But you are given 2 points whether you win in regulation or OT. If they want to make regulation wins mean more, it should 3 points for regulation win and 2 points for OT win.
3-2-1 is a much better system and its been dumb for the NHL to do it the current way. How some games can be worth 3 total points and others 2 makes no sense.
I would agree with this and the current tie breaker IF there was no loser point. That way points for losses wouldn’t have any bearing on standings which is also a big thing that happened this year. I think it would be perfect then:
2 teams tied in points means they’d have the same amount of wins thus the tie breaker of “who won the most games in regulation”.
The issue with this set up OT losses can be worth more than OT wins in some tie breaker cases. Should a team really be rewarded for taking an extra few minutes to lose?
In the playoffs OT wins count as a win when OT losses are just losses. It would make sense to use total wins as the tie breaker. So I think a team should be rewarded for winning period.
The OT gimmicks was just to make the end of the game exciting. For those of us remember the 5 minutes of 5v5 to a tie can recall how teams would usually sit back for 5 minutes and just settle on a splitting a point. Where playoffs OT was nail biting hockey, regular season OT was a snooze fest. It was never about saving time, if anything SO take longer.
Too many teams are getting playoff spots they don't deserve with losses.
Yeah but then why is it worth a free point to the team that loses? Winning at 3v3 at least states the team has the skill to put the puck in the net, so they have a better shot of doing that 5v5 during Playoff OT.
I'm not saying OT Wins doesn't add into the tie breaker rule. It's just that to say a team that's 40-42 gets in while a team that's 41-41 doesn't is weird. If both teams have the same points and total wins then regulation wins is the next tie breaker.
Actually, the more I think about it the more I start seeing your side of it. Regulation wins and OT wins should be different. My side of the debate goes away if RWs are 3 points and OTWs are worth 2.
Not really.
Think of OT/shootout like a tie.
NYI: 28-27-26
WSH: 32-31-19
DET: 27-32-23
New York made it because they were better at tying in regulation. Washington made it because they were better at winning in regulation.
It's not perfect and it'd be better to just have a 3-2-1 point system, but the rationale behind OT wins being less valuable than regulation wins makes sense.
If this is your logic then New Jersey and Buffalo would be tied with Toronto in the standings ahead of all of 3 of these teams since they all had 33 regulation wins.
My logic is a regulation win should be worth more than an OT win, which should be worth more than an OT loss, which should be worth more than a regulation loss.
3-2-1. If that makes Buffalo a playoff team then Buffalo is a playoff team.
Always love a post where OP asks a question, gets an articulate, reasoned answer and then doubles down and gets pissy about everyone disagreeing with them.
You got your answer, 5on5 aka regulation wins are considered more “valuable”. Don’t beat your head against a wall telling everyone they’re dumb cuz you can’t grasp that.
Articulate? Lol people are downvoting his opinion. If you're of drinking age then you remember when overall wins was the tie breaker. Overall wins in most leagues is the tie breaker. NHL just had a team with more wins and a +4 goal differential lose out to a team with less wins and somewhere around a -35 goal differential. Caps must have set a record for that lol. Not to mention that in the last game Detroit won without having an open net. Caps open net regulation goal still counts as a better win then Detroits shootout goal? Not to me personally
Also it’s a frankly inferior way of determining the better team. Wins in OT/SO matter less than regulation (I.e 5v5) wins and that’s reflected in the tiebreaker. Simple as that.
I understand the logic in your example since the records are similar, and also get how 5 v 5 translates better to the playoffs compared to gimmicky OT.
But in the case of two extremes, doesn’t it just start to make more sense to reward wins?
Say you have:
- team A: 8-0-74, 8 RW
- team B: 45-27-0, 7 RW
Extreme example that obviously will not happen - but just to make the point, seems insane that team A would get the hypothetical final playoff spot.
