19 replies to this topic

[Dr Miller]

No, I am not referring to a necktie, but I am glad that I have your attention. According to most dictionary definitions, a tie is defined as “being equal in contest; having the same score.” Prior to the 2005-2006 NHL Season, a tie was determined if two teams remained scoreless after the completion of the overtime period. In this case, both teams would earn a point for the tie. However, it is not that simple when figuring out today’s hockey tie. The new scenarios are listed below:

1. Penguins 3 Flyers 2 (OT)
In the first example above, the Flyers actually lost the game, but would earn one point since they made it to overtime period. Since they earn a point, their record will record this as a tie, not a loss.

2. Penguins 2 Flyers 1 (SO)
In the second example above, the Penguins and the Flyers were tied 1-1 after the overtime period ended. While many scenarios could occur next, the Penguins scored more goals than the Flyers did. This gives the Penguins one goal for a final score of 2-1. In the case where each teams goes 0-3 in the shootout, then “sudden death” occurs.

I hope this article answers questions on the confusion of a tie. Basically, if you can get to the overtime period, and you lose the match, then a tie is recorded. Still confused? My brain is all knotted up too. LOL!

[damned]

Welcome to the Arena!!

[Dr Miller]

Thank you so much. Read my other article, Home and Home. I think you will like it. I could right a hockey post everyday. I have a writing degree, and I love hockey.

[Tashimojo]

I thought losing in OT or the SO nets you an OTL... overtime loss, worth one point.

This point has been edited by Tashimojo: 19 February 2013 - 09:02 PM

[JR Ewing]

I thought losing in OT or the SO nets you an OTL... overtime loss, worth one point.

Gimme some of those sweet sweet Gary Points...

JR

[**LS**]

I thought losing in OT or the SO nets you an OTL... overtime loss, worth one point.

No, no. It's called a 'Windsor'.

[Munchausen]

I'd be on board with this OTL and SOL if 3 points were awarded for a regulation win. Third periods would be even more desperate.

[Tashimojo]

I'm a fan of no points for a loss, regardless of when it occurs.

[Dr Miller]

As stated in the article, even though it would show a loss in the stats, getting to OT or SO and losing will show as a tie in overall record. This is why the Blackhawks haven't lost yet by record.

[Vader]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If they aren't going to go to a true 3-point system (and I don't think they will, because that will eliminate some of the perceived parity in the standings due to teams being effectively eliminated from the playoff chase faster than they are now) I think the thing to do would be to move the guaranteed point to the end of OT. A win at any point (regulation, OT or shootout) is worth 2 points in the standings. But the only way you get one point for a loss is if they game goes to the shootout. If you lose in OT, you get nothing. I think that will get teams to go for it in regulation much more because the guaranteed standings point is much "further away", and it is much more reminiscent of the old "tie" structure.  You get the bonus point for not losing during the "team" portion of the game.

[Dr Miller]

Good points, Vadar. I think it would simplify things if teams were only awarded points for winning. No other major sports besides soccer award points for ties.The shootout is a good way to get fans excited, but the logic is still flawed.

[Vader]

Good points, Vadar. I think it would simplify things if teams were only awarded points for winning. No other major sports besides soccer award points for ties.The shootout is a good way to get fans excited, but the logic is still flawed.

 

I would prefer that they didn't award a point for a loss either.  But I really don't see them eliminating that third point.

[Dr Miller]

I would prefer that they didn't award a point for a loss either. But I really don't see them eliminating that third point.

Your points are much appreciated!

[Tashimojo]

There are no ties anymore.  The Blackhawks have no losses in regulation.  They have losses on record, they are overtime losses.  I mean you can call em ties if you want, but seems to just be making it even more confusing IMO.

[Dr Miller]

There are no ties anymore. The Blackhawks have no losses in regulation. They have losses on record, they are overtime losses. I mean you can call em ties if you want, but seems to just be making it even more confusing IMO.

Thank you for your comment. I agree with you, but a tie is how the NHL shows it in the overall record. I truly should be a loss and not count as a point.

[Tashimojo]

The NHL does not record ties anymore.  They record overtime losses.  Like if you look at Martin Brodeur's official stats on NHL.com, he has 4 columns for game ending scenarios.  Wins, Losses, Ties and Overtime Losses.  Before 2006, the OTL column has nothing in it, not even zeros.  After 2004 the T column has nothing in it, not even zeros.

 

Teams that lose after 60 minutes of play do not have a tie logged anywhere in the records.  They have an overtime loss logged, which is worth the same amount of points that a tie used to be worth.

[Dr Miller]

So you are saying in the overall record that OTL are recorded as loses in the cumulative record?

[Tamby]

No, he's saying that the only reason there is a "Tie" column in the NHL stats today is for historical bookkeeping purposes.  An OTL is recorded differently than a regulation loss because it can play into tiebreaker scenarios for playoff rankings.  It's still a loss, it's just a different kind of loss.  By definition and by practice, there are no longer ties in the current NHL.

[Dr Miller]

Thanks for all the input.

[Tamby]

But there should be.

 

Ties, I mean.

 

Not the ones on necks.

 

Yes.