Should Tuesday's game have ended in a tie?

[BlueKross]

What your post really illustrates is that many fans are absolutely fixated on the idea that a tie "must" be worth something. Like I said before, this is an essentially arbitrary idea. A tie means what we decide it means. There is no reason at all why we "must" decide that it "must" be worth something rather than nothing.

They are also fixated on the 2 pt. game. The 3 pt. game as previously proposed makes a lot of sense. But so does batting 10 batters ( DH and pitcher included; the best of both worlds)--- but somebody has cemmented that a batting lineup must be only 9? I also like your idea, but if it went to overtime put only one point up for grabs; if not decided then you walk home empty handed.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Inferior to you.

I personally don't care for ties.

[JoeLassister]

A team could go through the entire year and get 0 points under the current model too (or any model). That's not a critique of the proposal. Nor is saying that "a tie means you didn't lose" and therefore should be worth something. I can just as easily observe that "a tie means that you didn't win" and therefore don't deserve anything.

If you want to give the children the idea that when there is no winner everyone lose, then be my guest.

[BlueKross]

If you want to give the children the idea that when there is no winner everyone lose, then be my guest.

This is an incredibly LAME response.

[Colin]

3 points: regulation win

2 points: Overtime/Shootout win

1 point: Overtime/Shootout loss

0 points: regulation loss

This is, of course, the perfect solution. Which is why it isn't being used. Ye Olde Guarde will have none of this new math bull puckey! Very simply, this rewards teams for pushing and punishes trap teams. But woe is us who dare impinge on a hundred years of history with the two-point winners. Hockey is pure and nothing changes!!!

...except, of course, for every other rule that's changed throughout the years...

[JoeLassister]

This is an incredibly LAME response.

haha I know it's a bit of a stretch, but implying that not winning = automatically losing is trully lame, IMO.

A tie worths something. in sports and in life.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

This is, of course, the perfect solution. Which is why it isn't being used. Ye Olde Guarde will have none of this new math bull puckey! Very simply, this rewards teams for pushing and punishes trap teams. But woe is us who dare impinge on a hundred years of history with the two-point winners. Hockey is pure and nothing changes!!!

...except, of course, for every other rule that's changed throughout the years...

It isn't being used because seven or eight teams fighting for two spots means people have more incentive to goto the games at game 70 if they think their team is still in it.

That said, the opposite seems to be about to happen with the new division system. There are going to be more teams out of it early because of division dominance. They need to level things out and a three point regulation win will do just that.

[BlueKross]

haha I know it's a bit of a stretch, but implying that not winning = automatically losing is trully lame, IMO.

A tie worths something. in sports and in life.

I can think of a million things that society as a whole might want change to get a more positive response from a child's interbeing and welfare. Sadly Nhl games resulting in a tie, falls way short on that list. i would suggest you reread what CC has said about being locked in on the definition of tie.

[BCHabnut]

Wouldn't it be simpler just to make a tie worth zero points? No loser point, no "tie" point. Win or die.

Exactly. You don't get points for going to ot anywhere else do you? Not sure but I don't think other sports do it. A win is 2 points and a loss is zero. The end.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Exactly. You don't get points for going to ot anywhere else do you? Not sure but I don't think other sports do it. A win is 2 points and a loss is zero. The end.

Well no, in similar North American sports (Basketball, Baseball, Football) without ties, a win is one point because there's no need to distinguish point totals. In soccer, which hockey is much more similar to in organization of teams and standings, a tie is one point in leagues that have ties (MLS). There is right now a big push to make scoreless ties zero points unlike other ties. Almost a way to punish a lack of scoring.

[JoeLassister]

I can think of a million things that society as a whole might want change to get a more positive response from a child's interbeing and welfare. Sadly Nhl games resulting in a tie, falls way short on that list. i would suggest you reread what CC has said about being locked in on the definition of tie.

CC said "Nor is saying that "a tie means you didn't lose" and therefore should be worth something. I can just as easily observe that "a tie means that you didn't win" and therefore don't deserve anything.

What your post really illustrates is that many fans are absolutely fixated on the idea that a tie "must" be worth something. Like I said before, this is an essentially arbitrary idea. A tie means what we decide it means. There is no reason at all why we "must" decide that it "must" be worth something rather than nothing."

While we don't MUST decide that a tie be worth something rather than nothing, I firmly believe that going the later way is not the right choice.

