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...

i like the old hockey east system. each game is worth 5 points. once you reach OT each team gets 2 points and they battle it out for the extra one

Can't make OT losses worth 0 and shootout losses 1. No one would play in OT.

Regulation - 3 pts

Shootout & OT win - 2 pts

OT & Shootout loss - 1 pt

Simple and easy but don't think they'll change it. 

The overtime system in hockey is flawed. Bring back the ties. 

In response to nrguy's comment:

I think too many teams do this ("not playing"-altering strategy) in the 3rd period NOW knowing that they will at lease get a point if they go to OT.  Again, I think packing it in 5-on-5 is much easier to do (by playing a 2-2-1 for example) than it is with 4-on-4 play where there is way more time and space. I think it is inherently difficult to "pack it in" 4-on-4.

Taking away the guaranteed OT point (for a loss)  is a move in the right direction for the batting down the hatches style of play in the third period as no team should be rewarded just for getting to OT. 

 

In response to lucdufour's comment:

I don't quite see it that way. Playing 2 defenseman vs 2 forwards is an advantage for the defensive minded IMHO.

In response to lucdufour's comment:

Agree with that point but I don't consider OT actual hockey. To me it's an exibition for the extra point. That's why I said bring back the ties. Tie is worth 1, Wins worth 2, losses worth 0.

they brought in the loser point because too many teams were playing for the tie in overtime so they would at least get a point. The extra point was meant to encourage teams to go all out in OT since they'd have nothing to lose. The shootout eliminated the need for the loser point, every game has a winner now.

As such I'd go back to basics - 2 for a win, 0 for a loss, be it regulation, overtime or shootout.

The existing system keeps more teams in the playoff hunt. Or so it appears, and that is why they will not change it. If more teams look like they could make the playoffs, then there is greater chance of increased ticket sales, hence more revenue. Plain and simple.

Nothing else makes sense because how do you defend 2 points for one game and 3 points in another. NHL - Bush League again. It's a pity they show no self-respect.