The NHL Scoring System

[sabregoats]

a lot of you want to lose the losser point, but i think you are forgetting how boring OT used to be. The 4 on 4 helps make it exciting, but trust me if you take away the loser point no team will ever play for the win in the last two minutes of overtime. Teams used to play for the tie in OT with the loser point teams play for the win to gain a point, and if they lose they still get one. If you take away that point ot will revert to the defensive shell that it used to be.

[Bmwolf21]

a lot of you want to lose the losser point, but i think you are forgetting how boring OT used to be. The 4 on 4 helps make it exciting, but trust me if you take away the loser point no team will ever play for the win in the last two minutes of overtime. Teams used to play for the tie in OT with the loser point teams play for the win to gain a point, and if they lose they still get one. If you take away that point ot will revert to the defensive shell that it used to be.

Not quite. All the loser point has done is this: instead of teams playing OT in a defensive shell to hold onto their point (for a tie) now they are playing the last 5 minutes+ of regulation to make sure they get to OT and that guaranteed point. Likewise, by guaranteeing a point for making it to overtime, you get teams (NJ, Minnesota) reverting to a defensive shell for 40-60 minutes of regulation time - basically as soon as they get a lead, they trap, lock and drop into the defensive shell to make sure they at least get a point.

 

I don't think most fans have forgotten how much tie games suck. But at the same time, rewarding someone for almost winning sucks just as much. Aside from NASCAR, where else do you get credit for almost winning? By awarding a point to teams just for getting to overtime, you have essentially green-lighted teams to play "not to lose" for a full 60 minutes, instead of 5 or 10 minutes of overtime.

 

The other question is whether the "loser point" is incentive enough for teams to play a more free-wheeling, attacking style in overtime.

 

There has to be a formula to keep teams from playing not to lose in both regulation and overtime. Maybe it's the 3-point system hopelesly mentioned above (3 points for regulation or OT winner; 2 points for shootout winner; 1 point for shootout loser.)The extra point earned in a regulation or overtime win, coupled with the losers skating away empty-handed if you lose in regulation/OT, should be enough incentive to keep teams pushing to win before the end of OT.

 

Another idea is this - go 10 minutes, 4-on-4, and allow ties, but award no points to either team for the deadlock. That would push them to go balls-out to try to win the game and grab a point or two. Downside there - teams ahead of their opponents might be willing to sacrifice a point to keep their opponent from picking up one or two points.

 

Are there flaws in these ideas? Sure - teams will always find ways to "work the system" but that doesn't mean that the system they have in place is the right one.

[drnkirishone]

do you really beleive that the teams that are playing defensive hockey would open up if the loser point was gone? Personally I think you would just see alot more 0-0 1-0 and 2-0 games again. 3 points for regulation win would cause teams to play defensive late in the game also. I think the point system is fine as is atm. Shootouts I think are a blesing for offensive teams cause they make the defensive minded teams try and win it in OT which leads to more chances.

[Bmwolf21]

I think there are always going to be teams that play in a defensive-minded system (trap, lock, etc) no matter what the points system is. I just don't think that rewarding a team for losing is fair - teams don't get 1/2 a win if they lose in OT during the playoffs, so why give them 1/2 the points for losing in OT during the regular season?

[Guest Sloth]

I cannot stand the scoring system the NHL uses. Why should a team get a point if they lose in overtime? They lost. The team should get nothing. It seems as if the NHL has this set up so almost every team in a conference will be in a playoff race until the final game of the season. Right now, Boston, Tampa, and the New York Islanders would not be where they are at in the standings if they were not given a point for losing a game in OT. In the other major sports in the U.S., a team that loses in OT receives nothing. It simply bothers me that if a team were to win 45 games, they could possibly miss the playoffs or have a poor playoff position. The NHL needs to revert to a Win-loss-tie scoring system. I feel like I'm watching a soap opera.

[SwampD]

Here are some other views on the matter.

[Dave Dryden]

The Olympic points system in hockey is superior to what the NHL does, and the NHL should adopt it. Every game is worth 3 points. A regulation win is worth 3, an overtime/shootout win is worth 2, and an overtime loss 1.

