Those of you who have followed my musings here at VLM over
the years know that I’m not especially enamored with regular-season overtime
(much less the shootout) in the National Hockey League. My dislike has nothing to do with whether the
Maple Leafs are particularly good at the skills event or not in any given
year. I’m just not a fan of ending a
game that way and attributing points in that fashion. It has long felt to me as
though the NHL standings are not really a reflection of what’s going on and how
teams are playing because of the “bonus” points that are being handed out on a
regular basis.
Having said that, I recognize that the NHL will never go
back to the “old” way of doing things. I
accept that tie games are a thing of the past, though I still believe it’s the
way regular-season games should end.
I would dearly love to see an end to the shootout, whether
that means extending the regular-season overtime session to ten minutes or not.
Regardless, checking in on the ongoing World Hockey Championships in Belarus,
it caught my eye this week that this prestigious international event just might
have the right approach.
To be clear, I’ve never been opposed to the team that loses
OT or a shootout getting a point. I guess this goes back to my view that a tie
is a tie, and if a game ends in regulation that way, both teams should get a
point and go home. So I don’t believe in penalizing a team just because they
lose in overtime.
Now, while I’ve also never been a fan of giving the winning
team three points (soccer went in this direction many years ago—as I recall,
that was to motivate teams to go for the win and to get away from the boring,
low scoring tie games that had plagued the sport). But the way it’s handled at the World Hockey Championships
hits a good note with me.
If I understand the system correctly, here’s what happens:
if a team wins in regulation, they earn three points. A team that wins in overtime/shootout
receives two points and the team that loses in extra time earns a single point.
So if we’re going to have a regular-season overtime system
in the NHL, that approach works for me.
It just makes sense that a team should be rewarded for winning a game in
regulation, as opposed to getting the same number of points in the standings as
a team that wins a skills competition.
Canada, for example, finished the round-robin portion of the
World Championships with 5 regulation wins, 1 overtime win and 1 overtime
loss. So they finished the tournament
with 18 points.
Three points for a regulation win; two points for an
overtime win; one point for an overtime loss. I think that’s a fairer way to
make the NHL standings better reflect how teams are playing.
Thoughts?
Posts
I agree with you and the simple reason is that I don't think it's fair that as it is in the NHL some games result in more points than others. There's an argument to be made, I think, that the teams are encouraged even more than before to sit back on a tie (especially if the teams chasing them in the standings are not involved in the game). All games should be 3-point games. I like the overtime and the shootout though - they make the games longer and we get to see the skills competition. Another way to improve the 'excitement' in hockey would be to make goal differential the tie-breaker like they do in soccer and euro hockey - I find that too often, teams give up after going down by a few goals and have nothing to play for while the other(leading) team too gives up as they have nothing to gain.
ReplyDeleteI agree, leafdreamer, I'd be OK with the system used in the World Championships. Regarding goal differential, is that a tie-breaker now when teams are tied at the end of the season in the standings?
DeleteI could live with that - every game is a three point game rather than the 2/3 split we are getting now. Unfortunately, the current situation gives us the artificial parity that the league seems to think is required for US interest.
ReplyDeleteBeing a staunch Canadian, I still can't see what's wrong with a tie. Maybe I can squint and see a 10 minute OT but I'm still a fan of 2 for the win, split it for the tie and a goose egg for the loser.
The shoot-out? Enh, if the game finishes quick and there's time, the winner of the shootout gets a Slushie.
Artificial parity is a good way to phrase it, buddha hat. I like the traditional tie games but if we have to have a three-point system, I do prefer the World Championships system.
DeleteI have advocated for the system you mention Michael for many years now. Right now it is extremely unequal as you never know how many total points each game is worth and too many teams hang on and just play for "the extra point".
ReplyDeleteI was never a big fan of the tie game. Because post 1980's fire wagon hockey when the coaches started to play the New Jersey trap system and there was 10 minutes left in the 3rd period everyone played not to lose and never to win. That and the goat rodeo hockey made for VERY boring hockey to watch.
I am not a big fan of the shootout. I prefer the 4x4 OT and lengthening OT another 5 minutes of 3x3 before going to the shootout. Yes, 3x3 is a bit gimmicky but no where near as gimmicky as the shootout. At least the 3x3 you have players on the ice making passes and playing defense. They use that in the AJHL here and the amount of games that go to the shootout compared to the NHL is almost half.
