There has been lots of discussion about whether or not the point for losing in OT or shootout is a hindrance or an asset. While personally I don’t think a team should be awarded for losing at any point, does it impact the standings as much as they claim? After crunching some numbers, the answer is no. Below are the league standings as they are before tonight’s games:
EAST
Boston
New Jersey
Washington
Philadelphia
Carolina
Pittsburgh
NY Rangers
Montreal
Florida
Buffalo
Toronto
Ottawa
Atlanta
Tampa Bay
NY Islanders
WEST
San Jose
Detroit
Calgary
Chicago
Vancouver
Columbus
Anaheim
Edmonton
Nashville
Minnesota
St. Louis
Dallas
LA
Phoenix
Colorado
When we remove the extra point, very little changes. New Jersey becomes the Beast of the East, while Boston drops behind them by two points. Carolina leaps ahead of Philadelphia by two, while Pittsburgh and their cross-state rivals in Philly end up tied in the standings. Toronto fans won’t like the results, as the Sens jump ahead of them in the standings.
In the West, Detroit moves ahead of San Jose. Edmonton, Nashville, and Minnesota end up in a three-way tie for eighth place. Colorado moves ahead of LA and Phoenix to emerge from the West basement.
It’s important to note that none of the six division leaders lost their lead. So while the point may be annoying to some, and some may remain indifferent, the extra point does not impact the standings as much as some nay-sayers would want.
Well, first, the season isn’t over yet. On the last day we’ll see if someone misses the playoffs who should have been there.
Second, the entire setup changes the way teams play. Bad teams will endeavor to “not lose” just to gain that extra point, waiting to attempt scoring for overtime.
Third, and what offends me the most, is the very concept of points for losing. No other professional team in sports does this, and for good reason. Why must we have four numbers in our standings? It’s ridiculous. Wins. Losses. End of story.
Justin, this is an awesome post. Well done. This has been my argument since the whole thing started. I would like to see a 3-2-1 point system. 3 for reg win, 2 for OT, 1 for SO. It would put pressure on teams to win in regulation rather than going for the tie. I do like that the OT/SO losers get a point because fans can walk away and say ‘at least we got a point’.
The reason I say that is … it’s just a waste of time debating it and calculating and analyzing it. As Mark put it recently re: the goaltending issue with Brodeur vs. everyone else, all this “hypothetical” stuff (“what if…?”) is just pointless. There’s no point in saying “what if, whether if” because we have to deal with the current point system as it is. Yes, some changes will be seen, blah blah blah, but it won’t affect the big picture, blah blah blah. But so what? The thing is, Mark might be right that it’s meaningless to bring up hypotheticals. Every team is where it is now probably because they deserve it. They weren’t good enough to get deny the other team of the 1 point they got, etc.
All this post does is waste the writer’s time, waste our time to read it and talk about it.
I will say Rick is right; it’s a flawed system because why would you get rewarded for losing? Teams don’t go for it because they know they will “clinch” at least 1 point by playing tight D in the dying minutes.
Yes, John wants to see 3-2-1 system but so what? Neither he nor Justin is the commissioner. None of us are. So what is the point of what you guys want to see?
See, we’ve all wasted our time going through this meaningless exercise. Mark is the wise one here; he has (so far) chosen not to bother commenting.
Kp, your thinking is flawed. Teams don’t get a point for losing. They get a point for the tie. the OT and SO is played for a bonus point.
hahaha House. I wonder what Rick would respond to your comment there. Back to square one…
They lose and they got a point. Point for losing.
Let me remind everyone that every other professional sports has wins and losses. Screw pointing and go to a wins and losses system, with GF as the tie-breaker, and be done with it. Teams should be going balls out all the time, not protecting the puck to steal a point regardless of their inability to win a game.
They Tie and they get a point for the tie. Point for tie. One team gets the bonus point.
Polish that turd all you want but I’m not taking a bite. At the end of an NHL team there is a winner and a loser in the shootout era. The fact both teams in that circumstance can get points is flawed.
You said it, Rick ! As most of you might know, the system Rick spoke of in the first comment existed during the Original Six era… I recall reading about the RANGERS knocking out the Habs in the 50s because they scored more goals, and the Habs had to pull their goalie with half the third period left to score five goals or something to overtake the RANGERS.
That’s what Rick is talking about, being forced to go for it instead of sitting back like some boring teams. But again, nothing we can do. We are not the commissioners.
I mean, if you think about it all, Rick is right. Cuz, how can a team actually GAIN ground even if it loses ? (This happens when a team loses in OT or the shootout and the team it’s chasing is idle.)
Very illogical…