Hockey Fan Forums banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This point will be arguing the following statement:

"The NHL should adopt the three point system for regulation wins, simular to soccer."

THe Affirmative: hockeyboy_14

The Negitive: nhldave

For further understanding as to what is happening here please refer to the following threads

Opening Guidelines

Debate Forum

The discussion thread will be opened after the first post.

We have one week starting today for opening statements.

Enjoy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,423 Posts
Three…two…one and out!

In the supposed interest of making games more entertaining some fans and media types among others, want to introduce a European football (soccer to all CFL and NFL purists) points system to hockey. More European stuff in hockey that ought to make Don Cherry choke! These fans and others continue their search of the Holy Hockey Grail that more goals means better and more entertaining hockey. To help get more goals they want the NHL to introduce the 3 points for a win system. Not content with that thought they want to go a step or two further and award 3 points for a win in regulation, nothing for a loss in regulation, 2 for a win and a single point for a loss in OT/Shootout.

I wonder if there is not an inherent contradiction in guaranteeing both teams’ points if they extend a game into OT/Shootout while saying three points for a win in regulation and nothing for a regulation loss will help ensure less OT and shootouts.

And why now would you want to introduce this system which is designed to produce more regulation time wins when OT and shootouts have become so popular with the fans. Is this not actually detracting from the very entertainment the proponents of this system say the fans want and the game needs and that this system will help to provide?

Leaving aside for the moment the odd idea of introducing something to reduce popular aspects of the game we need to ask just how will this produce more exciting and entertaining hockey? In a typical game today when the score is tied nearing the end of regulation the teams tend to hunker down, produce super trap hockey and try to make sure they get at least one point out of the contest. Or when one team is ahead by a goal or more it goes into trap mode and the other team is forced to open up. So how will that change just because there are three points available. I’m reminded of the adage “a bird in hand is worth two in the bush”. Would it make any sense at all for a team, ahead by a goal or two late in the game to risk a sure two points by opening up and going for three? That approach could just as easily result in an OT loss worth one point. The same could be said for two teams tied near the end of regulation and assured of at least one point if they get to OT. But if they open up to chase that 3 point game and lose they get nothing.

The only time when this system might make some sense is at the end of the season when teams are desperate to make the playoffs and a few three point wins could do it for them. But really, do we want a system that helps inferior teams get into the playoffs?

So why do some of the games front line people reject this concept out of hand? At the General Managers meeting in Feb 2007 in Naples Florida the concept was discussed and rejected after at first being favorably considered and under consideration since Feb 2004.

Here’s what some attending had to say:

"Because it's a terrible idea," Anaheim general manager Brian Burke said Wednesday as three days of GM meetings wrapped up. "That's why it didn't have any support."
"They tried this in British soccer and everything I've heard is that it didn't make a difference," Burke argued. "Teams would get ahead and then would shut it down.
"I think our system is pretty darn good," he added. "I think our game is good, I think our points system is good, our fans are just finally learning to understand it. And now we're going to change it? It's just dumb for me, it's just dumb."
Said Burke: "We made some radical changes when we came back from the work stoppage. The game is faster, the game is better, and the game is more entertaining. If something ain't broke, there's no reason to try and fix it."

"I was actually a proponent of the 3-2-1 points system a few years ago," said Detroit Red Wings GM Ken Holland.




"But since then we've seen these great races and I think it's working just fine the way it is now. Our fans like it."

Colin Campbell, the NHL's director of hockey operations, says the game needs a breather from the constant change.
"It's time to establish continuity, you can't keep making changes," he said. "Let's not confuse the fans."

"I think we've had too much change of late," said New Jersey Devils GM Lou Lamoriello. "It's a good game, let's enjoy it,"
Source: Canadian Press 2/21/2007

In the interests of more entertainment for the fans the NHL introduced first 4 on 4 OT and then the shootout. In a study published in the Canadian Journal of Economics that looked at NHL games played five years before and after the introduction of OT demonstrated that the NHL did indeed achieve its goal of getting more games into OT. In fact about 25% of these games went to OT while reducing the goal spread between teams after the second and third periods. So they not only got more games into OT but produced closer and presumably more intense and exciting games. With the introduction of the shootout the NHL went a step further eliminating the tie and again raising the excitement level.

