These 3 point games...

[jackhole]

are killing us.  Any opponents around us play, and it seems lately, they're all going to OT!  Its a flawed system, at best.

 

I'd like to see a system of : reg. win = 3  OT/SO win = 2  OT/SO loss = 1

[hf101]

Its a flawed system, at best.

 

Isn't the system the same for all of the teams? 

 

Instead of blaming the points system blame the Flyers for losing games in regulation where they receive no points.

[murraycraven]

Isn't the system the same for all of the teams?



Instead of blaming the points system blame the Flyers for losing games in regulation where they receive no points.

 

Could not agree more hf... everyone is playing under the same system.  To blame the system is just sour grapes.   You need to EARN points... 

[TedZep]

@hf21, @murraycraven,

 

It's still a flawed system when some games are worth 2 points and some are worth 3.  And some of those 3 point games are worth less than other 3 point games depending on whether it was a SO or overtime win.

 

If ties were good enough for Toe Blake and Eddie Shore, they should be good enough for the league today.

[jackhole]

That's exactly my point Ted!  Can't have some games distributing 3 pts, while another distributes 2.  A game, is a game, is a game, and should issue the same amount of total points, no matter the outcome.

 

And I'm not blaming the 'system' for the Flyers' losses, just noting that the results of other games played by division rivals, has buoyed those teams around us in the standings recently.

[murraycraven]

ted... i agree the system is flawed but every team in the NHL conforms to the same system. ergo, you need to earn points in 60 minutes, overtime or the SO.   The Flyers should be focused on winning games and not worrying about the SO.   Every Team deals with it...

Edited January 13, 2014 by murraycraven

[flyercanuck]

Get rid of the gimmick shootout once and for all.

 

 The barely NHL franchise Buffalo Sabres, who clinched last place overall after one week of play, are 6-2 in the shootout. That in itself shows the relevance of Bettmans sideshow.

[aziz]

ted... i agree the system is flawed but every team in the NHL conforms to the same system

 

true, but it does skew the standings.  take the SO itself or leave it, the idea that games are worth a variable number of points makes weird thing happen, things that wouldn't if a game were worth a set number of points.   every team deals with it, but its still screwy.

 

right now, detroit and philly are tied in the standings at 50 points.  the wings have 10 points from OTLs to the flyers' 4, and the flyers have 3 more wins.  if a regulation win was 3 points, an OT/SO win was 2, and an OT/SO loss worth 1...the flyers would be up in the standings, 69-67.  minor spread, but still a spread.  making the playoffs can be decided on things like that.  what starts to get annoying are teams like washington, currently up in the standings by a point, including 10 OT wins.  with the 3-2-1 system, they'd be behind, with 63 points.  6 points back, either 2 regulation wins or 3 OT wins.  or 6 OTLs.

 

it's the same for every team, but assigning each game a fixed value, having teams compete for a set number of points available...i can't come up with a reason to not do it that way.  PLUS, it would encourage teams to go for the regulation win, if they let things go to OT, the best they can do is share the points for the game.

Edited January 13, 2014 by aziz

[radoran]

I have to believe that a system deliberately designed to encourage more "parity" to make some franchises more competitive in the regular season is a feature, not a bug, in Bettman's plan.

 

A "three-point game" system would likely result in more and wider gaps between the "top" and bottom teams.

 

For example, Chicago would have 96 points at this time instead of 70. 26 RWs (they are 0-4 in Overtime before shootouts), 4 SO wins, 10 OTLs.

 

The fourth place Wild, currently 55 points, would have 74. That's still seven-plus "wins" or so behind, but that's seven regulation wins under the three-point system. A much different scenario.

 

I do think that it makes a lot more sense. That's probably also why it won't happen anytime soon.

[Polaris922]

@aziz

Which is why the wins are a tie breaker. No difference you'd still be in and they'd be out.

@hf101

Agree 100% about its a completely fair system. Everyone starts at zero points, and the most any one team can earn is 2 points per game. The losing team getting 1 point is no different than if the game ended in a tie anyway. The winning team getting 2 is no different than if they'd won in regulation.

No such thing as a three point game. Adding two teams' points together is just stretching for the sake of argument. They all play the same number of games. They all have the same potential total number. It's up to them. The system isn't against anybody, and it doesn't favor anybody. Win or your season ends early.

