Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkajz44
Everything you say is correct and I agree with you for the most part. However, I would argue that the reason 24% of hockey games to go extra time is largely dependent on the fact that you get at least one point if you are tied at the end of regulation. In basketball and baseball, there is no point playing for a tie as only wins and losses matter. If hockey got rid of awarding one point for an OT/SO loss, I'd think the number of games that went to extra time would drop quite a bit.
I've always thought the best way to was just have ties. Play a 5 or 10 minute overtime and if no one scores just call it a tie - I really don't understand why every single regular season game needs a winner.
|
That argument can be made, but I suspect it's a non-falsifiable assertion. Do more hockey games go to overtime because of the loser point or is the loser point necessary because 24% already go to overtime? It's tough to say without more data and since the NHL has always (to the best of my knowledge) award a point for overtime, I'm not sure if we can ever truly know.
This is why I support the 3-2-1 system. It would give teams something to push for in those final 10 minutes. Sure you can go to overtime and still get
something for your effort, but I suspect a lot more teams would be pushing for that regulation win. Especially teams that are lower in the standings later in the season. Minnesota, Chicago or Washington might be okay to skate through the final few minutes and get into overtime, but any teams on the bubble would have a very vested interest in procuring that third point.