Is frequently losing in OT generally a good or bad sign?

[Pookie]

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.

Then why do teams win more games while being outshot?

 

[Mickey Marner]

I understand this question may be impossible to answer, especially when I ask to generalize.

Teams that frequently take the game to over time but often lose in overtime, how do you view them? Is it good that they can take the game to OT or bad that they can't close it?

For instance, Nashville is near the top of the league in OT losses with 11 and are at the top of the standings. Tampa on the other hand is at the bottom with just 4 losses in OT and second in their conference. On one hand, Tampa seldom lets games slip away when they go to OT but can't get them in OT all that frequently. They have 45 ROW to Nashville's 44 ROW.

Well, it's better to get two points and a ROW win than one points and an OTL.

It may also be interesting to study how often each team trailed and caught up and vice-versa. Also is there a correlation between OT performance and Cups/playoffs wins?

Thoughts?

There have have been exactly zero 3 on 3 goals scored in the playoffs since the NHL began tracking them in 1987-88. But the NHL uses them (and shootouts) to determine who will make the playoffs because, well, they're idiots.

So, 3 on 3 OT goals may or may not have a greater correlation with playoff performance than who's the best at rock climbing, hotdog eating, or playing tiddlywinks.

 

[Guffman]

The only good thing about OT "wins" or loses is it deludes teams, and their fans, into thinking they have hope of making the playoffs.

That doesn’t make sense. Care to elaborate?

 

[Eisen]

It's better than frequently losing in regulation, it's worse than squeezing a couple of points out of overtime.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Don't know about in hockey but in the 80s Bill James did a study of "record in 1 run games". You'd hear a lot by commentators "Boy this team is good, they just have a knack for winning those 1 run game." But James found that generally, GOOD teams win by multiple runs, and when they lose, they lose by 1 run frequently. Conversely, when bad teams win, they generally only do it by a run, while they lose big frequently.....

So... record in 1 run games wasn't a good indicator of a team's actual success overall.

Apply that to this question anyway you want.