So now why would the NHL want to go to a system that potentially takes away a significant amount of this new found excitement? How do they explain to a fan that the NHL now wants to change course and give an extra point for shorter, potentially less exciting games?

Even if you were to argue the opposite, that the current system virtually guarantees that teams would go into super defensive modes toward the end of games so as to ensure they could get at least a point in the OT (and indeed many games have had this happen) there is nothing in a 3 point system that still rewards failure, to change the approach teams will take to the end of games, especially ones that are tied. The solution to this problem is not by increasing the number of points for a win but eliminating points for failure. If teams that were tied knew that 0 points awaited them for a loss in OT then they would have a powerful incentive to win in regulation time which is what proponents of this system are trying to achieve.

When you want to introduce a new system if it can’t be as entertaining for the fans then at least you would want it to have some sort of practical effect on the playoff races and overall standings. After all home advantage in the playoffs usually gives one team an edge, not to mention a few million more in revenue. It would be important to teams out of the playoffs at least hoping to gain a high draft pick.

Looking at the eastern conference standings to Jan 6 and adjusting them to the 3-2-1 system will not make anybody happy. There is virtually no change of substance in the standings. The same teams would be in the playoffs if they were to start now and the bottom teams see very little movement. Tampa Bay is still last and Ottawa is still first.
I worked out the points and standings for the eastern division based on the 3-2-1 points system and as I said above the changes are negligible. As you're aware charts don't translate at all to these posts so if you want the full chart PM me and I'll send it along.
European soccer introduced the 3 points for a win in regulation and 1 for a tie but not two for a win in OT in the early 90’s after England had starting using it about 10 years earlier. Their motivation was to increase scoring as we all know soccer is notorious for low scoring.

“The bald fact of the matter is that the Premiership has become the lowest-scoring league in Europe……but if goals are the currency of the game then statistics suggest England has gone into recession.”
Source: Where have all the goals gone? Paul Wilson Sunday December 3, 2006 The Observer


There is a large body of evidence throughout European soccer to show scoring has slowly declined since the introduction of the 3 points for a win system. The debate in Europe has some familiar themes. They blame their version of the trap and some are now calling for bigger nets! Imagine that, bigger nets in soccer, amazing.

One has to ask just what is the goal of having three points for a win? If it is to generate more scoring it has failed to achieve that in its biggest test over 15 years in European soccer.

If it is to create a more interesting playoff race current NHL standings utterly fail to demonstrate that would happen.

If it is to help settle more games in regulation time then why did the NHL go to all the trouble to introduce and promote OT and especially the shoot out? More wins in regulation would reduce that part of the game that has proven to be so popular. How is that a gain for the game, especially in southern markets?

In the past few years we have seen major changes in rink design, equipment sizes, rule application, the whole CBA agreement, the introduction of the salary cap, scheduling and the introduction of the 4 on 4 OT and then the shootout. Despite all these changes the league has experienced record attendance, parity and with that close and exciting playoff races.


But enough is enough, as New Jersey Devils GM Lou Lamoriello, one of the most respected men in hockey (just ask Mad Devil), says, "I think we've had too much change of late, it's a good game, let's enjoy it,"
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Mar 08
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
The NHL should without a doubt adopt the 3 point system, that has not only made international hockey interesting but "The Worlds Game" more interesting. Instead of rehashing that point, I’m going to display a quick little math problem/situation on the 3 point system, that being three points being allocated to winners of NHL games in regulation (and 2 points to winners in overtime or a shootout and 1 point to the loser of the overtime or shootout game).

However before my main point, I must make evident the reason why I stand for the 3 point system. Basically, the East is jockeying for position with a slight race. To correctly display how difficult it is to make up points in this system, I have followed Toronto's progress ( go figure), who had won 5 straight. Before their streak began, Toronto sat 2 points out of the playoffs (they were tied with the Rangers for 9th, but the Rangers had a game in hand). They won 5 straight games and when the streak ended they still sat in 9th, trailing by a point. Five straight wins and only 1 point made up in the standings.

