In Memoriam: 19/12/1926 - 18/03/2004.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the 815th, and final, regular-season tie game played in Club history (in their 5311th game, 6.52% of their games), with 390 in Home games and 425 in Away games. They are one of only four franchises with 800+ regular-season tie games (Montreal with 837, Chicago with 814 and New York with 808). Tie games in the NHL can be broken into three distinct historical time frames:

1) Era 1: Regulation time, followed by overtime

2) Era 2: Regulation time only

3) Era 3: Regulation time, followed by overtime

Tie games had always been a League fixture, dating back to it's inception in 1917. How they got there varied over time.

In Era 1, overtime was used in various versions with regards to length, until November, 1942, when it was abandoned due to the war effort. The total number of tie games in this period was 123 in Club history (6.11% of the total games played), with 65 in Home games and 58 in Away games.

During Era 2, a single point was awarded to both teams at the end of regulation. This "Golden Age of Tie Games" accounted for 482 games in club history (5.97% of total games played), 231 in Home games and in 251 Away games.

Beginning in the 1983-84 season overtime reappeared in Era 3, with only a five-minute period. The total number of tie games in this period was 210 in Club history (7.93% of the total games played), with 94 in Home games and 116 in Away games.

At that time, no one could forsee that the last tie game had been played. Following the second lockout, Uncle Gary decided that as a "gift" to the fans, a grand "gimmick" would be foisted onto the game (one of many adjustments, the players and the fans: the shootout.This caused great confusion in the listing of League standings everywhere in it's first season; who recalls the "Regulation Tie Stat Screw-Up" in the 2005-06 season? I do. With the advent of this "gimmick" so came the death knell of the tie game in the NHL. By the way, another "gimmick" made it's debut in the final season of tie games; twenty-six times (Detroit played in one) and then disappeared. 'member what it was?

Some other Club tie game numbers:

Most total goals scored, tie game and Home tie game: 16, 14/10/1988, Home v. St. Louis

Most total goals, Away game: 14, 27/12/1989, v. Toronto

Fewest total goals, tie game: 0, 27 times (15 Home and 12 Away), first game 26/11/1927, Away v. Chicago and final game 01/04/2000, Away v. St. Louis

Most tie games, Season: 18 (1953-53, 1980-81 and 1996-97)

Fewest tie games, Season: 4, (1926-27, 1941-42, 1966-67 and 1994-95).

The shootout, with all the hype attached to it, caused the unnecessary, premature and untimely death of the tie game. Hockey fans were told that this was they wanted, what they needed and this was what the game needed to be more enjoyable. To my eyes, the game was just fine when tie games were a way of determining the result of a game, thank you very much.

So, join me in raising a glass to an old friend: At least to this fan, you are gone but you will never ever be forgotten.

[AtlantaHotWings 1,124]

Salute!

[NitzGuy 38]

I definitely pictured you telling the tale of the tie game in a large armchair by a fire and bear rug with a glass in hand. Bravo sir.

[toby91_ca 620]

One thing for sure is that the NHL really dislikes the number of games going to a shootout and they would love to decrease that significantly. The only problem is figuring out how (they don't want to go to 3 on 3, which I agree with....and they don't want to extend OT beyond 5 minutes). That leaves them pretty stuck. The thought is switching ends to have long changes in OT, but I'm not sure how much of a substantive impact that will have.

The NHL is really stuck with living with ties or living with shootouts. The other potential solution woudl be to award more points for an OT win than for a shootout win, but no less points for losing in OT vs. shootout. With that, teams will gun for a win in OT for sure. Of course, the big problem with that is the points system....whole other discussion.

[MacK_Attack 108]

I never hated ties, I just hate that teams completely shut the game down to ensure they got the single point.

The addition of the loser point helped alleviate some of that, but then you had teams shutting the game down in the 3rd period to ensure they get to overtime. That's what you see nearly every game when it's tied in the 3rd period.

The solution is simple. Get rid of the loser point. It was introduced when there were still ties, but it serves no purpose today other than to reward losing.

People hate the shootout, but the real problem is that too many games get that far because far too many teams are happy to choke the life out of the game to ensure they get the OT point.

If you take away the incentive of getting to overtime, logic suggests teams may actually try to win a tied game in regulation.

[joshy207 156]

I didn't mind ties. Sometimes a tie felt like a win, like when you were totally outplayed by the other team but "stole a point" or scored in the dying minutes to earn that tie. Of course, they could feel like losses when you were the other team in those situations.

[marcaractac 3,963]

Bring in the 3 point system. Making a regulation win more valuable will make teams want to win in regulation, rather than suck the life out of the game to try and guarantee a point and then take a gamble in a shootout. That combined with Holland's idea for OT would significantly reduce the amount of shootouts we see. My guess would be by over half.

