Get Rid of the Extra Point for OT/SO Losses

[Hank 0]

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/7775/ad...pointsystem.jpg

Because I'm a cranky hockey fan, I hate giving any sort of points to losses of any kinds.

So in MY NHL, I'd give 2 points for a regulation win and 1 point for an OT or SO win with the loser getting NOTHING.

What I found was astonishing on two fronts.

First, the standings barely change. Besides Carolina and Calgary moving up one notch in the standings, and Florida leap frogging from 9th to 7th, knocking Montreal out, there is very little adjustment.

Secondly, what really shocked me was how many teams are technically under .500.

Only the top 4 teams in the West, and the top 3 teams in the East have a winning record.

Up to this point, you look at the standings and see how many teams have winning records and believe that there are only a few bad teams. But the truth is, every team in the NHL feasts on that extra point to make it look as if they're a true 95 point squad.

In today's NHL a team could win 3 times in 10 games and still have an above .500 record if they went 3-2-5. To me, that's pathetic.

Lets make regulation wins worth something so teams like the Rangers don't monkey around for 60 minutes hoping to get to the shootout to gobble up an extra garbage point.

With my system, the Blueshirts go from a record of 40-28-9 to a lowly 27-37-13.

It also shows without a doubt who the better teams in the league are.

I'm well aware of why the league is going to stick with the current system. It paints a far rosier view of the teams and the league.

Afterall, how would it look if over 75% of the teams in the NHL were under .500?

Anyway, just my $.02.

Thoughts?

[toby91_ca 620]

The reason you see so few teams with a winning record is because you have taken OT/SO losses and added to the loss column, but you have not added the wins to the win column, not sure that is fair.

[Echolalia 2,961]

I see where you're coming from, but I don't really like a 1 point win system, for overtime at least.

I always wanted to see

2 points for a win, regulation or OT

1 point for a shootout (because its essentially a tie)

0 points if you lose, no matter when you lose, regulation, OT, or shootout. Losers don't get rewarded. We have that in common, at least.

[stormboy 47]

so instead of some 2- and some 3-point games, we've now got some 2- and some 1- point games? i'm not totally sure how that makes sense.

if i was going to adjust the standings to take into account the issues of the flukey shootout AND three point games, i'd take away all extra points for SO wins and all points for OT (non-SO) losses. shootout losses would still keep their one point (it would be the same as a tie). all games would be worth two points--games that go to shootouts would be treated as ties in this scenario and any OT games would be winner-take-all, without strangely robbing a team of a point for winning a legit game.

i'm not trying to debate how the league SHOULD set up their points at this stage--i'm just saying that my method above would, i think, eliminate extra points gained for "just making it to OT" and extra points for the flukey shootout wins.

i'm too lazy to do this, however, so i'll just play armchair critic and say that i don't understand why your point system "adjusts" for the flukeyness of the shootout or three point games. just as the current system unfairly gives out three points in some games, your system unfairly gives out only one point in some games. as it is now, there are too many teams who are over .500 in points percentage; in your system, i think there would be too few.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Ditch the shootout, bring back ties, remove the OTL point, everybody wins. You get points for winning or being just as good as the other guy, not losing.

[stormboy 47]

I see where you're coming from, but I don't really like a 1 point win system, for overtime at least.

I always wanted to see

2 points for a win, regulation or OT

1 point for a shootout (because its essentially a tie)

0 points if you lose, no matter when you lose, regulation, OT, or shootout. Losers don't get rewarded. We have that in common, at least.

again, i don't see the point in making some games only worth one point. yeah, that system would make teams go for broke in the OT because they'd essentially be losing a point even though they didn't lose--but it's not a tie because some team is walking away with nothing. i don't see how a 1 point game makes any more sense than a 3 point game.

anyway, i guess that's offtopic--we're talking about adjusting standings to eliminate the effect that 3 point games have on the standings...i think my proposal makes sense in that fashion...but i'm not sure. and, as i mentioned, i'm too lazy to actually do it.