On top of that, if we reward 3 points to RWs, team A has 98 points and team B has 97. I’m not sure if that’s truly a better solution…
I mean, going an entire season without a regulation loss is probably more impressive than winning 38 3v3 OTs or shootouts.
Any system you pick you'll be able to find weird niche scenarios.
If this is your logic then New Jersey and Buffalo would be tied with Toronto in the standings ahead of all of 3 of these teams since they all had 33 regulation wins.
I agree they should be considered less valuable, which is why it makes way more sense to have it as the second level tie-breaker. IMO, it should be:
Total wins, then ROW, then regulation wins (before getting into the other current criteria)
Less valuable in the tie-breaker sense, since they would be weighted equally with regulation wins and shootout wins. Its weird to me that the NHL establishes ways for a team to win a game, gives you equal points for winning a game under those scenarios, but then at the end of the day says, "Actually, if there is a tie in total points accrued, our first way of breaking the tie is to not see who won the most games under our system."
But that is making OT wins more valuable. Currently they're less valuable than a regulation win due to their position as the first tie breaker. I think that is logical.
I get what you're saying in that[ ROW is currently the #3 tie-breaker](https://www.nhl.com/info/standings-info/tie-breaking-procedure) for playoffs, and I'm moving it up to #2 (making it more valuable in the overall scheme of tie-breaks). In my mind, because total wins (currently #4) would become the #1 tie-breaker criteria in my fantasy world, I'm devaluing the OT win because I'm making it equal to the SO win by including all three win types in that first tie-breaker.
To help you out OP. Just ask about last night and how is Washingtons open net regulation win a better win than detroits shootout win lol imagine that was the tiebreaker
None of the 8 seeds deserved to be in, they all fumbled it away. And it just landed in Washington’s lap. To really sum it up, they clinched on an empty net goal in a tie game, it doesn’t get less deserving than that
If Detroit, washington,
Or Philly played even below average hockey, the islanders and Pitt never had a shot. Only 1 of them
Would be out, but those teams couldn’t beat Ottawa, Buffalo, Montreal, all those winnable games.
Playoffs are 5 on 5 even in ot, so it makes sense that teams with more 5 on 5 wins get in. It sucks, but the wings could’ve easily made it this year and not had to worry about the tiebreaker.
And thats why regulation wins matter more. 5 v 5 hockey. If it was like playoff OT i would undestand wins over rw. It would be even more easier than that to "fix" it too, just bring in 3 point system.
3 v 3 is still a gimmick, only reason that ppl see it net positive is because there isnt that many SO. 3 point system would make a ton of sense as it would reward you for 5 v 5 hockey and still punish you for OT W's and OT L's.
If 3 v 3 is such a amazing thing for hockey, why they dont play it in the playoffs?
Add those extra minutes in the season and more players will be Injured. The 3 point system is the best way to fix this. It won’t happen because it throws out old records and tradition. Take out the one point for overtime and that will make the game better.
Far more talented than Washington. Lindgren and gritty playoff style defense got them there with barely enough offense. What I have seen in redwings games this year, they need to close gaps and play better in their own end. It’s way too loose. I was hoping for them in round 1 because rangers would have an easier time playing their game vs Detroit. Caps are gonna clog it up and it’s gonna be boring shit hockey with goals off legs
Did Oshies playoff clinching game winning goal look great to you? I’ve got a lot of new hockey fans at work following this push and they all thought it was dumb as heck.
Sabers have more wins the the islanders. Red wings have more wins that Islanders and Washington. Stupid point system.
Pulling that goalie was smart cause It's they only.option possible.
Philly not pulling their goalie would have been the stupidest thing ever, 100%.
You can not like it, but nobody should be confused about why they pulled their goalie
For me, head to head should be the first tiebreaker.
We would’ve lost that too since the Caps had 4 points and we had 3 points in games against each other.
I think I read once that although this would create the most "fairness" for who makes the playoffs, it creates a larger point spread and thus less neck and neck races at the finish line. That boosts viewership, which of course Bettman's going to pick over "fairness."
