Something the NHL Missed...

[RicPerrott]

I was thinking about this today and realized that the NHL dropped the ball on this facet of the game. With all the Brou-hah-hah over the new rules and everything, this in my opinion was missed and could prove to be a big deal.

Because a game can no longer end in a tie, there exists no plausible reason for still giving a point for a loss in OT. A Shootout loss should result in a point but in my opinion, because there can no longer be a tie, a loss in OT should result in NO POINTS for the losing team.

The entire reason given by the NHL for the "free point" was that it would encourage teams to play for the win in OT because they were already assured a point. But now, with the shootout and a guaranteed winner every game, there now exists no reasonable explanation for the "free point" to be given for losing in OT.

I have no problem with giving both teams a point if they make it through OT and on to the shootout, but still giving a point to a losing team in OT when there are no more ties is stupid and a MAJOR oversight by the NHL in this "new era" of hockey.

Hopefully this is removed next season, it is completely unnecessary in this new age of shootouts.

What do you all think?

[pattyelias]

I despise the idea of a shootout to start with, and turning the shootout into an all (2 points) or nothing (0 points) affair just makes me nauseous.

[RicPerrott]

I despise the idea of a shootout to start with, and turning the shootout into an all (2 points) or nothing (0 points) affair just makes me nauseous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You misunderstood.

I don't have a problem with a team losing a shootout getting a consolation point, that's fine. However, because there is now a shootout and a guaranteed winner every game, awarding a point to the losing team in the 4-on-4 OT is wrong and should be done away with.

As it stands, all you have to do is make it through 60 mins tied and you get a point... that's plain and simply wrong in the "new" NHL.

[devilsrule33]

Interesting but than you might see teams playing very defensive just to get to the shootout and the 4 on 4 OT would not be very exciting more. All of a sudden we would see a shootout way more.

Just because their are shootouts doesn't mean if it goes to OT the game has to end in a shootout. I still love some good overtime 4 on 4 hockey and if no point was given unless it went to a shootout you wouldn't see much offense. It would be the way teams play that are tied with 5 minutes left in regulation. They are just playing for OT. In this case they would just play for a shootout and the exciting OTs would be no more.

Edited October 7, 2005 by devilsrule33

[Derek21]

I agree. OT losses should not be rewarded as points even though my team benefited last night.

I'd give each team a point for getting to a shootout though.

[Satans Hockey]

I still hate the fact that they changed it to one point for just getting to ot. They should go back to the old way, 2 points for a win and nothing for a loss.

Edited October 7, 2005 by Satans Child

[mddevsfan]

Interesting but than you might see teams playing very defensive just to get to the shootout and the 4 on 4 OT would not be very exciting more. All of a sudden we would see a shootout way more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly.

[Stevens_4]

I still hate the fact that they changed it to one point for just getting to ot. They should go back to the old way, 2 points for a win and nothing for a loss.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly, surely if you gave nothing for a loss in OT, teams would go for the win more, although maybe theyd just try and hold out for the shootout which is just a BAD idea anyway .. Unless you win in regulation you should get nothing.

[RicPerrott]

Interesting but than you might see teams playing very defensive just to get to the shootout and the 4 on 4 OT would not be very exciting more. All of a sudden we would see a shootout way more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see your point but how is that any different than the last 5 minutes of a tie game now? If all youhave to do is make it to OT to guarantee a point, then the last 5 mins of regulation is a snooze fest while the teams wait for OT. There's no difference.

I'd rather attempt to finish the games without a shootout, and the teams that aren't very good in the shootout will be trying very hard to win the game in OT, since they know they will most likely lose a shootout.

If there are hundreds of games now decided by shootout I say, "So What?" The NHL made this bed, so now let them lie in it. If that many games are being decided by shootouts then that will force the league to go back to the drawing board and come up with something else.

As it stands now, the league is rewarding mediocrity by awarding a point for losing. The very fact that they introduced the shootout should have required the removal of the "free" OT point. If you make it through OT, then in years past the game would have been tied and both teams would have gotten a point; great, let's keep that and award an extra point to the shootout winner solely for the purpose of removing tie games from the standings -- after all, that was ostensibly the reasoning behind the shootout.

By awarding a point to a team simply for making it through 60 mins tied is rewarding mediocrity. We are now guaranteed a winner in every NHL game, so to me that means if you lose the game during OT, you should get a nice round goose egg.