The Leafs have now fallen, to 13th in the East. Consider this, based on what I just told you ( 1 point made up in 5 wins), the Leafs sit 4 pts back of Philly (Philly also has two games at hand), for the Leafs to make a considerable run into the playoffs, they would have to win 20 games (ATLEAST) within the 39 that remain, to even be in contention.. That is without any team ahead of them, making any progress. In essence what this means, is that teams who are only 4 pts out, at the half way point, should be sellers rather than buyers.

What kind of parity is that?

Now if the League were to adopt the 3 pt system

Hypothetically, if the Leafs win 3 out of 6 games (2 regulation wins, 1 win coming in overtime and losing 3 in regulation) their point percentage under the 3 point system would be as follows.

(2 Regulation wins * 3 points) + (1 overtime win*2 points) = 8 points

Total points (6 games*3points) =18.

Point % =8/18 = 0.444

Now say the Senators win 2 out of 6 games but win both of their games in a shootout and lose 3 of their games in overtime (and lose their last game in regulation time) it would work like this:

(2 wins *2 points)+ (3 OT loss*1 point) = 7 points

Point %= 7/18 = 0.389

Toronto would have won more games, have more points and a better point percentage than Ottawa. Here lies, what I feel, is the flaw in the current NHL system. In the current NHL system with (both teams performing the same as stated above), the Leafs would have obtained 6 points in those 6 games (3 wins) and the Senators would have obtained 7 points (2 wins and 3 overtime losses).
What is the goal, to win a game or to lose as late as possible? Under the current system, losing as late as possible is the way to go. The 2 points for a win and 1 for an overtime loss is ridiculous. It rewards mediocrity.

The math speaks for itself. Its not debatable.

Now as for higher scoring...

Will the 3 point system create more goals? Maybe
Will the 3 point system create less goals? Maybe
Will the 3 point system still have shootouts? Yes
Will the 3 point system decrease the number of shootouts? Probably
Will the 3 point system be FAIR? Without a reasonable doubt!

Historically, leagues that have introduced the 3 point system have actually increased goals.
http://www.soccerstats.com/index.asp


If we look at the English Premiership, the goals have decreased however The Premier League is the most lucrative football league in the world, with total club revenues of over £1.4 billion in 2005–06 season according to Deloitte, 40% above its nearest competitor. For the past few seasons, the Premier League's gross revenue (£1.4bn) has been the fourth highest for any sports league worldwide, behind the annual revenues of the three most popular North American major sports leagues (the National Football League, Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association), but ahead of the National Hockey League.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League

What this proves, is the goals does not hinder potential viewers nor does the 3 point system. The NHL wants more viewers. With the 3 point system help attract more viewers? Probably not. Will the current 2 point system help attract more viewers? Hasn't so far. Therefore that point made by is redundant. TV rankings (or more potential fans) have nothing to do with the system (that we have in place now or the 3 point system), people could care less how the point system is, if they're not watching the game in the first place.


So I will leave you with this, the 3 point system mathematically proves to be more accurate in demonstrating the better teams. The current system makes illusions of things being closer, the truth is, it isnt' even close at all. Teams who make the playoffs and teams who don’t, may come down to the wire, but it also leaves lesser teams out of the picture from halfway on towards the end. If the NHL wants to be fair, 3 point system has to be the action they take.

cheers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,423 Posts
The proponent of the 3-2-1 system makes the following statement:

“What is the goal, to win a game or to lose as late as possible? Under the current system, losing as late as possible is the way to go. The 2 points for a win and 1 for an overtime loss is ridiculous. It rewards mediocrity.”

I then have to ask what is so different then about the 3-2-1 system. It also rewards mediocrity. Both systems award points for failure. Why bother changing one flawed system for another?

The counter then would be “but the 3-2-1 system offers an extra point for success and that would have meaningful consequences in the standings and ultimately the playoffs. After all, as the proponent says;

“The math speaks for itself. It’s not debatable.”

