Change point structure for W-L-T

[devilsfan26]

How the motherfvck did people "enjoy" ties!? If I'm paying $50 to see a hockey game, there damn well better be a reason for me to be thrilled or a reason for me to be pissed. Honestly, even worse than a shootout loss, I hated the feeling of walking out of the building thinking "eh, we didn't lose, but we didn't win. Damn, I wish we won. But, at least we didn't lose. But.."\

Ties are emotionally confusing.

Oh, and they're fvckin' boring.

Like i said -- you want ties? Turn the damn TV off after overtime. You got yerself a tie, brah.

Because if I'm paying $50 to see a hockey game, I'm paying to see a hockey game, not a shootout. For some ties don't give closure because they want there to be a definite winner and a definite loser, but I care more about the integrity of the sport, you shouldn't be punished or rewarded for being good at something that is only a small piece of required skills for a good hockey team.

Turning off the TV only works if you never look at the standings and pretend that the playoff matchups are different.

[njdevsftw]

Games decided in regulation:

3 points for the winner, none for the loser.

Games decided in OT or SO (no change here):

2 points for the winner, one for the loser. Continue to tally regulation + OT wins, so teams that bloat their win totals via the shootout could lose a tiebreaker vs. a team that has accumulated more regulation and OT wins.

This is the obvious choice. This is also how most (at least scandinavian) European leagues work.

[njdevsftw]

you shouldn't be punished or rewarded for being good at something that is only a small piece of required skills for a good hockey team.

I don't buy this argument at all. If you're team hasn't been able to prove they are better then the opposition after 60 minutes +OT why shouldn't a skill competition decide which is the better team? Shootouts rewards good goal scorers/technically gifted players and good goalies alike, and perhaps even more importantly mental strength and composure. All important traits for hockey teams.

You could easily argue that the difference between a shot being blocked by a defender on one side of the ice, and then a similar block on the counterattack instead causing a deflection that ends up beating the goalie is MORE random then a shootout.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

I know they aren't ditching the shootout anytime soon, it's just fun to think of what your most ideal format would be. It's not like we are in a boardroom meeting with league officials, we're just exchanging ideas here for fun.

I agree this is the way to go, and maybe the 2 and 1 should only be used for shootouts with overtime wins and regulation wins counting the same (still undecided on that). A shootout win should not be as important as a real win. Basically a game that ends in a shootout is a tie so each team gets a point, and then the shootout grants one team an extra point, which is the same as it is now, except the tie plus extra point would not add up to a real win.

Interesting idea...take OT one step further and make OT the same as a regulation win (3 points to the winner, none to the loser). I'd be curious as to how coaches would play it. Teams that would need the full three points would probably be willing to take some chances in OT. In a way it represents best of old and new...back to the old days when an OT loss netted you nothing, and if you get the shootout, fine...but if you win it, you're not getting rewarded to the level you would have, had you won playing real hockey. Actually, you just sold me on this idea.

Regulation or OT win: 3 points to the winner, none to the loser

SO: 2 points to the winner, one to the loser

The above won't ever happen, but I like that there's now a clear difference between the skills competition and actual hockey, even if the extra period is only 4-on-4. At least 4-on-4 is a common enough occurance in regulation that it can't be considered gimmicky.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

This is the obvious choice. This is also how most (at least scandinavian) European leagues work.

See what I just posted...I like devilsfan26's continued tweaking. I like the skills competition win leading to the lowest reward for the winner.

[njdevsftw]

See what I just posted...I like devilsfan26's continued tweaking. I like the skills competition win leading to the lowest reward for the winner.

Personally I still think you should be rewarded 1 point for a draw after regulation. The flaw with the NHLs system now is that you just get 2 points for a win. Regulation wins, as has been pointed out here, needs to be more rewarding.

Edited May 6, 2012 by njdevsftw

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Personally I still think you should be rewarded 1 point for a draw after regulation. The flaw with the NHLs system now is that you just get 2 points for a win. Regulation wins, as has been pointed out here, needs to be more rewarding.

I think it would create a little more urgency with regards to the OT period...with OT and SO being the same in most proposed 3-2-1-0 formats, the only real advantage to winning in OT is that the OT win gets added to the win tiebreaker total, where SO wins do not. Having three points available for an OT win, but not a SO win, might give the teams more incentive to try to win before the game reaches the SO stage. Now if the game gets to a SO, the team that felt like it had a shot to win in OT feels more disappointment...they've already lost at least one point by not getting it done in OT.