[joshy207 156]

Bob McKenzie tweet regarding the long-change OT:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>USHL had 23% of its games go to OT (roughly same as NHL). USHL went to long-change OT, settled 10 per cent more games with that one change.</p>— Bob McKenzie (@TSNBobMcKenzie) <a href="https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/statuses/442994194617860096">March 10, 2014</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Wow, that's ugly. Sorry.

Edited March 19, 2014 by joshy207

[MacK_Attack 108]

Bring in the 3 point system. Making a regulation win more valuable will make teams want to win in regulation, rather than suck the life out of the game to try and guarantee a point and then take a gamble in a shootout. That combined with Holland's idea for OT would significantly reduce the amount of shootouts we see. My guess would be by over half.

Just get rid of the OT point. If there's no incentive to get to overtime, teams will stop strategizing with overtime in mind.

Teams play to win the game (or not lose) in the first 40 minutes. If it's tied or a one-goal game heading into the 3rd, the entire focus is getting the game to overtime. They will grind the game to a halt to ensure they get that point.

I don't like the idea of 3-on-3. I don't like the shootout because it's gimmicky and decides a hockey game with a skills competition. 3-on-3 isn't far off that. Just do away with the loser point and have a 10-minute 4-on-4 and I think there would be a tremendous decline in the number of games going to a shootout.

[number9 3,297]

I understand the loser point. Rewards you for a game decided on a perhaps non-hockey situation like the SO. But maybe change it to game won in OT only gets 1 pt instead of winning team getting 2 and losers getting 1. Detriment to winners makes everyone play harder

[toby91_ca 620]

Just get rid of the OT point. If there's no incentive to get to overtime, teams will stop strategizing with overtime in mind.

Teams play to win the game (or not lose) in the first 40 minutes. If it's tied or a one-goal game heading into the 3rd, the entire focus is getting the game to overtime. They will grind the game to a halt to ensure they get that point.

I don't like the idea of 3-on-3. I don't like the shootout because it's gimmicky and decides a hockey game with a skills competition. 3-on-3 isn't far off that. Just do away with the loser point and have a 10-minute 4-on-4 and I think there would be a tremendous decline in the number of games going to a shootout.

I don't know, getting rid of the loser point might push more games to OT and SO as opposed to having the opposite impact. With the loser point, teams at least push harder for the win, knowing they have the safety net of the single point. If you take that away, they might be more cautious and take there chances with the SO.

[MacK_Attack 108]

I don't know, getting rid of the loser point might push more games to OT and SO as opposed to having the opposite impact. With the loser point, teams at least push harder for the win, knowing they have the safety net of the single point. If you take that away, they might be more cautious and take there chances with the SO.

The problem is that there's so little incentive to win in regulation and the overtime is too short. If the game is tied in the 3rd period, they will make sure they get their point before they try to win the game. That's where the problem of the short OT comes in, because try as they may to win, it's hard to score with only five minutes to do so. The end result is a lot of shootouts.

Here's the best way to cut down on shootouts, IMO:

Use a winning percentage based system, or 2 points for a win and zero points for any kind of loss, if you want to keep a points system.

First tiebreaker in the standings is regulation wins.

Second tiebreaker is regulation + overtime wins.

Overtime format of 10-minute 4-on-4, with goaltenders switching ends after the 3rd period. Then a shootout.

The problem is that the extra point for reaching overtime is too enticing for teams to risk by opening the game up in the 3rd period. The second problem is that a 5-minute overtime is generally too short. Hence, you end up with a lot of shootouts.

So you remove the incentive to reach overtime and you extend the overtime period to give teams more of an opportunity to end the game without having to play a shootout.

The other alternative is two points for a regulation or OT win, one point for a shootout win, zero points for a loss of any kind. I can't support any system that rewards losing.

Either way, it downplays the impact of the shootout on the standings and encourages teams to win in regulation.

As long as there is a reward for reaching overtime, teams are going to be all too willing to let a game get to overtime.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

In order, followed by the number of games played, the Top Three Most Common Tie Game scores overall in Club history:

1) 2-2, 247

2) 3-3, 210

3) 1-1, 149

In Home games, the Top Three:

1) 2-2, 113

2) 3-3, 104

3) 1-1, 69

In Away games, the Top Three:

1) 2-2, 134

2) 3-3, 106

1) 1-1, 80

[joshy207 156]

Revive the Tie!

[Richdg 267]

Hate ties and always have. But OT sucks as well. The 4 on 4 stuff blows. If tied at the end of regulation, just go to the SO-which is safer for the players. While we are at it, get rid of the points system as well. Every game has a winner and loser, so go by record. Most wins is in.

[Holmstrom96 347]

I hate tie games. I also hate loser-points like what we got tonight. These three point games are statistical BS.

[atodaso 279]

By the way, another "gimmick" made it's debut in the final season of tie games; twenty-six times (Detroit played in one) and then disappeared. 'member what it was?

I guess no one does. What was it? I'm curious to know.