Why the NHL must switch to a three point system

The NHL season is drawing to a close. When the players return from the olympics, no teams will have more than 25 games left in their season. It's go time. And every year around this time, people calculate up what the standings would look like if the NHL point system was different. Even a couple of websites have popped up to make this much easier, like hockeystandings.info to name one example.

The biggest point of contention here is of course the "loser point" or "Bettman point", as it is often described. An additional point is given away in a game that goes to overtime, or *gasp* a shootout. It is often described as creating false parity, and many people state the opinion that a team who lost shouldn't get a point at all. And indeed, it is true that the NHL conjured a point out of thin air to award in an overtime situation. However, it is the point that is being awarded to the winner.

Origins

Regular season overtime was introduced in the NHL in 1999. Up to that point, a game could end three different ways from the perspective of one team: You could win, you could tie, or you could lose. Those you could earn three different amounts of points in a game: 2, 1, or none.

When the NHL introduced overtime, they did not adjust this system despite there now being more possible outcomes for any given game. It was sort of tradition that teams would earn something for remaining steadfast and not budging to the other team, even if it resulted in a stalemate. While ties are not popular, they show more often than not that the teams were evenly matched in the contest. Thus they would split the total if they were tied after 60 minutes.

However, a team would get an additional point if they could score in overtime, and thus give the NHL the right to brag that there more games ending with a winner than with an unpopular tie. This remained in the time period between the 1999-2000 season and the season long lockout in 2004-05, after which the shootout was introduced and ties were removed from the results entirely.

Overtime is often very exciting. There is a thrill in sudden death and a game without 2nd chances. Where there won't be an opportunity to make amends. In the playoffs, you might not even get another game with such an opportunity either. However, the excitement of overtime the NHL regularly experiences in the playoffs did not exactly translate to the regular season.

Problems

There is a flaw with the two point system if overtime exists: Teams have less of an incentive to win in regulation. Before 1999, winning in regulation had two advantages: You improved your own point total, and you denied points to the opponent. The reverse is also true, as losing would result in having no points at all. It was a high risk-high reward gamble.

With overtime, teams can just play it safe if the game is tied at the end of regulation. Unless the teams involved are in direct competition for a playoff spot, it rarely matters that a the other team gets a point, and you still retain the chance to earn the maximum amount of points a team could get, while having one point guaranteed.

There is also the problem of the shootout. It is thought of by many as a sideshow and an illegitimate way of ending a hockey game. And to a certain extend those people are right, as the situation in a shootout is hard to compare of the common, team-oriented play otherwise seen in the sport. While breakaways and penalty shots exist, they are the consequent result of team-oriented play and hockey sense, and there is much more pressure within the situation as unlike a round of the shootout, there are not other opportunities to score and thus they have more importance.

Why a three-point system would work

Many leagues around the world, such as the Czech Extraliga, the KHL or the Swedish Hockey League (formerly called "Elitserien", why they switched to a much more boring name I still don't understand) use a three point system: Winning in regulation is worth three points while a loss is zero points. When the game is tied after 60 minutes, the game goes to overtime and later a shootout, with the winning team awarded two points and the losing team one point.

This retains the integrity of regulation play. While you can still earn points by playing it safe late in the game in a tied situation, both teams will be punished as they can not gain the full amount if they took on a risk. It also rewards teams who fight and succeed in a comeback, and punishes those which falter under the pressure of a late rally by the opponent. It adds excitement to regulation play.

It also has the added advantage of making every game played worth the same amount of total points, as it is quite strange that under the current rules in the NHL, different games are worth different amounts of points depending on the outcome.

Reading the standings

One criticism that is levied against the three-point system is that it makes the standings of the NHL less readable. I believe the contrary.

Currently the Standings show Wins, Losses, and Overtime losses, as well as the resulting point totals. This suggests that it is possible to lose a game in different ways, but only win in one way, which makes very little logical sense.

Additionally there is the problem that the NHL, responding to the detractors of the shootout, added a new tie-breaker called "Regulation and overtime wins". This already adds an additional column to determine the standings even before looking at goals for and goals against. It is in fact already a pseudo-three-point system, but one that requires some additional calculation by the people looking at the standings.

Additionally, the current standings format also obscures information, as the number of wins in overtime a team amassed can not be determined at all by looking at the standings right now.

Of course most of this only pertains to people who actually know the tie-breaking procedure the NHL uses. Most casual fans only look at the point total and the number of games played, and approximate how likely a team is to make the playoffs from there.

Why not just remove the loser point?

An alternative solution that is often recommended is simply removing the "loser point" and just make it wins and losses, regardless of when those games are decided. It would simplify the game and make the standings easier to read.

To me I think this to be a worse option. For one, it makes those late rallies less rewarding. Even if you manage to push the game to overtime, the effort might be futile anyway. The second problem with this system is that it puts more emphasis on the shootout, rather than less. A strange thing to observe, as this system is often proposed by the greatest critics of the shootout.

I also believe that this system would be harder to be accepted by the owners. A couple of years ago Islanders owner Charles Wang suggest a system where every NHL team makes the playoffs. The reason for this is obvious: It makes even cellar dwellers have hope. If a team could possibly win, fans will buy tickets, and that will of course be beneficial to the owners. A simple, win-loss system would bring about the separation between competitive teams and bottom feeders much earlier in the season, and thus the owners of less successful teams would sell less tickets later into the season.

The bigger divide between winning and losing in a three-point system would have a similar effect, though it would be to a much smaller degree.

Conclusion

The three-point system is in my opinion a necessary change the NHL must implement as soon as possible. It gives greater legitimacy to an outcome while improving play and upping the stakes for teams. It should also lessen the grief the NHL gets from many of its more traditionalist fans who are dissatisfied with the shootouts, as they will be less of a deciding factor for playoff races.