The three-point game

By Kevin Hartzell
Let’s Play Hockey Columnist
 

Hockey in America has come a long ways in the past 30 years. Really, hockey everywhere is making great strides. Skill levels are as good as I have ever seen. We have problems with costs and availability in allowing young people to begin their journey with the game, but all in all, it is a great game.

In coming over to Norway, I look at things through a prism all my own as anyone would. I am always looking at things to see what is best or better. I know we do lots of things well back at home, but there is one thing here that makes a lot of sense that folks back home should consider for their various leagues, including the NHL. It is the three-point game.

Over here, all games are worth three points in the standings; all games, not just some games. Back home in the NHL and other leagues, most games are worth two points, but not all! And I am talking about the same leagues on the same nights. Crazy as it seems, even the greatest league in the world arbitrarily assigns some games to have more value – even on the very same night!

If you are like me, you have to ask how on earth one game in the same league on the same night be worth more points than another? In baseball, one game is worth one win. The same is true in basketball and football; yet in hockey, some games are worth two points and others are worth three. How does one go about deciding which should be which? Well, no one actually decides; we just play the game and if the teams play a close game ending in a tie in regulation, we reward the teams by adding a point to the value of the contest. Think of it, we reward teams for playing to a regulation tie!

The original reason for adding a point to the value of the game had some good intentions and it wasn’t to reward teams for playing to a tie. It was thought that in playing for an additional point in overtime and eventually a shootout, teams would play all out. The added point was an incentive to NOT be conservative in overtime when you cannot lose the point the team had already earned for the tie.

This thinking, however, did not take into account the basic misguided assumption that it is OK to arbitrarily allow for one game on a given night to have more value (three points) vs. another game in another town on the same night in the same league. I cannot come up with a rationalization in my own mind how the same league on the same night can have games count more than others.

The three-point game addresses the issue of equal value of one game vs. another. And the more I understand the three-point game, the more I think it accomplishes the incentives of the “bonus” point AND adds incentives to other parts of the game, too. It is not just more equitable, it is a better idea all around.

The three-point game is simple. Three points are awarded for a win in regulation. If teams tie, they each are awarded one point with the third point awarded to the winner of the overtime/shootout. The three-point game has the same incentive in overtime as the two-point game; an additional point that can only be “won” and nothing can be lost. Risk taking, wide open and exciting play is encouraged in trying to win the game in overtime. However, the three-point game also adds incentives in regulation. 

As it is now in the two-point game, teams can get conservative in the third period of a close game as they don’t want to lose the point they think they already have for a tie game. The two-point game encourages both teams to get conservative, each winning a point and then playing for a bonus point in overtime/shootout. In the three point game, the only way to get three points is with a regulation win. In the three-point game, a team has to ask themselves if they would prefer one point or THREE! They also have to ask whether or not they want their opponent to have three points or ZERO. There is a big difference with the three-point game and lots of late-game incentive in a close game to continue to play hard to win in regulation.

I have seen many games in the NHL this season where a team gave up a late goal(s) to afford their opponent a tie. The team who gave up the late goal proceeded to win in overtime or a shootout and in effect lost nothing. That’s not right!

In a three-point game, teams will work harder later in the third period to win the game. Winning in regulation pays big dividends. As it is now in the two-point game, the incentive is for teams to be conservative late in a game and play for the added point in overtime. This is not good for the entertainment value late in a game and certainly shouldn’t be rewarded by league rules. It goes without saying that the overtime period loses nothing in the three-point game as teams still play for the third point. The games are equitable and I would argue more incentive each step of the way to play to win.

In trying to think why the NHL has been slow to adopt the three-point game, I can only imagine two reasons for their reluctance in doing so. Tradition in the way things have been would be one. Records are based on two-point games.

The second could be a desire to not allow the better teams to win a lot of three-point games and get too far out in front in the standings … meaning a wider spread in points. All of us appreciate a tight race in the standings. It generates more interest for sure. Teams that appear to be out of the points/standings race by being too far behind the leaders could have more trouble selling tickets, coaches get fired and all this other not-so-good stuff.

The flip side of that argument however is that with three-point games, a team can make up lots of ground in the standings in a hurry by putting some winning streaks together. When one team plays its rival – winning three points and allowing the rival none – points and elevation in the standings can be recaptured in a hurry.

I cannot think of any good reason why one game should arbitrarily be assigned more value than another. Not only do I think that is inherently wrong and unfair, I think the three-point game allows for a more aggressive mindset throughout the game. With three points as the incentive, games are played to win in regulation and are a better product for the fans with overtimes still remaining what they are today.

Kevin Hartzell is the head coach of Lillehammer in Norway’s GET-Ligaen. A St. Paul native and forward for the University of Minnesota from 1978-82, Hartzell coached in the USHL from 1983-84 with the St. Paul Vulcans and from 2005-12 with the Sioux Falls Stampede. His columns have appeared in Let’s Play Hockey since the late 1980s.