Get Rid of the Extra Point for OT/SO Losses

[Nev 1,085]

Well, the OP stated that the standings will virtually stay the same, so they still effectively rank the teams.

What I would do is change the 4on4 OT from 5 minutes to 10 minutes, and then the shootout - but then, I love the current OT format. Tremendously exciting hockey as both teams go for it, **knowing they've already got a point in the bag**. Probably the best thing to happen in the NHL under Bettman.

In England 20-30 years ago we went to 3 points for a win in Football (soccer), I wouldn't say it changed the game tremendously in terms of promoting attacking football, but it does reward teams that are prepared to be adventurous- Liverpool under Rafa Benitez will sit and defend a 1-1 game with 10 minutes left, Man Utd under Ferguson would be throwing forwards on and trying desperately to get the win. Guess who's won the most titles? :!:

[Hank 0]

Well, the OP stated that the standings will virtually stay the same, so they still effectively rank the teams.

What I would do is change the 4on4 OT from 5 minutes to 10 minutes, and then the shootout - but then, I love the current OT format. Tremendously exciting hockey as both teams go for it, **knowing they've already got a point in the bag**. Probably the best thing to happen in the NHL under Bettman.

In England 20-30 years ago we went to 3 points for a win in Football (soccer), I wouldn't say it changed the game tremendously in terms of promoting attacking football, but it does reward teams that are prepared to be adventurous- Liverpool under Rafa Benitez will sit and defend a 1-1 game with 10 minutes left, Man Utd under Ferguson would be throwing forwards on and trying desperately to get the win. Guess who's won the most titles? :!:

I love 4-on-4 hockey myself.

I know a lot of tradiionalists would hate it, but I think if the NHL had a chance to go to it full time, they should do it.

Last week Pit and Philly were playing and there was nearly 2 minutes of 4-on-4 hockey during the 2nd period. It was some of the best hockey I'd seen in 3 years. Both teams were going back and forth, hits, shots, great saves. It was tremendous.

The PA and most of the fans would rally against this, but with the size of and speed of players this would open the game up further. It would also make it extremely hard to play any sort of trap - which most teams have found ways to implement despite not being able to hook and hold.

Anyway, that's a topic for another day. Sorry.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

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 agree. Or, play overtime to a finish; until there is a winner. Two points only at stake.

[Cern 0]

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

The reason a shootout is entertaining is because it's supposed to be a rare-as-hell occurrence that can make or break an entire game. Now it seems to happen most of the time a game goes into overtime, and it loses its emotional impact big-time as a result. When you watch dozens and dozens of shootouts from game recaps from season to season it starts to become about as pulse-racing as faceoffs. You see some good dekes being made now and again but I don't think there's been a single time this season when we've gone to a shootout and my heart feels like it's stopped for a good 30 seconds out of sheer emotional anticipation, which happens all the time when I watch a penalty shootout being called during regular play.

Overtime needs to be longer. Five minutes simply isn't enough to get enough momentum going before play is called dead. The shootout stays as a final deciding factor - games shouldn't end in ties - but have it at the end of ten or even 20 minutes of overtime so that most of the time it's unnecessary - then when it DOES become necessary it IS a genuinely heart-pounding experience. All the more so if they scrap doling out the third point for a loss.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Cern

[Hank 0]

Upon popular demand, here's what a 3-point system would look like:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/9731/adju...pointsystem.jpg

So you get 3 points for a regulation win (RW), 2 points for an OT/SO win and 1 point for an OT/SO loss.

Look who's in first overall.

[Cern 0]

Upon popular demand, here's what a 3-point system would look like:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/9731/adju...pointsystem.jpg

So you get 3 points for a regulation win (RW), 2 points for an OT/SO win and 1 point for an OT/SO loss.

Look who's in first overall.

Certainly would make the Wings' streak of 100-point seasons a lot less impressive... :X

[Hank 0]

Certainly would make the Wings' streak of 100-point seasons a lot less impressive... :X

Yeah, the record books would take a hit for sure.

But I think the league needs to put more emphasis on regulation wins. Teams that can finish in 60 minutes of hockey should be rewarded over teams like the 2008 Oilers who did all their work in shootouts.

[lets go pavel 2]

I don't mind the 3 pt system, but I'd prefer 3 pts for regulation/OT win, 2pts for shootout win, 1 pt for shootout loss, and 0 pts for regulation/OT loss. I think an OT win should be worth teh same as a regulation win, and an OT loss shouldn't be rewarded.

[Batigol2k 0]

Upon popular demand, here's what a 3-point system would look like:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/9731/adju...pointsystem.jpg

So you get 3 points for a regulation win (RW), 2 points for an OT/SO win and 1 point for an OT/SO loss.

Look who's in first overall.

I think you made a little error on the adjusted GP stats, I don't think they let Phoenix play 86 games/season (thankfully). More important: the adjusted points-stats are spot on

[finalfilppula 2]

keep the shootout, but only award one point for the game won through a shootout. done.

[Hank 0]

I think you made a little error on the adjusted GP stats, I don't think they let Phoenix play 86 games/season (thankfully). More important: the adjusted points-stats are spot on

LOL! I'm not sure how that happened. But Phoenix needs all the help it can get so they'll be playing 100 games every season.

Thanks for the catch.

[Batigol2k 0]

LOL! I'm not sure how that happened. But Phoenix needs all the help it can get so they'll be playing 100 games every season.

Thanks for the catch.

...and still missing the play-offs every year by a 10-point margin.

