shootouts
I realize that the overtime losses and shootouts are the way by which the Leafs have accumulated most of their points this year, having won on only 7 occasions during their first 20 games, but, come on. This article says what needs to be said.

Note to NHL: What's wrong with tie?

Oh, for the days when the only place you worried a young hockey player might put his tongue was on a frozen pipe somewhere.

Speaking of those long-gone days, it would be applauded here if the NHL, one of these seasons, were to go back in time and either reinstate the tie or stop
rewarding teams that lose a game this side of the dreaded shootout.

Once upon a time, a tie was an honourable result in hockey. Its continued existence certainly hasn't killed soccer, for one example. The NHL introduced
overtime to dissolve ties in 1983 and, starting in 1999-2000, began to gift a team losing in overtime with a point for the 60-minute draw, thus inventing
the three-point game. Upon completion of the lockout a couple of seasons back, the league went a step farther, eliminating the tie altogether by introducing
the shootout and expanding the number of three-point games.

We now have the situation whereby a team, possibly even a blue one, that had won seven of its first 19 games - in a no-tie league, mind you - is widely
referred to as being "at .500" Makes for some weird-looking standings.

Can someone please explain why some games are worth two points, some are worth three and overtime losers are awarded a one-point participation medal? When
the Cowboys or Cavaliers lose in overtime, they aren't rewarded in the standings. When the Blue Jays lose in extra innings it's just another L.