What the NHL didn’t like about ties was the thought that some teams would go into defensive shells towards the end of regulation and through the 5 minute over time to protect the 1 point you got for a tie. So you’d get a game that was close and exciting all the way up until the last 10 minutes and then nobody would try to score anymore because that would be “risky” and might give the other team an opportunity, then you’d lose the 1 point (2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, none for a loss).
So to “fix” that the league changes the system so if teams finish regulation tied they both got 1 point and then the eventual winner would get 1 more. So now we’ve got an idiot system where they get 2 points for a win, 0 for a loss in regulation and 1 for a loss that takes longer than regulation (overtime loss). It’s stupid, they artificially added points to the system, and they didn’t even fix the problem, teams STILL tank the last 5 minutes to protect the 1 point, and skate slow in OT waiting for the shootout. The only good part about the current system is the shootouts are kind of fun, but they’re preceded by 10 minutes of boring risk averse hockey.
Any metagame which privileges a tie at the end of regulation over the attempt to gain a clear decision in that time is going to see more ties at the end of regulation than a system which awards points only for a clear decision, regardless of when that decision is reached.
It would be better if the teams merely played to a decision: 1 point for a win, none for a loss.
Exactly. The NHL should do the following:
3 points for a regulation win
2 points for an overtime win
1 point for an overtime loss
0 points for a regulation loss.