Is frequently losing in OT generally a good or bad sign?
- Thread starter Montreal Shadow
- Start date
CantLoseWithMatthews
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2015
- 49,709
- 59,435
Bank Shot
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2006
- 11,408
- 7,042
A team with a bunch of OT losses is probably underrated in the regular season standings.
3 on 3 is a bit of a coin flip. To be very bad over a season masks the strength of a team going into the playoffs IMO.
Similarly, a team with a great OT/Shootout record is not as big of a playoff threat as they might appear to be.
3 on 3 is a bit of a coin flip. To be very bad over a season masks the strength of a team going into the playoffs IMO.
Similarly, a team with a great OT/Shootout record is not as big of a playoff threat as they might appear to be.
Albus Dumbledore
Master of Death
- Mar 28, 2015
- 9,007
- 2,670
eh, i would lean to positive. Some of its bad luck, overtime games and shootout games being skewed will eventually normalize, and they will improve points wise ala 17 leafs to 18 leafs.
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2003
- 21,568
- 9,440
SunDevilHockeyFan
Bertuzzi's Italian Kitchen
I’d guess there’s probably sort of a bell curve between the amount of points you’re saving by taking the games to OT/shootout vs how much extra wear It causes to your team the more games you play in OT. Added in is probably whether or not It goes to shootout.
In essence, it’s good to a certain point, where It shows your team can hang in games. But too many and it’s bound to partially be due to blowing leads.
In essence, it’s good to a certain point, where It shows your team can hang in games. But too many and it’s bound to partially be due to blowing leads.
Lyons71
Registered User
The ducks may miss the playoffs because of their horrendous ot/shootout record this year, so yeah, it’s better to win those games.
I remember a few years ago the Kings lost a ridiculous amount of shootouts, and missed the playoffs. If they had been .500 they would have skated in easy.
I remember a few years ago the Kings lost a ridiculous amount of shootouts, and missed the playoffs. If they had been .500 they would have skated in easy.
Ending up in a lot of OT games in general is not necessarily a great sign for the team. It generally means you're blowing it somewhere. Can't hold a lead or get behind too much.
I look at it as an encouraging sign if I'm a fan of that team. What it tells me is that they are playing in a lot of close games and for whatever reason just aren't able to get that extra point / OT win.
I see it as a sign that the team has the potential to get better.
Just look at the Leafs last year. They barely made it into the playoffs last year and had a total of 15 OT / shootout losses. This year they have 6 more wins than the previous year and 8 fewer OT / shootout losses with a shootout record that went from 1 for 9 to 7 for 9. Obviously, they still have 5 more games to play so things could change on the OT / shootout front but it's a much better record in the shootout this year.
I see it as a sign that the team has the potential to get better.
Just look at the Leafs last year. They barely made it into the playoffs last year and had a total of 15 OT / shootout losses. This year they have 6 more wins than the previous year and 8 fewer OT / shootout losses with a shootout record that went from 1 for 9 to 7 for 9. Obviously, they still have 5 more games to play so things could change on the OT / shootout front but it's a much better record in the shootout this year.
Yes and no. A large number of OT losses is neither good nor bad on it's own, and really doesn’t tell you much about how good the team really is. It would be much better to look at regulation wins vs. regulation losses and throw out OT games entirely.
Uncle Scrooge
Hockey Bettor
This is impossible to answer because there's different reasons why games go to OT's.
For example, Nashville were on a road trip last month i think, they went into said road trip playing good hockey but then after a couple tougher games they played a bunch of bad teams and clearly just lost focus as complacency kicked in. They were clearly good enough to beat Montreal and Ottawa in regulation if they really wanted to, but the reason those games went to OT's were self-inflicted (along with Habs/Sens bringing their best effort). Sloppiness from those games carried over to home where they had to come back from 3 down against the Blues to win it in OT (those bad habits carried over from the road trip and caused them to go down 3, but they're such a good team they were able to come back in 1 period).
So in that case it's both bad and good i guess, you're good enough to not lose games you probably should lose in regulation, but lack of focus/compete causes those games to go to OT.
Then a complete opposite of that i remember when the Ducks were having their big injury problems and were on the road as well back in December or so. They played all these OT games because they weren't good enough to win them in regulation, but the A+ effort got them those loser points. So in this case you could say it's again good and bad - good enough to scratch and claw for points but not good enough to beat those teams.
There are many more reasons why games go to OT's, so it's really tough to answer, but i guess any way you look at it it's always a positive in some way if you don't lose in regulation, however it also means you weren't good enough to win in regulation and reasons for that could be number of things.
Winning games in regulation consistently is hard these days, so it's always better if you can do that though. If a team is having troubles all season long doing that then that's a sign of a mediocre team.
For example, Nashville were on a road trip last month i think, they went into said road trip playing good hockey but then after a couple tougher games they played a bunch of bad teams and clearly just lost focus as complacency kicked in. They were clearly good enough to beat Montreal and Ottawa in regulation if they really wanted to, but the reason those games went to OT's were self-inflicted (along with Habs/Sens bringing their best effort). Sloppiness from those games carried over to home where they had to come back from 3 down against the Blues to win it in OT (those bad habits carried over from the road trip and caused them to go down 3, but they're such a good team they were able to come back in 1 period).
