The NHL awards a single point to a team losing in overtime or in a tie-breaking shootout, while the winning team gets two points.
Huh? How can a total of three points be awarded when a regulation game awards only two?
Strange. Let’s take a look at the league’s reasoning.
Before the NHL adopted the "extra point" rule (and before shootouts were implemented), teams tied after regulation might choose to play conservatively in OT, praying to split the two points and walk away with something for their 60-plus minute effort.
If they decided to play aggressively, going for the total two points, they might lose everything. So coaches preached playing it safe.
The single point now awarded for OT and shootout losses is supposed to encourage competitive play. Hopefully teams will feel they have less to risk going into OT—already assured the single loser point—and so they’ll really go for the win and the two points, making for an exciting finish to the match.
So far the new arrangement has motivated the desired effects. For examples of this, take a look at games played on February 14, 2008.
Toronto, coming in last in the Eastern Conference with 55 points (and second to last in the league overall), was just eight points behind eighth place Boston (63) in competition for the final playoff spot.
The Maple Leafs have played inconsistently all year long, blowing third period and last minute leads in several games. Now those bonus points have piled up to make it look like they have a shot.
And that's exactly what the NHL is trying to do. They want to create and manipulate a competitive balance so that even poorly performing teams will put up a fight, thinking they still have a chance in the playoff race. Good for the league, good for fan interest, et cetera, et cetera.
However, the problem here is that this system gives fans false hope.
Tampa Bay had earned 56 points by February 14th, and was No. 14 in the conference but just six points away from a tie for the division lead in the mediocre Southeast Division. If the Lightning were to hit a hot streak, it would be possible for them to catch up to division leaders, even making it to third place in the entire conference.
And just to look at this humorously for a second, a team could go 0-0-82, earning 82 points. That's a .500 record for not winning a single game. Wow.
Professional athletes are paid big bucks. Do they really need to be rewarded with these consolation points?
Teams may proudly proclaim this season the greatest in history, but they will be referencing a high point total inflated by these loser points. And don’t be surprised if the league uses this “feat” to jack up ticket prices.
Now, does any other North American league award points to losers?
Nope. Not in Major League Baseball. If you lose a 23-inning marathon, that's too bad. You get nothing in the standings. Just go out and play better next time.
Not in basketball. You keep playing until someone loses. Your team could even score 150 points in the game, come up second best, and leave with nothing to show for it.
Not in football. You lose in overtime because your team’s kicker blew it while the other’s didn't.
You’ll find the only policy comparable to the NHL’s loser point system in the Canadian Football League (CFL), where a missed field goal could result in a single point. But then again, the CFL is not really a major league.
The point is that giving points to losing teams is a bit goofy. No other leagues do it. So why the NHL?
Well, lots of NHL policy borders on the nonsensical, but this loser point system really goes above and beyond.
4 comments Last one added about 1 year ago — Leave a Comment
Jared Reback about 1 year ago
I have always argued that the NHL should give 3 points for winning in regulation. That would provide teams with incentive in tie games late in the third to push for the win, and would ensure that three points are given out in every game.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Ponich about 1 year ago
I like the loser point system. The NHL doesn't want to run exactly like the NFl or MLB. They want to be unique and different and this is just the thing to seperate them. I don't think it will make it anymore exciting to tke it away. I have yet to see a game where a team does not try to win in overtime or the shootout until it gets to the last leg of the season perhaps if they have already made the playoffs.
However i somewhat like Jared's Idea. It could be a 3 points for regulation win, 2 points for overtime/shootout win but i would still have that one point for overtime/shootout loss.
Edit Comment Cancel
Travis Loftis about 1 year ago
I don't have a problem with the 3 point system...but Bettman shoots it down every chance he gets.
I think a more possible solution might be to go back to 5 on 5 in OT for 5 minutes, and if it's tied, give the teams a point for a tie - and then have a shoot out for an extra one. You didn't lose the game, you got a tie, and then if you wanna have a silly side show (Which is fun to watch, in all honesty) you still get an extra point. Whatever happens, either go back to ties, or adopt a new system. Don't go to a "Wins vs Losses" system. Don't let the NHL become the NBA, where 38-44 teams can make the playoffs.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Perry about 1 year ago
The loser point or Fractional Point system as I like to call it , has had some interesting and amusing results ever since it's inception: This season for instance, the extra point averages to 2.195 awarded per game with a high for Edmonton of 2.3 and a low of 2.12 for Philly. This does not look like a lot but it yields an error bar of 8.26%. Rather a lot really...
The apparent tightness of the standings also creates the delusion in the really bad teams that they are better than they are, thus delaying the necessary re constructive efforts, The Maple leafs may well be the best example here. If a third point were always awarded, the Leafs remain 29'th but LA moves to 28'th with Edmonton at 30. Some of the variances are of course due to the equally asinine divisional schedule, with a team from the SE, all of which are sub .500, guaranteed not just a playoff spot but the third seed! In reality any non playoff team from any other division would likely be third seed if they played in the SE.
This season at times there has been a variance of 6 games played from most to least: the best system for direct comparision is the winning %, but the NHL.com system which counts only the % of point available to the team yields the absurdity of 25 of 30 teams at or above .500.
Almost anything is a better system than that which exists.
Travis: That is what they do now.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.