PDA

View Full Version : Hockey scoring / standings



Buckeye Yank
01-15-04, 09:42 AM
Since I'm not a "diehard" like some of you guys, I have a question. When you look at the NHL standings there are 4 numbers posted: W/L/T/OL. What does "OL" stand for??? The only thing I could think of is overtime loss but can't figure out the significance of that. Isn't a loss a loss regardless if it's in overtime or not?

Flaz
01-15-04, 09:53 AM
W/L/T/OL

wins/losses/ties/overtime losses

The difference between a loss in regulation and in overtime is that teams get a point for an OT loss. Personally I think it's stupid, but that's the way it is.

Hitman23
01-15-04, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Flaz
Personally I think it's stupid, but that's the way it is. I hear ya. That is such a stupid rule.

Scenerio.....

The Isles and Rangers are tied in the division both going for the 8th seed, Rangers have the season series. Isles have a game in hand (since it always works that way :rolleyes: ). Isles get a an overtime loss, get a point and take the last playoff spot. All thanks to a loss. I think I'd go ballistic if that ever happened.

stupid, stupid rule. :mad:

wexy
01-15-04, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Flaz
W/L/T/OL

wins/losses/ties/overtime losses

The difference between a loss in regulation and in overtime is that teams get a point for an OT loss. Personally I think it's stupid, but that's the way it is.
So Flaz, how is Mikko Makela these days??

Flaz
01-15-04, 05:38 PM
It's funny that you ask, because Makela was just fired as the coach of the Lethbridge Hurricanes of the WHL this week...

http://www.whl.ca/headlines/?id=1723

wexy
01-15-04, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Flaz
It's funny that you ask, because Makela was just fired as the coach of the Lethbridge Hurricanes of the WHL this week...

http://www.whl.ca/headlines/?id=1723

That is funny (not for Mikko) but is good timing ;)

patrick.o
01-15-04, 06:56 PM
The NHL instituted the overtime loss rule for a good reason. Before the OL there were a maximum of 2 points available for each game. If you won you got both points and if you lost you got none, but if there was a tie then both teams got 1 point. So whenever the game was tied after regulation both teams would usually play completely safe, defensive hockey, because if they maintained the tie for the 5 minute OT they were guaranteed a point, whereas if they tried for the win by playing aggressive hockey they in turn left their defensive zone weaker and risked losing and therefore getting 0 points, esentially losing the point they had already gained.

So the NHL instituted the OL rule, which means that if you get to OT you are guaranteed a point no matter if you win or lose. But, if you win in OT you still get 2 points. This way teams no longer have to play the OT afraid to lose the point - it's already locked in and can't be taken away - and now teams play exciting, aggressive hockey in OT because they are trying to get the second point that a win will bring.

Personally I think the rule is a great addition. Before the OL overtime was generally boring and it wasn't unusual to see only one or two shots total during the whole 5 minutes and sometimes even none. Now teams go all out because they have nothing to lose but a point to gain.

bakntime
01-15-04, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by patrick.o
The NHL instituted the overtime loss rule for a good reason. Before the OL there were a maximum of 2 points available for each game. If you won you got both points and if you lost you got none, but if there was a tie then both teams got 1 point. So whenever the game was tied after regulation both teams would usually play completely safe, defensive hockey, because if they maintained the tie for the 5 minute OT they were guaranteed a point, whereas if they tried for the win by playing aggressive hockey they in turn left their defensive zone weaker and risked losing and therefore getting 0 points, esentially losing the point they had already gained.

So the NHL instituted the OL rule, which means that if you get to OT you are guaranteed a point no matter if you win or lose. But, if you win in OT you still get 2 points. This way teams no longer have to play the OT afraid to lose the point - it's already locked in and can't be taken away - and now teams play exciting, aggressive hockey in OT because they are trying to get the second point that a win will bring.

Personally I think the rule is a great addition. Before the OL overtime was generally boring and it wasn't unusual to see only one or two shots total during the whole 5 minutes and sometimes even none. Now teams go all out because they have nothing to lose but a point to gain.

Completely agree. Overtime is a lot more exciting now, and teams are finally rewarded for 60 minutes of hockey in which they work a tie by guaranteeing them a point.

Hitman23
01-15-04, 11:27 PM
Patrick I can see your side of it. But the 4 on 4 alone should have been enough to make OT more exciting. I don't like teams getting rewarded for a loss.

Buckeye Yank
01-16-04, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by patrick.o
So the NHL instituted the OL rule, which means that if you get to OT you are guaranteed a point no matter if you win or lose. But, if you win in OT you still get 2 points. This way teams no longer have to play the OT afraid to lose the point - it's already locked in and can't be taken away - and now teams play exciting, aggressive hockey in OT because they are trying to get the second point that a win will bring.

So a win in OT (2 points) goes in the W column then? As in a win is a win?

But instead of playing for 2 points, there's actually 3 points given in OT; 2 to the winner and 1 to the loser correct?

Buckeye Yank
01-16-04, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Hitman23
Patrick I can see your side of it. But the 4 on 4 alone should have been enough to make OT more exciting. I don't like teams getting rewarded for a loss.