It is not for nothing that fans are fixated on the idea that a tie must be worth something, it is because, as human beings, this is how we are.

We send the message that your effort could be worth of something. The same reason why not only the winner of a tournament in tennis or golf or any sport receives a check. The same why silver and bronze medals exist in the first place.

We don't want to send the message that if you don't win nor lose, there is no way that you'll be rewarded. In pretty much every sports, we choose to keep it for the games that you clearly lose. Exception being the OT loser point in the NHL (which I would have no problem to see go away because you've lost the game if you lose in OT).

I don't believe that rewarding a tie game with 0 point for both team is a good idea and a good message to send.

I wish English could be my first language so I can explain myself better...

[habs rule]

CC said "Nor is saying that "a tie means you didn't lose" and therefore should be worth something. I can just as easily observe that "a tie means that you didn't win" and therefore don't deserve anything.

What your post really illustrates is that many fans are absolutely fixated on the idea that a tie "must" be worth something. Like I said before, this is an essentially arbitrary idea. A tie means what we decide it means. There is no reason at all why we "must" decide that it "must" be worth something rather than nothing."

While we don't MUST decide that a tie be worth something rather than nothing, I firmly believe that going the later way is not the right choice.

It is not for nothing that fans are fixated on the idea that a tie must be worth something, it is because, as human beings, this is how we are.

We send the message that your effort could be worth of something. The same reason why not only the winner of a tournament in tennis or golf or any sport receives a check. The same why silver and bronze medals exist in the first place.

We don't want to send the message that if you don't win nor lose, there is no way that you'll be rewarded. In pretty much every sports, we choose to keep it for the games that you clearly lose. Exception being the OT loser point in the NHL (which I would have no problem to see go away because you've lost the game if you lose in OT).

I don't believe that rewarding a tie game with 0 point for both team is a good idea and a good message to send.

I wish English could be my first language so I can explain myself better...

I thought you did just fine. I wish I could speak french conversationally so you are way ahead of me. I can barely understand the french broadcasts and sometimes lose the train of the game cause I am trying to remember what a word means in english.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Tabernac, Joe, that's interesting (and by the way, your written English demolishes my written French). You see it as almost a moral question. This is not at all the way I see it at all; for me it's a strictly instrumental question of what will combine the maximum respect for the integrity of the game with the maximum potential for excitement. The "win or die" formulation achieves the latter without the dumb gimmickry or complexities of the other proposals.

There are, however, many areas of life where not winning means losing, point finale. You win the election (or the referendum!) or you don't. You get the girl, or you don't. You get the job, or you don't. You pass the course, or you don't. You climb Everest, or you don't. You win that series, or you don't. You win the Cup, or you don't.

So I don't see any godawfully bad life lesson contained in an NHL structure where you win or die. If we wish to retain a "points for tie" format at lower levels, that's fine too, so the kids can be inoculated from the trauma you apparently feel this message will inflict upon them.

[Neech]

But you're right that the idea has minimal traction, even though it would produce incredibly exciting balls-to-the-wall hockey; and it has no traction for just the reason you state, i.e., people are conditioned to think that a tie "must" have value. It's too bad, because our inability to think outside this box leads to all these other inelegant solutions. But it is what it is and you're right, the NHL will go with one of those other inferior options.

We are conditioned to believe a tie has value in the same way we are conditioned to believe the team with more goals wins the game. It's common to every sport that if neither team has lost than neither is given credit for a loss.

It's the opposite of arbitrary to believe that a tie is not worth the same as a loss. It makes total sense, it's fair, and it's common practice across all sports that don't go on playing until a victor is decided.

[JoeLassister]

Tabernac, Joe, that's interesting (and by the way, your written English demolishes my written French). You see it as almost a moral question. This is not at all the way I see it at all; for me it's a strictly instrumental question of what will combine the maximum respect for the integrity of the game with the maximum potential for excitement. The "win or die" formulation achieves the latter without the dumb gimmickry or complexities of the other proposals.

There are, however, many areas of life where not winning means losing, point finale. You win the election (or the referendum!) or you don't. You get the girl, or you don't. You get the job, or you don't. You pass the course, or you don't. You climb Everest, or you don't. You win that series, or you don't. You win the Cup, or you don't.

So I don't see any godawfully bad life lesson contained in an NHL structure where you win or die. If we wish to retain a "points for tie" format at lower levels, that's fine too, so the kids can be inoculated from the trauma you apparently feel this message will inflict upon them.

