes sense.

I personally like OT, and it is risky enough to go to OT that teams generally try to avoid it so that OT is sufficiently rare. Now if you just get rid of the OTLpt you remove the greatest problem with the current point system - teams pulling back to get the extra pt (see last 1-2 minutes of reg).

Even if one agrees with your appraisal of the relative value of wins, your point system still leaves something tobe desired in that it complicates the standings sheet. There is a value in streamlining the standings, making them easy to read and understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion, I do think that they need adjustment, but I would like to see,

3 points for a regulation or OT win

0 points for a regulation or OT loss

2 points for a shootout win

1 point for a shootout loss.

I think the total of points awarded per game should be consistent. I hate watching to other Northeast or even easter conference teams go to OT knowing that 1 extra point will be awarded regardelss of what happens. As much as I enjoy watching OT and a shootout i'd prefer not too for the sake of competition b/c of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think teams should get a point for losing in OT any more. That rule was invoked in order to encourage teams to open it up in OT and go for the win. Since the style of play league-wide is now more open than it has been in years, that rule strikes me as kind of pointless now.

BUT... I'm still not OK with shootouts. I think it's a terrible way to settle a game, and shootouts haven't been as exciting as many of their proponents made them out to be. A point for a shootout loss would suit me fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree with simonus 2 points for a win 0 for a loss

i think that in going over the new rules they missed the OTL point rule. either this or they left it in place for whiners like pat quinn!!!!! fools who dont have the team to compete in shootouts, but who happen to coach team canada.......anway the OTL point is pointless now, so get rid of it!!!!!

:ghg:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by gohabsgo252006

In my humble opinion, I do think that they need adjustment, but I would like to see,

3 points for a regulation or OT win

0 points for a regulation or OT loss

2 points for a shootout win

1 point for a shootout loss.

I think the total of points awarded per game should be consistent. I hate watching to other Northeast or even easter conference teams go to OT knowing that 1 extra point will be awarded regardelss of what happens. As much as I enjoy watching OT and a shootout i'd prefer not too for the sake of competition b/c of it.

I like the idea of a point for a shootout loss, given that it is a somewhat arbitrary end to a game. Otherwise, better to stick with 2 for a win, 0 for a loss, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The regular season soccer point system worked for soccer ... maybe could work for Hockey

3 points for win

0 for loss of any kind

and one point for a tie... (getting rid of shootouts putting the tie back into the game)

The three point system makes the team want to go for the extra 2 points that they wont get otherwise in a tie..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Leafs Suck

If the goofy NHL wants to keep to the shootout, I think( and many others do as well), that they should change the point system.

I one I like the best is this:

-3 points for a regulation wins

-2 points for an overtime win

-1 point for a shootout win

-0 points for losing in a shootout/overtime

You cannot punish a team for getting to overtime.. With that system, that's basically what you are doing. If two teams get to overtime, they LOSE the possibility to get three points? Even worse, if they win in a shootout, they basically lose two points. It doesn't matter if winning in a shootout is not the "same" as winning the game in 60 minutes, both teams still have the opportunity to win the game. Not to be a contrarion but I think the current point system is not all that bad. I don't think there should be shootouts at all and therefore think that the

2 points for a win

1 point for a tie

0 points for a loss

system should be brought back. However with the shootout and no possibility of a tie, the current point system is the most fair. Even though one more point is added to the standings because of an OT loss, what comes around basically goes around and it's not like there are any teams in the league that won't benefit from the extra point atleast once..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reason the system got all f-ed up is that the league was trying to achieve dual goals. They wanted a system that encourged teams to try to win games in regulation, but they also wanted shoot-outs ('cuz the fans like them).

They must have realized that the goals were mutually exclusive and gone for the shoot-out, because the system they went with actually discourages team from risking it when the game is tied late in the third.

I have the perfect system. If a game is tied at the end of regulation, there is a 5 minute OT, just like now, but the visiting team gets one less skater.

This will make the fans happy (at least the fans at the arena) because they are more likely to see their team win. This will encourage teams to end it before OT (at least the visiting team) so it will make the end of close games more exciting. Finally, to achieve the goal of always having a winner, if the home team fails to score on their 5 minute power play, the visiting team wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TheMaxDaddy

I think the reason the system got all f-ed up is that the league was trying to achieve dual goals. They wanted a system that encourged teams to try to win games in regulation, but they also wanted shoot-outs ('cuz the fans like them).

They must have realized that the goals were mutually exclusive and gone for the shoot-out, because the system they went with actually discourages team from risking it when the game is tied late in the third.

I have the perfect system. If a game is tied at the end of regulation, there is a 5 minute OT, just like now, but the visiting team gets one less skater.

This will make the fans happy (at least the fans at the arena) because they are more likely to see their team win. This will encourage teams to end it before OT (at least the visiting team) so it will make the end of close games more exciting. Finally, to achieve the goal of always having a winner, if the home team fails to score on their 5 minute power play, the visiting team wins.

