Something new in the standings

[TiLoBrown]

I was bored and clicked a "playoff race" link over at NHL.com and skipped through the article, then I saw this

Figure is total wins. However, wins obtained in a shootout do not count for tie-breaking purposes.

So my thing is this, if wins won in a shootout dont help you in a tie-breaker....WHY HAVE THE DAMN SHOOTOUT? I do recall reading this last year and wondering to myself "Would this have gotten the Rangers into the playoffs?". Because you know Uncle Gary didnt want the Devils of all teams to be the only "NYC Based" team in the playoffs. If there was ever a better reason to go to the 3-2-1-0 point system, it would have to be that.

 

[elocomotive]

So my thing is this, if wins won in a shootout dont help you in a tie-breaker....WHY HAVE THE DAMN SHOOTOUT?

I'm not seeing your logic here. The wins (shootout or no) help you gain points to get you into the playoffs. They differentiate slightly for the tiebreaker. No reason those things have to be the same and the points aspect is much more important than the tiebreaker, which will come up rarely.

I personally don't like the 3-2-1 system, but just wish they would go back to ties. That or some type of overtime system where they gradually take more players off the ice if they insist that a "winner" MUST be determined.

But I don't see anything wrong with a tie. I played soccer for a long time growing up and can tell you that the two greatest games I played in were both ties because the teams were so evenly matched, gave everything they had, and had nothing but respect for each other after it was done.

Shootouts just make you luckier on that day, not better. I'd rather see a tie.

 

[TiLoBrown]

Or helps the team with the better goalie sometimes too....theres a record Marty had that I dont think anyone will talk about, Henrik finally passed him this year

Also the logic I was thinking was mostly along the lines of "An ugly win is as good as a normal win. But a shootout win isnt the same as a OT win"