[hf101]

@jackhole

 

So in other words we would reward 3 points to a team that wins a potentially boring game of a blow-out and we only give 2 points for a win of a hard fought battle which is tied at the end of regulation.   :wacko:

 

Isn't a win = to a win ?  

 

I think if the league creates an OT scenario so that less games go to a shootout, all good.  There must be a winner within a predetermined time frame that is what fans pay to see.  Teams that play to a tie frequently play very boring hockey.  

[doom88]

Why not just tally wins and losses? Do away with the loser point.

[aziz]

Which is why the wins are a tie breaker. No difference you'd still be in and they'd be out.

 

sure, as regards the flyers-wings situation right now.  the capitals, though, have a playoff spot at this point entirely because of the current scoring system.  they have 8 shootout wins.  in an old school 2-point-game system, those are ties, and the caps have 8 fewer points, for 43.  columbus has 3 fewer points, and are leading in the standings at 45.  under a 3-point-game system, columbus has 66 points to the caps' 63.

 

the pens, fwiw, would have 95 points.  overall, the standings would be mostly as they are.  the difference would be the teams whose positioning relies heavily on either OTW or OTL, a 3 point system would place their relative performance more accurately in a broader context.

 

the variable worth of a given game changes things fairly drastically.  as @radoran said, i'm sure it is to pack the standings as closely as possible, but that is a thin and tawdry reason.  

[Polaris922]

sure, as regards the flyers-wings situation right now. the capitals, though, have a playoff spot at this point entirely because of the current scoring system. they have 8 shootout wins. in an old school 2-point-game system, those are ties, and the caps have 8 fewer points, for 43. columbus has 3 fewer points, and are leading in the standings at 45. under a 3-point-game system, columbus has 66 points to the caps' 63.

the pens, fwiw, would have 95 points. overall, the standings would be mostly as they are. the difference would be the teams whose positioning relies heavily on either OTW or OTL, a 3 point system would place their relative performance more accurately in a broader context.

the variable worth of a given game changes things fairly drastically. as @radoran said, i'm sure it is to pack the standings as closely as possible, but that is a thin and tawdry reason.

That's where I disagree most. I think it's the PERFECT reason. There's tangible excitement at the end of the regular season now. Teams are often battling for position right up to the last game. Some teams don't know if they're in or out till the last game is played. It actually gives the last games purpose for a lot of teams instead of already knowing everything a dozen or so games before the end of the regular season and just waiting for the boredom to stop.

[aziz]

It actually gives the last games purpose for a lot of teams instead of already knowing everything a dozen or so games before the end of the regular season and just waiting for the boredom to stop.

 

without the current potential 3 point game, the last week of the season would be 3 or 4 teams fighting for the last couple spots.  as it stands, it is 7 or 8 teams.  is that better?  you have teams like washington, who are playing worse 60 minute hockey than columbus...but if the season ended today, washington is in the playoffs, columbus is out.  due entirely to a tie-breaking mechanic that doesn't exist in the playoffs.  is additional last-week chaos a fair exchange for allowing that to happen?

 

aside from that, the randomness of the 2-or-possibly-3-point-game thing really bugs me.  that's just wrong.  a game should represent 1/82nd of the season, it should represent a predictable mathematical segment of the overall competition.  there are 1230 games total per season.  the number of points available to earn should be a fixed number.  the point to the season should be for a team to claim as many of those as possible, there should not be bonus points continually thrown into the mix for the sake of competitive parity for teams who would not be competitive under a straight arithmetic system.

[Polaris922]

There remains no such thing as a three point game. The most any team can finish with is 164 points regardless of how many tie games they play. The same goes for a team that has no overtime games. 162 is 162. The losing team getting 1 point is the same as if the game ended in a tie anyway. If your team wins game 82 and the team you're in contention with ties theirs, you move on, they don't. But you have to earn it just the same.

Do I feel the Caps should be where they are? Yes. Maybe they didn't win more games in regulation, but they didn't lose more either. They fought tooth and nail just like everyone else. And how can you say they're not competitive just because they have more overtime games? I don't see too many Flyers fans looking at the schedule and saying "The Caps? Oh that's a win!"

