November 15, 2005

Bettman, listen up: "The National Hockey League, which feels obliged to award three points in some of its games, should go all the way and award three points in each and every match." Finally, this concept gets some play in the traditional hockey media.

posted by garfield to hockey at 10:01 AM - 16 comments

I like the three-points-for-a-win idea, but awarding zero points for an overtime loss makes me nervous. I fear we'd see a return of the old conservative play-to-not-lose overtimes, with teams preferring to guarantee one point, with a 50/50 chance at two, rather than go for three.

posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:21 AM on November 15, 2005

Excellent point brought up there...I love the idea of three pts for a win and zip for the loss (even though the Bruins are tying, then losing every time they hit the ice lately) brings importance back into a win, and makes the win that much more valuable in the end of season playoff runs....

posted by sinisterfoot at 10:25 AM on November 15, 2005

Why not just continue playing OT until there's a winner? If you ask me, that's incentive enough not to play-not-to-lose...

posted by MeatSaber at 10:27 AM on November 15, 2005

Ah, I've never been a fan of this. We seem to be trying too hard to dictate the strategy of the game based on mucking with the points awarded. And then there's the whole historical angle - it fucks with the numbers in a way that I'm not a big fan of. Hell, I didn't really have a problem with ties, anyway. The new point structure now, with the extra point available on shootouts will affect the playoffs in a big enough way already. Let's actually wait a season, or even two, and see the outcome of these changes before we start making more. It'll take more time for coaches and players to really take advantage of some of the changes and negotiate new and exciting strategies. Hell, I'd half expect that some of the changes may be rolled back (like goalies restricted access to the puck).

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:36 AM on November 15, 2005

Just for the heck of it, here's what the Northeast standings would look like with this point system. Three for a regulation or overtime win, two for a shootout win, one for a shootout loss, zero for a regulation or overtime loss.


posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:49 AM on November 15, 2005

The incentive not to go to overtime is the appeal of the 3pt regulation win. In essence, this is why I like the idea, because the game is decided in its purest form. If it goes to overtime, give everybody a point, but nobody wants to go to a crap-shoot-out, so there remains the incentive to win it 4 on 4. Weedy, this change has been begging to be made since the league started handing out 3 pt games, not just this year with the shoot-out. But the shoot-out just makes this that much more sensible. on preview : OT wins should be worth 2 pts, imo.

posted by garfield at 10:53 AM on November 15, 2005

Maybe this is how it should go:


posted by fabulon7 at 12:38 PM on November 15, 2005

I agree that an OT win probably shouldn't be 3 points, but I just used the system that Dave Perkins proposed in the article.

posted by DrJohnEvans at 12:49 PM on November 15, 2005

Shootouts are fun to watch but just don't seem like the way a hockey game should end. 60 minutes played 5 on 5 to a tie followed by a 4 on 4 five minute OT followed by a shootout seems so artifical. I was opposed to 4 on 4 OT and I can't stand the idea of an OT point. Nothing wrong with ties, it awards teams that work hard, come from behind and are able to knot it up. Sometimes a tie can feel as good as a win.

posted by HATER 187 at 01:20 PM on November 15, 2005

Dr.J, I hear ya. I didn't want my position confused with Perkins. fabulon, that is exactly as it is now - awarding more points in some games than in others. If we can't have ties, than the games that are awarded more points should be for out right regulation wins. Not that I'm a big fan of the need for a win mentality, but that point system would reward this behavior....winning outright. exactly, HATER. A tie should be a point each, period. If some gimmick is needed to decide regular season games, give 'em another point. But don't let that equal a regulation win.

posted by garfield at 01:25 PM on November 15, 2005

Yeah, I know. Problem is, if you take away the loser's overtime point, overtime becomes boring. (Potentially.) But overtime is only 5 minutes, so maybe it should be 3/0 for a win in regulation or overtime, and 2/1 for a shootout. (And maybe there just shouldn't be shootouts...) Personally, I'd just can the 5 minute overtime and allow ties again.

posted by fabulon7 at 02:32 PM on November 15, 2005

I don't have a problem with awarding more points in some games than others. In fact, to me it makes sense. The extra points are never available for one team, and in a conference game that means something in the standings, I think you earn that point. If you go to overtime, you get extra credit for not losing. They're special cases. It certainly doesn't stop anyone from going for a regulation win. None of this stuff does.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:36 PM on November 15, 2005

Sometimes a tie can feel as good as a win. Come on Hater, you only say that because your Fly Guys practically invented the tie. Ties suck, win the game. And it's not like they are going to have the shoot out in the playoffs, so we will have our 6 hour games to watch still.

posted by The Gangstinator at 02:51 PM on November 15, 2005

you get extra credit for not losing. read that to yourself again. It certainly doesn't stop anyone from going for a regulation win. I don't know how these two points don't conflict in your mind. I liked the old way of scoring. 2 pts for a win. 1pt each for a tie. None for a loss. It made sense. Playing not to lose made sense. Splitting the points made sense then. But, if ties are frowned upon, the point system shouldn't reward the frowned upon behaviour. It should just be a loss. It shouldn't matter how long it took the team to lose.

posted by garfield at 03:56 PM on November 15, 2005

but it isn't just a loss, so there has to be way to differentiate. at least I think so. I'm confusing myself with this mumbojumbo

posted by garfield at 05:12 PM on November 15, 2005

I don't know how these two points don't conflict in your mind. Easy - I just don't think in a game where transition and speed are at such a high level that any team can afford to not go for goals. No one is interested in taking a game to overtime unless they're down by 1 with a couple minutes left. Everyone plays for the regulation win. It's not a chess match like soccer. Games change on a moment to moment basis.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:46 PM on November 16, 2005

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.