NHL standings points system: Toss it, keep it or change it?

The whole rationale for giving points to OT or SO losers is that they will play more aggressively since they already have a point that can't be taken away. If it is simply a win or a lose, teams obviously will stay aggressive. If you give a team three points for a regulation win, you'd have teams more aggressive in a tie game in the final minutes of regulation than they are now.

 

When it comes to a point system, all systems in my mind have a point of confusion. Why bother changing what we have gotten used to only to change to another system that will bring out confusion. a three-point system over an 82-game sched will lead to unholy point levels. If I had it my way there would be no extra point given for an overtime loss. Just go with a straight up winning percentage. A win is a win is a win, same with a loss, no matter when it comes.

 

I know that's the reasoning that those in the know give, but I have a hard time buying it. When points period are on the line, you try to win the game whenever you can. The problem when they allowed ties is that you had teams settling for ties with no aggression at all – they'd sit back and wait for the other team to make the mistake. I don't know if adding a third point for a regulation win would make teams that much more aggressive, save for the final five games of the season when it could make or break a season. But at the same time they should be going all out to win it anyways. The three points for a regulation win I think would cause the same kind of complaints that a one point for an OT loss cause now – outside of rewarding failure that is.

 

I have never agreed with the shootout. I thought a five-minute overtime period was fine, and could go for a 10-minute overtime period. I have no problem with a game ending in a tie.

 

Agree with Gold in that the shootout is a gimmick.

That said, if you're going to keep the shootout, I think the 3-2-1 system (world juniors... not capitalized, by the way) is the way to go.

You shouldn't end up with zero points for losing in a shootout. It's fun, but ultimately a sideshow. To lose what was formerly your overtime point because you were beat in a skills competition after the game was already over is asinine.

And the extra point for winning in regulation, combined with the guaranteed point for being in an overtime will prevent teams from playing keep-away in a late tie game.

Here's (yet another) suggestion. Two points for a win of any kind, one point for a shootout loss. Zero for anything else.

 

I would vote for that.

 

Hmm, let's see...
Baseball: Lose in 9 innings, it's a loss. Lose in 29 inings, it's a loss.
Basketball: losing in regulation, it's a loss. Lose in 7 overtimes, it's a loss.
Why have a shootout to avoid ties if you're not going to have a simple W-L system. Forget points. You either win the game or lose the game.
If you're going to get a point for being tied at the end of regulation, then why bother with OT and shootouts? The "losing" team still gets a point for a "tie" under the current set up. Which is stupid.

You win or you lose. That's all.

 

I added that to the poll.

 

Count me in..

 

Is there any mathematical solution you haven't added to the poll?

I think you should get the derivative of the square root of an invisible number if you win a game in the last 30 seconds.

Spnited, there are a couple reasons hockey has tie games. First, baseball is more of an anerobic game and fatigue isn't quite the same issue after 18 innings as it is after four overtimes. Second, points are easy to come by in basketball, so ties and multiple overtimes aren't common enough to warrant allowing tie games.

In hockey, you get bloody tired, goals get even harder to come by and if not for a tie you could play for a very, very long time. I'm sure players and owners would whine that the aftereffects of a particularly long OT game would put them at a huge disadvantage for their next few games.

That said, multiple overtime games in the playoffs are fantastic. It would be fun to see that kind of a game more often in the regular season, even if it means blowing my deadline. I just don't know if you'd see the same kind of effort in that situation because it's not a playoff game.

 

Ditto. But if we can't have a tie, why give points to the losing team? I agree that the shoot out is different (and stoopid) and that a point for essentially tying and then being involved in dumb contest seems fair.

 

I originally hated the shootout but since a lot of regular season games are boring as batshit, it's injected a little life into the schedule. I don't have a problem with it. Never in the playoffs, though. And I think in the IIHF, after the preliminary rounds (with the five minute OT/then shootout format),all the games should all be sudden death