[rbdf]

I would have made it:

No points unless you win. OT, Tie, Shootout, whatever - loss is a loss and you get -0- for it

2 points for a win in your division

1 point for wins outside your division

(assuming that the schedulers can create schedule that keeps everyone with same number of inter and out of division games)

[devilsrule33]

I always thought the idea of an OTL was great. It made the 4 on 4 Overtime so exciting. I don't see why we should take that away. The overtimes would be so boring and the percentage of OT goals would be so low.

I want to see shootouts. I like shootouts but I don't want to see them every night a few times and neither does the league. That is what would happen if you took away the point for getting to OT.

[Joe B]

[RicPerrott]

by having the guarenteed point in ot, you are more likely not to have a shootout than if you took away that point during 4 on 4

You think? How many tie games were there in 04? That's how many games would have gone to shootout. How many OT losses were there? A lot less than there were ties. There was a guaranteed point in OT the last season, and yet still more games ended up tied (shootout) than were decided in the OT. So what exactly would the removal of the "free point" change? We already had a situation where there were more games ending tied after OT than being decided.

I just think it's silly to have it both ways. The entire reason that a "free point" was given in the first place was to encourage teams to play hard in OT to avoid tie games. That is no longer necessary since every game will now have a winner; therefore removal of the "free point" for making it to OT is in order. The league didn't want too many ties, now they'll have zero; time to get rid of the "free point."

Edited October 7, 2005 by RicPerrott

[Joe B]

by having the guarenteed point in ot, you are more likely not to have a shootout than if you took away that point during 4 on 4

You think? How many tie games were there in 04? That's how many games would have gone to shootout. How many OT losses were there? A lot less than there were ties. There was a guaranteed point in OT the last season, and yet still more games ended up tied (shootout) than were decided in the OT. So what exactly would the removal of the "free point" change? We already had a situation where there were more games ending tied after OT than being decided.

I just think it's silly to have it both ways. The entire reason that a "free point" was given in the first place was to encourage teams to play hard in OT to avoid tie games. That is no longer necessary since every game will now have a winner; therefore removal of the "free point" for making it to OT is in order. The league didn't want too many ties, now they'll have zero; time to get rid of the "free point."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so just cause ther ewere say 50% ties from a game that went to OT doens't mean it can't go to 75% games that go to shootout.

what would a team rather do once in OT

1. open the game up, hopefully get 2 points, but maybe becausue the game is open, get no points.

2. Or play conservativly with 4 on 4, guarentee a point, and hope for the second pont.

the whole concpet behind the guarenteed point is that you keep the game open while 4 on 4, not keeping 2 guys on your blue line, and to guys deep.

Edited October 7, 2005 by Joe B

[BlueSkirt]

You think? How many tie games were there in 04? That's how many games would have gone to shootout. How many OT losses were there? A  lot less than there were ties. There was a guaranteed point in OT the last season, and yet still more games ended up tied (shootout) than were decided in the OT. So what exactly would the removal of the "free point" change? We already had a situation where there were more games ending tied after OT than being decided.

I just think it's silly to have it both ways. The entire reason that a "free point" was given in the first place was to encourage teams to play hard in OT to avoid tie games. That is no longer necessary since every game will now have a winner; therefore removal of the "free point" for making it to OT is in order. The league didn't want too many ties, now they'll have zero; time to get rid of the "free point."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My memory serves that about 54% of games that went to OT were decided in OT.

Initially it was about 66%, but then dropped to the low50s.

I'm sure the Hockey News will do a detailed spread about the before/after impact of the Shootout at some point this season. Until then...

In 2003-2004, there were a total of 314 ties. But actually it's 157 games 'cuz two teams are involved.

And there were 156 OT losses.

So that is as even as it can get. It's a 50/50 shot that OT produced a result.

Therefore the new OT rules helped because before the point/4-on-4 rules, OT games remained tied 66% of the time.

So the result of the point/4-on-4 was to reduce ties from 66% to 50%.

And that was still too much. But he new OT rules definitely helped reduce ties.

Someone will undoubtedly track Shootout losses and compare that to the OT losses.

Hopefully less games will go into OT, and also less OT games will go to the Shootout with the new rules enforcement.

Only time will tell. But there's the numbers of what really happened last year.

