Points for an OT Loss

IgotachubbyforChubarov · Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:04 am

I was just informed that the WJC this year is using a point setup similar to the NHL, in which if a team loses in OT they still get a point. It baffles me why we are still doing this. If I remember correctly, when the point was given for running the game into OT, it's purpose was to be incentive for the teams to open up, and try and win the game. This was to reduce the amount of ties. Then came along the shootout, and completely defeated the purpose of this. So why is it still in effect? Why are other leagues using this point scheme now? Why is it that we(and not just the NHL, but society in general) want to reward the loser? Bring back the 2 points for a win, 0 for a loss. All or nothing!

capt canuck · Post by **capt canuck** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:30 am

i think it's a better idea than the NHL. every game has the same point value.in the NHL some games are worth 2 and some 3

the Cunning Linguist · Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:18 am

Don't they get three points for a regulation win, two for an OT win, and one for an OT loss? I think I read that somewhere...

EDIT: Here - http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/juniors/ ... 60559_4980 - Canada has only played two games up to this game and has six points.

Also: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/juniors/ ... 52947_4352

The round-robin format of the tournament was revamped this year. Games can no longer end in ties and will be decided by overtime or a shootout, if needed.

A win in regulation time is worth three points, an overtime or shootout victory is worth two and a loss in overtime or a shootout earns a team one point.

mband · Post by **mband** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:33 am

I wholeheartedly agree with capt canuck. Either make every game 2 points, or make every game 3 points with points allotted as described above.

Having some games worth 2 and some worth 3 is ridiculous and completely warps the statistics. Take for example a team's winning percentage: In any normal sport, a .500 team is by definition "average", but in the NHL, a .500 team is well below average (NHL average is about .550, and only 7 of the 30 teams are under .500). This is just one of my many pet peeves about the current NHL scoring system...

IgotachubbyforChubarov · Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:30 am

the Cunning Linguist wrote:Don't they get three points for a regulation win, two for an OT win, and one for an OT loss? I think I read that somewhere...

EDIT: Here - http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/juniors/ ... 60559_4980 - Canada has only played two games up to this game and has six points.

Also: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/juniors/ ... 52947_4352

The round-robin format of the tournament was revamped this year. Games can no longer end in ties and will be decided by overtime or a shootout, if needed.

A win in regulation time is worth three points, an overtime or shootout victory is worth two and a loss in overtime or a shootout earns a team one point.

Yeah, they do, like I said, they use a similar setup, not the same. And I completely agree with other posters, if they insist on giving a point for a post-regulation loss, make a regulation win 3 points. But my point was....why are we rewarding losing teams? I'd much rather see it revert back to the 2 point win, 0 point loss, regardless of when the loss occured.

showtyme21 · Post by **showtyme21** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:07 pm

while I agree that it seems to be a stupid way of doing things (the way the NHL does it), but it does serve the purpose that the Butt-man wants. More teams can now market their teams as above .500. This in turn, theoretically means that more fans will attend those games. Whatever. I'm over the fact that the NHL does stupid things with their point systems, and I just try and enjoy the hockey that I do get to watch. The playoffs are excellent, no matter who makes it and who doesn't...