THe NHL should change its points system for wins and overtime wins

[Flubber]

Assume that OT and the Shootout are a given. How do you think that teams should be rewarded for different types of victories?

I entered the whole "shootout era" with an open mind. I have gotten to the point where I don't mind the shootout and can accept a point for such a "loser". But it has always bugged me that

1. Teams that tie are rewarded by their game earning THREE points for the participants. I think all games should generate the same number of points and if they don't, we should go the other way and reward teams for WINNING not for tieing.

2. A lame shootout win is now every bit as good for the "winner" as a win in the actual hockey part of the game.

So, I would adopt the system that I saw at the World juniors where a game is worth 3 points.

3 points --win
2 points -- OT or shootout win
1 point -- OT or shootout loss
0 points-- loss

If people wanted the OT to be "all-or-nothing", I could live with that as well. Overall though this just seems fundamentally fairer than the current system.



We could actually get even more creative and have games worth even more points based on margin of victory. I don't advocate this but it could be very interesting if a team earned another point by winning by say 4 goals.

Imagine this

5 points-- win by 4 goals
4 points -- a win in regulation by 3 or fewer
3 points --OT/shootout win
2 points-- OT/shootout loss
1 point-- loss by 3 or less
0 loss by 4 or more

I picked 4 goals but it could be 3 as the cutoff. The idea is to give the teams something to play for late in the game. Even down 4-1 , 5-1 late, a team has something to fight for since a goal either way could shift a point. Imagine .. . a team up 4-1 would pull their goalie-- so would the team down 5-1-- I don't know-- Teams may dislike that they very rarely get a chance to coast since under this system, almost every game would have something on the line until the end


The second idea probably has tons wrong with it but I thought it would be interesting to float it. As for the first idea . . . I think it should be adopted immediately. It shouldn't be that controversial


Comments??

[cinch]

I fully agree with your first idea. Why the NHL isn't planning to implement this, I have no clue...

The second idea, I like not so much...

[Ninot]

I think 2 points for a win, none for a loss, and that's all.

Different points for margins of victory, I don't like. You'll have teams that are down by 2 playing to lose, but defensively, so they dont lose by 4. That seems silly.

[Asher]

I could go with Flubber's 1st suggestion or Ninot's.

[Guynemer]

Likewise.

[Kontiki]

The best solution is simply to make every game worth three points. The whole concern about past records is rather rediculous, IMO, since they've already altered the system so much that old records are kinda meaningless anyway.

Another option, and not one that I personally favor but which would be interesting nonetheless, is going to the extreme and simply have a win-or-nothing system. You play your sixty minutes and if you're still tied, you have some sort of overtime (likely different from what it is now). If you're still tied at the end of that game, no one gets any points. You want the two, you win - end of story.

[joncha]

I vote for Ninot's suggestion.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ninot
I think 2 points for a win, none for a loss, and that's all.

Different points for margins of victory, I don't like. You'll have teams that are down by 2 playing to lose, but defensively, so they dont lose by 4. That seems silly.

I knew that 5 point and goal differential one was so different that it almost seems foreign. I still don't know that I like it but I figure that most 2 goal games are reasonably close anyway that both teams are fighting to win until the last minutes. Then there seems to come a point when the lsoing team realizes that tehre is no hope and they stop playing

BUt you are right thay there could be situations where a both teams might play prevent defense to keep their point or points but when I think about it I don't know how much that would happen.

The hockey purist in me though thinks that winning should be enough. If you have worked hard and gotten a 4-1 lead, you shouldn't need to push for another goal to make the win worth more. It should be enough to just win. Somehow it just seems anti-hockey to try to build the lead to 5 or 6

[Imran Siddiqui]

Teams that tie are rewarded by their game earning THREE points for the participants. I think all games should generate the same number of points and if they don't, we should go the other way and reward teams for WINNING not for tieing.

Yep. Winning in regulation should equal the same number of points as both winner and loser in OT get... at the least.