That seems kind of weird to me as well which is why I was asking to make sure I understood.

penguin4
01-16-04, 10:04 AM
I could never figure out -- does the number in the OL column get included among the number of total "losses" in the L column?

Buckeye Yank
01-16-04, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by penguin4
I could never figure out -- does the number in the OL column get included among the number of total "losses" in the L column?

Good question.

Hitman23
01-16-04, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Buckeye Yank
So a win in OT (2 points) goes in the W column then? As in a win is a win?yes

Originally posted by Buckeye Yank
But instead of playing for 2 points, there's actually 3 points given in OT; 2 to the winner and 1 to the loser correct? 3 points given if someone wins the game. If it still ends up as a tie then 1 pt is given to each team.

Originally posted by penguin4
I could never figure out -- does the number in the OL column get included among the number of total "losses" in the L column?No. An OT loss is a separate column. Because you still received a point.

soonerpride21
01-17-04, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by penguin4
I could never figure out -- does the number in the OL column get included among the number of total "losses" in the L column?

no. the number in the L column is for regulation losses only.

as for the OL addition, i like it for the fact that there is nothing for the teams to lose, which opens up more aggressive play. i still think that the T/OL standings should be replaced w/ a shootout... winner gets a regular W, loser gets an SL, or shootout loss, which would equate to 1 pt, like OLs. i'm not a fan of ties.

in a slightly different topic, the overtime thing should be slightly changed for the playoffs. from the 2nd OT on, it should be 4 on 4. a 1-2 OT game provides a lot of drama; when it gets to 4 or 5 OT, it's excessive and isn't any more exciting than 1 or 2 OTs

patrick.o
01-17-04, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23
I don't like teams getting rewarded for a loss.
It's all in the way you look at it, really. Try it this way - Because teams were trying harder not to lose than they were to win, the NHL did away with overtime. From now on if you get to the end of regulation and the game is tied, that's it. Each team gets a point and the game is over. So no one is getting a point for a loss, only for a tie or a win.

At the same time the NHL also made another rule. To make up for eliminating OT, after any game that ends in a tie the two teams will play a additional 5 minute game of sudden death hockey. If the 5 minute game ends in a tie, that's it, everyone goes home. But if one of the teams scores during that 5 minutes, that team will be awarded an addition point on top of the one that they got for the tie.

So really, the NHL isn't rewarding a team for a loss, it's rewarding a team for winning the sudden death game. It's just that instead of tracking sudden death wins, they found it would be easier to track sudden death losses.

patrick.o
01-17-04, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by soonerpride21
i like it for the fact that there is nothing for the teams to lose, which opens up more aggressive play.
My sentiments exactly.

i still think that the T/OL standings should be replaced w/ a shootout...
Shotouts are inherently unfair. They greatly favor teams that are based on high octane offense and disfavor teams that are all about clamp down defense. Picture the great Oilers Cup teams having shootouts against the great Devils Cup teams.

soonerpride21
01-17-04, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by patrick.o

Shotouts are inherently unfair. They greatly favor teams that are based on high octane offense and disfavor teams that are all about clamp down defense. Picture the great Oilers Cup teams having shootouts against the great Devils Cup teams.

defense may not play a factor, but goaltending certainly does, and good goaltending can easily cover up a bad defense in a regular game. no system is truly w/o flaws. one advantage a shootout has over the other OT systems is that the fans are more excited about it. it certainly seemed that way at the end of the last all star game. w/ hockey slowly but surely losing money, they might want to look at this from a business standpoint.

PeteRFNY
01-19-04, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Hitman23
I hear ya. That is such a stupid rule.

Scenerio.....

The Isles and Rangers are tied in the division both going for the 8th seed, Rangers have the season series. Isles have a game in hand (since it always works that way :rolleyes: ). Isles get a an overtime loss, get a point and take the last playoff spot. All thanks to a loss. I think I'd go ballistic if that ever happened.

stupid, stupid rule. :mad:

I don't know...that sounds like a pretty sweet scenario to me! :lol: I'd probably laugh until I stopped.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of shootouts as a way of deciding a game. It seems pretty lousy that you could play your ass off for an entire game plus overtime, then lose because the other team puts an elite sniper up against your goalie.

Sounds like some dopey crap the Europeans came up with so they could go home early and start drinking.

Petezs

RIyankee
01-22-04, 08:47 AM
I agree, points for OLs are a joke. IMO the entire NHL, is a joke. And I'm not just saying that because I'm a digruntled Bruins fan. I mean when I see a sports ticker and see games like "Columbus at Carolina", "Florida at Phoenix", "Nashville at Tampa Bay", it makes my head spin :barf: :barf: . There are too many teams in the NHL. I forgot who said this but to quote an old-time hockey legend, "Hockey was not meant for the masses.". When the Bruins were doing well in the RS last season and I told a friend that I haven't seen them play yet. He said why, I told him that I don't enjoy watching exhibition hockey. I start watching hockey when the real season begins in April. When I was a kid, if there was any hockey game on TV, I'd be watching it (RS or playoffs). It's a shame. This sport desrves better.