So in that case it's both bad and good i guess, you're good enough to not lose games you probably should lose in regulation, but lack of focus/compete causes those games to go to OT.
Then a complete opposite of that i remember when the Ducks were having their big injury problems and were on the road as well back in December or so. They played all these OT games because they weren't good enough to win them in regulation, but the A+ effort got them those loser points. So in this case you could say it's again good and bad - good enough to scratch and claw for points but not good enough to beat those teams.
There are many more reasons why games go to OT's, so it's really tough to answer, but i guess any way you look at it it's always a positive in some way if you don't lose in regulation, however it also means you weren't good enough to win in regulation and reasons for that could be number of things.
Winning games in regulation consistently is hard these days, so it's always better if you can do that though. If a team is having troubles all season long doing that then that's a sign of a mediocre team.
Pookie
Wear a mask
- Oct 23, 2013
- 16,172
- 6,684
Leafs got into the playoffs last year by keeping the score close enough to get into OT to ensure at least the loser point.
Win or lose in OT, the achievement is getting there.
So it’s a good thing for the team that can do it. Generally, it makes for boring hockey though as you play to not lose the single point
Win or lose in OT, the achievement is getting there.
So it’s a good thing for the team that can do it. Generally, it makes for boring hockey though as you play to not lose the single point
KingsFan7824
Registered User
You'd rather get the extra point than not, but the results are all over the place. Ottawa has the 3rd worst overall record, but they're 8-4 in OT, but also 2-7 in the SO. Winnipeg is 4-8 in OT. The Rangers are 7-4 in OT. Detroit is 5-1 in the SO, while Nashville is 6-7.
Last year, Pittsburgh was 6-6 in OT, and 4-4 in the SO. Nashville was 4-8 in OT, and 2-4 in the SO. Colorado was 7-2 in OT. Detroit was 9-0 in the SO. Anaheim was 3-10 in OT, the Kings were 12-4, but the Ducks finished 19 points ahead of the Kings.
3v3 OT/SO exists to get more pucks into the net. If you want to determine how good or bad a team is, you're better off looking at the 60 minute sample size. There's very little to take away from post-regulation results. Getting to OT means you're in the game, so that can have some worth.
Last year, Pittsburgh was 6-6 in OT, and 4-4 in the SO. Nashville was 4-8 in OT, and 2-4 in the SO. Colorado was 7-2 in OT. Detroit was 9-0 in the SO. Anaheim was 3-10 in OT, the Kings were 12-4, but the Ducks finished 19 points ahead of the Kings.
3v3 OT/SO exists to get more pucks into the net. If you want to determine how good or bad a team is, you're better off looking at the 60 minute sample size. There's very little to take away from post-regulation results. Getting to OT means you're in the game, so that can have some worth.
As long as you make the playoffs, it’s not a bad one because playoffs are ES five on five. If you miss the playoffs it’s an awful thing because you needed those points.
Pretty simple I think.
Pretty simple I think.
Not really. Unless you think the Leafs purposely blew all those third period leads on purpose just to lose in the shootout for the fun of it.
Leafs spent some of the most time in the league leading in hockey games. They had major problems keeping the lead late in the games but that improved as the season went on.
A1LeafNation
Obsession beats talent everytime!!
- Oct 17, 2010
- 27,467
- 17,448
Teams that can actually make it to OT should do well in the standings. Say you win half of the OT games. That means you’re generating a .750 win ratio (1.5 points out of 2), which is a 123 point season. That’s an incredible point total.
Now, if you win less than half your games in OT, you’re still doing very well.
Point being, if a team can consistently get into as many OT games as possible, they should do well in the standings regardless of their actual OT success.
This is in theory. It would be interesting to see which teams play a lot of OT games and where they are in the standings.
Now, if you win less than half your games in OT, you’re still doing very well.
Point being, if a team can consistently get into as many OT games as possible, they should do well in the standings regardless of their actual OT success.
This is in theory. It would be interesting to see which teams play a lot of OT games and where they are in the standings.
It's a joke honestly.
It shows you can't get it done in regulation or in 3 on 3 OT, but you are still stupidly rewarded a point.
It's like getting a regular season "have a cookie...you tried" ribbon essentially.
It shows you can't get it done in regulation or in 3 on 3 OT, but you are still stupidly rewarded a point.
It's like getting a regular season "have a cookie...you tried" ribbon essentially.
Pookie
Wear a mask
- Oct 23, 2013
- 16,172
- 6,684
I don’t think they blew the leads on purpose. I think they changed their style of play to be more conservative. Played “don’t get scored on” and couldn’t withstand the pressure.
The value of the single/loser point resulted in that style of play. Want to at least get 1 point instead of 0
They play the exact same way this year but haven't blown or given up as many third period leads. Has nothing to do with style of play and more to do with inexperience.