Lol, seems to me the home team would just waste the last several minutes of the game to get to overtime and then overtime would be unfair and boring because of the advantage. You're right about one thing, if the home team wouldn't win in OT they deserve to lose with a 5 minute PP lol. Crazy idea :) lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Mont Royale

I like the idea of a point for a shootout loss, given that it is a somewhat arbitrary end to a game. Otherwise, better to stick with 2 for a win, 0 for a loss, though.

if you only give a shootout loss point, you encourage defensive teams to get defensive in OT so they can get to the shootout and lose.

Essentially the order of play shows our normative valuation of winning methods.

1)Better that a team wins in regulation

2)if not, better that they win in OT,

3)if not, I guess we settle it with a shootout.

By giving the point for part 3, you devalue part 2 and perhaps part 1 (a 2002-era Wild team would start getting ultra defensive in ties from like 5-7 minutes remaining in reg, all through the OT and take the OTLpt in shootout).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by simonus
Originally posted by Mont Royale

I like the idea of a point for a shootout loss, given that it is a somewhat arbitrary end to a game. Otherwise, better to stick with 2 for a win, 0 for a loss, though.

if you only give a shootout loss point, you encourage defensive teams to get defensive in OT so they can get to the shootout and lose.

Essentially the order of play shows our normative valuation of winning methods.

1)Better that a team wins in regulation

2)if not, better that they win in OT,

3)if not, I guess we settle it with a shootout.

By giving the point for part 3, you devalue part 2 and perhaps part 1 (a 2002-era Wild team would start getting ultra defensive in ties from like 5-7 minutes remaining in reg, all through the OT and take the OTLpt in shootout).

I understand your point. I think it's less applicable today than in 2002. What team is going play defence only for 5 minutes (while it's 4 on 4!) so they can get 1 point? That's a strategy guaranteed to lose, IMO. The key in the NHL is possession and speed. If you have the puck in the offensive zone, the other team can't score.

My only 'point' (hehe) is that after a hard fought, 65 minute battle to a tie, the parlour trick known as a shootout shouldn't cause the game to be a lost cause for one of the teams. Playing 65 minutes and being tied means, well, it's a tie, and teams that are tied get one point (pre-shootout rules).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by simonus

2pts for a win

0pts for a loss

simple.

Yup, that's the way to go. I don't know of any other major North American sport that has ties in it's record keeping.

I expect that, in a few years, the NHL will remove the tie from its record keeping.

:hlogo::ghg::hlogo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well what a valid but complicated question for we hockey geeks! My gut feeling is that every game should be worth the same number of (total) points, especially now that there are no ties.

So either:

a) the good old W=2/L=0

or

B) throw a third point into the equation -- award it for a regulation win, or give it to the losing team if the game is decided in OT/SO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there should be the same amount of points available to be won in each game. i would be happy with either of these two options:

Option One. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime or shootout win, 1 point for an overtime or shootout loss, 0 points for an overtime loss;

Option Two. 3 points for a regulation or overtime win, 2 points for a shootout win, one for a shootout loss, 0 for a regulation or overtime loss.

I prefer the second option but the point is this...there should be the same amount of points available to the teams each game. it is not right that some games award two points and some three. right now if anyone other than montreal is playing i don't care who wins as long as one or the other wins in regulation time.

i prefer having a winner every night but a shootout winner doesn't deserve the same amount of points as an outright hockey game winner. an added benefit to awarding 2 out of 3 points to the shootout winner is to recognize that it is not quite the same as outright winning the game and it will cause teams to actually go for the 3 point win.

thank you for making this thread cause i had this argument with friends a few days ago and was thinking of posting something like it myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot punish a team for getting to overtime..  

2 points for a win  

1 point for a tie

0 points for a loss

system should be brought back. However with the shootout and no possibility of a tie, the current point system is the most fair. Even though one more point is added to the standings because of an OT loss, what comes around basically goes around and it's not like there are any teams in the league that won't benefit from the extra point atleast once..

I totally disagree...teams shouldn't be rewarded for getting to OT, or for ties. To continue promoting scoring, teams should be encouraged to keep pressing at all times.

Furthermore, I don't see why ANY team EVER should be given a point for an OT loss...I can see getting a single point for a shootout loss, but if you lose in OT, you should get nothing.

On a side note: The Bruins are a perfect example of a team that keeps getting rewarded for ties...they should have 8 points, but thanks to the new system, they're only 5 out of first. Ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Originally posted by shortcat1
Originally posted by simonus

2pts for a win

0pts for a loss

simple.

Yup, that's the way to go. I don't know of any other major North American sport that has ties in it's record keeping.

I expect that, in a few years, the NHL will remove the tie from its record keeping.

:hlogo::ghg::hlogo:

The biggest league in North America, the National Football League, allows for ties. The last tie game was back in 2002. Pittsburgh and Atlanta played to a tie during that season. But given that there's four different was of scoring worth different amounts, it's less conducive to tie scores.

http://www.nfl.com/standings/2002/regular

But if everyone's so bothered by the current point-for-losing system, there's a very simple, painless, and equitable solution to the problem. It goes something like this.

0 points for a loss, a tie and a win.

The NHL is the only North American major pro sports league that doesn't base its standings on a team's winning percentage. If it developed the balls to throw out the points system altogether, then everything would be equal. Most wins, fewest losses. Doesn't matter if it takes 60 minutes, 65, 70, 65 and a shootout. A win is a win is a win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...