[Dano33 41]

again, i don't see the point in making some games only worth one point. yeah, that system would make teams go for broke in the OT because they'd essentially be losing a point even though they didn't lose--but it's not a tie because some team is walking away with nothing. i don't see how a 1 point game makes any more sense than a 3 point game.

anyway, i guess that's offtopic--we're talking about adjusting standings to eliminate the effect that 3 point games have on the standings...i think my proposal makes sense in that fashion...but i'm not sure. and, as i mentioned, i'm too lazy to actually do it.

It would force teams to actually play in OT. Like last year when Edmonton had a lot (14 maybe?) SO wins, they clearly would shut it down in OT and play for the shootout.

[Statts 4]

Ditch the shootout, bring back ties, remove the OTL point, everybody wins. You get points for winning or being just as good as the other guy, not losing.

That's so crazy it just might work.

Agree 100%

[Hank 0]

Ditch the shootout, bring back ties, remove the OTL point, everybody wins. You get points for winning or being just as good as the other guy, not losing.

I like the shootout though. I've seen far too many boring-ass games where the only thing worth watching was the SO. And in the end, a hockey game is supposed to be entertaining.

The thing I hate with giving a point for an OT or SO loss is so many teams are content to hold on and play boring-ass hockey for 60 minutes just to get that extra point. The Rangers are an excellent example of that. Even Chris Drury said a few weeks ago that it felt like the entire team worked hard just to get to OT.

And it was like that in the old days too. I remember coaches saying stupid things like "A road tie is better than a home win". WTF????

Players and fellow coaches used to say that Roger Neilsen's gameplan every night was for a 0-0 tie and once either team scored, it screwed everything up for him.

I think a lot of coaches are like that. They're very happy with 1 point instead of 2. They see nothing wrong with kissing their sister.

With 0 points for any sort of loss, I think you'll see a lot more teams gunning for that regulation win.

I agree with Echolalia that I'd be happy with a team getting 2 points for an OT win and 1 point for a SO win, with the loser getting nadda.

It would force teams to actually play in OT. Like last year when Edmonton had a lot (14 maybe?) SO wins, they clearly would shut it down in OT and play for the shootout.

Excellent point. I forgot about Edmonton last year. Funny thing is, a good friend of mine - who's an Edmonton fan - despised the shootout coming out of the lockout. Suddenly last year he loved it. Go figure.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Hank

[Echolalia 2,961]

Despite the fact that many old time hockey fans hate the shootout (and I'm not calling anyone old), its become a big, irreversible part of hockey. Everyone is on their feet during a shootout: fans, players, everyone. It's a very exciting time, and yes it is a huge marketing gimmick, but its doing its job effectively, at least. I prefer 1 point for a shootout to 2, because, like pre-lockout hockey, if a team can't close it up after 65 minutes, they don't deserve two points for a clean win. I also understand why someone would then say "well give 'em both 1 point and go ahead with the shootout, just for kicks". If this is implemented, then the shootout becomes redundant, and there's a good chance players will stop caring, or not even want to participate in it, having gave it 100% already in a 65 minute game (or 110% if you're a coach's boy). The quality would almost certainly turn into a circus act, then the nhl loses an effective way to sell the game. The other alternative is to revert back to the tie format, but the nhl will never remove the shootout from the game after the amount of success it has seen.

Edit: Dano brought up a good point too in that this system is a motivational force to not play the trap-and-dump game for five minutes in OT to guarantee a point. Instead, this type of strategy (which becomes more appealing if you are tired) will be punished because a team would essentially be choosing to risk it all in a shootout. I'm sure some teams will still do this, because their only chance for victory might be a shootout, but it makes overtime a bit more worth the effort.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Echolalia

[Statts 4]

My main problem with the way the points system is set up now is that there is not a set number of points that can be won for each game. If the game ends in regulation 2 points are awarded. If the game goes to OT/ shootout 3 points are awarded.

Make each game worth 2 points or 3 points each, not both.