[Guest BelieveinBrodeur]

Ties-No and won't

[Neb00rs]

I agree that the current system is flawed. A 3-2-1-0 system would be a better way to award points than the 2-2-1-0 system we have now. I just can't seem to care as much as I used to, since we see that the standings rarely change under different point systems.

These are my feelings exactly. Our last thread on this was a few years back and a lot of us agreed it should be a 3-2-1-0 system. But like 731 said, it doesn't bother me much anymore.

[devilsfan26]

I don't buy this argument at all. If you're team hasn't been able to prove they are better then the opposition after 60 minutes +OT why shouldn't a skill competition decide which is the better team? Shootouts rewards good goal scorers/technically gifted players and good goalies alike, and perhaps even more importantly mental strength and composure. All important traits for hockey teams.

You could easily argue that the difference between a shot being blocked by a defender on one side of the ice, and then a similar block on the counterattack instead causing a deflection that ends up beating the goalie is MORE random then a shootout.

I could spend the rest of the night listing important hockey team traits and the ones you listed would just be a small portion of them, not enough to be the sole deciding factors in a hockey game in my opinion. I don't really understand your blocked shot example. Shots get blocked in the normal course of action in hockey, it's part of the sport. A shootout is a series of artificial penalty shots.

Interesting idea...take OT one step further and make OT the same as a regulation win (3 points to the winner, none to the loser). I'd be curious as to how coaches would play it. Teams that would need the full three points would probably be willing to take some chances in OT. In a way it represents best of old and new...back to the old days when an OT loss netted you nothing, and if you get the shootout, fine...but if you win it, you're not getting rewarded to the level you would have, had you won playing real hockey. Actually, you just sold me on this idea.

Regulation or OT win: 3 points to the winner, none to the loser

SO: 2 points to the winner, one to the loser

The above won't ever happen, but I like that there's now a clear difference between the skills competition and actual hockey, even if the extra period is only 4-on-4. At least 4-on-4 is a common enough occurance in regulation that it can't be considered gimmicky.

Well I was actually unsure about where I stood on having overtime and regulation wins be on the same level, but yeah I guess you did the thinking for me and actually it is you who sold me on the idea haha.

Honestly, if you prefer a tie game to a game with some sort of winner, I don't think there's any swaying you. But c'mon, "integrity of the sport" and "small piece of required skills"? Hockey has offense, it has defense, and it has goaltending. The shootout is offense vs. goaltending. It's not like they determine the winner of games by seeing who's best in a basketball free-throw shooting contest.

I like your point system a lot, I think 3-2-1 makes the most sense. But I can't wrap my head around the fact that you think the shootouts hurt the integrity of the sport and are better than ties. Eesh.

You are oversimplifying things by saying hockey has offense, defense, and goaltending and the shootout includes two of them. Penalty shots include a very small portion of what is required for a good offense and a very small portion of what is required for good goaltending. It is an arbitrary way to decide a hockey game...why is a shootout better than taking turns on powerplays for example?

[devilsfan26]

You are overcomplicating the game by saying shooting the puck, scoring goals, and stopping the puck aren't three major aspects to the game.

I didn't say they aren't the three major aspects, how is someone going to argue against that? My point is there is much more to being a successful hockey team than penalty shots.

Edited May 7, 2012 by devilsfan26

[devilsfan26]

If your team is successful enough to win, you'll do so in 65 minutes. If the teams are so evenly matched in that specific game, a tie-breaking penalty shot contest is exciting for the players, for the fans, and allows for the true skills of each team to be showcased. I don't see how you'd rather watch a tie than see this

Honestly I don't find it exciting and shootout wins leave me feeling like they weren't good enough to win the game but were able to win a shootout, it really doesn't feel much better than a tie for me other than the fact that they still got away with 2 points. I completely disagree with it allowing true skills of each team to be showcased. It showcases the shooting or deking skills of usually 6 skaters while the other 30 sit on the bench and watch. There are no team skills used in the shootout that are essential to hockey, like passing, defense, forechecking, transitioning, cycling etc, and about 80% of the players don't even participate.

But like you said, you aren't going to convince me and I doubt I'm going to convince you either so we might as well just agree to disagree unless we're going to go back and forth forever.

[Don]

I think they should do what the NFL does and flip a coin to decide the winner.