Jump to content

Overtime Losses and Shootout Losses


rmackman

Recommended Posts

I think the Panthers have 46 total OTLs and the Bruins have around 50. I know the Panthers almost rarely ever win shootouts. I'm curious as to who is the worst team in overtime and in shootouts over the past several years in the NHL.

"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be eaten. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle. When the sun comes up, you'd better be running." - Unknown | 🌐 Check out my articles on jerseys at Bacon Sports 🔗
spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that we have Shootouts to decide the game, I hardly see the need for Overtime Losses. The whole point was to make Overtime exciting, make it worth playing for...but now that a Shootout will give a winner, why bother rewarding a team for just making it to OT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that we have Shootouts to decide the game, I hardly see the need for Overtime Losses. The whole point was to make Overtime exciting, make it worth playing for...but now that a Shootout will give a winner, why bother rewarding a team for just making it to OT?

Because if the team automatically has the point, then they can keep the 4 on 4 and exciting non-defensive OT.

As fun and interesting as shootouts and the exciting OT can be, the best system they've had is still the 5 on 5 OT where the winner gets 2 points, the loser gets 0 points, and if it ends in a tie, they each get 1 point.

It just makes more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you would go back to the boring OT sessions that forced the change. Watching five minutes of dump-and-chase-and-clear-and-dump-and-chase-and-clear would bore the hell out of me.

Awarding both teams a point opens it up. I'm perfectly fine with the OT winner getting two points and the OT loser getting one point.

Though, I wouldn't oppose if the NHL changed to a three-point system. Three for the regulation winner, two for the OT or shootout winner, one for the OT or shootout loser, and zero for the loss in regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though, I wouldn't oppose if the NHL changed to a three-point system. Three for the regulation winner, two for the OT or shootout winner, one for the OT or shootout loser, and zero for the loss in regulation.

I think that is the best solution because then each game is worth the same amount of points. Right now some games reward a total of 2 points while others 3 points. Under the 3 point model each game is worth a total of 3 points. I also don't think a team should be punished and end up getting no points for losing a gimmick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though, I wouldn't oppose if the NHL changed to a three-point system. Three for the regulation winner, two for the OT or shootout winner, one for the OT or shootout loser, and zero for the loss in regulation.

I think that is the best solution because then each game is worth the same amount of points. Right now some games reward a total of 2 points while others 3 points. Under the 3 point model each game is worth a total of 3 points. I also don't think a team should be punished and end up getting no points for losing a gimmick.

I don't think any proposal would call for teams getting no points for losing the gimmick. The system I'd like to go back to would get rid of the gimmick.

The three point system is okay, but I don't know. Then that's getting to be a lot of points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

keep it simple, no ot at all. 2 for win, 1 for a tie, no overtime!!!! this way we wouldn't have this log jam in the conference, i dont know why people like this, but it should reward a team more for winning in 60 mins as opposed to winning in 65 mins + gimmicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that we have Shootouts to decide the game, I hardly see the need for Overtime Losses. The whole point was to make Overtime exciting, make it worth playing for...but now that a Shootout will give a winner, why bother rewarding a team for just making it to OT?

Because if the team automatically has the point, then they can keep the 4 on 4 and exciting non-defensive OT.

As fun and interesting as shootouts and the exciting OT can be, the best system they've had is still the 5 on 5 OT where the winner gets 2 points, the loser gets 0 points, and if it ends in a tie, they each get 1 point.

It just makes more sense.

I agree wholeheartedly. Points for losing in OT has never worked for me, and I'm not too big on shootouts either.

I guess it's the traditionalist in me. ^_^

TrevorLindensig.jpg

TrevorLindenJerseys.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just curious.....would Canadians think differently about the shootout had Canada not lost the 1994 Gold Medal game in Lillehammer?

I wouldn't say that. I'm a Canadian, and I love the shootout. I also agree that now it's impossible to end a game with a tie, they should do away with overtime losses. Just have two brackets, win and lose. 2 points for a win, 0 for a lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious.....would Canadians think differently about the shootout had Canada not lost the 1994 Gold Medal game in Lillehammer?

Don't forget about 98 in Nagano.

And no, probably not. :flagcanada:

I remember '98 more. Another point on my way to forever disliking Dominic Hasek. After that, lots of sour grapes towards the shootout. Lately, my opinion has started to change, when I hear that a shootout is on I flip the channel to it instantly to watch it.

I still stand by that games should be winner takes all, non of this points for losing stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious.....would Canadians think differently about the shootout had Canada not lost the 1994 Gold Medal game in Lillehammer?

I wouldn't say that. I'm a Canadian, and I love the shootout. I also agree that now it's impossible to end a game with a tie, they should do away with overtime losses. Just have two brackets, win and lose. 2 points for a win, 0 for a lose.

Then if that is the system why have points at all? Just do W/L like everyone else. Without crediting half a win to one team, there is no need for a point system.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious.....would Canadians think differently about the shootout had Canada not lost the 1994 Gold Medal game in Lillehammer?

I wouldn't say that. I'm a Canadian, and I love the shootout. I also agree that now it's impossible to end a game with a tie, they should do away with overtime losses. Just have two brackets, win and lose. 2 points for a win, 0 for a lose.

Then if that is the system why have points at all? Just do W/L like everyone else. Without crediting half a win to one team, there is no need for a point system.

Works for me. I agree with zer0 though, don't reward the losing team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shootouts: I like to watch it, but teams are getting to much to just participate to it.

I would organize the NHL regular-season games like this

3 x 20 min. regulation periods

1 x 10 min. sudden death overtime (4-on-4)

and then 3-vs-3 shootout

And the points:

3 points for a regulation win;

2 poinst for a overtime win;

1 point for a shootout win;

no point at all for any loss;

For those who want 2-0 whatever the format, why not just go by win-lost and game margin like in baseball or basketball!

It Should Be Lawful for the Queen of Hockey Land, by and with the Advice and the Consent of the Sinners and the House of Pain, to Make Laws for Pucks, Hot Dogs and Good Government...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.