This whole argument is based on developing a fictional six game scenario between two teams. It tries to show that the 3-2-1 system would have a significant impact, one that would make teams really go all out for that extra point. But the argument is fatally flawed for two fundamental reasons. The statistical sample is far too small to be of real value and it is based on fiction. The sample is essentially manipulated so as to prove a point. The only thing that is non debatable here is that this math is of no value in establishing the argument in favor of the 3-2-1 system.

A far more valuable sample would be one drawn form actual games played in a sufficient quantity as to be meaningful.

To that end I have calculated the eastern conference standings to Jan 6, in effect half a season, using both the current system and the 3-2-1 system to see what effect the 3-2-1 system would actually have. The simple answer is that a 3-2-1 system has virtually no impact.

Eastern Conference Standings at Jan 6

…………………..2-1…………..3-2-1
Team…GP…Pts…Win%....Pts…Win%
Ottawa*.41…58…..70.7…82…..66.6
NJDevils*.41..49…..59.7…68…..55.2
Carolina*44…46…..52.3…65…..49.2
Pitts……41…48…..58.5…64…..52.0
Montreal.41…48…..58.5…64…..52.0
Boston…41….46….56.1…65….52.8
Rangers..42….45…..54.8…59…..46.8
Flyers….39….44…..56.4…63…..53.8
NYI….40…...44…..55.0…59….49.1
Buffalo.39….41…....52.5….56…..47.8
Atlanta.42….41…...48.8….52…..41.2
Florida.42….41….48.8…..56…..44.4
Toronto.42....40….47.6….53…..42.0
Wash…42....39….46.4….53…..42.0
Tampa..42….35….41.6…48…..38.0
*Division Leader

The important points to observe here are the following:

· No teams lose or gain a playoff spot as a result of using the 3-2-1 system
· Team winning or points percentage actually declines in every single case
· The point spread between teams is virtually unchanged

In this case the math really is not debatable.


Further undermining the argument for the 3-2-1 system is the following statement:

“Will the 3 point system create more goals? Maybe
Will the 3 point system create less goals? Maybe
Will the 3 point system still have shootouts? Yes
Will the 3 point system decrease the number of shootouts? Probably
Will the 3 point system be FAIR? Without a reasonable doubt!”



We have seen how the 3-2-1 system will not affect standings and thus provide no incentive for teams to risk losing extra time points by opening up for that regulation time win. Now we have the statements above that cast all sorts of doubt on the value of the 3-2-1 system in regard to the number of goals we can expect to be scored in a game. Will more goals be scored, we don’t know. Will fewer goals be scored, we don’t know. Will there still be shootouts, yes but “probably” fewer.

How do you go from all that doubt and indecision to concluding that this system, whose effects on the game are unknown will be fair, “without a reasonable doubt” That is one big contradiction!

And finally this comment from the proponent for the 3-2-1 system:

“The NHL wants more viewers. Will the 3 point system help attract more viewers? Probably not”

Considering all that I’ve said before I can only ask why on earth would the NHL be interested in going to a system that would “probably not” attract more viewers?
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Mar 08
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
"And why now would you want to introduce this system which is designed to produce more regulation time wins when OT and shootouts have become so popular with the fans. Is this not actually detracting from the very entertainment the proponents of this system say the fans want and the game needs and that this system will help to provide?"
The shootout would still remain in the game, and it would be more of a special treat than common thing. The shootout was exciting in the beginning because it was new, now it has lost its appeal due to the fact that its so commonly done.

"
“The bald fact of the matter is that the Premiership has become the lowest-scoring league in Europe……but if goals are the currency of the game then statistics suggest England has gone into recession.”
Source: Where have all the goals gone? Paul Wilson Sunday December 3, 2006 The Observer
There is a large body of evidence throughout European soccer to show scoring has slowly declined since the introduction of the 3 points for a win system. The debate in Europe has some familiar themes. They blame their version of the trap and some are now calling for bigger nets! Imagine that, bigger nets in soccer, amazing."
http://www.soccerstats.com/index.asp

hmmm
England Soccer (EPL) is the highest of the big three ( England, Italy and Spain) and is dead in the middle when adding the German Bundesliga and French Ligue 1. Facts wrong, I figure...
"If it is to create a more interesting playoff race current NHL standings utterly fail to demonstrate that would happen."
Under the 3-2-1 format, the NHL would actually be closer ( for the middle teams) as mentioned in my post. Teams wouldnt be out by the All-Star break. Which in turn would create more viewers. For example, once a team like TB is out of the playoff race, do you think people in Florida are going to tune in for meaningless games? No.