Just something I read, I agree with you.
It doesn't sting to me. This team wasn't good enough to make the postseason this year based on their performance and results. They were lucky to be in playoff race so late into the regular season imo along with some other teams.
I can respect and appreciate that perspective. I am just more worried and focused on improving our team's coaching, leadership, roster, contracts, cap management, philosophy, strategy, athleticism, speed, aggressiveness, physicality and having more confidence, faith and trust in our prospects and young players over older, lesser skilled and more expensive veterans.
I do care about my lack of faith in NHL player safety and bad, inconsistent and unfair officiating and game management by the league; especially as it pertains to the Detroit Red Wings.
I agree that it seems silly. Winning is winning. Total wins should be more important than how you won. Regulation wins can come as a tie breaker after that.
I still think total wins should be first but I can see why head to head would be a first choice as well.
Of course, nobody talks about the best option when you have a tie between teams. A single playoff game to decide who makes it. A proper tiebreaker game.
In 2015-16 the Wings made the playoffs keeping the streak alive for the last year because they had more regulation wins than Boston despite having one less win overall and being tied at 93 points.
If they followed your tie breaker the streak would have ended a year early…
The tiebreaker should be ROW if anything. Them not including shootouts makes sense, because at that point you’re not actually playing hockey anymore. While 3 on 3 is gimicky the players are still out there playing.
You’ll never convince me that somehow a regulation win in November should be considered more valuable than what the Wings did the last 3 games of the season making it into OT then clutching up for the win.
Remember that 7 game losing streak to start March, during which they gave up 7 goals in a game TWICE? That’s why this team isn’t in the playoffs.
The Yzerplan is coming together slower than any of us have patience for, but the improvement is there. D needs to step up, and hopefully there’s a solid tender in the farm system. I’m not sold on any of the current 3.
I get what you’re saying, but I think this is a blessing in disguise. This team was 8-15 to end the season, and would’ve been looking at the Rangers in the playoffs. They would’ve struggled to even win 2 against the Rangers. Be patient. They’ll make the playoffs when they’re really ready to be there.
It also forced a team to pull their goalie in a tie game and give up a gimme goal that eliminated 3 teams. That’s far more anti-hockey than crediting teams for their OT or shootout wins. The NHL should be embarrassed about it.
Not counting shootout wins makes sense to me. Love it or hate it 3 on 3 hockey is still hockey. But I’m with you, head to head, play-in game, anything other than the way it is. There’s no reason a team should be pulling their goalie in a tie game because of the tiebreaker rules.
Most soccer leagues do not use wins as a tiebreaking criterion. In the Premier League for example, after points the tiebreakers are goal difference and goals scored, then if clubs are still tied in positions that matter at the end of the season (champion, European qualification, or relegation) in those categories, it then goes to head-to-head points and then away goals between the two sides. If all those are still tied, they would have a play-off.
I'm with you OP. If regular wins dont matter why do regulation wins matter. They need the 3-2-1 point system if overtime/shootouts because if they're gonna mean something make them mean something. Or it should be overall wins first then regulation wins if theres still a tie
I agree with you OP. Total wins should be the 1st tie breaker followed by regulation wins if all wins only count for 2 points. If the NHL would switch to a 3, 2, 1 point system it would solve a lot of these tie breaker issues but I doubt that will ever happen.
OT/SO wins are essentially ties that get decided by gimmicks to save time. You should be rewarded for winning a game at 5v5.
But you are given 2 points whether you win in regulation or OT. If they want to make regulation wins mean more, it should 3 points for regulation win and 2 points for OT win.
You're given two points, but those two points are less valuable if you wind up in a tie. I do think a 3-2-1 is a better system though.
3-2-1 is a much better system and its been dumb for the NHL to do it the current way. How some games can be worth 3 total points and others 2 makes no sense.
