Overtime Losses and Shootout Losses

[rmackman]

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.

[HowBoutThemFins]

panthers rarely win...period. they should relocate to a city that deserves a hockey team.

[Roger Clemente]

http://www.hockeydb.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Hockey_League#Teams

Figure it out for yourself at either of these sites.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[steiny_ramone]

I guess Bettman's plan of referring to OT goals as "skate-off goals" never caught on. Good.

[zer0dotcom]

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?

[STL FANATIC]

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.

[HedleyLamarr]

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.

[jkrdevil]

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.

[STL FANATIC]

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.

[Guest]

I think teams should either win or lose games, like in other sports.

[The Nation]

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.

[STL FANATIC]

I think teams should either win or lose games, like in other sports.

You can tie in football.

[Grandmaster C]

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.

[HedleyLamarr]

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

[Grandmaster C]

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.

[IceCap]

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.

[zer0dotcom]

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.

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

[BBTV]

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.

[IceCap]

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.

[chrimart]

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!