NHL Points system

[OpIv37]

Why is it that overtime/SO games are worth 3 points (2 for winner, one for loser) and regulation wins are only worth two points?

OT games essentially create more available points in the standings, which affects playoff position, especially for "bubble" teams. If you're 1 point out and the team ahead of you gets a free point by going into OT against some other opponent, you essentially get screwed.

Seems to me that every game should be worth 3 points- Regulation win=3, OT win=2, OT loss=1.

I vaguely remember the NHL having a similar system a few years back, but I may be confusing it with the system they used when there were still ties.

[Ebenezer]

Because they did not want to mess up the system and make it harder to compare points across history...personally, just get rid of the OT. OT/SO wins artificially inflate point totals.

If I were a mediocre NHL team I would just try to tie every game and get it to OT. By dumb luck a team should be able to win 20 out of 80 games in OT/SO. That's 100 points and will get you a top four seed.

[LtFinFan66]

you should not get a point regardless of when you lose the game

[Ebenezer]

you should not get a point regardless of when you lose the game
amen to that.

[SabreEleven]

you should not get a point regardless of when you lose the game

Wow, I think we've turned you into a hockey fan. Great Post, Dan. of course you jumping on the Penguins bandwagon didn't hurt.

[OpIv37]

2 points, 3 points, ties- I don't really care, as long as every game is worth the same amount of points. This "two points unless each team is equally mediocre then three points" **** has got to go.

[MikeInRoch]

Because they did not want to mess up the system and make it harder to compare points across history...

I suppose, but it's still very hard, considering that more total points will be awarded under this system than before.

I'd be on board with "every game produces 3 points", which was mentioned above.

[YardRat]

I like the current system. OT adds a level of excitement to regular season games that was missing, if a team wins in OT they get rewarded and if they lose they don't get severely penalized by missing out on a point.

[Forward_Lateral]

I agree that you shouldn't get a point for losing in overtime, but losing in a shoot out is another story. The shoot out should be removed, and a tie should be granted like it used to be.

[chernobylwraiths]

I love the shootout, but it should be taken out of hockey. I think a combination of the 3 point system and getting rid of the shootout would be better.

I also think that every record that has been compiled in the last few years should have an asterisk after it. It takes away some very legitimate records. Winning a game because you have better guys on breakaways is not a real win.

[Forward_Lateral]

I agree 100% Chern. Shoot-outs, while fun to watch, have no place in meaningful hockey games.

[RockStar36]

Shootouts were fun when they were first added and I still don't like ties, but I've grown to dislike the shootout more and more. After 65 minutes of hockey, the game is decided by a skills competition.

[rbochan]

...If I were a mediocre NHL team I would just try to tie every game and get it to OT. By dumb luck a team should be able to win 20 out of 80 games in OT/SO. That's 100 points and will get you a top four seed.
Hence, the New York Rangers.

[trapezeus]

i hate the 1 point for OT, but it serves a purposes. do you remember what it was like when you could come out without a point. it was like a soccer game for the 5 minutes. just a lot of passing in the middle and not a lot of shots.

OT is more like the first 60 minutes with teams chasing after wins. that's good for the sport.

[Ebenezer]

I love the shootout, but it should be taken out of hockey. I think a combination of the 3 point system and getting rid of the shootout would be better.

I also think that every record that has been compiled in the last few years should have an asterisk after it. It takes away some very legitimate records. Winning a game because you have better guys on breakaways is not a real win.
that is what I kept saying when the Sabres won the Presidents Cup. That team was no where near as good as the 75 team that wracked up 113 points.

[OpIv37]

i hate the 1 point for OT, but it serves a purposes. do you remember what it was like when you could come out without a point. it was like a soccer game for the 5 minutes. just a lot of passing in the middle and not a lot of shots.

OT is more like the first 60 minutes with teams chasing after wins. that's good for the sport.

then make every game with 3 points- 2 for OT win, 1 for OT loss, 3 for regulation win. That way there would still be incentive to get that OT win. It's just completely illogical that mediocre hockey allows bonus points in the standings to materialize from thin air.

[RockStar36]

then make every game with 3 points- 2 for OT win, 1 for OT loss, 3 for regulation win. That way there would still be incentive to get that OT win. It's just completely illogical that mediocre hockey allows bonus points in the standings to materialize from thin air.

Not to mention how teams play in the last few minutes of regulation when tied. Most times they just skate around to make sure they get at least that one point.

[Ingtar33]

dump the points system. no game ends in a tie anymore.

just go with winning percentage.

[Forward_Lateral]

dump the points system. no game ends in a tie anymore.

just go with winning percentage.

No need to throw the baby out with the bath water. The points system is an important part of hockey, and it always will be. It's just a bit flawed, especially since the addiction of shoot-outs. You never used to get a point for an OT loss, only for a win, or a tie.

[SabreEleven]

dump the points system. no game ends in a tie anymore.

just go with winning percentage.
this isn't the NBA.

I say give 2 points for the winner and 0 points for the loser just like LT said whether you win in regulation, OT or shootout.

[Typ0]

i don't like teams shutting down at the end playing for OT to preserve that point.

[JD]

Why is it that overtime/SO games are worth 3 points (2 for winner, one for loser) and regulation wins are only worth two points?

OT games essentially create more available points in the standings, which affects playoff position, especially for "bubble" teams. If you're 1 point out and the team ahead of you gets a free point by going into OT against some other opponent, you essentially get screwed.

Seems to me that every game should be worth 3 points- Regulation win=3, OT win=2, OT loss=1.

I vaguely remember the NHL having a similar system a few years back, but I may be confusing it with the system they used when there were still ties.


I proposed something similar last year I think. But it was.. 3 for reg. win 2 for ot win 1 for tie (makes them try harder in the 3rd to get that extra point).

The OT should be 10 minutes long.

The shootout is a joke.

[OpIv37]

Pat Sajak is on NHL Live right now talking about this exact topic- he hates the 3 point games and says it should be 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss, regardless of if it's regulation or not.

[RockStar36]

Pat Sajak is on NHL Live right now talking about this exact topic- he hates the 3 point games and says it should be 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss, regardless of if it's regulation or not.

Imagine if NFL teams were credited with half a win if they lost in OT.

[Dozerdog]

Why is it that overtime/SO games are worth 3 points (2 for winner, one for loser) and regulation wins are only worth two points?

OT games essentially create more available points in the standings, which affects playoff position, especially for "bubble" teams. If you're 1 point out and the team ahead of you gets a free point by going into OT against some other opponent, you essentially get screwed.

Seems to me that every game should be worth 3 points- Regulation win=3, OT win=2, OT loss=1.

I vaguely remember the NHL having a similar system a few years back, but I may be confusing it with the system they used when there were still ties.

NHL never had a 3 point game- when they had ties it was 1 point each.

Soccer leagues use this - 3 points for wins, 1 point for "draws"

I think Tournament hockey uses the 3 point system- the World Juniors I think does this- 3 for a win, 2 for an OT win , 1 point for an OT loss, zero points for sucking.



I'd be in favor of this.

[Dozerdog]

I also am in favor of a 10 minute OT, and I do like shootouts resolving the issue.

I also think teams that commit penalties in the dying moments should be somehow penalized in a shootout-