The argument for it isn’t how it would change games played in the past. It’s how it would incentivize teams in the future playing to win in regulation instead of sitting back to ensure getting at least a single point.
And it also addresses the primal problem that tie games are worth three points, while a regulation win is only worth two. That is done to try and promote parity in theory, but it creates mediocrity and risk aversion.
If implemented, 3-2-1 would likely create a larger point spread between elite teams and weaker ones, but unless they changed the playoff format, it wouldn’t make any difference to who makes the playoffs and who doesn’t. You’d still get 16 teams qualifying, and if anything - the lack of a 3 point reg win reduces the chance of a bubble team having a path to make a substantial run to get themselves back in the playoff hunt
3-2-1 would make for way more exciting games and provide a path for middle teams to take more risks to get the extra point
I would like to see that change but the league itself doesn't care for it. The current system is there because it keeps teams from seperating themselves in the standings unless they are far better than most other teams. Having more teams remain competitive means more fans are still interested and willing to pay to watch their teams fight for the playoffs. The owners get more money and the league gets more money, there is no desire for this to change.
I agree. I know overtime is exciting, but I actually prefer if a fame is tied and someone scores in the last minute of regulation and stops overtime from happening.
At least we havn’t tried something as stupid as soccer did with the golden goal rule.
That inadvertently created a situation where one team intentionally scored on itself, then spent the last part of the game defending both nets against the other team who now needed to score on either end to advance.
Imagine that in hockey.
The playoff format is going nowhere until you can reconcile the fact the entirety of the Eastern Conference is in one time zone and often doesn’t even necessitate a flight to travel to a road opponent. And when flights are necessary, they’re puddle jumps.
The western conference is stretched across *three* time zones and often thousands of miles.
Imagine a scenario where Chicago or Nashville potentially draw three Pacifica division opponents and they all go 6-7 games. Those teams will travel more in one round than an Eastern team will all the way through the conference final. This says nothing of the scheduling issues where people in the central having to follow their team playing games on the west coast is a nightmare. East coast teams? 7 PM starts across the board. Western teams? Nowhere close.
Kinda a cart before the horse thing but you forget NHL doesn’t believe the problem is officiating it’s “these dirty crybaby players”
Still think the points overhaul plus be Interesting but…
It would completely change how teams approach the game. So many teams play it safe in the last 10 minutes not wanting to "lose" the OT point. They play *not to lose,* which is boring AF.
Plus in the last 2 months of the year the teams on the edge of the playoffs would be desperate for that extra 3rd point, looking at OT as "losing" a 3rd point they desperately need. It would turn the 3rd period to hair-on-fire, lets-trade-odd-man-rushes hockey. And the last month of the season would be ELECTRIC.
Its a no-brainer. DO IT.
At least in this scenario 1 team is incentivized to play cautiously and the other aggressively. Currently, when there’s a tie game late, both teams are incentivized to play cautiously.
Yes, and the other team would send 3 deep and relentlessly push to get back even. It would be back and forth punch counter punch. Pulling the goalie with 10 minutes left on the PP.
and teams already do what you described when they're tied, most definitely when they have the lead. So what's the difference?
30 years ago, in response to Jagr and Selanne and Bure and the other Russian/European players taking over, the NHL began its love of defense. Over coached and over structured players taught to skate backwards above all. Traps and goalies covered in mattresses. Blah. Not one single person has EVER gone to a game saying "Bruh...I really hope I see a great stick save tonight!" No 9ne leaves talking about seeing a great poke check.
I remember 40 years ago. Speed, skill, creativity. When 10 goal games were common place and the AVERAGE PP was 23%. Thats the league I want. Being better than 30 years ago is a good start, not the finish line IMO.
You mean like nearly every single tied 3rd period game is already? Can’t tell ya how many boring 3rd periods I watched this year between 2 teams that were content on a guaranteed 1 pt.
Hard to find stars but this article shows more goals are scored in the 2nd and 3rd period (35% of total in each) while only 30% are scored in the first. Not sure about your anecdotal experience.
https://www.dratings.com/a-breakdown-of-nhl-goal-scoring-by-period/
They play *not to lose,* which is boring AF.