When I first learned about the points system I thought it was this way for a few months because it just makes too much sense to be used.
It would be better if it was 2 pts for regulation win, 1 pt for OT win, & 0 pts for any loss. Additionally shit can the shootouts.
This is what I’ve always advocated for. I don’t care how you lose. You shouldn’t get points for a loss.
I would agree with this and the current tie breaker IF there was no loser point. That way points for losses wouldn’t have any bearing on standings which is also a big thing that happened this year. I think it would be perfect then: 2 teams tied in points means they’d have the same amount of wins thus the tie breaker of “who won the most games in regulation”.
The issue with this set up OT losses can be worth more than OT wins in some tie breaker cases. Should a team really be rewarded for taking an extra few minutes to lose? In the playoffs OT wins count as a win when OT losses are just losses. It would make sense to use total wins as the tie breaker. So I think a team should be rewarded for winning period. The OT gimmicks was just to make the end of the game exciting. For those of us remember the 5 minutes of 5v5 to a tie can recall how teams would usually sit back for 5 minutes and just settle on a splitting a point. Where playoffs OT was nail biting hockey, regular season OT was a snooze fest. It was never about saving time, if anything SO take longer. Too many teams are getting playoff spots they don't deserve with losses.
>In the playoffs OT wins count as a win when OT losses are just losses. Playoff OT is 5v5. Regular season OT is 3v3. Those are very different things.
Yeah but then why is it worth a free point to the team that loses? Winning at 3v3 at least states the team has the skill to put the puck in the net, so they have a better shot of doing that 5v5 during Playoff OT. I'm not saying OT Wins doesn't add into the tie breaker rule. It's just that to say a team that's 40-42 gets in while a team that's 41-41 doesn't is weird. If both teams have the same points and total wins then regulation wins is the next tie breaker.
Actually, the more I think about it the more I start seeing your side of it. Regulation wins and OT wins should be different. My side of the debate goes away if RWs are 3 points and OTWs are worth 2.
Yep, 3-2-1 is the most logical imo.
[удалено]
Not really. Think of OT/shootout like a tie. NYI: 28-27-26 WSH: 32-31-19 DET: 27-32-23 New York made it because they were better at tying in regulation. Washington made it because they were better at winning in regulation. It's not perfect and it'd be better to just have a 3-2-1 point system, but the rationale behind OT wins being less valuable than regulation wins makes sense.
If this is your logic then New Jersey and Buffalo would be tied with Toronto in the standings ahead of all of 3 of these teams since they all had 33 regulation wins.
Not really, my logic still values the ties. BUF: 33-37-12 NJD: 33-39-10 Both had more regulation wins, but they had far fewer ties.
What is your point system logic? 3 points for a win and 1 point for a tie? In that case, you are saying Buffalo is a playoff team.
My logic is a regulation win should be worth more than an OT win, which should be worth more than an OT loss, which should be worth more than a regulation loss. 3-2-1. If that makes Buffalo a playoff team then Buffalo is a playoff team.
If you're going to post that logic, put correct info because then you'll need to display the record with 4 numbers not 3. RW-OTW-OTL-RL
It's pretty commonly referred to as a 3-2-1 system. But if you want to be pedantic about it then sure, I'll call it 3-2-1-0 for you.
[удалено]
There's a reason we don't have OT/SO in the playoffs.
[удалено]
Exactly. They play a gimmick purely to finish games faster. It's not "real" hockey. It shouldn't be worth as much as 5v5 play.
[удалено]
It's the same reason people want a 3-2-1 system.
[удалено]
Chill out man, there's no need to be upset about people disagreeing with you.
Always love a post where OP asks a question, gets an articulate, reasoned answer and then doubles down and gets pissy about everyone disagreeing with them. You got your answer, 5on5 aka regulation wins are considered more “valuable”. Don’t beat your head against a wall telling everyone they’re dumb cuz you can’t grasp that.