[ruxpin]

There remains no such thing as a three point game.  The most any team can finish with is 164 points regardless of how many tie games they play.

 

I'm sorry polaris, but the first sentence is mathematical nonsense, and the second isn't relevant to the point being made.  We're talking about standings points and this is inarguable.

 

If Pittsburgh beats Minnesota 2-0 in regulation, they get 2 pts.  and  Minnesota gets zero.    TWO POINTS CAME OUT OF THAT GAME = 2 point game.

 

If Pittsburgh beats Minnesota in the SAME EXACT GAME but wins 2-1 in overtime or the shoot out, Pittsburgh gets exactly the same 2 points and Minnesota gets one.  THREE POINTS CAME OUT OF THAT GAME = 3 point game.

 

Not three points for any one team, but THREE STANDINGS POINTS CAME OUT OF A GAME AS OPPOSED TO TWO.

 

 

It's inarguable.  It just is.   It DOES effect the standings.  This is not about the Flyers or Capitals or any other team or whining about position.  It's about a system that unevenly weights games.  This is not opinion.  (Whether one likes it or not is definitely opinion, although I don't begin to understand how one does).   But it doesn't matter how hard one squints their eyes or crosses them or takes enough pills or whatever.  The above math is inarguable and it IS the correct way to look at it.   OF COURSE the three point game exists.

 

On any given night, if there are 5 games,   The next day there should be a net change in the standings of 10 points if all games are equal.  This does not exist, and it should.   Instead, it's some sliding amount between 10 and 15.   

 

 

 

 

" And how can you say they're not competitive just because they have more overtime games? I don't see too many Flyers fans looking at the schedule and saying "The Caps? Oh that's a win!"

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse?  "And how can you say..."    He didn't, actually.  Didn't even come close to it.   This so badly misses the point that I can't help think it's deliberate.

 

 

 

----------

 

The rest IS opinion:

 

I don't like the 3 points for win, 2 points for OT/SO win and 1 point for OT/SO loss.   I realize that it does address the inequity above, but now it is becoming even more Mickey Mouse than it already is.  I personally would just prefer to go back to wins/losses/ties.   2 points for a win.  1 point each for a tie.   Done.   2 points from the game no matter the result.     I personally would prefer killing the points altogether and go to winning percentage like every other major team sport, but our Canadian friends don't like that.    But if people want to keep OT and the skills competition, fine.   So a win is a win no matter when it happens.   2 points.   A loss is a loss no matter when it happens.  No points and you'll like and maybe you'll find a way to win next time.  If you suck at the shootout, maybe you'll do your damnedest to win before that.

 

But this 3 points for regulation win just gets obnoxious.  Let's give out 5 points if you're wining after one period and win the game. 4 if you're winning after two periods. A bonus 7 points if you also win a fight.   It gets ridiculous.

[ruxpin]

Let's try this. See if anyone follows this.

 

I'm going to randomly use western conference teams in a completely hypothetical situation to try to avoid confusion with issues about current seedings or team bias or whatever. 

 

 

Say at some point in the season, Anaheim, San Jose, and Los Angeles are vying for first place and all have identical records.  They all have 90 points (just to be random) Vancouver is kind of in the hunt but has fallen enough off the pace that they really aren't in the discussion for first place.

 

Sunday night, Anaheim plays San Jose and Los Angeles plays Vancouver.

 

Anaheim beats San Jose 2-1 in overtime or the shootout. 

Los Angeles beats Vancouver by the same exact score but they do it in regulation.

 

Monday morning, the standings are

Los Angeles       92 pts

Anaheim             92 pts.

San Jose           91 pts.

 

Okay, so the night netted a one point spread between the winners (LA and Anaheim) and the loser (San Jose).

One might argue that it's fair in regard to the difference between Anaheim and San Jose.  After all, Anaheim didn't take care of business in regulation so they don't get the full two-point spread a regulation win would garner.

 

But Los Angeles DID win in regulation.  They took care of business.  They have a regulation win and San Jose a loss, but they only end up with a net gain of one point as well. 

 

Because THREE (real) POINTS were awarded for the Anaheim/San Jose game.  Clearly, no one team got three points so the "164 points allotted for the year" thing really isn't relevant.  The Anaheim/San Jose game awarded three points total.