[ManLuv4Clears 7]

Ditch the shootout, bring back ties, remove the OTL point, everybody wins. You get points for winning or being just as good as the other guy, not losing.

Agreed. I don't like the idea of rewarding the losing team, plus it seems that teams will sometimes clog the middle or play a more conservattive game before OT knowing that if they make it that far they are guaranteed the extra point. The same can be said for teams that can't feel they can win in a four on four situation and want to drag the game to a shootout in hopes of a better chance of getting the extra point.

[WizardofOz 0]

Since the nhl seems to want 3 point games so badly why don't they have 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for a ot/shootout win and 1 for an overtime loss. This way teams will play for the regulation win

[Duck Guy 86]

Ditch the shootout, bring back ties, remove the OTL point, everybody wins. You get points for winning or being just as good as the other guy, not losing.

Ties are stupid .. the shootout brings more entertainment to the game.. If they go back to ties the fan base would suffer

[Hank 0]

Ties are stupid .. the shootout brings more entertainment to the game.. If they go back to ties the fan base would suffer

I agree. The shootout was a great idea. There were far too many boring games in the past where both teams did whatever they could not to lose a point in OT.

As much as I hate giving out 3 points after 60 minutes, I do like how there's a clear cut winner each and every game.

[MidMichSteve 1,115]

I agree. The shootout was a great idea. There were far too many boring games in the past where both teams did whatever they could not to lose a point in OT.

As much as I hate giving out 3 points after 60 minutes, I do like how there's a clear cut winner each and every game.

Me too. I don't like the shootout. Never have. I don't even like overtime during the regular season. It's just not fair when a team has a lot of back-to-back games and also have to deal with OT and travel.

If it is so popular among the fans, so be it. Have overtime and shootouts but don't give the losing team ANY points. Two points for a win and that's it.

[Dano33 41]

[/b]

Me too. I don't like the shootout. Never have. I don't even like overtime during the regular season. It's just not fair when a team has a lot of back-to-back games and also have to deal with OT and travel.

If it is so popular among the fans, so be it. Have overtime and shootouts but don't give the losing team ANY points. Two points for a win and that's it.

C'mon, if players can't handle an extra 5 minutes of hockey then they don't belong in the NHL.

[MidMichSteve 1,115]

C'mon, if players can't handle an extra 5 minutes of hockey then they don't belong in the NHL.

Good point. You're right.

But still, they are possibly playing more minutes then their opponent.

Fixed

Edited April 2, 2009 by MidMichSteve

[T.Low 1,011]

Here's how we do it in the T.LowHL. Commissioner T.Lowman awards the following point structure:

2 points for a win.

0 points for tie, OTL, SOL.

You need to win the game to get any points. I tie just means that you saved your ass for the moment.

[steveyzerman 0]

Wins are wins. Losses are losses. No matter how you cut it, it should be based on win percentage. If you have a problem with not getting any points, well, win the game.

No ties. Ties are the worst.

Edited April 2, 2009 by steveyzerman

[KrazyGangsta 79]

I can't remember what happened when games finished in tie, did every team get a point? I just got a blank spot loool.

[Pskov Wings Fan 71]

I like the shootout though. I've seen far too many boring-ass games where the only thing worth watching was the SO. And in the end, a hockey game is supposed to be entertaining.

I fully agree with this. I've been to a number of Wild games. A lot of people would say that Wild is a boring team to watch. But almost every game I've been to went into shootout and on no occasion I felt like I wasted money going to the game.

[Echolalia 2,961]

I can't remember what happened when games finished in tie, did every team get a point? I just got a blank spot loool.

1 point each I believe

[ManLuv4Clears 7]

1 point each I believe

Correct, there where only two points available going into the night.

[TheSupafly 50]

Since the nhl seems to want 3 point games so badly why don't they have 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for a ot/shootout win and 1 for an overtime loss. This way teams will play for the regulation win

Since the NHL wont backtrack and go back to ties, this is the answer. All games are 3 pts. Yes it messes with the records, but at least it's a more fair and accurate ways of determining standings.