I scratched the exemples that I think don't relate to our debate cuz there is no concept of a clear one on one or team competition. There can't be no tie game in "you get the girl or you don't", there is no points allowed for that, it has nothing to do with organised sports.

I kept Election, series and Cup cuz it is appropriate to compare them with our subject.

Election : totally agree that you win or you don't. But again, there is no possibility, as opposed to NHL hockey, that the election end with a tie. So we can't say that neither party will govern the country/province/city. If so, there is gonna be another vote.

Series : again, no tie in playoffs. Not relevant. There will always be a winner because of sudden death.

Cup : see series.

In no way any of these examples relate to NHL regular season tie games that you propose to bring back at 0 point of value.

Actually, I can't think of any one on one or team competition/ sport or anything that sends both players/teams home after the challenge without any kind of reward. None. Why would NHL hockey be like that ?

We are conditioned to believe a tie has value in the same way we are conditioned to believe the team with more goals wins the game. It's common to every sport that if neither team has lost than neither is given credit for a loss.

It's the opposite of arbitrary to believe that a tie is not worth the same as a loss. It makes total sense, it's fair, and it's common practice across all sports that don't go on playing until a victor is decided.

This. Thanks.

[JoeLassister]

I would also push it as far as saying that I don't believe that the players would actually take that hit or skate that hard to try to score trailing by 2 goals with 1 minute to play.

Why would they do so if there is a more than fair chance that they might collect 0 point after a tie even if they brought the best of their game trying to catch up? Better save this energy and don't get hurt to try to score these 2 points on next game, no ?

[BCHabnut]

I like having a winner. I think a lot of people do. I really can't see the league going back to ties. I just can't figure out why we have a point for losing. I understand the origion of it, but as soon as the shoot out was introduced, the loser point should have been removed. The 3 2 1 scoring system is redundant to me. You win you get 2 points. You lose you get nothing.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Joe, I was responding to your sweeping claim that "It is not for nothing that fans are fixated on the idea that a tie must be worth something, it is because, as human beings, this is how we are. We send the message that your effort could be worth of something." That was the reason for that raft of examples I provided. Our real lives as human beings are chock-full of win-or-die experiences (metaphorically speaking). Hence, it's fundamentally arbitrary to insist that sports "must" reward ties in the regular season.

As for Neech's remark that "It's the opposite of arbitrary to believe that a tie is not worth the same as a loss. It makes total sense, it's fair, and it's common practice across all sports that don't go on playing until a victor is decided" - good point, but to some extent this begs the question. Leagues such as the NBA and MLB don't allow ties, and therefore insist on a "win or die" resolution. This shows that there is absolutely nothing aberrant in a "win or die" mechanism in pro sport. By Joe's logic a team that secured a tie in regulation in MLB is being wronged if they go on to lose in the 16th inning, told that 'all their effort was worth nothing.'

The notion that other teams would give up if they were down by 2 goals with a minute to go is no different than a team giving up when down by 3 goals with a minute to go under the current system. Again, that's not a useful criticism.

Maybe the real problem is that under the "0-points-for-a-tie" model we could watch a game without seeing a winner? But that doesn't bother me either - Lord knows, all I care about is whether the Habs win or lose, and I seldom care about whether the other team gets a point. From a fan perspective, we'd come to regard ties as losses, that's all, and move on with our lives, while watching tremendously offensive 3rd periods instead of the shutdown overcoached stuff we usually get in close games.

I do recognize that this little scheme of mine is outside the normal box and therefore a marginal position, though.

[Neech]

As for Neech's remark that "It's the opposite of arbitrary to believe that a tie is not worth the same as a loss. It makes total sense, it's fair, and it's common practice across all sports that don't go on playing until a victor is decided" - good point, but to some extent this begs the question. Leagues such as the NBA and MLB don't allow ties, and therefore insist on a "win or die" resolution. This shows that there is absolutely nothing aberrant in a "win or die" mechanism in pro sport. By Joe's logic a team that secured a tie in regulation in MLB is being wronged if they go on to lose in the 16th inning, told that 'all their effort was worth nothing.'

