Today Jonathan Willis of Sportsnet (and everywhere else on the internet) wrote
this piece about how 3v3 Overtime will not stop teams from playing “not to lose”. Central to the theme of the piece is that the NHL awards the same amount of points for a regulation win as it does for an OT or shootout win.
The nature of the way the points are awarded in the NHL actually pushes teams to play safe enough to get to OT where they are guaranteed a point. This is what Willis has to say:
But while 3-on-3 overtime will help, it’s not a solution in and of itself because there’s still massive incentive for teams to go to overtime. The NHL system is structured so that there are two points available to be handed out to the teams involved in a game decided in regulation; there are three available in overtime/shootout games. So when the game is tied with 10 minutes left in the third period, both teams have an incentive to play low-event, defensive hockey the rest of the way to ensure that they at least collect a point. In a league that is constantly combating a tendency toward low-scoring games, the very structure of the scoring system encourages them.
The one point handed out for making it to OT is a remnant of the Tie. Giving it to a team that made Overtime, even if they lost, was designed to loosen things up. Certainly if no point had been given out for OT but 1 point for a Tie then nobody would take any risks in the 5 minutes of Overtime. The risks outweigh the reward.
Now we have the shootout, however, and history tells us that even bad teams have a coin-flip’s chance of winning in the shootout. The Edmonton Oilers are 1 win below .500 in shootouts over the last 3 seasons despite being one of the worst records imaginable over that same period. So, again we end up with there being a greater incentive for teams (bad ones especially) to play it safe in the OT period and hope for that coin-flip.
If we can agree that the Shootout isn’t going anywhere (even if we wish the NHL would just do 3v3 until there’s a winner) then there might be other things that the league can do to force the action. The problem keeps coming back to that 1 ridiculous point you get just for participating in a game that goes on longer than it should.
1 solution (the one suggested by Jonathan Willis): Move to a 3 point system. 3 points for Regulation Wins, 2 Points for OT/Shootout Wins, 1 point for playing in OT, 0 points for a loss. Extra benefit for winning in regulation might seem extra fun right around this time of year when games are extremely meaningful in the playoff races. Need 3 to tie for a Wild Card spot but there are 30 seconds left in the game and the puck’s in the opposition end: Would you consider pulling the goalie and going for it?
Maybe it plays out that way, maybe it doesn’t. That silly OT point gets “cancelled out” by adding a point on Regulation Wins. It’s an interesting idea, but I have a different one.
If teams are potentially playing it safe to ensure a point in OT, why don’t we just take them away? No points for participating. If you want to climb in the standings, you actually have to win games. And, while we’re at it, if the only points we hand out are for wins, then why have points at all?
My solution is simple. There is a winner and a loser every night in the NHL, ties are dead. 3v3 OT means that many fewer games are won via a “coin-flip” scenario like the shootout. Simply switch to a straight Win/Loss record with Regulation Wins as the tie-breaker.
The NHL rewards teams that find a way to win their games and teams that do it in regulation have a leg up in the event teams finish with identical records. I put together a quick spreadsheet to determine the Wild Card standings for the NHL as they are today, would be in a 3 point system, and would be using a W/L record. This is what I ended up with.
The Playoff picture in the East, if it were to start today would look like this:
ATLANTIC
Montreal
Tampa Bay
Detroit
METROPOLITAN
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
Pittsburgh
WILD CARD
Washington
Boston
The Playoff picture in the East, if it were to start today with a 3-2-1-0 point system would look like this:
ATLANTIC
Tampa Bay
Montreal
Detroit
METROPOLITAN
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
Pittsburgh
WILD CARD
Washington
Boston
The Playoff picture in the West, if it were to start today would look like this:
CENTRAL
St. Louis
Nashville
Chicago
PACIFIC
Anaheim
Vancouver
Los Angeles
WILD CARD
Minnesota
Winnipeg
The Playoff picture in the West, if it were to start today with a 3-2-1-0 point system would look like this:
CENTRAL
St Louis
Nashville
Chicago
PACIFIC
Anaheim
Vancouver
Los Angeles
WILD CARD
Minnesota
Winnipeg
Now let’s see what happens in the East if we re-order things based on Win/Loss record only, no points, with Regulation Wins as the tiebreaker:
ATLANTIC
Montreal
Tampa Bay
Detroit
METROPOLITAN
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
Pittsburgh
WILD CARD
Washington
Boston
Now let’s see what happens in the West if we re-order things based on Win/Loss record only, no points, with Regulation Wins as the tiebreaker:
CENTRAL
St. Louis
Chicago
Nashville
PACIFIC
Anaheim
Vancouver
Calgary
WILD CARD
Minnesota
Winnipeg
Shockingly similar. There are no real changes under any of them, actually. There is a gentle re-ordering of the Atlantic Division in the 3 point system but all of the same teams are still there. The only real change in the West would come in the W/L system where Calgary *shudder* would be in a playoff spot while Los Angeles is out.
As far as I could tell no system would be revolutionizing the standings and bringing a new world order to the NHL. The question is whether or not you believe that teams would act differently knowing they would get another point for winning in Regulation or if they didn’t receive any benefit at all in the event that that lost under any circumstance.
From my perspective, it’s time to burn the ships behind us and abandon points completely. Give me Wins or give me nothing at all.
Edmonton Oilers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»