Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore
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.
|
Yeah, I hard time finding data that goes back that far (who knew the shoot out was 12 years old??). I did manage to dig up the press release from the NHL when they put in the shootout and here is a quote:
Quote:
|
Fourteen per cent of all NHL regular-season games in the 2003-04 regular season ended in a tie (170 games of 1,230).
|
Now I know that is only one season, but the jump from 14% to numbers around 22 - 24% seem to indicate to me that more teams are playing to get the "non-regulation loss" point than they did when points were awarded for ties.