When it's deemed possible to play until a winner is chosen, then that is obviously the best solution. It's generally accepted that unlimited overtimes are reserved for playoff hockey, and in the regular season we stop playing after a set amount of time. It's as simple as that, and it says nothing about a 'win or die' attitude that is endemic to other sports and not hockey. There is no attitude difference, only practical obstacles. Baseball is not as taxing a sport and basketball's frequent scoring makes a resolution likelier.

I think you're also misinterpretting Joe's 'all their effort was for nothing' remark; any team who loses receives no reward, but someone was rewarded. Your proposal is like the game never happened, so both teams' efforts were for nothing.

Besides being unfair and counterintuitive, I don't think this system would actually make third periods any more exciting. There's less incentive for teams to come back from 1 or 2 goal deficits and teams with a lead would be encouraged to shut down and defend at all costs.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

When it's deemed possible to play until a winner is chosen, then that is obviously the best solution. It's generally accepted that unlimited overtimes are reserved for playoff hockey, and in the regular season we stop playing after a set amount of time. It's as simple as that, and it says nothing about a 'win or die' attitude that is endemic to other sports and not hockey. There is no attitude difference, only practical obstacles. Baseball is not as taxing a sport and basketball's frequent scoring makes a resolution likelier.

I think you're also misinterpretting Joe's 'all their effort was for nothing' remark; any team who loses receives no reward, but someone was rewarded. Your proposal is like the game never happened, so both teams' efforts were for nothing.

Besides being unfair and counterintuitive, I don't think this system would actually make third periods any more exciting. There's less incentive for teams to come back from 1 or 2 goal deficits and teams with a lead would be encouraged to shut down and defend at all costs.

The first two paragraphs come back to our difference in axiomatic premises. That's fair enough. I don't agree with the boldfaced part. I think that when the teams are tied, we will see the most freewheeling hockey imaginable because they'll have to score. As for protecting leads and striving for comebacks, I doubt there'd be any noticeable difference.

[Fanpuck33]

3 points: regulation win

2 points: Overtime/Shootout win

1 point: Overtime/Shootout loss

0 points: regulation loss

I was just about to post this exact idea, but figured I'd scan the whole thread to see if somebody already had. I totally agree with this idea and have wanted it for years. If OT games are going to automatically be 3 point games, then EVERY game should be a three point game. It gives incentive to win games in regulation and not play for the free point you get by just making it to OT. I hate the shootout, but don't expect it to ever go away. The least they could do is at least go five shooters. Three is a a bigger joke than the shootout itself.

[johnnyhasbeen]

No overtime or shootout would be my vote. I like the old system where a tie was a tie. Why they changed it I will never understand. The overtime is one thing, but to end a game and give an extra point for a skills competition is just silly. Why a shoot out? WHy not have the team put two skaters out there and race around the rink? Fastest player wins the game? How about a race carrying a puck through pylons? Maybe the teams could have their goons fight for the extra point? Here is a good one. Put a center in nets and let the goalies shoot at him for the win! Exactly, those all seem dumb. So does the shootout. Bring back the tie.

[BlueKross]

I was just about to post this exact idea, but figured I'd scan the whole thread to see if somebody already had. I totally agree with this idea and have wanted it for years. If OT games are going to automatically be 3 point games, then EVERY game should be a three point game. It gives incentive to win games in regulation and not play for the free point you get by just making it to OT. I hate the shootout, but don't expect it to ever go away. The least they could do is at least go five shooters. Three is a a bigger joke than the shootout itself.

Great discussion guys! I think i made it clear that I agree with the three point system. I also think there is a lot of merit in what CC has offered up. The fact of the matter is none of us are going to influence how the league deals with overtime. I would say this. this is the NHL not the Special Olympics.

[BCHabnut]

Why do you get a point for losing? I can't figure it out. And everyone thinks it's good to add a third point. If you want regulation and shootout wins to be scored differently, give two for a regulation or OT win, and one point for a shootout win. And zero points for losing. You can guarantee their would be less shootouts if you could get two points for scoring in OT, but only one in shootout. The loser point is ed.

[DON]

Why do you get a point for losing? I can't figure it out. And everyone thinks it's good to add a third point. If you want regulation and shootout wins to be scored differently, give two for a regulation or OT win, and one point for a shootout win. And zero points for losing. You can guarantee their would be less shootouts if you could get two points for scoring in OT, but only one in shootout. The loser point is ######ed.

I really could care less about how many points for this or that, but simple elimination of goofy shootout, through any manner, would make me happier.