| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
 Posted - 04/02/2012 : 11:28:27
|
The NHL has become a league filled with overtime games. Nearly one quarter of all games played have gone to overtime this season. (286 games out of 1,186 games played.) I'm not necessarily complaining. Maybe this implies parity? Maybe it's what the fans want? Some people will tell you that the referees call games to keep things close, causing more overtime games. (Calling fewer penalties on teams trailing, and calling more penalties on teams who are leading.) I'm not so sure about that!
In games going to overtime, approximately 60% are determined 4-on-4, and the remaining 40% of overtime games are determined by the shootout.
With nearly a quarter of all games decided in overtime, this means that fewer games are decided in regulation time. In fact, there is only one NHL team likely to have 41 regulation time wins (or more) this season, and that is the St. Louis Blues!
The league leading Rangers and Canucks have won less than half of their games in regulation time! (The Rangers have 38 regulation time wins in 79 games, and the Canucks have 35 regulation wins in the same number of games played!) It doesn't seem very impressive, but they're the top two teams in the NHL right now! Overtime points have become huge in where teams rank in the standings!
To give you an example of how important overtime points have become, the New Jersey Devils have only 29 regulation victories in 79 games played. They have an additional 16 wins in games going to overtime. (12 of those wins are in the shoot-out.)
The Florida Panthers (who are currently sitting in 3rd place in the Eastern Conference) have gone to overtime 24 times this season. They have 30 regulation wins, and they have collected 17 points by losing in overtime, and they have only one victory in 4-on-4. (Six of their wins have come in the shootout.) Even if you count all of their wins (including overtime), the Panthers have 37 wins in 79 games, so they have no chance of finishing the season at .500. (41 wins or more.)
I will leave it to others to comment on whether this is right or not (hey - the rules are the rules after all), but I will suggest that the Panthers are not likely to do well in the postseason.
As we all know, there's no 4-on-4 hockey in the playoffs, and no shootouts either! If the Panthers have only managed 31 wins in either regulation time and 4-on-4 combined, this does not bode well for how well they will do in the playoffs!
In the playoffs, games are determined as they should be, and if your regulation time record is as bad as the Panthers, I can't see them going very far.
As it appears right now though, the Devils and Panthers could end up facing each other in the first round though, both teams who lead the NHL in most overtime games played. If these two teams meet, it will be a battle of two teams who are used to playing in overtime. But they're not necessarily used to playing in overtime decided by 5-on-5 hockey!
|
|
|
Clatts
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
266 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2012 : 12:23:05
|
I'm not a big fan of awarding a point to losers, I believe it can make some teams play less aggressive in an attempt to get into O.T. and secure a point. You can't blame these teams though, just the rules.
A win/loss system like in football or basketball seems like a better way to go for me. Or maybe 3 for a win and 1 for a loss.
"Most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French Guys."
Don Cherry on Visors |
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2012 : 14:50:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Clatts
I'm not a big fan of awarding a point to losers, I believe it can make some teams play less aggressive in an attempt to get into O.T. and secure a point. You can't blame these teams though, just the rules.
A win/loss system like in football or basketball seems like a better way to go for me. Or maybe 3 for a win and 1 for a loss.
"Most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French Guys."
Don Cherry on Visors
Intersting point, considering Calgary has benefited more than any other team(except FLA) from OT losses. I mean, let's not forget about all those meaningful games Calgary is losing but etting points for to make it interesting after Christmas. 
Kidding aside, I absolutely hate the single point for a loss. I think that many of the games that do go to overtime and the vast majority that go to a shoot out would be decided earlier if there was no single point for a loss. Or, make a win in regulation worth 3 points, 2 points for a OT or shootout win, and 1 pt for an overtime loss.
The league does not have parity, it has teams who play conservative hockey in the last 10 minutes of tied hockey game. Teams do not often play for a win as much as they play not to lose.
I can't stand it. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2012 : 05:06:10
|
Interesting points guest.
Back in the day - when there were regulation ties - the number of ties was often about 10-25% for each team's games. And, that was at a time when there were dynasties (Oilers, Islanders, Pens) that were perennially rolling over teams - and there were also some extremely weak sisters, mostly created out of expansion.
Now, there is a lot more parity in the league, and far fewer "blowouts" in general . . . and the reasoning for the shootout and 4 on 4 OT was originally to eliminate teams playing for the tie in overtime - basically, both teams afraid to risk losing, and satisfied with a tie (often happened for the inter-conference and inter-division games).
And in the end . . . the fan is left with what I believe to be a LESS satisfying result - teams like the Devils who are (IMHO) artificially elevated in the standings due to the publicity stunt called the shootout.
