LGR4GM Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 It's simple. 3 points available each game. 3 for a regulation win. If OT, 2 to winner 1 to loser. It will encourage good teams to keep the foot on the gas in the last 10 minutes because it will "cost" them a point if it goes to OT instead of "rewarding" them with one. The simplest way to accomplish what you are suggesting is something I have stated before: 2pts for Regulation or OT win 1pt for Shootout win 0 points for losing Means if you go to that shootout you lose a point no matter what, should motivate everyone just a little more. Not to mention losers always get nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 3-2-1 point system is the best solution. Only wrinkle I would consider would be 3 for regulation win, 2 for ot win, 1 for winner of shootout. Personally I think it would make for some interesting coaching decisions in the last month or 2 of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrix31 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 It's simple. 3 points available each game. 3 for a regulation win. If OT, 2 to winner 1 to loser. It will encourage good teams to keep the foot on the gas in the last 10 minutes because it will "cost" them a point if it goes to OT instead of "rewarding" them with one. I think this is the best idea. And I would do away with shootouts and just keep playing five minute OTs with a man less each time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Why are points even necessary? Wins and loses are all the NHL needs. It’s good enough for the MLB, NFL and NBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Why are points even necessary? Wins and loses are all the NHL needs. It’s good enough for the MLB, NFL and NBA. Points give a value to a win. I don't understand what the problem with the systemis now. I now some people have this need for symmetry where every game is worth the same, but I don't. Some games should be worth more. I just don't see what the big deal is. Like with the last change, at most the only thing that would be different is the team that makes the 8th spot. A lot of this was covered here. http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/16103-the-loser-point/page__hl__point__fromsearch__1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Points give a value to a win. I don't understand what the problem with the systemis now. I now some people have this need for symmetry where every game is worth the same, but I don't. Some games should be worth more. I just don't see what the big deal is. Like with the last change, at most the only thing that would be different is the team that makes the 8th spot. A lot of this was covered here. http://forums.sabres...__fromsearch__1 Wins already have value, there is no need for additional value to be added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Wins already have value, there is no need for additional value to be added. True. Winning has it's own worth, but the point system for something else. It's sole purpose is to determine the best teams for the playoffs. Pure wins and losses doesn't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveAndWarrener Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 I'm with you on this. The shame of tying should be enough to motivate teams to try and win the game. This whole OT/shootout thing makes the last minutes of regulation pointless. Play for the win or don't. It's up to them. Wasn't the whole idea of the "loser's point" and the extra point for the win to motivate teams to try and win the game? Seemed to me like you saw a lot of twenty minutes of "safe play" to ensure that you didn't lose the one point. I think modifying it to this could work: 1) Once you take it to OT, you get a point, no matter what 2) If there's a tie at the end of OT play, that's the end of the game. One point each side 3) OT win gets you the extra point 4) Three points awarded for every regulation win (balanced value for every game that results in a W/L). Two points to winner for OT win, one point to OT loser. No points for regulation loser. Doesn't seem hard, and also doesn't result in some games being worth more than others just because of the OT losses. Regulation winners will get more incentives for putting away the game. No more equivalent of solving a basketball tie with a three-point shooting contest. The game should be decided within the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 True. Winning has it's own worth, but the point system for something else. It's sole purpose is to determine the best teams for the playoffs. Pure wins and losses doesn't do that. Win percentage isn't a better indicator of the best teams? :huh: The point system's only real reason for being needed is the 3 point game. Lose the loser point and points become irrelevant because win % does the same thing. I can think of no valid reason why one regular season game should be worth more points than any other regualr seaosn game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Win percentage isn't a better indicator of the best teams? :huh: The point system's only real reason for being needed is the 3 point game. Lose the loser point and points become irrelevant because win % does the same thing. I can think of no valid reason why one regular season game should be worth more points than any other regualr seaosn game. Nope. It doesn't factor in strength of schedule, strength of division, strength of wins, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Nope. It doesn't factor in strength of schedule, strength of division, strength of wins, etc. How does the loser point factor those in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 I say it each time this discussion comes up. If you ever want to go to a straight win-loss system, I want continuous overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 It's simple. 