"In the past few years we have seen major changes in rink design, equipment sizes, rule application, the whole CBA agreement, the introduction of the salary cap, scheduling and the introduction of the 4 on 4 OT and then the shootout. Despite all these changes the league has experienced record attendance, parity and with that close and exciting playoff races. "
Montreal last season had more wins than the Leafs and Islanders. Yet they finished behind both in the standings and failed to make the playoffs. Case and point, had the 3-2-1 system been in place, MTL would have made the playoffs last season instead of NYI. Thus the NHL rewards teams for losing later in a game than actually winning the game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,423 Posts
And now the conclusion……Perhaps the most telling argument against the 3-2-1 system is the total lack of interest in this debate among Hockeyforum members. If it was an issue of importance, interest, conflict or relevance I am sure we would have heard from our membership. Instead, nothing, not a peep. That tells me this idea is stillborn.

But it is not just a lack of interest in the idea on the forum that argues against the idea. The NHL is clearly not interested, the NHLPA is not interested, hockey commentators, with only a very few exceptions, have yet to run with this idea and I see no interest on the part of the fans to introduce this concept. In short if hardly anyone is interested maybe that suggests that the idea is just no good.

Even setting aside the lack of interest there is absolutely no statistical evidence to show that 3-2-1 would make any difference. The only attempt at proving the value of 3-2-1 was based on what if, not what is. And besides, the number of games sampled was far too small to be of value in reaching a conclusion.

3-2-1 makes no difference in who’s going to the playoffs and who’s not. In my example of the first half results of the eastern conference the only effect of significance was that if the payoffs were to start at the end of my sample period (first half of season) then one team would gain home field advantage in the first round. No teams in the playoffs would be out, none out would be in.

Even my opponent acknowledges that 3-2-1 would not likely increase viewer ship, result in more goals and less or more shootouts. Why bother introducing such a non effect system.

I see no reason for my conclusion to ramble on restating the obvious. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
no interest because it's too complicated

I believe it would be much easier to continue to award 2 points for a game win, whether in regular or 5 minute 4on4 overtime and if not settled by that point the shootout would occur for 1 point only. So your stats columns would read only Wins - Shootout wins - losses. And teams would still be fighting hard for the 2 points during overtime. Simple, simple simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
The NHL should without a doubt adopt the 3 point system, that has not only made international hockey interesting but "The Worlds Game" more interesting. Instead of rehashing that point, I’m going to display a quick little math problem/situation on the 3 point system, that being three points being allocated to winners of NHL games in regulation (and 2 points to winners in overtime or a shootout and 1 point to the loser of the overtime or shootout game).

However before my main point, I must make evident the reason why I stand for the 3 point system. Basically, the East is jockeying for position with a slight race. To correctly display how difficult it is to make up points in this system, I have followed Toronto's progress ( go figure), who had won 5 straight. Before their streak began, Toronto sat 2 points out of the playoffs (they were tied with the Rangers for 9th, but the Rangers had a game in hand). They won 5 straight games and when the streak ended they still sat in 9th, trailing by a point. Five straight wins and only 1 point made up in the standings.

The Leafs have now fallen, to 13th in the East. Consider this, based on what I just told you ( 1 point made up in 5 wins), the Leafs sit 4 pts back of Philly (Philly also has two games at hand), for the Leafs to make a considerable run into the playoffs, they would have to win 20 games (ATLEAST) within the 39 that remain, to even be in contention.. That is without any team ahead of them, making any progress. In essence what this means, is that teams who are only 4 pts out, at the half way point, should be sellers rather than buyers.

What kind of parity is that?

