Should the NHL adopt a new points system to allow three points for regulation wins?
Most ardent Senators fans could easily quote their team's position in the NHL wild card standings without even looking.
That's because most fans have been engaged in, since at least the end of the Olympic break, the time-honoured tradition of scoreboard watching.
Those same ardent fans also know that the Sens have gone 7-2-2 in that timeframe yet they've barely put a dent in closing the wild card gap.
Part of the reason for this is the dreaded three-point games, where the overtime winner gets two points, and the loser gets one. It's the foundation for some teams being in a playoff spot. Except for teams like Tampa Bay, which have only lost in overtime or a shootout four times all season, the majority of teams are relying on these “loser points," and it's almost impossible to make the playoffs without them.
In addition to scoreboard watching, Senators fans are also watching opponents' games live, and the Boston Bruins OT loss to the Montreal Canadiens on St. Paddy’s Day gave rise to the need for a solution.
In watching this game, it was hard not to notice how each team played a very passive game where each wanted to win. But they didn't play with a “risk vs reward” approach because there was no incentive to do so. Making sure their respective teams got at least one point was more important than getting two in regulation.
Would the league, and not just the Ottawa Senators, not benefit from adopting the 3-2-1-0 scoring system that is used in the World Championships, World Juniors, Olympics, and the PWHL?
- 3 points for regulation win
- 2 points for OT/SO win
- 1 point for OT/SO loss
- 0 points for regulation loss
Here are a few reasons that the board of governors might want to at least table the discussion, if they haven’t already.
1) Rewards Regulation Winners
Selfishly, this would benefit this year’s version of the Senators as they are ahead of most of their division and conference foes in this tie-breaking stat.
That said, teams that push the envelope are more exciting. Why not reward that?
It also stands to reason that the better teams will succeed more often in the endeavour for the extra point.
2) Keep teams in the hunt longer
In a world which is increasingly dominated by analytics, what would this to do in-game decision making if there was an extra point to be had?
If you were a team on the outside looking in and seemingly out of the race, wouldn't it be easier to bridge the gap?
If you're chasing a team that would be happy to play for the minimum point and then shoot for the extra point, but your team had a chance to take three points, wouldn't teams and their fans want them to go for that in regulation?
Imagine pulling your goalie late in a tie game because two points isn’t going to cut it. Yes, you might lose and get nothing. You also might gain three points instead of one.
Risk vs Reward is a big part of analytics.
3) Television Ratings
Games like the Montreal/Boston clash mentioned earlier are not unique. It is not uncommon for games that are tied in the third period to remain so.
The third period should be the most exciting period of a close game. If teams are going for it more in the first and second periods because there is more time to make up a gap or deficit, then the third period becomes the pre-cursor to the overtime period where teams open up again.
It was this style of play in the former OT format that gave rise to the loser point in the first place as even overtime periods weren’t exciting.
If the league is looking for people to stay up a bit later or watch games where their favourite teams aren’t playing, they need to give them a reason.
4) Health and Safety
Overtime games are great for the fans. They also take a toll on the players. And not just any players, the star players. Reducing the number of overtime games by having more exciting third periods and ending games in regulation could have long-term benefits to teams and their players.
Granted, three on three is not the most physically taxing part of the game. But it's still extra time, playing at high pace, with dead legs and tanks almost empty.
There is always a tipping point.
This would not be an easy decision to make and it would likely require testing the outcome in the AHL and ECHL to see if there's any benefit.
The number of three-point games has been noticed. The way teams play in the last half of the third period has been noticed.
If the NHL can adopt a loser’s point, they can certainly adopt a winner’s point as well.
Pat Maguire
The Hockey News
This article was originally published at The Hockey News. For more Senators news, analysis, and features, visit the Ottawa Senators site at The Hockey News.