3 points available each game. 3 for a regulation win. If OT, 2 to winner 1 to loser. It will encourage good teams to keep the foot on the gas in the last 10 minutes because it will "cost" them a point if it goes to OT instead of "rewarding" them with one. Though personally, I think all games should be worth 2 points, since the league has shown they don't agree; I'd take your proposal 1 step further, if they have to keep a SO. I'd have a dry cut after regulation and go w/ a 10 minute OT (preferrably 5 skaters aside, but I can live w/ the 4v4 if necessary). If there is a winner then you get the 2 pts to the winner, nada to the loser. If you go to a SO, the winner gets 1 pt, and the loser again gets nada. Now, there is no incentive to go for a tie or take it to the next frame as the value of a win at the next frame is lower than winning in the current frame. I'd prefer to work this system w/out a SO and a regulation win being worth 2, an OT win being worth 1, and a tie/loss being worth nada. I suppose you could keep the SO in that system and make SO wins the 2nd tiebreaker after head-to-head. The reason they'll never go for this 2nd proposal is psychological. A team w/ 88-93 points is pretty mediocre in today's NHL; going to this 2 point win system makes teams in the 70's mediocre. W/ a 3 point system, it would probably work out that high 80's is still mediocre, so the main argument against would be no longer making the Habs & Wings 130+ seasons sacrosanct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 How does the loser point factor those in? It does it only marginally but at least it's a step in the right direction. If you are a good team in a better division and are picking up loser points that lesser teams might not pick up against those same teams, then you are rewarded for it and should be (in my eyes). I also don't see a problem with an overtime 3-2 loss against a good team being worth more than a 6-1 loss to a bad team. In the end, the whole purpose is to get the best teams into the playoffs, and those aren't always the ones with the best records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 It does it only marginally but at least it's a step in the right direction. If you are a good team in a better division and are picking up loser points that lesser teams might not pick up against those same teams, then you are rewarded for it and should be (in my eyes). I also don't see a problem with an overtime 3-2 loss against a good team being worth more than a 6-1 loss to a bad team. In the end, the whole purpose is to get the best teams into the playoffs, and those aren't always the ones with the best records. You can't put a quality value on those losses though. That 3-2 OT loss could just as easily have been between to bad teams. We are going to give a 33% value addition to those games? Loser points awarded are in no way a value judgement on the quality of the competiton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 You can't put a quality value on those losses though. That 3-2 OT loss could just as easily have been between to bad teams. We are going to give a 33% value addition to those games? Loser points awarded are in no way a value judgement on the quality of the competiton. But those extra points to the bottom teams aren't going to effect playoff standings, since those bad teams aren't going to make the playoffs anyway. Again. I think this is a fun logic experiment, but really isn't all that big of an issue. The top teams will still be the top teams. At most, we're talking about a change in the 7th or 8th position with any change suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 I sometimes think it's just me that likes the shootouts. So many ppl have a problem with it. Is it a gimmick? Yes? Does everyone stand and show emotion during it? Yes. It's the regular season with 82 friggen games to be played. Give me some excitement! I also love how it's not used in the playoffs because as stated, the shootout is a gimmick. I love seeing it but would be open to having the point system changed to allow for 3 points to the team that wins a game in regulation. I could see alot of teams really going for it late in the third rather than playing for the extra point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 I sometimes think it's just me that likes the shootouts. So many ppl have a problem with it. Is it a gimmick? Yes? Does everyone stand and show emotion during it? Yes. It's the regular season with 82 friggen games to be played. Give me some excitement! I also love how it's not used in the playoffs because as stated, the shootout is a gimmick. I love seeing it but would be open to having the point system changed to allow for 3 points to the team that wins a game in regulation. I could see alot of teams really going for it late in the third rather than playing for the extra point. Bettman quoted a recent poll the other day that close to 80% of the fans enjoy the shootout. I don't mind it but I would have preferrred the Rangers game be played until someone scored. Hey maybe that's it? Only go to the shootout if it's NOT 0-0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Why are points even necessary? Wins and loses are all the NHL needs. It’s good enough for