Now if the League were to adopt the 3 pt system

Hypothetically, if the Leafs win 3 out of 6 games (2 regulation wins, 1 win coming in overtime and losing 3 in regulation) their point percentage under the 3 point system would be as follows.

(2 Regulation wins * 3 points) + (1 overtime win*2 points) = 8 points

Total points (6 games*3points) =18.

Point % =8/18 = 0.444

Now say the Senators win 2 out of 6 games but win both of their games in a shootout and lose 3 of their games in overtime (and lose their last game in regulation time) it would work like this:

(2 wins *2 points)+ (3 OT loss*1 point) = 7 points

Point %= 7/18 = 0.389

Toronto would have won more games, have more points and a better point percentage than Ottawa. Here lies, what I feel, is the flaw in the current NHL system. In the current NHL system with (both teams performing the same as stated above), the Leafs would have obtained 6 points in those 6 games (3 wins) and the Senators would have obtained 7 points (2 wins and 3 overtime losses).
What is the goal, to win a game or to lose as late as possible? Under the current system, losing as late as possible is the way to go. The 2 points for a win and 1 for an overtime loss is ridiculous. It rewards mediocrity.

The math speaks for itself. Its not debatable.

Now as for higher scoring...

Will the 3 point system create more goals? Maybe
Will the 3 point system create less goals? Maybe
Will the 3 point system still have shootouts? Yes
Will the 3 point system decrease the number of shootouts? Probably
Will the 3 point system be FAIR? Without a reasonable doubt!

Historically, leagues that have introduced the 3 point system have actually increased goals.
http://www.soccerstats.com/index.asp


If we look at the English Premiership, the goals have decreased however The Premier League is the most lucrative football league in the world, with total club revenues of over £1.4 billion in 2005–06 season according to Deloitte, 40% above its nearest competitor. For the past few seasons, the Premier League's gross revenue (£1.4bn) has been the fourth highest for any sports league worldwide, behind the annual revenues of the three most popular North American major sports leagues (the National Football League, Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association), but ahead of the National Hockey League.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League

What this proves, is the goals does not hinder potential viewers nor does the 3 point system. The NHL wants more viewers. With the 3 point system help attract more viewers? Probably not. Will the current 2 point system help attract more viewers? Hasn't so far. Therefore that point made by is redundant. TV rankings (or more potential fans) have nothing to do with the system (that we have in place now or the 3 point system), people could care less how the point system is, if they're not watching the game in the first place.


So I will leave you with this, the 3 point system mathematically proves to be more accurate in demonstrating the better teams. The current system makes illusions of things being closer, the truth is, it isnt' even close at all. Teams who make the playoffs and teams who don’t, may come down to the wire, but it also leaves lesser teams out of the picture from halfway on towards the end. If the NHL wants to be fair, 3 point system has to be the action they take.

cheers.

I could not agree more, people in the states weren't watching hockey 30 years ago, and they won't be anytime soon, but a 3 point system makes way more sense in a league that has added shootouts.

As for Lamerello, I have no repect for him at all. He fires coaches for no reason, and ruined Alex mogilney's career (scores 34 and lou sends him to the minors fo 2 years to suite his cap needs, that's apretty big butt head). Lou looks out for lou. That's why he wanted the schedule the way it was-it suites his team with less travel. That's why he likes the points system, because it keeps teams that can't win in reulation in it longer, anf that is good or any team that is basically a goalie and 3 forwards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,423 Posts
I could not agree more, people in the states weren't watching hockey 30 years ago, and they won't be anytime soon, but a 3 point system makes way more sense in a league that has added shootouts.

.

Now go read the three contrary posts and see if you still think a three point system has any value.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
I'm a fan of a slightly different 3 point system...

Regulation win - 3 points
Overtime win - 2 points
Shootout win - 1 point
Loss (any type) - 0 points

This system rewards the team who wins as early as possible. Efficiency, tv schedules, none of this rewarding the loser. We saw how impossible it was for teams in the 9-12th spots of the standings in the last month of the season to climb without doing what Washington did (11-1-0) in their last 12. The reason? How many overtime games were that resulted in two teams who were higher in the standings both getting a point making it more difficult to make up ground.

