Saw the ROW, regulation + overtime wins, stat on ESPN and in another thread and I'm not a huge fan. I know this has implications for tiebreakers at the end of the season but beyond that I don't like it for 2 reasons.
1) It is not easy to tell out of ROW as to to how many wins were in overtime where the other team actually got a point as those extra points become significant in the end.
2) Not enough emphasis is placed on the pure regulation win when the game is clearly altered for OT (4-4) and shootout skills competition.
I'm asking anyone to please poke holes in a system I would propose to make it cleaner.
3 pts---for Regulation Wins
2 pts --for an OT/SO win
1 pt -- for a SO Loss
0 pts -- For an OT and Reg loss.
The only thing I can see is teams possibly playing for the shootout and being more conservative in OT in fear of getting 0 points... but this is hard to do when it is 4-4 and so much open ice, right?
It still ticks me off that out of the 3 ranger-B's games that they end up with the same amount of points(4) even though the Rangers never beat the Bruins in Regulation...doesn't make sense.
Also worth noting, I'm not a fan of the shootout but let's say the NHL has to keep it for argument sake.
One last thing, out of curiousity, what would the standing be with my new proposed system? Sorry that I don't have time to assemble this...