In the NHL, you get 2 points for winning, 0 points for losing in regulation, and 1 point for losing in overtime.
The obvious result (to everyone but the creators of the rule I guess) is that, if a game is tied near the end of regulation, it is best for both sides if the game goes to overtime. There are 2 points available for a game decided in regulation, but 3 if decided in overtime. I assume both teams would sit quietly and wait for overtime if it were tolerated.
> Feb 22, 2020
Zamboni driver for the Toronto Marlies and emergency backup goalie David Ayres makes his NHL debut at 42 years of age, stopping 8 of 10 shots to give the Carolina Hurricanes a 6-3 win, all while stealing the show in Toronto.
Is there a reason for this difference compared to hockey everywhere else? As far as I'm aware both IIHF and most leagues do 3 points which are either split 3/0 or 2/1, withe same 5minute 3v3 followed by shootout as the NHL does. The only difference being the 2pt win thing which is really odd if you ask me. The idea that a fixed number of points exists (3 multiplied by the number of games played) in the table regardless of outcomes feels natural.
This one boggles my mind because broadcasters don't want games to go into overtime. A 3-point system where overtime win/losses are split 2/1 emphasizes winning in the final few minutes, which is exciting to both viewers and businessmen. Maybe one day they'll switch.
The NHL’s overtime is pretty efficient though. There’s a short commercial break, then 5 minutes of 3-3 which is exciting and has a high probability of goals. Then a well paced shootout if it is still tied. So perhaps broadcasters are ok with a little extra time if they keep a large audience.
Note for the casual hockey fan: The NHL overtime system is different in the playoffs, since the playoffs requires clear winners and losers.
(Game 1 of the 2023 Eastern Conference Finals featured four overtime periods; and the tie-breaking/game-winning goal was scored after 139 minutes and 47 seconds of total game time, at 1:54 am EDT.)
That's only the case if neither team feels like they have a decided advantage before OT to win. Otherwise, you don't want the other team to get a point, because you're competing against them in total points for playoff position.
If it's tied near the end of regulation, your expectation value is 1. But if you and the other team wait it out and let it go into overtime, your expectation value is 1.5.
If teams don't play to win, and collaborate instead of compete every sport will be boring while maximizing "points" but loosing viewership.
This is why all teams don't always play for a draw and only go for victory only on minimum risk. This kind of cooperative behavior is awfully close to match fixing and likely to get banned / fined by a competent league (one that wants to make money).
Soccer has its share of embarrassments like the CONCAF game in the article or the disgrace of Gijón in 1980, usually this happened in national games (not much money), modern clubs play to win like what FC Mainz did with Dortmund on Saturday, because playing to win is why crowds watch and that what makes money.
The obvious result (to everyone but the creators of the rule I guess) is that, if a game is tied near the end of regulation, it is best for both sides if the game goes to overtime. There are 2 points available for a game decided in regulation, but 3 if decided in overtime. I assume both teams would sit quietly and wait for overtime if it were tolerated.