I didn't realize Boston had that many OT losses. The Gary point does my head in. I've done my best not to think about it this year but as I'm currently bedridden, I have more than enough time for a rant. (This likely isn't a novel frustration by now)
It's such a farce. Why should a team be given an extra point, just because they went into extra time? The Bruins have lost 15 games in OT and for that they've taken 15 points. What? 15 points for losing is not an inconsequential number here. They sit atop the NHL standings with less wins than 6 teams! Including our Winnipeg Jets. Florida should be ahead of them in the division on merit. Boston is just better at losing though, that's the NHL. If you're good at dragging out a loss, you're rewarded.
A single point swing is way too small a difference for a loss vs a win.
The gulf between 2 or 1 is miniscule compared to 3 or 1. Football has it right, 3 for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss. If I ran the league, that's the first thing I'd implement. A tie after 10 minutes of OT is a fair result. Sometimes a contest just ends in a stalemate. By making it 3 points for a win, you're putting much more value on coming out of a game with a victory. I'd wager, with that system, very few games would end in a tie. And if 3 for a win would make NHL point totals too high, then keep everything the same. Just get rid of the God forsaken loser point.
It should all be so simple, but it never is when Gary and the owners figure out a way to make nonsense profitable. Sometimes I fantasize about holding him upside down over the edge of a fire escape, relentlessly shaking him, making coins drop from his pockets, forever.
The nice thing to take away from all this is Winnipeg gets the job done in 60 minutes, better than any other team in the NHL. That makes me happy.
