Loser Point

[carpandean]

I've been advocating for a regulation win being 2, an OT win being 1, and a loss being a loss being 0 for a long time. Actually, it makes even more sense than the bonus point because there is incentive to win in regulation. The bonus point puts the incentive on not losing in regulation. It also makes games like last night's Bruins-Pens game truly demoralizing as the Bruins would have been less than 1 second away from 2 points and would have ended up with 0, and Pittsburgh would still have their winless streak extended to 5 games.

 

I would even take it a step further and not give a point for a shootout win, but I would allow shootout wins to be the 1st or 2nd tie-breaker between teams. (2nd if they've played an equal # of games at each team's home rink; 1st if they haven't.)

:oops: missed this response earlier. I guess your idea is the same as my idea is the same as ... well, your idea.

[Guest Sloth]

The points aren't about winning and losing (that's what the W and L columns are for). The points are about selecting teams to play in the playoffs. The league has decided that it wants skilled teams in the playoffs. The team with more skill will more often that not win in OT or the SO and I'm cool with that tack. I don't care what's fair. I want (and the league wants) a more entertaining playoffs and rewarding more skilled teams gives me that.

 

All sports are about winning. It's that simple. It's not about who is more skilled or who plays a "prettier" game. If sports were about giving the W to the "prettier" team, I'd no longer watch them.

[SwampD]

All sports are about winning. It's that simple. It's not about who is more skilled or who plays a "prettier" game. If sports were about giving the W to the "prettier" team, I'd no longer watch them.

And yet you are still watching.

[Guest Sloth]

And yet you are still watching.

 

Yeah, you have me on that one.

 

But, the reasons I still watch the NHL is because the Sabres are from Buffalo, and my favorite sport is hockey. The scoring system the NHL uses is still a bad idea.

[VanBoxmeer]

If they had the unlimited OT we would have way too many bad calls from Refs getting tired (just like they did in the 1999 Stanley cup) this would be the only true way to select the playoff teams.

 

I like to watch shoot out, it does draw in viewers and its all about the scoring and scoring is $$, but it doesn't belong here as it rewards individual skill over team play.

 

They do it right in the playoffs at least.

 

The in the crease rule was dumb too (but those were the rules) and the glowing puck was pretty bad too, maybe this shootout thing will go away too. I don't think it will go away, but one can dream.

[Eleven]

I'm fine with regular-season ties. I grew up with them and still love the sport, and I don't think that shootouts, loser points, or four-on-four overtimes really have enhanced my experience as a fan.

[wjag]

I'd be okay with 2pts out right win in regulation. 1pt OT or SO win and no points for a loss of any kind.

[ntjacks79]

Actually, the solution to the teams sitting back IS easy. Don't give either team a point at the end of a tied regulation, and only give 1 point to the winner of OT. If it goes to a shootout, give that team a "tie-break" point, but don't give either team 1 that counts in the standings for anything but breaking ties at the end of the season.

 

You think those 2 Bruins that had the puck tied up behind the Pens net w/ 12 seconds left might actually have kept the puck there if they knew for certain that getting scored on would cost them a minimum of a point and very likely 2?

 

If a team knew they absolutely would lose 1 point and had at least a 50% chance of losing the other 1 by getting tied, they also would in all likelihood have to wait longer to going to a shutdown game and actually try to get to the safer 2 goal lead.

I like these and some of the other thoughts on the board where the idea is to reward wins in regulation.

 

I like the 2-1-0 concept... something else I thought of was to keep standings where the categories were regulation wins, regulation losses, and overtime points... with first tie-breaker always being regulation wins. In the case of OT or shootout, winner gets 2 overtime points and loser gets 1 overtime point (the point is to reward the regulation standoff for the loser, similar to NHL history). I even went a step further and would suggest a "bonus point" to a team for every 10 regulation wins, thus giving teams incentive for regulation wins to gain the bonus point every 10th game. Maybe a bit complicated, compared to 2-1-0, but I was trying to reward a team for the regulation tie as per hockey history. I'm not sure I like the thought of losing the strategy of gaining a point via a regulation standoff... and I'm quite sure coaches wouldn't like it.

[mercury]

I would much rather the loser point only be given out if it goes to the shoot out.

 

Indeed.

[BetweenThePipes00]

The "loser" point for shootout losses doesn't bother me, those would have always been points because you played the team to a tie in real hockey. It's the point the winner gets in the shootout that is misleading and a problem, IMO. Pittsburgh has 6 shootout wins ... New Jersey and Boston have 5 ... Washington has only 3, the Sabres only 2. New Jersey would still be first in the East, but Pittsburgh and Boston would be back in the pack much more than they are. But the only way to fix it is give more weight to regulation losses, but I doubt it will ever happen because the league likes when everyone is "in the race" for the playoffs.