I doubt these 3 point systems will change anything as the teams' records would have to be kept as, well, for my scoring system,

Reg. Wins - OT Wins - SO Wins - Losses.

Perhaps when I'm doing nothing, maybe tonight, I'll go through the entire 30 teams records and compile what the standings would look like with my point system to show how differently things would have been.

This kind of record keeping really shows you the disparity of wins and losses. For example, I just did the Flyers record, and they'd have 36-3-3-40. In sheer wins and losses, it was 42 wins, 40 losses and their point total under my system would have been 117. They only had 6/82 games they played were won after regulation, about 7%. They had 11 games they lost after regulation, 13.4%.

So...that's 17 out of 82 games the Flyers played this year that went to overtime, nearly 21%...I wonder if that 1/5th of the schedule would have gone differently knowing that more points were at stake the earlier you win the game.

The key to making this system work and encouraging players to go harder for the higher number of points is to remove the point awarded to the loser in any game passed regulation. The mentality has to be this: It doesn't matter when we lose, so we might as well try to win it as early as possible. Who cares if we give up an odd man rush or a break away at the end of the game while we're pressing for that tying or winning goal because a loss is a loss, regardless of when it happens.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
I could not agree more, people in the states weren't watching hockey 30 years ago, and they won't be anytime soon, but a 3 point system makes way more sense in a league that has added shootouts.
I don't think you could be more wrong on this statement.

As for Lamerello, I have no repect for him at all. He fires coaches for no reason, and ruined Alex mogilney's career (scores 34 and lou sends him to the minors fo 2 years to suite his cap needs, that's apretty big butt head). Lou looks out for lou. That's why he wanted the schedule the way it was-it suites his team with less travel. That's why he likes the points system, because it keeps teams that can't win in reulation in it longer, anf that is good or any team that is basically a goalie and 3 forwards.
Can we leave content that is mostly unrelated to the debate out, please?
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
I am completely opposed to a 3-2-1 system where the overtime/shootout loser is awarded a point. When winning the game is the sole motivation and not some inkling of getting a point for being tied at the end of regulation, we'll see more exciting and intense hockey.

There is no point in prolonging the game, whether the teams are tied or not. The team with the lead in my system is still going to try to play shut down hockey. They want the win, they're going to try to hold on to it. The team who is behind is going to play like made to at least tie the score, if not win it.

The game where the teams are tied is where things get interesting. Both teams are going to want to win and because there is no reward for not losing in regulation, or any time for that matter, the mindset should be, let's go for the win.

When it comes down to it, we would need to find out how often teams are tied, say, going into the third period, or even halfway through a game. How often are teams tied or only separated by a single goal at the midway point of each game? The times this system will not have an impact is in blow out games, but how often do they occur?
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
My support for the system I proposed is simply the fact that I disagree with rewarding the loser under any circumstances. There are no rewards in the playoffs, you either win or you lose. That's it.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
This is going to be interesting with the 3-2-1-0 point system...just did 4 teams quickly in the east, I'll finish the rest of the league up before posting any more results, but Philly and Montreal would have stayed the same, a spread of 9 points...however, Carolina would have finished 6 points ahead of Washington by winning 4 more games in regulation. They both lost 39 games, and even though Washington had 2 more OT wins and 2 more SO wins, Carolina would have been the winner of the division because they earned more points by winning more games in regulation. Interesting. I'll finish the rest up and post the results at some point.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
I also wish to see absolutely no reward for a losing team, in as much as proponents of the OTL point wll remind you it's a point earned for a regulation tie. It's semantics that lead you around the fact that they lost the game sometime in the next few minutes.

Since there is now a winner and loser in every game, and since the object is to win, I think that the standings ought to be ordered by Win Percentage (or just plain old Wins at year's end). Call me crazy...

That way would we'd avoid what I want to see even less than OTL points: wins having different value based on the situation in which they came in.

We don't need any contrived systems to convince teams to play for the win if the only way to move up in the standing is to (gasp!) win hockey games.

Daryl​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Right on! In truth they should have done away with the tie when they introduced the shootout. But it's important that the shootout win is not as valuable as the real win.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top