Then what is the point of having the shootout in the first place?  This is how the NHL seems do to things now… half-assing every impossibly ambiguous decision they make.  Look, either you want to eradicate ties and award 2 pts to the winner while the loser gets nothing, or not.  Either the shootout is a concrete way of deciding who won a game, and thus deserves the points, or it doesn’t.  Why award winning teams what is essentially a bonus skills point for the shootout only to neuter it when those points really count???

The NHL needs to make a decision.  Every game should be worth the same amount of points.  So, either award 3 points for the win, 2 for an OT/SO win, 1 for an OT/SO loss, and 0 for a regulation loss OR go back to 2 for the win and 0 for the loss, whether it’s in regulation or not.  This is getting far beyond ridiculous now.

Is it only a matter of time before they go to the old Continental Basketball Association system (remember the old CBA???) where 7 points were available for each game… 3 for the overall win, and 1 point for “winning” each quarter.  Better yet, let’s just start playing 5 minute mini-games-within-the-game and award a point for each.  Whoever does a better figure-eight at center ice between Zetterberg or Marleau will determine one of the points up for grabs.  Next up will be Datsyuk and Heatley in a triple salchow contest.

Posted by Incognetis from Delaware... Hi... I'm in... Delaware on 03/11/10 at 11:11 AM ET

Posted by Incognetis from Exile in Alabama on 03/11/10 at 11:11 AM ET

I was going to post a “brilliant” analysis of LeBrun’s article, but why bother. Incognetis said it all.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 03/11/10 at 12:02 PM ET

Spot on Incognetis.

Posted by Simian from Land of the Free, Home of the Brave on 03/11/10 at 12:21 PM ET

I prefer a 3 point system as well, but I do see this as a good move.  Shootout wins aren’t wins, and any change that recognises that is a good one in my book.

The downside is that it makes the standings even more indecipherable.  It’s a pain in the ass to find a team’s separate OT and shootout records, and there’s no way the NHL will go back to adding an extra column on their standings.  I think sooner or later, the NHL will have to get rid of OT in the regular season and just go straight to a shootout.

Posted by Ryan from Toronto on 03/11/10 at 01:26 PM ET

First tie breaker should be

Head to Head

Second should be

Wins

This is getting just like fantasy sports now. Head to Head should always be the first tiebreaker.  After all you play each team in your conference 4 times. If you beat a team 3 of 4 times, but tie with them in the standings in every other sport the team that won 3 times wins the tiebreaker.

Posted by Break the Tie on 03/11/10 at 02:09 PM ET

Three points for a regulation win is a must. You can’t have some games awarding 3 points and some games awarding 2 points. It is dumb. In the good old days a tie gave each team one point but the same number of points were given for each game. The NHL has created their own dilemma. On one hand they want a race for the playoffs with as many teams as possible which generates ticket sales in more arenas but in doing so they have let less worthy teams make the playoffs at the expense of better teams that can win a game in regulation. Changing the tiebreaker rule does not prevent a lesser team from advancing into the playoffs because they may have more shootout wins over a team with less points that wins more games in regulation. The only way to rectify the problem is to award three points for a regulation win. Anything else falls short. The rules as they stand now motivate a team to sign a high scorer ala Marian Gaborik or Michael Cammalleri so when they get in the shootout they can win and make the playoffs without playing as a team. Wake up, if you give a loser point, the loser is the team that is good enough to win in regulation but misses the playoffs because they are not bad enough to have to go into overtime.

Posted by Bo from FL. on 03/11/10 at 02:12 PM ET

Then what is the point of having the shootout in the first place?

because it earns you an extra point, without having endless overtimes, and as long as you have more points than another team then you are ahead of them in the standings.

if you have the same number of points, then they exclude shootout wins for the win-based tiebreaker.

makes perfect sense, especially in the context of people complaining that a shootout win is not a win based on “real hockey.”  this means the tiebreaker only takes into account “real hockey” wins.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/11/10 at 02:58 PM ET

This has been one of my biggest pet peeves. It is ridiculous that some games are worth 3 points and some 2. The system they used during the Olympics (3 pts win-2 pts OT win-1 pt OT loss-0 pts loss) is the one the NHL should be using. It takes care of all scenarios and will make games more competitive IMO. Hopefully this is the first step towards this.

Posted by detroitdan1982 from St. John's, NL on 03/11/10 at 03:02 PM ET

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/11/10 at 02:58 PM ET

My complaint isn’t with the shootout itself.  I just think if the NHL wants the shootout, then they should fully commit to it.  They can’t count it as a legitimate win, and then in a tiebreaker discount it again.  There just needs to be consistency, that’s all.  Either a shootout win is a completely legit 2 points, or it’s not.  There can’t be an in-between.  Otherwise, they’re just further complicating the situation.

What if the 9th placed team is one point out of a playoff spot because of a shootout loss on the last day of the season, while the 8th placed team wins in a shootout on the last day, but has fewer total shootout wins?  The league is basically saying to the 9th placed team, “Hey, good try.  The other team got the fake win in game 82, but if they didn’t, YOU’D have been in because you have more fake wins!  Better luck next year.”

Honestly, and I know this is blasphemous to some, I wouldn’t mind bringing back the tie.  This lack of consistency in scoring drives me more bonkers than ties do.  And now we’re just complicating things further.

Posted by Incognetis from Delaware... Hi... I'm in... Delaware on 03/11/10 at 03:13 PM ET

There can’t be an in-between

there certainly is a valid in-between.  in order of highest logical value to lowest logical value, we have:

regulation win
OT win
shootout win
shootout loss
OT loss
regulation loss

what they’re essentially saying is for tiebreakers they’re only going to use the highest logical value outcome.  it makes LOGICAL sense - but only if the points are also awarded with that logical value considered.  adding point values to that list shows how dumb the current system is:

2 regulation win
2 OT win
2 shootout win
1 shootout loss
1 OT loss
0 regulation loss

you have the same numeric value assigned to wins/losses of different logical values.  the 3-point system used in the Olympics changes it to this:

3 regulation win
2 OT win
2 shootout win
1 shootout loss
1 OT loss
0 regulation loss

if you really want to take it to the most precise level, awarding points based upon logical value, they should do it this way:

5 regulation win
4 OT win
3 shootout win
2 shootout loss
1 OT loss
0 regulation loss

sure, this skews the new point totals quite a bit higher to make comparison to past seasons problematic, but so does moving to a 3-point system, and so does the current system.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/11/10 at 03:52 PM ET

don’t anyone ever say this to an NHL executive, because they’re probably stupid enough to think it makes sense, but another way to even out the numbers is to award a point for a regulation loss.  then every game is 3 points.

LOL

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 03/11/10 at 03:54 PM ET

if you just get rid of the skills competition and bring ties back then they would not have this issue. there is nothing wrong with two teams fighting hard for 65 minutes and getting a tie at the end of it.

Posted by miked051 on 03/11/10 at 04:29 PM ET