 

It actually cheapens the Kings' regulation win in this one because it doesn't give them the proportional benefit of having won in regulation.

 

If we were to use the 3-2-1 points system lobbied for above (I'll repeat I'm not a huge fan but it does have benefits in this instance), you would have the following result:

 

Los Angeles      93

Anaheim            92

San Jose           91

 

Los Angeles gets at least a proportional benefit of having taken care of their opponent in regulation.    Anaheim moves ahead of San Jose because they DID beat them, and San Jose gets its "well you played a good game and these days you get something just for showing up" point.

 

First, it's convenient to argue that in this case Los Angeles ends up in first place anyway.  In this case they do, compounded over the course of a season, there are quite a few scenarios where this would not be the case.

 

I  also realize this is a snapshot case.  I realize someone could argue this evens out over a season.   It can.  It often doesn't.

 

At the very least, it does prop up individual team point totals disproportionately to the number of points that should have been available at the beginning of the season (in aggregate) if all games were equal.  

 

I agree with rad that this is likely deliberate in the name of parity and last 14-days excrement...er...excitement.     I suppose it's debatable whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.  But the point is that it IS a thing.

[icehole]

Let me start by saying the thing I hate most in sports is a tie.  Soccer may be the most popular sport in the world but one thing I hate is the ties.  It's like the game was never played.  Fans leave the game feeling empty most of the time.  On the other hand, I think there is too much importance put on the shootout.  You can be completely outplayed for 65 minutes but because you have a player with the pedigree of a southern Cali in-line men's league that can twirl a puck, you could get double the points.  It just doesn't seem right.  I enjoy the shootout.  It's neat to see the moves and you can leave feeling like your team lost or won the game.  I just want to lessen its importance a little.

 

So I came up with this system.  Not sure if it was suggested yet but I haven't seen it.  What about 2pts for OT or regulation win/ 0pts for OT or regulation loss.  If after a 5 minute OT there is no winner, both teams get 1pt...that way there are still only 2pts available for each game instead of 3pts for some and 2 for others.  Both teams battled and deserve a point.  The game would then go to a shootout but you would receive a win for winning the shootout and a loss for losing the shootout.  Shootout winner = 1pts+W/ Shootout loser gets 1pt+L.  This would make teams want to win more in regulation or OT for that extra point.

 

Here's one scenario

 

Buffalo goes 20-45 in reg or OT but goes 12-5 in the SO.  That gives them 57pts and 32wins (32 wins should get you 64pts...shootout doesn't make much difference)

 

Detroit goes 45-20 in reg or OT but goes 5-12 in the SO.  That gives them 107pts and 50wins (50 wins should get you 100pts...shootout doesn't make much difference)

 

Wins would still come into play as far as tie-breakers go but points are the ultimate goal to climb in the standings.

 

I tried to come up with scenarios that would make this system a bad thing but my brains are scrambled eggs.  Let me know what you guys think

are killing us.  Any opponents around us play, and it seems lately, they're all going to OT!  Its a flawed system, at best.

 

I'd like to see a system of : reg. win = 3  OT/SO win = 2  OT/SO loss = 1

 

are killing us.  Any opponents around us play, and it seems lately, they're all going to OT!  Its a flawed system, at best.

 

I'd like to see a system of : reg. win = 3  OT/SO win = 2  OT/SO loss = 1

 

 

[flyercanuck]

@icehole

 

I never had a problem with ties in regular season games. I thought if two teams played a well fought out game to the end neither deserved to lose. To me it made a heck of a lot more sense than one of them bringing out a Erik Christianson, shootout wizard, to settle it, even though he'd only played 4 minutes of the 60 + OT. There's 82 games, ties were always fine by me in hockey....it was part of the game, like shaking hands.

[ruxpin]

So I came up with this system.  Not sure if it was suggested yet but I haven't seen it.  What about 2pts for OT or regulation win/ 0pts for OT or regulation loss.  If after a 5 minute OT there is no winner, both teams get 1pt...that way there are still only 2pts available for each game instead of 3pts for some and 2 for others.  Both teams battled and deserve a point.  The game would then go to a shootout but you would receive a win for winning the shootout and a loss for losing the shootout.  Shootout winner = 1pts+W/ Shootout loser gets 1pt+L.  This would make teams want to win more in regulation or OT for that extra point.