[paulwoodsfan 52]

Upon popular demand, here's what a 3-point system would look like:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/9731/adju...pointsystem.jpg

So you get 3 points for a regulation win (RW), 2 points for an OT/SO win and 1 point for an OT/SO loss.

Look who's in first overall.

I've been waiting years for someone to to this type of analysis, so THANKS. I'd love to see it done for all seasons since regular-season OT began, but that's a gigantic project no one would want to take on, I reckon.

IMO every game should be worth the same number of points, and the only way to do that is to have a 3-2-1-0 system.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

I agree. Or, play overtime to a finish; until there is a winner. Two points only at stake.

That would be ideal, but not really practical for regular season play.

I meant to get back this earlier, but Hank you are right when you say some coaches would just play for the tie instead of an OT win. In their minds sitting back and getting one point is better than playing it out and trying for two but maybe getting none. But for starters, that's not too different from teams hanging on in regulation to get that OT charity point; either way you are subjected to "don't lose hockey" instead of "just win" hockey. Two, sitting back and entering a defensive shell is always a recipe for disaster -- teams that play that way will lose net points over a season by maybe averaging more ties but getting less wins.

[paulwoodsfan 52]

I've been waiting years for someone to to this type of analysis, so THANKS. I'd love to see it done for all seasons since regular-season OT began, but that's a gigantic project no one would want to take on, I reckon.

IMO every game should be worth the same number of points, and the only way to do that is to have a 3-2-1-0 system.

Having said that, there appears to be something flawed in your analysis. No team's games played should change from what they actually are, for one thing.

Just looking at the Red Wings, I believe the correct adjusted total should be 147 points, based on 40 RW (120 pts), 9 OTW (18 pts) and 9 OTL (9 pts). Not the 151 you're showing. I'm basing that on the assumption the OT W-L record you showed in the first spreadsheet is correct (i.e. Detroit is 9-9 in OT, not 6-10 as shown in the adjusted sheet). Am I missing something?

[Decoy Jones 0]

I don't care what happens as long as games don't end in a tie. That's like kissing your sister and the inbred already have NASCAR.

[goredwings 4]

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.

Dumbest post ever! The win is already accounted for in the Win column the only thing he is adjusting is the loss column as indicated by the OT / SO LOSSES column

[MidMichSteve 1,115]

Not that I advocate it but another possibility would be to just go to the shootout with no overtime period. 2 points for the winner. No points for the loser.

I know. The teams that have the more skilled players would play for a tie. So what? This isn't kindergarten.

[joshy207 156]

Why even bother with the game, just have a shootout.

I died a little when the NHL implemented shootouts. I had already died some when they started giving a point for the "regulation tie" (now OTL). Why they felt the need to bastardize the standings, I have no idea. As some people have already said, it makes some teams appear better than they really are, and it deemphasizes winning in regulation time. I'd rather see the league go back to 2 points only, 2 for the win and 0 for a loss (regulation or OT), and if tied after OT, 1 point each. Have the shootout, but no extra point for the standings. It's a tie. There is nothing wrong with a tie, there never has been and never will be. Some games were just meant to be tied. I guess if you haven't ever played, it's harder to understand, but some of the games I remember best that I've played or coached were ties.

[MidMichSteve 1,115]

1. Why even bother with the game, just have a shootout.

I died a little when the NHL implemented shootouts. I had already died some when they started giving a point for the "regulation tie" (now OTL). Why they felt the need to bastardize the standings, I have no idea. As some people have already said, it makes some teams appear better than they really are, and it deemphasizes winning in regulation time. I'd rather see the league go back to 2 points only, 2 for the win and 0 for a loss (regulation or OT), and if tied after OT, 1 point each.

2. Have the shootout, but no extra point for the standings. It's a tie. There is nothing wrong with a tie, there never has been and never will be. Some games were just meant to be tied. I guess if you haven't ever played, it's harder to understand, but some of the games I remember best that I've played or coached were ties.

1. Because one of the teams may be leading at the end of regulation.

2. If there is not a winner after the shootout, why have the shootout? I must be missing something.

[tweekvp 0]

While I like shootouts I have always hated the idea of rewarding a team for what four members of the team can accomplish in a shootout.

I would like to see 2 point games only. I would say winning in OT/Regulation gets you two points and a shootout gets each team 1 point. Of coarse the shootouts have to mean something right. So games won in a shootout should count as wins for the sake of breaking ties only.

This would still give the shootout some meaning while not adding that stupid extra point to certain games. I think they would still be exciting simply because you can still say your team won.

[joshy207 156]

1. Because one of the teams may be leading at the end of regulation.

2. If there is not a winner after the shootout, why have the shootout? I must be missing something.

First part was sarcastic. I really don't like the idea of shootouts determining the outcome of a game. Kinda like a home run derby, HORSE, or punt-pass-kick deciding the other major pro sports' games. Pure silliness.

Second part... tweekvp's answer sums up my feelings there. Maybe the OT win could go toward a tiebreaker, but really it's just for pure fan entertainment.

Another possible solution could be to have a shootout BEFORE the game, and used as a tiebreaker. Could make for some very interesting finishes to games tied late in the third...

[TheSupafly 50]

Upon popular demand, here's what a 3-point system would look like:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/9731/adju...pointsystem.jpg

So you get 3 points for a regulation win (RW), 2 points for an OT/SO win and 1 point for an OT/SO loss.

Look who's in first overall.

Your adjusted stats are missing 6 games for the Sharks. That might have something to do with it.