Toggle sidebar

Is an overtime / shoot-out loss a "loss"?

The Panther

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,390
18,422
Tokyo, Japan
Full disclosure: I hate the extra points ("loser" points) and the shoot out. With that out of the way:

Is an overtime / shoot-out loss really a "loss"? I ask because:

a) The NHL officially doesn't count an overtime / shoot-out loss as a "loss" in the standings. This would seem clear evidence that it is NOT a loss.

b) The NHL's own website describes games like this one today: Chicago Blackhawks - Vegas Golden Knights - Oct 27, 2023 | NHL.com
...as a "loss" for the team that didn't get the extra point. They also say the non-extra point-getting team was "defeated". This would seem clear evidence that it IS a loss.


So, since the NHL proves that (as usual) it has no idea, I'm wondering what the forum thinks: Is an overtime / shoot-out loss really a "loss"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5minutemajor
I consider games like that a draw, with one team getting the extra tiebreaker point in a skills competition-like event. It's pretty much a coin flip after 60 minutes the vasst majority of the time.

That being said, getting rid of the loser point would almost ruin hockey for me unless they went back to 5-on-5 OT and ties. Having the entire game decided by 3-on-3 or a shootout would be terrible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prairie Habs, VivaLasVegas, Lshap and 1 other person
Reality Czech said:
I consider games like that a draw, with one team getting the extra tiebreaker in a skills competition-like event. It's pretty much a coin flip after 60 minutes the vasst majority of the time.

That being said, getting rid of the loser point would almost ruin hockey for me unless they went back to 5-on-5 OT and ties. Having the entire game decided by 3-on-3 or a shootout would be terrible.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what OT is: An entertaining skills competition. I have no problem with one team getting a bonus point for 3-on-3 or SO. But it doesn't wipe out the 60 minutes of real hockey that ended in a tie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prairie Habs
There are two types of losses and that's one of them. Viewing it any other way seems like over-thinking it to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hurdemz
It's 2 points so I guess not.

But beating a team 4-0
vs
Beating a team 3-2 using six shooters in a shoot out? Should never be considered the same in the win column........in any league on any planet.
But this is the NHL.

As kids we used to try settle a tie game that way at recess in the school yard after the Bell rang.
We were ten years old It was considered stupid then. lol
 
The Panther said:
Well, up to 1998-99, when a game ended in a tie, both teams got 1 point. And today, when you lose in overtime, you get... 1 point.

So, an overtime loss actually is a tie, as per historical point value.
Click to expand...

Well, you actually did tie the game, but since the NHL wants somebody to win, you lost the game in either overtime or a shootout. That’s why you get a point, for the tie but not the extra point for the win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prairie Habs, Crazy8oooo and hurdemz
Reality Czech said:
I consider games like that a draw, with one team getting the extra tiebreaker point in a skills competition-like event. It's pretty much a coin flip after 60 minutes the vasst majority of the time.

That being said, getting rid of the loser point would almost ruin hockey for me unless they went back to 5-on-5 OT and ties. Having the entire game decided by 3-on-3 or a shootout would be terrible.
Click to expand...
You do realize that a draw would also be possible?

Overtime is not needed at all in the regular season. And neither is a shootout. A draw is a draw is a draw.
 
So to sum up (what we already know but I like making the NHL look stupid): In hockey, there are two distinct ways to lose a game. One way is an actual loss, and the other way is another kind of "loss" but it counts in points as a tie, and in the standing it isn't a loss.

The NHL is run by idiots.
 
hurdemz said:
They dont get 2 points. It's a loss. I don't see where the confusion is here.
Click to expand...
You don't get the confusion? Read the first post, above.

The NHL's own website calls an overtime game a "loss", but the NHL's own standings doesn't count it as a loss.

That doesn't strike you as confusing?
 
5minutemajor said:
You do realize that a draw would also be possible?

Overtime is not needed at all in the regular season. And neither is a shootout. A draw is a draw is a draw.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I realize that. But making fans happy is the main part of sports and entertainment in general. Not many people like spending 2.5 hours watching something only to end in a draw.
 
NHL: A loss in OT/SO is better than a loss in regulation.

Also NHL: A win in regulation is no better than a win in OT/SO.
 
Lshap said:
That's exactly what OT is: An entertaining skills competition. I have no problem with one team getting a bonus point for 3-on-3 or SO. But it doesn't wipe out the 60 minutes of real hockey that ended in a tie.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's why I look at OT/SO losses more like draws instead of actual losses. It's debateable how entertaining 3-on-3 hockey is, but I understand why they do it that way.

I would much rather use the 3-2-1 points system that rewards teams for winning in regulation, but I digress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obvious Fabertism
Overtime win still kinda feels like a win. A shoot out I don’t really feel good about either way, but I definitely don’t consider it a real loss.
 
You can't have a winner without a loser. The NHL likes to pretend it's not a loss so as many as 24 or 25 teams can claim to have a .500 record in a 32 team league. They think the fans are stupid and they may be right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom