[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And one point for an overtime or shootout loss. As I already pointed out. Which the NHL also does.

All games in those leagues are worth three points. There are no extra points.

Games in the NHL, AHL, and CHL are sometimes worth two points and sometimes three. There are extra points.

Sounds like they’re actually not giving out an extra point. The extra point is the 3rd point for a regulation win. They’re giving out one less point. It’s really a matter of framing, but if you compare the NHL’s point system to every other point system in major league hockey, the “loser point” is not the additional point. Everyone gives out that point.

You are not understanding the obvious.

I repeat: In the NHL, AHL, and CHL, in some games two points are awarded, and in other games three. The third point is extra.

In leagues where the winner gets three points, that is not an extra point. It is one of the three points that were up for grabs from the opening faceoff.

Wrong. They do have a “loser point,” which is the point given out to teams that “lose” in overtime or the shootout.

That's not why people complain about the NHL system. They complain because the OT loser is rewarded with a point, even though the winner already receives both of the points that are supposed to be awarded for the game.

Loser = team that loses, point = a point in the standings, therefore loser point = a point given to the team that loses, which they do give out.

Apparently you only know words and not their referents. Has your account been hacked by GPT?

What they do is give out an extra point for regulation wins. That’s it. That’s the extra point That’s the additional point.

NO. The extra point is the point that is given for some games but not for others.

[QUOTE]The NHL doesn’t, because they believe tie breakers are enough motivation to have teams close the game in regulation vs. overtime.[/UQOTE]

It obviously isn't.

I don’t think you understand your objection, because I do

You do not, or I would not have to keep explaining it in shorter and shorter words.

THE EXTRA POINT IS THE POINT THAT IS AWARDED IN SOME GAMES BUT NOT IN OTHERS.

If every game is worth three points, there is no extra point.

If every game is worth two points, there is no extra point.

If some games are worth two points and some are worth three, then there is an extra point in the latter case.

and I’m showing you facts that say your objection (as you’ve defined it) doesn’t make sense,

My objection is that every game should be worth the same number of points, and in the NHL they sometimes give out additional points. That provides an incentive for teams NOT to finish in regulation. When the game is tied in the third period, basic game theory says you coast until overtime to guarantee yourself a point. You don't lose anything, because the maximum your team can get is still two points, but you can guarantee yourself at least one point – at the expense of making the game boring for the fans and distorting the standings.

It's not a zero-sum game, and it should be. In every league that gives three points for a regulation win, it IS a zero-sum game.

and I can tell you don’t understand it because you’re already dipping into the insults over… right… point systems in the NHL and international hockey. Super serious stuff.

If I'm dipping into the insults, it's because you have repeatedly shown

Your objection is that some games award two points and some award three, which is true but a non-issue.

IT IS THE ENTIRE ISSUE. You don't care, but I do. That's allowed.

You’ve decided, arbitrarily, that the “loser point” is the additional point.

There is nothing arbitrary about that. Formerly, the NHL, AHL, and CHL all awarded two points for a win in any fashion and zero points for a loss in any fashion. They then ADDED a point which is given to the OT loser. This is what is called ADDITIONAL, because it was ADDED to the system they already had.

Are you capable of understanding that?

That could make sense, if your issue wasn’t also that “other international leagues don’t give this out,” when they do, in fact, award that point.

NO, THEY DO NOT. They give out three points in EVERY game. There is nothing extra!!!!!

So,
- “xxx doesn’t give out loser points” We can scrap that. Provably wrong.

WRONG, and I have repeatedly told you why.

- “the loser point is the extra point” Also provably wrong. Why? If you compare it to other systems, everyone gives it out.

WRONG, and I have repeatedly told you why – including just above.

If you compare it internally, two points are awarded at the end of regulation in every single NHL game, sometimes that’s two to the winner, sometimes it’s one to each team if they’re tied, so the “additional” point awarded at the end of OT or SO is the point for a win. If you’re against the “additional” point being awarded, you’re arguing in favour of bringing back ties OR arguing for the “additional” point being given out in regulation.

I am not arguing for any particular position, except that every game should be worth the same number of points in the standings.

Do you have an actual argument for why it should change? Or just, “it’s stupid and I don’t like it,” proving that you’ll run out of arguments before we run out of facts?

Now you're the one resorting to insults. Noted.

Scotty Bowman was against the introduction of the point for an OT loss because it provides a perverse incentive to drag out games to extra time. The reasoning I gave above in this post is identical with his. If you think Scotty Bowman hasn't got an argument other than ‘it's stupid’, take it up with him.

As it happens, the percentage of games decided in regulation dropped sharply when the point for an OT loss was introduced.

I think it should change because I think it’s worthwhile to align with international hockey (and consistency here helps understanding of the game globally), and the slight increase to parity it provides could actually stop teams from properly evaluating their performance and making the right decisions for the franchise. Not as compelling as “it’s stupid” and “ugh loser points!” but y’know, it’s something!

Well, I've given you my reasons multiple times, but you are apparently unable to read them. I don't know what's the matter with you.

We should probably prepare our delicate sensibilities for the fact that the 3-2-1-0 system does, in fact, award a point to “losers” though

It does not award an EXTRA point to losers, which is my entire objection and most people's!!!!!