[BlueSkirt]

So to answer your question about last season:

157 games that remained tied after OT would have gone to the Shootout, had that rule been in place.

We'll have to see how many games go to a Shootout this year.

I certainly hope it is less than 157.

If it is, then the new enforcement rules will be the biggest reason for reducing Regulation ties & Overtime ties.

And that is a plus in my book.

And for last year: 30 teams x 82 games each = 2460 team games.

But two teams per game means 1230 total games.

So 157 / 1230 means a whopping 12.76 % of the total games played ended up in a tie.

I think that stat shows just why the NHL needed to completely eliminate ties.

Feel free to correct my math...

Edited October 7, 2005 by BlueSkirt

[mddevsfan]

I would have made it:

No points unless you win.  OT, Tie, Shootout, whatever - loss is a loss and you get -0-  for it

2 points for a win in your division

1 point for wins outside your division

(assuming that the schedulers can create schedule that keeps everyone with same number of inter and out of division games)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...and guarantee Tampa Bay home-ice advantage for at least the next 10 years.

[GA Devil]

If you are going to award no points for making it into overtime, then the OT should go back to being 5 on 5. 4 on 4 for five minutes is a different game than the previous 60 minutes, and I feel that if a team loses 4 on 4, then they should get a point.

[puckrock]

:: Hey Ric! Call and say hi you bum! ::

It's funny this topic came up I was just saying this to myself the other night. To lead off: the shootout blows. But the show must go on.

It's ludicrous to award a point to a team just for making it through 60 minutes. If you can make it through OT, then I guess I can swallow awarding a point. It would kinda suck to go through 3 periods, an OT, AND a shootout, lose, and walk away with nothing to show for it.

So I guess all in all, I'm good with the idea of no points after 60 minutes, a point for each team if they're still tied after OT, and an extra point up for grabs in OT and the shootout.

[MartinBrodeurNJD#30]

Here's my take:

WIN=3 Points

LOSS=0 Points

[Don]

I think the last time we suggested this, it got up to 120 points for a win, zero for a loss.

If we got rid of points for losses, we wouldn't need points. There is no points (or crying) in baseball. (Hrm... am I getting to the age where the youngun's don't know that line?)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I have a degree in computers and mathmatics. I don't want to have to use my advanced linear algebra knowledge to figure out the standings. I also don't like the fact that if team A has 60 points, team B has 59 points and team C has 58 points with B and C playing each other for the last game of the season, team A could be looking on from outside, should B and C split their 3 points nicely between them. I want to get rid of overtime points just for the estetics, even if it hurts the game-play.

As for gameplay, I can see teams with either a poor shoot-out goaltender OR poor shoot-out players going full throttle through the end of gameplay and the OT trying to avoid the shootout. You will see teams with good shoot-out goaltending and good shooters playing defensively trying to get to the shootout.

You get NOTHING for making it to overtime in the playoffs. Should be the same in the regular season.

[NJDevs4978]

Well we can debate the merits of the system till the cows come home, the fact is if you just took away the point for an OT loss and made no other changes it would basically render the OT useless and lead to MORE shootouts. As someone else said, 4-on-4 isn't normal hockey either, it'd be kinda unfair to get bupkus if you lost in 'that' format.

I've already said this but what I'd do if ties are anethma is have two points for a win and zero for loss in regulation and also in a ten-minute four-on-four (which would also lessen the chance of getting to a shootout). Then when it gets to a shootout give each team a point no matter what happens, but keep track of all shootout wins and make it the first tiebreaker - or the second behind actual wins. Or if you have to give a second point to a shootout win for the sake of having an easier to understand standings, fine have those be the only 'three-point' games and don't make shootout wins tiebreakers.

I'd really rather just eliminate the OT loss point, push the OT to ten minutes and scrap the shootout and have outright ties remain in the equation but I have a feeling the shootout's here to stay (I know Dellapina says no but I think that's wishful thinking), at least for the forseeable future.

Edited October 8, 2005 by Hasan4978

[BlueSkirt]

The ice would be so bad if they played 10 minutes of OT, whether at 5-on-5 or 4-on-4.

The point system just needs to be scrapped.

As does the tracking of OTL in the standings.

Hell, the NY Daily News even has a column in their standings for SOL

Maybe Don is the only one who can figure out that standings-format ?

Hopefully one day the league will see the light & just go to Wins/Losses & Percentage.