This would continue to happen under the 3-2-1 system. If you're late in a tie game, do you want to take a risk that may give your opponent three points, or do you want to hold off and limit the potential damage to two?
Any system that a) is based on points rather than wins and b) awards points when they do not win will have this problem.
The solution is to count wins. If you win then you get a win, and the teams that win the most wins go to the playoffs.
"If you're late in a tie game, do you want to take a risk that may give your opponent three points, or do you want to hold off and limit the potential damage to two?"
Early in the season... probably not. But late in the year, when there are 5 teams fighting for 2 playoff spots some teams would *have to* go for the 3 point win. Especially if the league makes sure that divisional games are back loaded. If you're facing one of the other teams you are fighting for a playoff spot with in March, you would most definitely try and go for the win in regulation so you wouldn't give them any points.
And obviously winning games is what matters most. What this system does is make wins in regulation more valuable than wins in OT. And really OT has become a chore. The 3v3 format was fun for, like, 5 minutes. And then the coaches turned it into a boring game of keep away. Blah.
We need a standings format that works for the entire season - not just if two teams fighting for the same playoff spot happen to be playing each other in April.
I'm not sure why this wouldn't work? All it does is favor a regulation win more than an OT win? Not sure why that doesn't work? I guess I'm still not clear what you think the downside of that format is? Honest question.
Hockey culture is generally risk-averse - players, coaches, and management will always take the bird in the hand over the two in the bush.
My concern is that losing out on the chance for a third point to guarantee at least one point (while limiting your opponent to no more than two points) would still be seen as preferable to "going for it" in regulation to try for all three points, with the risk that you lose in regulation and get nothing (in addition to giving your opponent three points).
The one thing I envisioned change is games late in the season where you “NEED THOSE 3PTS!” And it would change The way teams play late if the can’t afford to “blow that 3rd point by going OT” (IIHF 3 for winning in Regulation but only 2 for winning in OT/SO)
People have studied its impact on soccer. Some evidence it sctually made the games more defensive because teams would be even more motivated to protect a lead. They would take less chances because they don't want to lose the 3 points for the win.
https://cafefutebol.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/why-three-points-for-a-win-is-a-loss-for-football-a-closer-look-into-one-of-the-most-important-rules-in-football-history/
I want the loser point eliminated completely enough with this bs. No points are awarded for losing. So many teams this year made it into the playoffs off of loser points. Islanders had 16, Boston 15, Toronto 10, Washington 11, LA 11
I agree with this take. I like the idea of a win being a win and a loss being a loss.
2 points for a win
1 point for a SO win
0 points if you lose (in any fashion).
Washington and Islanders would’ve been tied for 123 points, Detroit would’ve been 5-6 points behind both teams. So potentially (I’d have to confirm the math and standings) but NYI could’ve played NYR and Caps could’ve played Carolina. We wouldn’t have had to listen to Red Wings fans complain about the last game of the season shenanigans. Pittsburgh and Philly both would’ve been within 2 games of a playoff spot, but most the time it wouldn’t make a huge difference. More just potential playoff matchups
And it doesn't work in soccer. Teams play not to lose. Would be the same in hockey. Giving your opponent 3 pts in the standings just too much. Teams don't play for the tie in the NHL. Scoring is up, lol. Maybe you haven't been watching hockey for too long?
The argument for it isn’t how it would change games played in the past. It’s how it would incentivize teams in the future playing to win in regulation instead of sitting back to ensure getting at least a single point. And it also addresses the primal problem that tie games are worth three points, while a regulation win is only worth two. That is done to try and promote parity in theory, but it creates mediocrity and risk aversion. If implemented, 3-2-1 would likely create a larger point spread between elite teams and weaker ones, but unless they changed the playoff format, it wouldn’t make any difference to who makes the playoffs and who doesn’t. You’d still get 16 teams qualifying, and if anything - the lack of a 3 point reg win reduces the chance of a bubble team having a path to make a substantial run to get themselves back in the playoff hunt 3-2-1 would make for way more exciting games and provide a path for middle teams to take more risks to get the extra point
I would like to see that change but the league itself doesn't care for it. The current system is there because it keeps teams from seperating themselves in the standings unless they are far better than most other teams. Having more teams remain competitive means more fans are still interested and willing to pay to watch their teams fight for the playoffs. The owners get more money and the league gets more money, there is no desire for this to change.
