It looks like I've forgotten to translate a couple of entries.

Correcting that.

Original post.

Part I
Part II


Once again, driven by idea that if you want to encourage goal scoring, you need to reward the goal scoring in standings directly, not indirectly through winning. Then, based on the idea of a fellow hockey fan and blogger, a new suggestion was born in my mind.

Not so long ago I was involved in another discussion on the subject on Twitter, where an interesting alternative, 2-1-0-0 was described. The idea is that you still get two points for a win in regulation, just one point for a win in OT, but nothing if you lose, and, the key, both teams get nothing if the game is tied at the end of regulation (shootouts are abolished). This is a very sharp idea, but for me something felt very wrong, and then it crystallized:

It's not fair to reward a hard fought 5-5 tie with zero points, just like a lazy-skated 1-1. We still want to encourage goal scoring, and the simple 2-1-0-0 just unbalances the game. And so it dawned on me. We should reward goals with extra standings points!

The formula that first came to mind, and which seemed fair: give each goal a 0.1 point in the standings, while the win-scoring system shall be 2-1-0-0. If you or your database have an aversion against decimals, assign 20 points for a win, 10 points for OT loss, and 1 extra point for each goal scored. This will encourage goal scoring in any situation, and for both sides, including the games that go into garbage time pretty quickly. So, a 7-2 win will give the winner 2.7 points, and the loser 0.2 points. A 2-0 win will give the winner 2.2 points, the loser 0. A 4-3 OT win will give the winner 1.4 points, the loser 0.3 points. A 5-5 OT tie will give each side 0.5 points.

Wait, there's a caveat.

Imagine a situation where a team needs just 0.1 point to pass another one in the standings for the playoff spot. They are playing an opponent whose number of points in the standings does not have any effect on them. In such a situation, the team would play without a goaltender at all, because they don't care how much they lose, they just need that goal. Now, this is not really hockey, so to prevent this kind of play a restriction needs to be introduced:

Any goal scored without a goaltender on the ice, when not on a delayed penalty, and when trailing by more than two goals shall not yield any standings points.

Here is an example what the final reg. season standings would look like under the suggested system:

Team                           W  OW T  L  GF  GA  P

--------------------------------------------------------  
Boston Bruins                  38 04 05 35 232 209 103.2
Montreal Canadiens             33 11 05 33 223 198 99.3
Toronto Maple Leafs            33 06 09 34 250 234 97.0
--------------------------------------------------------
Washington Capitals            45 08 07 22 261 177 124.1
Pittsburgh Penguins            40 06 09 27 278 229 113.8
Columbus Blue Jackets          39 09 04 30 247 193 111.7
--------------------------------------------------------
New York Rangers               40 05 07 30 253 216 110.3
Ottawa Senators                34 04 10 34 206 210 92.6
--------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Wild                 42 04 05 31 263 206 114.3
Chicago Blackhawks             37 09 05 31 240 212 107.0
St. Louis Blues                38 06 04 34 233 216 105.3
--------------------------------------------------------
Anaheim Ducks                  40 03 06 33 220 197 105.0
Edmonton Oilers                37 06 09 30 243 207 104.3
San Jose Sharks                38 06 03 35 219 200 103.9
--------------------------------------------------------
Nashville Predators            35 04 06 37 238 220 97.8
Calgary Flames                 32 09 06 35 222 219 95.2
--------------------------------------------------------
New York Islanders             33 06 06 37 239 238 95.9
Winnipeg Jets                  33 04 04 41 246 255 94.6
Tampa Bay Lightning            32 06 07 37 230 224 93.0
Dallas Stars                   28 05 03 46 222 260 83.2
Carolina Hurricanes            28 05 09 40 212 230 82.2
Los Angeles Kings              25 12 06 39 199 201 81.9
Philadelphia Flyers            25 07 12 38 212 231 78.2
Buffalo Sabres                 25 06 08 43 199 231 75.9
Florida Panthers               23 07 11 41 205 231 73.5
Arizona Coyotes                20 04 08 50 191 258 63.1
Vancouver Canucks              19 07 06 50 178 241 62.8
New Jersey Devils              18 07 06 51 180 241 61.0
Detroit Red Wings              17 07 09 49 198 244 60.8
Colorado Avalanche             14 07 03 58 165 276 51.5

Naturally, they would not be the same standings if the system were indeed implemented, but why not to take a look. And once again, try it in the AHL first, it won't hurt anyone.