Pretty good read.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-r ... ser-point/

I didn't know the 2012 Kings were 40-42....

I hate, hate, hate three point games/loser points. The fact that certain games are simply worth more in points is yet another reason the NHL is a joke of a league. Fantastic sport, terrible league it's so disappointing.

If I had my way I'd just cut straight to the shootout after regulation. 2 points for win 0 for loss. Teams with bad shooters/weak goalies on breakaways, would have to push harder to score near the end of a tied game because they would have no guaranteed points to get out of the game. The NHL's logic for awarding at least a point for going to OT is truly mind boggling.

1 point for a tie
3 points for a win
5 minute 4v4 ot
no more shootout

Play 5v5 till someone wins. That's all. If it's time they're worried about,they can shorten the game by not inventing penalties. Stop trying to create shorthanded situations. Get rid of the second ref.

The NHLPA will never go for this. This is such an easy problem to fix...1 point for a win in OT...zero points for a tie...it is a simple fix.

"It could keep removing players from the ice until it was just goalie versus goalie. Would you not stop whatever you were doing to watch Henrik Lundqvist versus Tuukka Rask, one-on-one?"

This would be great. They would have to use their goalie sticks and they wouldn't be allowed to take off any of their equipment. I could go f

Doug Glatt wrote:1 point for a tie
3 points for a win
5 minute 4v4 ot
no more shootout

Toss in promotion from the AHL and relegation to the AHL, and we've got us an idea!!

CaptSMRT wrote:The NHLPA will never go for this. This is such an easy problem to fix...1 point for a win in OT...zero points for a tie...it is a simple fix.

This gets rid of the play for OT problem, but a win is a win. I don't think you should earn less points just for winning in OT. All games just need to be worth the same amount of points. I'm fine with either 2 points for a win, 0 for a loss no matter what, or the 3 point system used in the Olympics. I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL would be willing to go with the 3-point system in the future.

I personally like the- 3 points for regulation win, 2 points for OT win, 1 point for OT loss- system. It seems like it would encourage teams to win in regulation so they do lose a point.

Puck wrote:

CaptSMRT wrote:The NHLPA will never go for this. This is such an easy problem to fix...1 point for a win in OT...zero points for a tie...it is a simple fix.

This gets rid of the play for OT problem, but a win is a win. I don't think you should earn less points just for winning in OT. All games just need to be worth the same amount of points. I'm fine with either 2 points for a win, 0 for a loss no matter what, or the 3 point system used in the Olympics. I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL would be willing to go with the 3-point system in the future.

There needs to be a disincentive for going to OT.

I'llBeBackes wrote:I personally like the- 3 points for regulation win, 2 points for OT win, 1 point for OT loss- system. It seems like it would encourage teams to win in regulation so they do lose a point.

Yeah if we keep the OT the way it is this is the only logical way to determine points.

CaptSMRT wrote:

Puck wrote:

CaptSMRT wrote:The NHLPA will never go for this. This is such an easy problem to fix...1 point for a win in OT...zero points for a tie...it is a simple fix.

This gets rid of the play for OT problem, but a win is a win. I don't think you should earn less points just for winning in OT. All games just need to be worth the same amount of points. I'm fine with either 2 points for a win, 0 for a loss no matter what, or the 3 point system used in the Olympics. I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL would be willing to go with the 3-point system in the future.

There needs to be a disincentive for going to OT.

2points to ot winner 1 point ot loser

1point so winner 0 point so loser

20-minute OT period. No line changes. Tie after 20 minutes of OT. 2 points for win, 0 points for loss.

ratonmono wrote:

I'llBeBackes wrote:I personally like the- 3 points for regulation win, 2 points for OT win, 1 point for OT loss- system. It seems like it would encourage teams to win in regulation so they do lose a point.

Yeah if we keep the OT the way it is this is the only logical way to determine points.

I like that idea too and yes, that is logical. But in the NHL logic is seldom used.

CaptSMRT wrote:

Puck wrote:

CaptSMRT wrote:The NHLPA will never go for this. This is such an easy problem to fix...1 point for a win in OT...zero points for a tie...it is a simple fix.

This gets rid of the play for OT problem, but a win is a win. I don't think you should earn less points just for winning in OT. All games just need to be worth the same amount of points. I'm fine with either 2 points for a win, 0 for a loss no matter what, or the 3 point system used in the Olympics. I wouldn't be surprised if the NHL would be willing to go with the 3-point system in the future.

There needs to be a disincentive for going to OT.

If it was a 2 point win no matter what, 0 point for OTL, that would be incentive enough to win in regulation.

The 3 point system is a little more complicated though. There isn't necessarily a disincentive for going to OT, but the stakes are higher for winning in regulation. A regulation win would be worth more than an overtime win and would 2 points more than an overtime loss. Regulation wins would be far more valuable rather than regulation wins simply being a tie-breaker.

Either way, I agree with Nate Silver on this, the system does need to change. I just think every game needs to be worth the same amount of points.