The real source of the Trap Problem

I think that the problem here is that the ridiculously small ice surface that they play on helps maximize the effectiveness of the trap because there just isn’t a whole lot of space to maneuver. The small ice surface allows the trapping team to really clog up what little space there is left thereby not allowing the attacking team much of a chance to break through.
The NHL has been using the same sized ice surface for many decades and quite frankly it’s just not cutting it. Players nowadays are bigger and faster than ever before and they need the extra space to maneuver. If they played on a wider ice surface (i.e. European sized) it would create a lot more gaps in the trap thereby creating more space for the attacking players to maneuver. That would then diminish the effectiveness of the trap.
The problem though is that the myopic NHL failed to rectify the problem of the tiny ice surface years ago when they had the chance. Throughout the 90’s many teams were getting new arenas and that would’ve been the perfect opportunity to make the ice surface wider. But unfortunately it never happened. The wider ice surface won’t come to fruition any time soon because it’s an expensive proposition and you’d have to take out several rows of seats which is something that teams wouldn’t go for.
In conclusion, the small ice surface plus the trap is what’s creating a lot of these boring, low scoring games (not just the loser point).

two points for a win, zero for a loss, keep the bloody shootout for all I care but no loser point

This is really interesting, but I’m not totally sure it’s accurate. The trap has been around since before the lockout, and this is the first time (as far as I’m aware) since the lockout where teams have stood looking at each other until the whistle is blown. If the points system really were the cause of this, entire games would be spent like those few seconds in the Tampa-Philly game.

Hockey won’t turn into a kind of coordination game (in the game theory sense) because maximizing points at the end of the night isn’t good enough, at least not if everyone’s doing what you’re doing. Teams still need to be better than half of their conference. Teams are only happy with a 123 point pace because most other teams won’t hit that. I agree that in certain situations, late in the game against a team from the other Conference, you might get strategies based on the point system. But as a general approach to every game? I doubt it.

and you see a lot of defensive bus-parking there too.

I think the problem is just that defense is easier to coach. It’s easier to coach people to destroy creative attacks than it is to teach them to be creative… and losing is punished so heavily that people coach teams not to lose.

Adjusting the points is unlikely to do anything. What is needed is some way to reward creating goals just a little bit more than preventing goals. And for that you need to get creative. Something like awarding points based on the goal differential up to a maximum (of say, 3). Lose you get zero points, OT game you get a max of 1, but win by 2 goals, get 2 points. Win by 3 or more, get 3 points. That way the ideal strategy isn’t to get a 1 goal lead then sit on the game and make nothing happen. You can do it, but other more prolific teams will gain ground on you in the standings…. but at the same time you don’t need to keep running up the score on hapless teams.