 

This fixes a number of problems I have with the current NHL points system. First, it makes no sense that regulation games are worth 2 points, but overtime games 3, it is asymmetrical and in the wrong direction. Second, in the later portions of tie games team hunker down for overtime, it is dull. But if you know you are going to lose a point or two if it goes to overtime, your economic incentives change. Third, since overtime points are gimmicked up with 4 on 4 and shootouts, it seems right that a gimmick win is worth less than a regulation win.

 

Not as interesting as Ryan Miller's sexual preferences I suppose, but just a thought for the day... DD

[repster]

The Olympic points system in hockey is superior to what the NHL does, and the NHL should adopt it. Every game is worth 3 points. A regulation win is worth 3, an overtime/shootout win is worth 2, and an overtime loss 1.

 

This fixes a number of problems I have with the current NHL points system. First, it makes no sense that regulation games are worth 2 points, but overtime games 3, it is asymmetrical and in the wrong direction. Second, in the later portions of tie games team hunker down for overtime, it is dull. But if you know you are going to lose a point or two if it goes to overtime, your economic incentives change. Third, since overtime points are gimmicked up with 4 on 4 and shootouts, it seems right that a gimmick win is worth less than a regulation win.

 

Not as interesting as Ryan Miller's sexual preferences I suppose, but just a thought for the day... DD

 

Dave, I think the NHL wants as much parity as possible. Your idea makes sense - I look at English soccer as another example of separating the men from the boys, but the NHL wants the teams to have as many teams in playoff contention at the end of the season as possible since it will help more individual owners' gate revenue. To make the game more exciting, I would designate the second period as a 4-on-4 period: more room on the ice for creativity, less incentive to play the trap, more potential for odd man rushes. I think they should try this in the AHL first, then if it's embraced, the NHL could have a go. It would be a major change to the game we know and love, but the players are bigger than ever, the size of the rinks haven't changed, and there are more teams that trap it up.

[Stoner]

To make the game more exciting, I would designate the second period as a 4-on-4 period: more room on the ice for creativity, less incentive to play the trap, more potential for odd man rushes. I think they should try this in the AHL first, then if it's embraced, the NHL could have a go. It would be a major change to the game we know and love, but the players are bigger than ever, the size of the rinks haven't changed, and there are more teams that trap it up.

Interesting. I've often thought during a game that the last five minutes of a period could be four on four. Or just the last five minutes of a game.

 

Of course the coaches would find a way to make even four on four boring. They'd adapt.

 

It's unfortunate to what lengths coaches will go to win games and keep their jobs. The tail is wagging the dog here for sure.

[shrader]

Something to keep in mind is that since the Olympic schedule is so short, they need a system like that to better differentiate between the teams in the short standings. I'm not so sure the NHL needs that with their schedule. As for the boring parts you mentioned, let's face it, with an 82 game season, you are going to have those moments regardless of what the point system is.

 

This subject comes up all the time and I'll still stick by my two preferences. Eliminate the bonus point that is awarded to the shoot out winner (yes, that is the bonus point, not the OTL) and/or switch to continuous overtime.

[wallybarthman]

The Olympic points system in hockey is superior to what the NHL does, and the NHL should adopt it. Every game is worth 3 points. A regulation win is worth 3, an overtime/shootout win is worth 2, and an overtime loss 1.

 

This fixes a number of problems I have with the current NHL points system. First, it makes no sense that regulation games are worth 2 points, but overtime games 3, it is asymmetrical and in the wrong direction. Second, in the later portions of tie games team hunker down for overtime, it is dull. But if you know you are going to lose a point or two if it goes to overtime, your economic incentives change. Third, since overtime points are gimmicked up with 4 on 4 and shootouts, it seems right that a gimmick win is worth less than a regulation win.

 

Not as interesting as Ryan Miller's sexual preferences I suppose, but just a thought for the day... DD

 

I agree completely. It would give more incentive to win in regulation and not settle for the tie and then go for the extra point.

 

I also think the shootout should be ditched in exchange for 2-1 drills with a 30 second limit :-) (Crazy idea but I think it'd be more exciting than a shootout)

[end the curse]

Either all or nothing, or bring back ties. This points for losing crap is ridiculous.

[ReneRobert]

It is worth noting that many European soccer leagues--especially the German Bundesliga--have gone to the 3-point game system in order to encourage playing to win. There is plenty of experience to show that it works, and for the NHL it would solve the OT loss situation in the most elegant way,

[shrader]

It really isn't the point for losing that is the problem though. Like I said earlier, the bonus point actually goes to the winner of the shootout. Those games are ties with an extra point handed out to the winner of a glorified home run derby.