No system will ever be perfect but the 3 point total for every game is much better than what the NHL has now.
I'm not a shootout fan either, Pep. I still kind of wish that if the five minute overtime did not settle anything, each team would get a point.
DeleteEver since we first heard musings about regular season OT and then shootouts, I hoped for a 3 point system that would reflect a transition from the old way to the new... What I mean is that I'd prefer the single 'loser point' (OTL) be more properly named a Regulation Tie (RT) as a nod to the league's regular season heritage. That way historical comparisons would become less convoluted... especially with the 2 points reflecting an OT/Shootout win and the 3 points being a reward for getting it done in regulation time.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like a good way to sort out the records of teams in a tournament, so why not treat the regular season like a tournament? It's already different from our potential 'fight to the death' OT playoff determinations, where the last team standing is all that matters in each series (rather than point comparisons with other team series), so I have to ask why the league hasn't gone with this sort of format.
It seems to me that all the present 3-point games (i.e. 2 for a win and 1 for an OT/SO Loss) make it 'look like' teams have a better shot at the playoffs than might happen with teams who are effective at winning in regulation that might 'run away with it' if given the chance to shine. The optics might be 'bad' from a league perspective if any 'dynastic' or 'elite' teams might seem to emerge. Personally, I have no problem with good teams being rewarded with higher points!
[ I would add that, head to head record, then Regulation wins should be the first tie-breaker, before OT wins and then shootout wins - if there are any end of the season ties that need differentiation.]
Looking forward to reading the other comments here now...
I'm with you, InTimeFor62- teams that win in regulation deserve to be rewarded.
DeleteI don't feel strongly either way. I never minded a tie and I believe a tie deserves a point but I really enjoy watching the overtime. The shoot-out is more anti-climactic to me. I watch it, at times it's entertaining ( there were some laughs last pre-season) but I wouldn't miss it. I watch to learn the result.
ReplyDeleteLast year I worked out the amount of points and playoff positions each team would have had under the old system and most teams ended up in the same place with ROW being the most important factor. The shoot-out hasn't made any real difference. I think a three point system might. I agree regulation wins are harder to come by now and total points, as we saw with the Leafs this season, can be misleading. CN
I think I tried to tabulate the standings under the old system for a while but lost track, Colleen! I think most fans do enjoy the overtime and the NHL will stay with that, but hopefully they will consider the three-point regulation win.
DeleteThat is a good point Colleen. Perhaps if a proper 3 pt system was in place this year the Leafs would have been out of the playoffs much earlier as their play really dictated due to lack of regulation wins. And we wouldn't be saddled with a mind boggled coach still.
DeleteYou're right, Pep, and we may have seen it much earlier in the season. I think regulation wins (and to a lesser extent over-time wins) is a very good indication of how a team is doing. The low ROW was a warning that things were not going well and I'm sure Carlyle knew it. He just didn't know how to fix it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not at all confident that giving him a second go at it is a good decision but I believe Shanahan only kept Randy because he has a bigger plan and didn't want to have to hire an interim coach for one year. And maybe he thought blame should be spread around a bit more. From what I've read (and they could be wrong) Randy refused to stay without an extension, though that makes little sense when he's still under contract for 2014-15. ...Colleen
I think all RC is doing demanding an extension was negotiating his own golden parachute. He knows that if they decide to can him the money isn't a big issue to MLSE since it isn't part of the overall salary cap.
DeleteHi Michael,
ReplyDeleteI simply think it is not fair that the winner in OT and in SO get's the same points as the winner in regulation.
I don't like the shootout either. It is a circus.
The System they use in europe in Hockey in Soccer and at the Hockey Worlds makes sense.
3 for a win. one each for a tie, and the extra point for the OT or the SO win.
If 2 Teams are tied in the standings the goal differntial Comes into play and if that is the same the most scored goals deceide who is better in the standings.
That is a fair system you're right.
But I think the NHL refused to use this system. I think it was discussed on one level but I am not a 100% shure.
I would prefer the World Championship model as well, Marcus. Why the NHL would not consider this, I'm not sure. If they're going to continue with OT, this approach could work.
Delete