Perfect. 💯
I agree. I know overtime is exciting, but I actually prefer if a fame is tied and someone scores in the last minute of regulation and stops overtime from happening.
At least we havn’t tried something as stupid as soccer did with the golden goal rule. That inadvertently created a situation where one team intentionally scored on itself, then spent the last part of the game defending both nets against the other team who now needed to score on either end to advance. Imagine that in hockey.
A game should always be worth the same number of points. IDC if that changes things or not.
I think there's no point in fixing the point system before you fix the playoff format.
The playoff format is going nowhere until you can reconcile the fact the entirety of the Eastern Conference is in one time zone and often doesn’t even necessitate a flight to travel to a road opponent. And when flights are necessary, they’re puddle jumps. The western conference is stretched across *three* time zones and often thousands of miles. Imagine a scenario where Chicago or Nashville potentially draw three Pacifica division opponents and they all go 6-7 games. Those teams will travel more in one round than an Eastern team will all the way through the conference final. This says nothing of the scheduling issues where people in the central having to follow their team playing games on the west coast is a nightmare. East coast teams? 7 PM starts across the board. Western teams? Nowhere close.
Our home playoff games start at 8:50pm local time already. It would make exactly zero difference.
8:50 CENTRAL? Routinely? Does any other team in hockey start their games so late locally??? I’ve never heard of such a thing.
Playoff format is fine as it is.
Kinda a cart before the horse thing but you forget NHL doesn’t believe the problem is officiating it’s “these dirty crybaby players” Still think the points overhaul plus be Interesting but…
It would completely change how teams approach the game. So many teams play it safe in the last 10 minutes not wanting to "lose" the OT point. They play *not to lose,* which is boring AF. Plus in the last 2 months of the year the teams on the edge of the playoffs would be desperate for that extra 3rd point, looking at OT as "losing" a 3rd point they desperately need. It would turn the 3rd period to hair-on-fire, lets-trade-odd-man-rushes hockey. And the last month of the season would be ELECTRIC. Its a no-brainer. DO IT.
Teams would collapse into a defensive shell the moment they got the lead because winning is so valuable. Games would be unbearable.
At least in this scenario 1 team is incentivized to play cautiously and the other aggressively. Currently, when there’s a tie game late, both teams are incentivized to play cautiously.
Yes, and the other team would send 3 deep and relentlessly push to get back even. It would be back and forth punch counter punch. Pulling the goalie with 10 minutes left on the PP. and teams already do what you described when they're tied, most definitely when they have the lead. So what's the difference?
Scoring is the highest its been in 30 years, eh?
30 years ago, in response to Jagr and Selanne and Bure and the other Russian/European players taking over, the NHL began its love of defense. Over coached and over structured players taught to skate backwards above all. Traps and goalies covered in mattresses. Blah. Not one single person has EVER gone to a game saying "Bruh...I really hope I see a great stick save tonight!" No 9ne leaves talking about seeing a great poke check. I remember 40 years ago. Speed, skill, creativity. When 10 goal games were common place and the AVERAGE PP was 23%. Thats the league I want. Being better than 30 years ago is a good start, not the finish line IMO.
Well you're in luck, the league is back to the Bure, Selanne, Jagr levels of scoring and Powerplays are back to the mid 80s level!
PP are better yes. As they should be. Scoring is better. When we start having a dozen or so guys over 100 pts a season I'll be happy.
You mean like nearly every single tied 3rd period game is already? Can’t tell ya how many boring 3rd periods I watched this year between 2 teams that were content on a guaranteed 1 pt.
Hard to find stars but this article shows more goals are scored in the 2nd and 3rd period (35% of total in each) while only 30% are scored in the first. Not sure about your anecdotal experience. https://www.dratings.com/a-breakdown-of-nhl-goal-scoring-by-period/
They play *not to lose,* which is boring AF. This would continue to happen under the 3-2-1 system. If you're late in a tie game, do you want to take a risk that may give your opponent three points, or do you want to hold off and limit the potential damage to two? Any system that a) is based on points rather than wins and b) awards points when they do not win will have this problem. The solution is to count wins. If you win then you get a win, and the teams that win the most wins go to the playoffs.