[Eleven]

The Olympic points system in hockey is superior to what the NHL does, and the NHL should adopt it. Every game is worth 3 points. A regulation win is worth 3, an overtime/shootout win is worth 2, and an overtime loss 1.

 

This fixes a number of problems I have with the current NHL points system. First, it makes no sense that regulation games are worth 2 points, but overtime games 3, it is asymmetrical and in the wrong direction. Second, in the later portions of tie games team hunker down for overtime, it is dull. But if you know you are going to lose a point or two if it goes to overtime, your economic incentives change. Third, since overtime points are gimmicked up with 4 on 4 and shootouts, it seems right that a gimmick win is worth less than a regulation win.

 

Not as interesting as Ryan Miller's sexual preferences I suppose, but just a thought for the day... DD

 

I always have loved the idea of the three-point system, but a little different; I would do it soccer style: 3 for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss. No OT in regular season, no SO ever. Teams WILL play hard in the third period to ensure three points.

[Kristian]

Interesting. I've often thought during a game that the last five minutes of a period could be four on four. Or just the last five minutes of a game.

 

Of course the coaches would find a way to make even four on four boring. They'd adapt.

 

It's unfortunate to what lengths coaches will go to win games and keep their jobs. The tail is wagging the dog here for sure.

 

All the NHL needs to do is call the rules as they were stated after the lockout.

 

You can still trap, but with the "no impeding, no interference" rules called as they should be, good luck winning games 1-0.

 

But once Philly were done whining to the commissioner over the fact that their pylon-defense couldn't interfere with opposing forwards anymore, that was pretty much all she wrote for the "New NHL".

 

All they have left is the horizontal stick, which had the smallest impact of all the rule changes by far. Even the "free hand" holding is gone these days.

 

So in all honesty, I don't think the coaches are as much to blame as the morons running this league.

[deluca67]

What the NHL needs to do is to get rid of the point system all together. This isn't the hillbilly merry-go-round. There should just be two columns, wins and loses.

[R_Dudley]

What the NHL needs to do is to get rid of the point system all together. This isn't the hillbilly merry-go-round. There should just be two columns, wins and loses.

 

I like this idea.

We still need to agree on the play for handling the tied games after 3 periods.

I support 5 minutes OT 4 on 4. SO after that.

[LabattBlue]

3 for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss. No OT in regular season, no SO ever. Teams WILL play hard in the third period to ensure three points.

I like this idea, but the league loves parity and IMO implementing a system like this would widen the gap between the haves and have nots.

[carpandean]

I like this idea, but the league loves parity and IMO implementing a system like this would widen the gap between the haves and have nots.

Agreed. I like the incentive to win, but some teams would be eliminated so early that their fans wouldn't care at all. The league would never go for it. At least with the 3-2-1-0 system, the gap wouldn't be as large.

 

Just as another option, I wouldn't mind having the AHL try out a single 10-minute 4-on-4 OT, with a winner getting 2, a loser getting 0 and a tie getting 1 each. I'd be curious to see how many games would actually make it to a tie. Too much of a chance for PPs in that 10 minutes. It would be exciting and I can't imagine feeling too bad that there wasn't a winner at the end of it. I'm guessing fans would be exhausted by the action and go away with a "wow, hard fought battle; at least they got a point" if it were to end in a tie. Of course, that might reward teams with the best top few players, as the 4-on-4 loser gets 0.

[carpandean]

What the NHL needs to do is to get rid of the point system all together. This isn't the hillbilly merry-go-round. There should just be two columns, wins and loses.

Even though the NHL is the only that calls it points, every league has an implied point system. Your system (the same used by MLB and the NBA) is just equivalent to a 2-0 point system. The NFL's system is just equivalent to a 2-1-0 point system. Most of the choices that people are suggesting where games have the same number of points could easily be presented as a percent system just like the other leagues(e.g., the 3-2-1-0 system is just a 100%-67%-33%-0% system.) My biggest problem with the current system is that it can't (or really shouldn't), because points per game are not constant. The concept of a "bonus point" in a professional sport is the biggest joke, not just that they use points.

