NHL three-point wins and their many complications

There’s a cause and effect for NHL rules changes.

The biggest catalyst, and hindrance when it comes to things like goalie equipment, is player safety. Then there’s increasing goal-scoring and, of course, the annual closing of loopholes based on one or two egregious incidents (i.e. enacting a coach’s challenge review process for offside plays after that Matt Duchene embarrassment).

For the most part, none of these standards apply to tweaking the point-standings format, which has been a topic of discussion here and there over the years. The forced parity that’s been created with the current format, thanks to the charity point, hasn’t exactly created the appetite for a radical reinvention of the standings. To that end, Gary Bettman said the current standings system “works extraordinarily well.”

[Join a Yahoo Daily Fantasy Hockey contest today]

Which is to say there isn’t a rabid desire for the three-point regulation win for which many fans have clamored.

The most popular format change would see three points for a regulation win, two points for an overtime or shootout win, one point for an overtime/shootout loss and zero points for a regulation loss. (Despite logical arguments to the contrary, we’re stuck with the loser point. We’re just going to have to deal with that.)

I’ve long supported the three-point win for one rather obvious reason: The idea that the first 60 minutes of a game should in any way be worth the same as a victory in the extra five minutes or, god forbid, the shootout is asinine. Teams that are able to close the deal within three periods should be rewarded for that.

The other benefit to the format change would be in playoff races. For example: The Philadelphia Flyers are four points in back of the Pittsburgh Penguins in the wild card, and the rivals have three more regular season games between them. Could you imagine a 9-0 point swing in favor of the Flyers if they won all three games in regulation?

Of course, there’s the rub: If we had three-point regulation wins, the Flyers would not be four points in back of the Penguins.

Via Hockey Standings, this is what the Eastern Conference would look like under a 3-2-1 format:

And here’s the West:

(We’ve limited it to teams that would realistically still be in the “hunt.”)

So the Flyers’ deficit would be 13 points behind the Penguins but just five in back of Detroit. And the Hurricanes would be six back, with the Montreal Canadiens and the New Jersey Devils seven back and, mathematically, still vying for a playoff spot given the Hail Mary nature of the three-point win.

Overall, every current playoff team would be a playoff team in the three-point format. It looks quite similar to the current standings, outside of Anaheim leading the Pacific.

But again, we assume there are other benefits to the three-point format. As Kevin McGran writes in the Toronto Star:

You may never break a coach’s go-to position of preaching defence-first (it’s a cop-out really, a way for a coach to lay blame on a player whose creative tendencies backfired). But down the stretch, three points will matter more than two.

These days, teams try to get out to a lead in the first period and hold it. Teams that scored first have won 72 per cent of the time this season, up from 66 per cent in 2005-06. But with three points up for grabs, teams might try to win the game in the third period as well.

Which is to say that the three-point format is “an idea that should increase scoring,” according to McGran. And as we said at the top, could be something that eventually drives a format change, if the NHL’s general managers bought into that notion.

Like the Fox Mulder poster says: I Want To Believe. There’s some merit to the idea that the extra point on the line, and the chance to blank your opponent, could lead to some firewagon hockey in the third period. Of course, that probably holds truer for Penguins and Flyers than it does, say, Penguins and Oilers late in the season. And as McGran mentioned here, every NHL team is essentially more conservative than Ted Cruz playing penny slots.

Finally, there’s the notion that by encouraging teams to win in regulation, you’re discouraging them from extending the game into overtime. Which, again, is going to be situation specific: You’re still going to have teams that play for the guaranteed charity point and you’re still going to have teams that want to push a game to the shootout because of a dominant goalie or because the chaos of 3-on-3 frightens and confuses them.

To that end, USA Today reports a significant spike in games in 2016 that have ended in a shootout rather than the 3-on-3, which is a bummer all around. But let it never be said that NHL teams won’t find a way to ruin a good thing.

Hence, part of the hesitation over changing the points standings format.

--

Greg Wyshynski is a writer for Yahoo Sports. Contact him at puckdaddyblog@yahoo.com or find him on Twitter. His book, TAKE YOUR EYE OFF THE PUCK, is available on Amazon and wherever books are sold.

MORE FROM YAHOO HOCKEY