67 replies to this topic

[Satans Hockey]

Sadly, probably not. If you do that, then there's no point for an OT loss (like I've said, all of the scenarios have to have three points available...you can't have a potential 4-points-to-be-divied up scenario). I'm guessing under a 3-point OT win rule, teams would play to get at least something out of it (1 point), so I think teams would play conservatively for most of the season. You probably wouldn't see much chance-taking until the last 10 games of the season or so, when teams who might need 3 points or so would have to take chances.

From the old ruleset, there is at least more weight to an OT win than a SO win, in that the OT win gets counted towards the tiebreaker win total. That would continue in a 3-2-1-0 format. SO wins should be the least rewarding of the wins.

Id give 0 points for a regulation loss, 1 point for an ot/so loss and 3 points for a win/ot win and just 2 points for a shootout win.

It probably won't happen but who knows.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Id give 0 points for a regulation loss, 1 point for an ot/so loss and 3 points for a win/ot win and just 2 points for a shootout win.

It probably won't happen but who knows.

 

And there's the problem with your concept.  The idea of a better system is that each game has a total of 3 points available, regardless of scenario.  For one thing, it keeps things simple.  No scenario is weighted more heavily than any other (which is the problem with the current system).  The system in place needs to better reward a team for winning in regulation.  Right now a win is a win is a win, in that it leads to two points no matter what (though shootout wins don't factor into tiebreakers).   

 

Regulation:  Winner = 3 points, Loser = 0 points   3 + 0 = 3

Overtime:    Winner = 2 points, Loser = 1 point     2 + 1 = 3

Shootout:    Winner = 2 points, Loser = 1 point     2 + 1 = 3

 

Right now you have four points available in an Overtime situation (3 for the winner, one for the loser)....3 + 1 = 4   This also isn't good for the end of games...if two teams tied in regulation know they can possibly get a third point in OT, with the loser guaranteed a charity point, what's the point of trying to go for three points in regulation, even if you really need that third point? 

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976, 19 February 2013 - 12:45 PM.

[Satans Hockey]

And there's the problem with your concept.  The idea of a better system is that each game has a total of 3 points available, regardless of scenario.  For one thing, it keeps things simple.  No scenario is weighted more heavily than any other (which is the problem with the current system).  The system in place needs to better reward a team for winning in regulation.  Right now a win is a win is a win, in that it leads to two points no matter what (though shootout wins don't factor into tiebreakers).   

 

Regulation:  Winner = 3 points, Loser = 0 points   3 + 0 = 3

Overtime:    Winner = 2 points, Loser = 1 point     2 + 1 = 3

Shootout:    Winner = 2 points, Loser = 1 point     2 + 1 = 3

 

Right now you have four points available in an Overtime situation (3 for the winner, one for the loser)....3 + 1 = 4   This also isn't good for the end of games...if two teams tied in regulation know they can possibly get a third point in OT, with the loser guaranteed a charity point, what's the point of trying to go for three points in regulation, even if you really need that third point? 

 

I see what you're saying, it does makes more sense that way.

[AEWHistory]

I don't even know anymore haha you had asked something about 4 and 4 and I tried to answer it but my point of view is that I don't even care lol
I like 4 on 4 and the shootout is meh. I'm in the I don't care camp cause they aren't gonna change it.

No worries my man. I think I'm not even sure what I've asked any longer.

As for the meat of the issue, I'd say I 'accept' the 4 on 4 as a useful tool to get closer to old tyme hockey ("you know, like Toe Blake!"... Isn't that the line?). As you've pointed out, the 4-4 is part of the game as it occurs, albeit irregularly, as a means of dealing with penalties. So I think a way of giving OT more speed and room for offensive play is simply to remove a player. Let's call it penalizing each team for not having won the game. Heh, heh, heh....

Otoh, for me the shootout is a bastard child of that whore Bettman. It was fathered by the collective ownership of the NHL in a mass orgy of money lust, Bettman bore the spawn of that unholy back room union, and here we are with the devil-child I call 'the shoot out'.

Yea, you might say I'm lukewarm on the shootout....

[AEWHistory]

I actually prefer a 3-1-0 system.

3 pts for a win.
1 pt for a tie.
0 pts for a loss.