the MLB, NFL and NBA. Only in the NFL can games end in ties and that's bad for both teams because the lower amount of games. MLB and NBA keep playing. Which leads to.... I say it each time this discussion comes up. If you ever want to go to a straight win-loss system, I want continuous overtime. Exactly. You need a winner and a loser. Bettman quoted a recent poll the other day that close to 80% of the fans enjoy the shootout. I don't mind it but I would have preferrred the Rangers game be played until someone scored. Hey maybe that's it? Only go to the shootout if it's NOT 0-0? I'd prefer 10 minutes of overtime before a shootout, that's all. If it's 4 on 4 that's fine. I'm not arguing the points system. It's there to keep more teams in it and thus keep more people engaged. This is why MLB added a wild card, why NASCAR added the Chase, why PGA added the whatever the hell they call it, and so on. In baseball, when the Pirates are 34 games out by July no one cares anymore and that's bad for business. It's why video game makers put in "catch up mode" on driving games so pathetic drivers will still play because if they fall too far behind their car now travels faster... it's not about realism, it's about keeping people interested and thus spending money. If you want REAL hockey then you need a league that has no television coverage, no big arenas, etc. There will be far less money available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PotentPowerPlay22 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't think the current system accurately distributes points. I dislike all the 3 pt games where one team gets two points for an OT win or SO win and the other gets one point. I feel that if you are going to have OT and SO to decide on a winner then there should be a loser. Here is my idea. In all games 3 pts are awarded for a regulation win. All losers get zero points. (this puts an incentive on going all out for a regulation win) I feel a regulation win should be worth more than a win in extra time (OT or SO). In overtime, 2 pts are awarded for a win. All losers get zero points. (this puts an incentive on teams to win in OT and not hope to hang on to reach the SO where they might feel they have an advantage plus they would further incentive by getting one more pt. than a SO win) In the shootout, only 1 pt is awarded for a win. All losers get zero points. I don't think the losers deserve anything and the winners deserve everything. I would also consider a variation to the above plan wherein the team that wins and scores 5 or more goals can receive a bonus point. This would give teams a great incentive to open up the game. It would give great incentive for teams to keep the foot on the gas and not try to sit on a lead in the 3rd period. In summary, I feel that these changes would be beneficial to the fans and improve the current system significantly. I also think this will never happen in a league that penalizes hits to the head, but allows fighting to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't think the current system accurately distributes points. I dislike all the 3 pt games where one team gets two points for an OT win or SO win and the other gets one point. I feel that if you are going to have OT and SO to decide on a winner then there should be a loser. Here is my idea. In all games 3 pts are awarded for a regulation win. All losers get zero points. (this puts an incentive on going all out for a regulation win) I feel a regulation win should be worth more than a win in extra time (OT or SO). In overtime, 2 pts are awarded for a win. All losers get zero points. (this puts an incentive on teams to win in OT and not hope to hang on to reach the SO where they might feel they have an advantage plus they would further incentive by getting one more pt. than a SO win) In the shootout, only 1 pt is awarded for a win. All losers get zero points. I don't think the losers deserve anything and the winners deserve everything. I would also consider a variation to the above plan wherein the team that wins and scores 5 or more goals can receive a bonus point. This would give teams a great incentive to open up the game. It would give great incentive for teams to keep the foot on the gas and not try to sit on a lead in the 3rd period. In summary, I feel that these changes would be beneficial to the fans and improve the current system significantly. I also think this will never happen in a league that penalizes hits to the head, but allows fighting to exist. Isn't this the point where a mod posts something snarky about using the search function? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Isn't this the point where a mod posts something snarky about using the search function? There needs to be a snarky response by a non-mod first. They're good about not being the first to jump on a new thread creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 There's a huge old thread on this somewhere, although I'm not sure your scheme exactly was discussed. No points for the loss: Dislike this idea, why *not* give the losing team a point if they take the other team all the way to the end of a shootout? I prefer to have games have a constant number of points distributed. There's fewer 'games' (as in manipulating things) played that way. Bonus point: dislike that one. Does the losing team get a point if it's 8-7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 AH!!! The Stealth Merge. Top Secret Technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 ahem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.