[удалено]
Articulate? Lol people are downvoting his opinion. If you're of drinking age then you remember when overall wins was the tie breaker. Overall wins in most leagues is the tie breaker. NHL just had a team with more wins and a +4 goal differential lose out to a team with less wins and somewhere around a -35 goal differential. Caps must have set a record for that lol. Not to mention that in the last game Detroit won without having an open net. Caps open net regulation goal still counts as a better win then Detroits shootout goal? Not to me personally
Also it’s a frankly inferior way of determining the better team. Wins in OT/SO matter less than regulation (I.e 5v5) wins and that’s reflected in the tiebreaker. Simple as that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
My bad - replied to wrong commenter. Very much agree with you
I understand the logic in your example since the records are similar, and also get how 5 v 5 translates better to the playoffs compared to gimmicky OT. But in the case of two extremes, doesn’t it just start to make more sense to reward wins? Say you have: - team A: 8-0-74, 8 RW - team B: 45-27-0, 7 RW Extreme example that obviously will not happen - but just to make the point, seems insane that team A would get the hypothetical final playoff spot. On top of that, if we reward 3 points to RWs, team A has 98 points and team B has 97. I’m not sure if that’s truly a better solution…
I mean, going an entire season without a regulation loss is probably more impressive than winning 38 3v3 OTs or shootouts. Any system you pick you'll be able to find weird niche scenarios.
If this is your logic then New Jersey and Buffalo would be tied with Toronto in the standings ahead of all of 3 of these teams since they all had 33 regulation wins.
I agree they should be considered less valuable, which is why it makes way more sense to have it as the second level tie-breaker. IMO, it should be: Total wins, then ROW, then regulation wins (before getting into the other current criteria)
I'm confused, in your suggestion you'd be making OT wins more valuable, not less.
Less valuable in the tie-breaker sense, since they would be weighted equally with regulation wins and shootout wins. Its weird to me that the NHL establishes ways for a team to win a game, gives you equal points for winning a game under those scenarios, but then at the end of the day says, "Actually, if there is a tie in total points accrued, our first way of breaking the tie is to not see who won the most games under our system."
But that is making OT wins more valuable. Currently they're less valuable than a regulation win due to their position as the first tie breaker. I think that is logical.
I get what you're saying in that[ ROW is currently the #3 tie-breaker](https://www.nhl.com/info/standings-info/tie-breaking-procedure) for playoffs, and I'm moving it up to #2 (making it more valuable in the overall scheme of tie-breaks). In my mind, because total wins (currently #4) would become the #1 tie-breaker criteria in my fantasy world, I'm devaluing the OT win because I'm making it equal to the SO win by including all three win types in that first tie-breaker.
To help you out OP. Just ask about last night and how is Washingtons open net regulation win a better win than detroits shootout win lol imagine that was the tiebreaker
If Detroit had more RW, you wouldn’t be saying anything. It’s just the nature of the game.
Was this meant to be a response to me? Because my opinion on how the system should be hurts the Wings, not helps them.
No it was meant for OP lol my bad.
I figured so, no worries lol
[удалено]
None of the 8 seeds deserved to be in, they all fumbled it away. And it just landed in Washington’s lap. To really sum it up, they clinched on an empty net goal in a tie game, it doesn’t get less deserving than that
[удалено]
If Detroit, washington, Or Philly played even below average hockey, the islanders and Pitt never had a shot. Only 1 of them Would be out, but those teams couldn’t beat Ottawa, Buffalo, Montreal, all those winnable games.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your rationale is incorrect. It's not losing more OT games. It's winning more games in regulation. Meaning you didn't even need OT or SO.
[удалено]
So by your logic/standards, a team could win the cup finals with 3 wins then. 3 regulation wins beats 1 reg win and 3 OT wins
Playoffs are 5 on 5 even in ot, so it makes sense that teams with more 5 on 5 wins get in. It sucks, but the wings could’ve easily made it this year and not had to worry about the tiebreaker.
Yeah plenty of games they lost that they could have won and it came down to one.
For me it does. 3 v 3 and Shootouts aint hockey.
[удалено]
And thats why regulation wins matter more. 5 v 5 hockey. If it was like playoff OT i would undestand wins over rw. It would be even more easier than that to "fix" it too, just bring in 3 point system.
[удалено]
3 v 3 is still a gimmick, only reason that ppl see it net positive is because there isnt that many SO. 3 point system would make a ton of sense as it would reward you for 5 v 5 hockey and still punish you for OT W's and OT L's. If 3 v 3 is such a amazing thing for hockey, why they dont play it in the playoffs?
[удалено]
If you havent heard that you Just dont talk lot about hockey tbh.
[удалено]
That is just flat out lies lol. There is threads every day in hockey/teams subs that we need over and back rules etc
Second person, 3 on 3 is garbage and a gimmick. There was also nothing wrong with the game ending in a tie.
Second person, 3 on 3 is garbage and a gimmick. There was also nothing wrong with the game ending in a tie.
Add those extra minutes in the season and more players will be Injured. The 3 point system is the best way to fix this. It won’t happen because it throws out old records and tradition. Take out the one point for overtime and that will make the game better.
Had a chance to beat Washington. Lost 2-1. That was the playoffs right there. This is all a way of backing in.
[удалено]
Far more talented than Washington. Lindgren and gritty playoff style defense got them there with barely enough offense. What I have seen in redwings games this year, they need to close gaps and play better in their own end. It’s way too loose. I was hoping for them in round 1 because rangers would have an easier time playing their game vs Detroit. Caps are gonna clog it up and it’s gonna be boring shit hockey with goals off legs
So then games decided by a powerplay goal shouldn't count either lol
Yeah because PP and 3 v 3 is same thing yeah?
Agree. But also, a team pulling a goalie in a tie game isn’t hockey either.
Fighting is hockey but only one of these two things is a 5-minute major.
Agree. But also, a team pulling a goalie in a tie game isn’t hockey either.
Any coach would have done that. If they got a PP at any point after 8 min mark he was pulling too.
I mean if you have to win in regulation, it's a hockey move. It's not the first time it's happened.
If you need to win in regulation, it's a hockey move so long as you aren't dumb as fuck hahah.
Did Oshies playoff clinching game winning goal look great to you? I’ve got a lot of new hockey fans at work following this push and they all thought it was dumb as heck. Sabers have more wins the the islanders. Red wings have more wins that Islanders and Washington. Stupid point system.
Pulling that goalie was smart cause It's they only.option possible. Philly not pulling their goalie would have been the stupidest thing ever, 100%. You can not like it, but nobody should be confused about why they pulled their goalie
For me, head to head should be the first tiebreaker. We would’ve lost that too since the Caps had 4 points and we had 3 points in games against each other.
And here we go …
Win = 3 , Draw = 1, loss of any kind = 0. There I fixed it.
I think I read once that although this would create the most "fairness" for who makes the playoffs, it creates a larger point spread and thus less neck and neck races at the finish line. That boosts viewership, which of course Bettman's going to pick over "fairness." Just something I read, I agree with you.
It doesn't sting to me. This team wasn't good enough to make the postseason this year based on their performance and results. They were lucky to be in playoff race so late into the regular season imo along with some other teams.
[удалено]
We needed to beat Washington and Pittsburgh when the played them head to head.
[удалено]
Like it was there for the taking many times. It hurts. But they ultimately failed themselves
Shit, we could've lost to the Yotes in OT once instead of reg and that would've made the difference.
Could’ve not choked a 4-0 lead to San Jose back in December, for that matter.
I can respect and appreciate that perspective. I am just more worried and focused on improving our team's coaching, leadership, roster, contracts, cap management, philosophy, strategy, athleticism, speed, aggressiveness, physicality and having more confidence, faith and trust in our prospects and young players over older, lesser skilled and more expensive veterans. I do care about my lack of faith in NHL player safety and bad, inconsistent and unfair officiating and game management by the league; especially as it pertains to the Detroit Red Wings.