 

You would think so, wouldn't you?

 

I don't think it would work this way, though.  I bet you a ham sandwich that instead you have teams being extra cautious in the 5 minute overtime so they don't lose the point they would get by ending overtime with the status quo (a tie forcing the shootout).  Because if they go all out for that extra point, they risk the possibility of losing their point they get for doing nothing.

 

Sounds crazy and in opposition to what you would hope to call "sportsmanship," but this game is full of examples where rules are put in seemingly to help either competition or safety and players/teams game it opposite to the intent  (weak example but it came to mind quickly:  you put in a rule that you can't hit from behind near the boards.   So what do players do?  They begin standing right in front of the boards with their head down as if Mecca is on the other side).

 

In general, I like your idea (except that its intent seems to be to work with the shootout, which I hate--but that's just personal preference).  I just wonder if it wouldn't end up having the opposite effect.   Plus, it actually seems to have the effect of increasing the importance of the shootout (versus the overtime) rather than lessening it.  A point for a shootout loss but nothing for an OT loss.

[ruxpin]

@icehole

 

I never had a problem with ties in regular season games. I thought if two teams played a well fought out game to the end neither deserved to lose. To me it made a heck of a lot more sense than one of them bringing out a Erik Christianson, shootout wizard, to settle it, even though he'd only played 4 minutes of the 60 + OT. There's 82 games, ties were always fine by me in hockey....it was part of the game, like shaking hands.

 

I'm with you here, but I do remember the "kissed your sister" thing and there were many times I left after a tie thinking "meh."  But I think that was more about the individual game than ties in general.   I remember some very thrilling tie games.   Someone fought and clawed near the end to tie it up.  If you were on the side coming back you felt kind of good about it.  If you were on the other side, you kind of felt like a loss somehow.

 

But then there were games where it was tied 1-1 or whatever with 10 minutes to go and you could just feel both teams playing extremely conservative/boring just to preserve their one point.

 

But yes, as matter of principle, I had absolutely no problem with the tie and preferred it to what we have now.   I honestly consider the shootout a snoozefest.    I like to see skill (ie., the razzle dazzle in the shootout), but I prefer to see it in the context of the game and with other players on the ice.  I prefer to see that "razzle dazzle" on a breakaway because a player or a team has put the other team out of position and has created that situation--not the artificial set-up of the shootout.

 

Also, and of lesser importance I suppose, it has cheapened the penalty shot for me.   It used to be that when there was a penalty shot called, you yelled for everyone in the house, "hey, there's a penalty shot!  Hurry up!  You don't see this often!"   Now, you see it at the end of every tie.

[jackhole]

-Icehole

 

A good idea and seems fair.  Perhaps casual fans would be confused, but I'd be OK with that.  (both the system, and casual fan confusion )

 

And win/loss for 2 pts is fine by me, IF you remove the SO, which, I doubt the league would consider at this point.

[flyercanuck]

@ruxpin

 

So very true about the penalty shot rux. It used to be something rarely seen, like Briere on a backcheck.

[Polaris922]

@ruxpin

You may feel its obtuse all you like. It's my opinion of the issue. For the record I didn't call anyone's comments "whining" either, so though I get your passion for the topic, there's no grounds for it.

I just don't see adding two teams' point totals from the game and saying its a three point game as a relevant complaint. If you take your scenario and repeat it ten times you have Anaheim with 110, LA with 110 and San Jose at 100. LA wins the tie breaker over Anaheim as they have more games won excluding shootouts. That's why that's the first tie breaker at the end if the regular season. It excludes shoot out wins.

Either way teams reap what they sow. I don't want to see teams go back to playing not to lose. That was some if the most boring, God awful hockey ever seen. Like watching the Devils play the Devils.

You like to view it as three points because of the total points given to two teams. I see it as how far one team can move up the standings that is relevant. If I'm tied with the two teams playing as they start the game, the worst that can happen is one team ends up two points ahead of me at the end. So it's up to me to win my next game to stay even. If I'm doing my job then that one point the loser earned by forcing a shutout is of no concern until I fail to win. Then isn't that challenge what I deserve for not winning?