 

The difference between the NHL and other leagues is the level of scoring (and physical exertion, when comparing with MLB.) It's like soccer in this way and we see point systems there, too. In basketball, they score 20x the number of points, so the chances of not having a winner after a game, much less a short OT period, are much smaller (think of it as winning by a fraction of goal, of which you score 20x as many.) In baseball, it doesn't often take too many extra innings and even if it does, only the bull pen is really affected. In football, a high percentage of drives end in at least a field goal. With hockey, once the playoffs come, we often see long, drawn out OT games, because scoring is generally low and teams lock it down some when they know its all-or-nothing sudden-death. Thus, the already anemic scoring is reduced even further, drawing out the games. So, given the dense schedule and travel requirements, they either have to do something cheesy just to get a winner or allow ties. Fans don't like ties and they complain if an all-or-nothing game is decided in a cheesy way (look at how many people argue that something needs to change about the NFL system.)

 

It's a tough problem to have. One partial solution was to raise scoring, as they did post-lockout. High scoring games are less likely to end in ties (though, with the current point system, the results were tainted.) Unfortunately, the league has decided that wasn't a good idea, for some reason. Other than that, any system will have its benefits and weaknesses; its supporters and detractors. I'm just too grounded in logic that I can't handle an asymmetric point system like we have now.

[nucci]

Interesting. I've often thought during a game that the last five minutes of a period could be four on four. Or just the last five minutes of a game.

 

Of course the coaches would find a way to make even four on four boring. They'd adapt.

 

It's unfortunate to what lengths coaches will go to win games and keep their jobs. The tail is wagging the dog here for sure.

Sounds like this is what they are supposed to do. Would you like them to lose games and get fired?

[Stoner]

Sounds like this is what they are supposed to do. Would you like them to lose games and get fired?

 

Some of them, yes.

 

I'd like the owners of this league to get together and agree to actually put an entertaining product on the ice. Do you realize how popular this sport can be?

[shrader]

It's a tough problem to have. One partial solution was to raise scoring, as they did post-lockout. High scoring games are less likely to end in ties (though, with the current point system, the results were tainted.) Unfortunately, the league has decided that wasn't a good idea, for some reason. Other than that, any system will have its benefits and weaknesses; its supporters and detractors. I'm just too grounded in logic that I can't handle an asymmetric point system like we have now.

 

I'm going to go off on a tanget here a bit. If they really wanted to increase scoring, I'm curious how one idea I think I've mentioned here would work. They should expand the rule where you can't change lines after an ice. Make it so that you can't change lines after any rule violation. Offside? No line change. High stick or hand pass? No line change. And the big one... penalties? No line change. Just picture the scenario where a defenseman takes a penalty and the team is initially forced to kill it with 3 forwards and one defenseman. I'm sure that would lead to a nice little boost in PP scoring.

 

My only concern though is that it would actually lead to more icings or deliberate stoppages of play. You see it now already where a team will ice the puck twice back to back so that they can get that little extra rest from the 2nd delay.

[carpandean]

I'm going to go off on a tangent here a bit. If they really wanted to increase scoring, I'm curious how one idea I think I've mentioned here would work. They should expand the rule where you can't change lines after an ice. Make it so that you can't change lines after any rule violation. Offside? No line change. High stick or hand pass? No line change. And the big one... penalties? No line change. Just picture the scenario where a defenseman takes a penalty and the team is initially forced to kill it with 3 forwards and one defenseman. I'm sure that would lead to a nice little boost in PP scoring.

Not to tangent your tangent, but I actually want to see the no-change icing rule applied in a situation that might actually decrease scoring (though, marginally.) I really hate the over-the-glass penalty and would rather see them simply treat it as an icing: no line change, no TV timeout, defensive zone faceoff. Still penalizes a little for doing it intentionally (was that really happening too much before that rule), but wouldn't be as big of a penalty for doing it accidentally. Plus, intentionally putting it over is more likely to happen when the team is tired and hemmed in, while accidentally is just as likely to happen at any point, so it would penalize the right situation more.

 

Your penalty idea is particularly interesting, especially in cases where a defenseman takes a penalty because the team has been hemmed into its own end for a long time. Not only are you killing it with one defenseman, but with four very tired skater, in general. I'd also like to see situations where teams have scoring lines that aren't known for their defensive play and end up having those guys kill penalties ... when tired ... and with just one defenseman. :thumbsup: