• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Nate Silver on NHL Overtime & "The Loser Point"

the reason soccer has ties is the rules make it so hard to score. And not just scoring, the number of shots can be very low too. If the NHL had the same low number of shots there would be more ties to deal with.

But when the NHL had ties, all games were 2 points, so why is soccer different?

Of course I guess I won't mention that soccer is OK with naming champions based on "skills competitions"
 
I don't understand why it isn't "the winner gets 2 points and loser gets none". Inside of regulation or in OT or in a shootout. You lose, you get nada. There should not be any kind of reward for slowing or dragging a game out. The focus should be on winning. Win a game....get 2 points.
 
I could be ok with 2 points or nothing if the shootout was gone and games were played out until there was an on ice winner. For you to come away with 0 because you lost a skills competition I don't think would be a good idea, I can't get onboard with that one.
 
Paulie Walnuts said:
the reason soccer has ties is the rules make it so hard to score. And not just scoring, the number of shots can be very low too. If the NHL had the same low number of shots there would be more ties to deal with.

But when the NHL had ties, all games were 2 points, so why is soccer different?

Of course I guess I won't mention that soccer is OK with naming champions based on "skills competitions"
Click to expand...

I get it ... you don't like soccer. Big deal. Join the parade of Americans dumping on soccer.

And if you'll notice, none of the arguments about the NHL's points system really have anything to do with soccer. The points sytem used in most pro soccer leagues is also flawed, but not to the degree that the NHL's is ... because it's purely performance based. Somebody wins, it's a 3 point game. Nobody wins, it's a 2 point game. There's built in incentive to win and no incentive to lose "gracefully." And no points are awarded to teams that lose games.

Penalty Kicks only show up in tournament competition and most soccer fans loathe them. None of it has anything to do with shots on goal or overall scoring. Soccer is what it is and for the most part their various governing bodies are comfortable with what they are. Unlike the NHL where the rules committee just can't stop themselves from nearly constant tinkering.

Next argument?
 
Me either. Play it out until a winner. But if you do use the shootout to decide games, the loser should get 1 point.

3 - RW or OTW
2 - SOW
1 - SOL
0 - RL or OTL
 
Paulie Walnuts said:
As I said above , the soccer leagues have the problem of some games are 3 points and some are 2 , which I thought was bad?
Click to expand...

If NHL wanted to reverse course on the shootout and go back to ties, or if soccer wanted to "fix" this, I'm sort of ok with 4 point RW, OT/Extra Time splits 3-1 and a 2 point tie. But they won't so it's moot. And I'm only sort of ok with that because there's still a math issue with that in the incentive to not risk much in OT - It's a 1 point diff either way, but the benefit to tie over an OT loss is 100% more points, while the penalty for tying rather than a OT win is only 50% fewer points.. That combined with most coach's natural tendencies results in "safety first" percentage play. The much larger number of ties in soccer make the 3 point win, 1 point tie system much better for that reason even though it upsets the "math guy" in me that says each game must be worth the same.

I repeat this whenever it comes up, but the biggest problem with the current system is not that games are different point values, but in inflating the point value of the game the longer it goes on, creating incentive in the aggregate to play it safe. NHL has this wrong. IIHF has this correct. Soccer has this correct.

I'll leave the PK debate with regards to soccer to the diehards, but I will say that using PK's to advance in, or win, a soccer tournament is a completely separate discussion than the point system; you're not talking "points" anymore by that point and most tourneys have decided, rightly or wrongly, to not turn Extra Time into a five day first-class cricket match. The larger number of ties again make this a more understandable decision for them than deciding a Stanley Cup playoff game with shootout, which would be rightly derided.
 
Last edited:
The only problem with that system JFG is you could potentially run into situations where teams are satisfied with just getting to the shootout to ensure at least a point and you suck some life out of OT. You could argue though that problem already exists with the current system and teams are sometimes playing somewhat safe at the end of tied game to ensure the point.

If we are going to end games with shootouts there are going to concerns no matter what the point system looks like. But I still can't accept a situation where different games give out different point totals, that's just silly. The perfect solution of course is to have all games end with a winner without the shootout, but that is likely never going to happen.
 
Except it's much harder to play conservative 4 on 4 or 3 on 3. And it makes OT much more meaningful which makes it more exciting to watch if everything is on the line.
 
Paulie Walnuts said:
One point for a tie makes sense? Says who? Is that in the Bible or something? :thumbup:
Click to expand...

No... the bible makes no sense.

A point for a tie makes sense to me cause there are 2 points up for grabs. Both teams were equal... you split the points in half and each team gets a point... makes sense.
 
Back to my old idea, have the shoot out before the game starts and if it ends in a tie they play 5 minutes of 4-4 and if no score the winner of the shoot out gets the points.
 
Because nothing beats a gimmick like a shootout except say an entire period of hockey where one team has no incentive whatsoever to advance the puck and risk losing it, and instead only wants to play keep-away #4corners #deansmith
 
dwind said:
Back to my old idea, have the shoot out before the game starts and if it ends in a tie they play 5 minutes of 4-4 and if no score the winner of the shoot out gets the points.
Click to expand...

Or how about this: Visiting team goes 5 on 4 for 4 minutes. If they score, you set the clock for the time it took them and the home team goes 5 on 4 while the clock counts down. If the Home team scores before the clock runs out, they win. If not, they lose. If nobody scores, its a tie. If a team scores a shorty, they win.

The average PP clicks at about 18%. So if you put 4 together, that's 72%, and it will likely be far higher because the 18% figure includes many PPs that don't last 2 minutes. And if that doesn't decide the vast majority of games without ties, you can have each team go 5 on 4 for 2 minutes, and then 5 on 3 for two minutes if necessary. Or have two rounds of 2 minute 5 on 3s. You'll probably have a lot of teams finishing the year with no ties.
 
StormChaserBH said:
Because nothing beats a gimmick like a shootout except say an entire period of hockey where one team has no incentive whatsoever to advance the puck and risk losing it, and instead only wants to play keep-away #4corners #deansmith
Click to expand...

And this makes the case for 3 point wins and 1 point each for ties.
 
dwind said:
Back to my old idea, have the shoot out before the game starts and if it ends in a tie they play 5 minutes of 4-4 and if no score the winner of the shoot out gets the points.
Click to expand...

So instead of rolling out the "gimmick" only after OT, you want to see it every game? Count me out.
 
How about they just admit that having the Shoot-Out determine the winner was a mistake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top