And, especially as the playoffs loom . . . seeing lots of three point games is especially frustrating for fans of teams trying to make it in on a late push. To me, those three point games actually take away a lot of the excitement of the last two or three weeks . . . as it makes it that much harder to catch up.
I would love a return to the tie, but I don't see it happening under this leadership.
I am not so sure about your point on teams like the Devils not being used to win in overtime . . . when the playoffs come, both teams play in OT until there is a winner 5 on 5, so there is no different dynamic really, other than team fitness in longer games. Well, the argument could be made that teams that win a lot of close games might play better in the playoffs . . . they are used to playing tight affairs where one wrong bounce or error could cost you the game.
Using this logic, I actually think that the Devils are a strong darkhorse in th East.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Clatts
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
266 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2012 : 05:19:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by Clatts
I'm not a big fan of awarding a point to losers, I believe it can make some teams play less aggressive in an attempt to get into O.T. and secure a point. You can't blame these teams though, just the rules.
A win/loss system like in football or basketball seems like a better way to go for me. Or maybe 3 for a win and 1 for a loss.
"Most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French Guys."
Don Cherry on Visors
Intersting point, considering Calgary has benefited more than any other team(except FLA) from OT losses. I mean, let's not forget about all those meaningful games Calgary is losing but etting points for to make it interesting after Christmas.
Kidding aside, I absolutely hate the single point for a loss. I think that many of the games that do go to overtime and the vast majority that go to a shoot out would be decided earlier if there was no single point for a loss. Or, make a win in regulation worth 3 points, 2 points for a OT or shootout win, and 1 pt for an overtime loss.
The league does not have parity, it has teams who play conservative hockey in the last 10 minutes of tied hockey game. Teams do not often play for a win as much as they play not to lose.
I can't stand it.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
If Calgary has benefited from these rules this season it is not to say they would do poorly if the rules were different. If there were no points awarded to a O.T. loser perhaps they fight harder in the last 5 min of the 3rd.
Anyway I agree, No points for losers.
"Most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French Guys."
Don Cherry on Visors |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 04/03/2012 : 12:29:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I am not so sure about your point on teams like the Devils not being used to win in overtime . . . when the playoffs come, both teams play in OT until there is a winner 5 on 5, so there is no different dynamic really.
[i]
My point about the Devils (and the Panthers) is that both teams do not have terrific records in regulation time, when teams play 5-on-5. Both teams records improve with overtime points, but this is with 4-on-4 or the shootout, both which do not exist in the playoffs.
You make a good point that the Devils may be "game ready" in the playoffs, since they are used to being in so many close games, but it remains to be seen how well they do in 5-on-5 overtime! |
|
|
|
Guest9558
( )
|
Posted - 04/03/2012 : 13:50:55
|
I don't think overtime is going away; it generates too much fan excitement. Given that situation, the NHL should do one of two things:
1. Take away the tie, i.e. you win or lose whether or not the game goes to overtime. 2 points for the winner, no points for the loser. All games worth a total of 2 points.
2. 3 points for a win in regulation time, 1 point each for a tie in regulation with the chance to get 1 extra point for an OT win, and no points for a regulation loss. All games worth a total of 3 points. This gives a real incentive to take the regulation win as it's worth more and rewards teams that get the job done in 60 minutes.
My personal preference is for #2, but either is better than the current system. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2012 : 15:23:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9558
1. Take away the tie, i.e. you win or lose whether or not the game goes to overtime. 2 points for the winner, no points for the loser. All games worth a total of 2 points.
Only problem with this scenario, is that like the last 5 mins of regulation we often see now, OT could become very defensive and passive with neither team "going for it" like we see now, in fear of losing that one pt. |
|
|
|
Guest9558
( )
|
Posted - 04/03/2012 : 20:07:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Only problem with this scenario, is that like the last 5 mins of regulation we often see now, OT could become very defensive and passive with neither team "going for it" like we see now, in fear of losing that one pt.
But there would be no 1 point to lose. Every game finishes, with OT and SO if necessary, to determine a winner (2 points) and a loser (no points). No ties whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 00:49:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9558
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Only problem with this scenario, is that like the last 5 mins of regulation we often see now, OT could become very defensive and passive with neither team "going for it" like we see now, in fear of losing that one pt.
But there would be no 1 point to lose. Every game finishes, with OT and SO if necessary, to determine a winner (2 points) and a loser (no points). No ties whatsoever.
So, now even a shootout loser get's nothing? This seems to be what you're suggesting, that there is not a point for ANY loser, be it OT or shootout????
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
NHL: A League Fit To Be Tied! 