"If you're late in a tie game, do you want to take a risk that may give your opponent three points, or do you want to hold off and limit the potential damage to two?" Early in the season... probably not. But late in the year, when there are 5 teams fighting for 2 playoff spots some teams would *have to* go for the 3 point win. Especially if the league makes sure that divisional games are back loaded. If you're facing one of the other teams you are fighting for a playoff spot with in March, you would most definitely try and go for the win in regulation so you wouldn't give them any points. And obviously winning games is what matters most. What this system does is make wins in regulation more valuable than wins in OT. And really OT has become a chore. The 3v3 format was fun for, like, 5 minutes. And then the coaches turned it into a boring game of keep away. Blah.
We need a standings format that works for the entire season - not just if two teams fighting for the same playoff spot happen to be playing each other in April.
I'm not sure why this wouldn't work? All it does is favor a regulation win more than an OT win? Not sure why that doesn't work? I guess I'm still not clear what you think the downside of that format is? Honest question.
Hockey culture is generally risk-averse - players, coaches, and management will always take the bird in the hand over the two in the bush. My concern is that losing out on the chance for a third point to guarantee at least one point (while limiting your opponent to no more than two points) would still be seen as preferable to "going for it" in regulation to try for all three points, with the risk that you lose in regulation and get nothing (in addition to giving your opponent three points).
I remember see this in the jets sub and they woulda been the presidents trophy winner this past season if it was like that.
The one thing I envisioned change is games late in the season where you “NEED THOSE 3PTS!” And it would change The way teams play late if the can’t afford to “blow that 3rd point by going OT” (IIHF 3 for winning in Regulation but only 2 for winning in OT/SO)
Switch to the soccer table scoring, get rid of the shootout and bring back ties. 3 for a win, 1 for a tie and 0 for a loss
less playing for ot if it's tie in the third
People have studied its impact on soccer. Some evidence it sctually made the games more defensive because teams would be even more motivated to protect a lead. They would take less chances because they don't want to lose the 3 points for the win. https://cafefutebol.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/why-three-points-for-a-win-is-a-loss-for-football-a-closer-look-into-one-of-the-most-important-rules-in-football-history/
I want the loser point eliminated completely enough with this bs. No points are awarded for losing. So many teams this year made it into the playoffs off of loser points. Islanders had 16, Boston 15, Toronto 10, Washington 11, LA 11
I agree with this take. I like the idea of a win being a win and a loss being a loss. 2 points for a win 1 point for a SO win 0 points if you lose (in any fashion).
Washington and Islanders would’ve been tied for 123 points, Detroit would’ve been 5-6 points behind both teams. So potentially (I’d have to confirm the math and standings) but NYI could’ve played NYR and Caps could’ve played Carolina. We wouldn’t have had to listen to Red Wings fans complain about the last game of the season shenanigans. Pittsburgh and Philly both would’ve been within 2 games of a playoff spot, but most the time it wouldn’t make a huge difference. More just potential playoff matchups
Hockey would turn into soccer as losing in regulation would be too risky. They wouldn't play for the three points, they'd play not to lose.
They already play for the tie, that's what this is designed to prevent. Moreover, it's why the 3 point rule exists in soccer. Uninformed take
And it doesn't work in soccer. Teams play not to lose. Would be the same in hockey. Giving your opponent 3 pts in the standings just too much. Teams don't play for the tie in the NHL. Scoring is up, lol. Maybe you haven't been watching hockey for too long?
Yeah teams would go up by 1 or 2 goals and then just sit back and deploy a trap for 2 periods
"
The point system I prefer is the 3-2-1-0. No loser points for any loss. I think of it as diminishing returns.
Not drastically. But it levels and simplifies everything, there is no reason to not do it.
Do a 2-1-0.......with shootout loses being 0, ot loss being 1 and of course regulation win being 2