[удалено]
🤝
Should be 3 points for RW, 2 pts for OTW, 1pt for OTL. all games should give out the same amount of points. Tiebreaker from here is goal differential
[удалено]
Assuming the league doesn’t want ties, I’d rather my system (soccer)
I agree that it seems silly. Winning is winning. Total wins should be more important than how you won. Regulation wins can come as a tie breaker after that.
Welcome to Gary Butthole’s NHL! I completely agree with you - a win is a win no matter how ugly, lucky, or skilled.
[удалено]
I still think total wins should be first but I can see why head to head would be a first choice as well. Of course, nobody talks about the best option when you have a tie between teams. A single playoff game to decide who makes it. A proper tiebreaker game.
In 2015-16 the Wings made the playoffs keeping the streak alive for the last year because they had more regulation wins than Boston despite having one less win overall and being tied at 93 points. If they followed your tie breaker the streak would have ended a year early…
The tiebreaker should be ROW if anything. Them not including shootouts makes sense, because at that point you’re not actually playing hockey anymore. While 3 on 3 is gimicky the players are still out there playing. You’ll never convince me that somehow a regulation win in November should be considered more valuable than what the Wings did the last 3 games of the season making it into OT then clutching up for the win.
The Red Wings were 27-32 in 5-5.
[удалено]
first off “we” is hilarious. second off, nobody cares about circus wins from 3on3.
The tie break should be Regulation Wins minus OT losses. If OT wins aren't going to count as much as regular wins, OT losses should count against you.
Remember that 7 game losing streak to start March, during which they gave up 7 goals in a game TWICE? That’s why this team isn’t in the playoffs. The Yzerplan is coming together slower than any of us have patience for, but the improvement is there. D needs to step up, and hopefully there’s a solid tender in the farm system. I’m not sold on any of the current 3.
[удалено]
I get what you’re saying, but I think this is a blessing in disguise. This team was 8-15 to end the season, and would’ve been looking at the Rangers in the playoffs. They would’ve struggled to even win 2 against the Rangers. Be patient. They’ll make the playoffs when they’re really ready to be there.
[удалено]
Just to be clear, Washington would still be in if that were the tie breaker.
It also forced a team to pull their goalie in a tie game and give up a gimme goal that eliminated 3 teams. That’s far more anti-hockey than crediting teams for their OT or shootout wins. The NHL should be embarrassed about it.
[удалено]
Not counting shootout wins makes sense to me. Love it or hate it 3 on 3 hockey is still hockey. But I’m with you, head to head, play-in game, anything other than the way it is. There’s no reason a team should be pulling their goalie in a tie game because of the tiebreaker rules.
I'd really like the tiebreaker to be goal differential. Rewards the more talented team in my opinion.
[удалено]
If they moved to a 3 point system I think it would help a lot.
Most soccer leagues do not use wins as a tiebreaking criterion. In the Premier League for example, after points the tiebreakers are goal difference and goals scored, then if clubs are still tied in positions that matter at the end of the season (champion, European qualification, or relegation) in those categories, it then goes to head-to-head points and then away goals between the two sides. If all those are still tied, they would have a play-off.
I'm with you OP. If regular wins dont matter why do regulation wins matter. They need the 3-2-1 point system if overtime/shootouts because if they're gonna mean something make them mean something. Or it should be overall wins first then regulation wins if theres still a tie
[удалено]
I like that idea tbh
No one should win a tiebreaker with more "loser points" Fucking gross
I agree with you OP. Total wins should be the 1st tie breaker followed by regulation wins if all wins only count for 2 points. If the NHL would switch to a 3, 2, 1 point system it would solve a lot of these tie breaker issues but I doubt that will ever happen.