supsens
Registered User
- Oct 6, 2013
- 6,577
- 2,000
It is not about any of those things.
The point was also - as far as I can understand - NOT given for an overtime loss until 1999. In other words, the NHL actually did take away points compared to before the reintroduction of overtime.
The real argument is this. If you play 82 games and win 50 % and lose the rest in regular time, you will get 82 points. If you do the same once you have hit overtime, you will get 123.
Any coach with even a tiny bit of brain understands that it is better to have a larger number - I mean it is Sesame street level.
As a result, we will see defensive hockey.
Increasing the number of points for a win will have effects on game plans. Here is an example. In a system with 4 points for a win, and 1 point for a tie, the team that wins 50 % and loses 50 % will have 164 points, and the team that ties all matches will have 82. Such a system will automatically lead to game plans with a higher variance.
So, it is meaningless to just convert one table to another, because another system can create hockey with more goals.
If you make it the entire seaseon without loosing in regulation you deserve more points. If your playing against your own confrence or division you will not want the other team getting 4 points, zero risks will be taken