Making it to overtime doesn't net you anything. Overtime is merely a short continuation of the game. It isnt like making it to overtime gets both teams to the next round, right? This FORCES teams to decide if they will play for 1/3 of a victory or the whole thing knowing that ties will not get you into the playoffs. They might help you keep pace if you're already winning, but you can't make a successful strategy of them. Maybe I'm overlooking something, but for me this is problem solved. OT will be fairly exciting most of the time, ties ould be cut down, shootouts would go to the dustbin, and so on. What am I missing?

As a side note, the system could be augmented with 4 on 4, longer/shorter OT, etc. Whatever is done, I think this point structure incentivizes winning enough to allow the league to have ties that would be fun to watch.

In comparison to CR76's system I think this provides more incentive to win. I rarely ever disagree with you CR76, but I have to admit that I think the system you've got would only slightly mitigate the old problems. For me, there is no reason each game has to be weighted the exact same as point value. In fact, I'm almost sure some soccer leagues do just what I am proposing, so I don't think idea is original. If it is and the NHL adopts my proposal then Mr. Bettman can kindly send my checks to..... yea, right, who am I kidding. I'd probably get a coupon for $.25 off soda or some such thing. Anyway, that's my $.02 folks.

3 points for a regulation win
2 points for an OT or SO win
1 point for an OT or SO loss
0 points for a regulation loss

This is a perfect system, because EVERY game is weighted the same, with each having the same number of points up for grabs (3). The fact that there are currently 2-point and 3-point games shows that the system is simply flawed. If anything, the good thing about the 3-2-1-0 system is that teams that really need 3-point wins to have any shot of getting to the playoffs will really be in "go-for-it" mode. The regulation win needs to mean more than an OT or SO win, and the winning team needs more of a reward for earning one than they currently receive. When it comes to OT and SO games, if you want to div-ee up 3 points with the winner getting two and the loser getting a charity point, fine. But it's like I said, as long as regular season games aren't technically weighted the same, that's a problem.

Edited by AEWHistory, 22 February 2013 - 03:09 AM.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

I actually prefer a 3-1-0 system.

3 pts for a win.
1 pt for a tie.
0 pts for a loss.

Making it to overtime doesn't net you anything. Overtime is merely a short continuation of the game. It isnt like making it to overtime gets both teams to the next round, right? This FORCES teams to decide if they will play for 1/3 of a victory or the whole thing knowing that ties will not get you into the playoffs. They might help you keep pace if you're already winning, but you can't make a successful strategy of them. Maybe I'm overlooking something, but for me this is problem solved. OT will be fairly exciting most of the time, ties ould be cut down, shootouts would go to the dustbin, and so on. What am I missing?

As a side note, the system could be augmented with 4 on 4, longer/shorter OT, etc. Whatever is done, I think this point structure incentivizes winning enough to allow the league to have ties that would be fun to watch.

In comparison to CR76's system I think this provides more incentive to win. I rarely ever disagree with you CR76, but I have to admit that I think the system you've got would only slightly mitigate the old problems. For me, there is no reason each game has to be weighted the exact same as point value. In fact, I'm almost sure some soccer leagues do just what I am proposing, so I don't think idea is original. If it is and the NHL adopts my proposal then Mr. Bettman can kindly send my checks to..... yea, right, who am I kidding. I'd probably get a coupon for $.25 off soda or some such thing. Anyway, that's my $.02 folks.


 

 

Hear what you're saying here, and it makes sense, but I'm trying to think more along the NHL's way of thinking.  I hate shootouts and had no problem with ties, but I don't think we're ever going back to some form of the old system.  I think shootouts are here to stay and ties are gone forever.  So my proposal is more based on how to improve the existing system, as I don't think they will ever change it.   

 

We'll never know, but it would be interesting to see if having a win be worth three points, regardless of how it is earned under your proposal, would be enough for teams to take more chances come the end of a game or OT, instead of each team trying to take home a guaranteed point by playing not to make a mistake. 

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

I hate it but that ship has sailed long ago...it's not going anywhere. Now we just need to make sure they never introduce it into the playoffs.

[njbuff]

I think they should do away with this 1 point for a non-regulation loss crap.

 

They should do away with the shootout.

 

What they should do to make it really exciting is to go to one 3 minute overtime period 4 on 4. If the two teams remain scoreless, they go to a 3 minute 3 on 3 overtime. And if it remains scoreless after that, it just goes as a tie.

 

With a 3 on 3 overtime, it would be very exciting and very little chance of the game ending in a tie.

 

A 3 on 3 overtime is a lot more exciting than a shootout.

 

It will never happen, but just a thought.