Fixing the NHL Standings with a 3-Point System

Current NHL Standing System
Reg Win/OT Win/SO Win = 2 points
OT Loss/SO Loss = 1 point
Reg Loss = 0 points

The first flaw in this system is that not all games have equal points. If St. Louis beats Nashville in regulation, two points are awarded to St. Louis. If St. Louis beats Nashville in overtime or the shootout, two points are still awarded to St. Louis, but Nashville has earned a point as well. This just became a three point game. It doesn't really make sense that some games are more valuable than others.

The second problem is even bigger. For games tied late in the 3rd, both teams have an incentive to play cautiously. Just getting to overtime, assures both teams half credit. With the good possibility of earning full credit.

This system doesn't make sense.

Let's look at two options.

Proposal A: Conventional Wisdom's 3-point plan
Reg Win = 3 points
OT Win/SO Win = 2 points
OT Loss/SO Loss = 1 point
Reg Loss = 0 points


This solves the first problem easily. All games are worth 3 points.

This also solves the second problems. Teams have an incentive to win in regulation (thought teams still could play cautiously to make it to overtime, at least insure earning a single point).

In a recent ESPN post about this, someone criticied this plan as such:

"You could have a tie game with five minutes to go in regulation and suddenly a team pulls their goalie because they desperately need those three points to move up the standings late in the season," the GM said. "And then they get an empty-net goal scored on them and the other team gets handed three bonus points instead, which could have a huge impact on whatever club was chasing that team. Get it?"

Yes that would be a shame if a team desperate for three points pulled their goal in a tied game. But if you look at the numbers, I doubt it would happen unless it was the last game of the year. Because the chance to get two points in a overtime win, is much better than the risk of getting zero in a reg loss.

This plan solves a lot of problems and makes a lot of sense. But here's a question...should winning in the five minute overtime be less valuable than winning in regulation? Imagine if winning in extra innings or overtime in the NBA or NFL was worth less than a regulation win. Also imagine, that just getting to extra innings helped you in the standings.

It seems contrary to just about everything else we know about sports.

So let's take a step back. Why don't we just count wins?

The answer, clearly, is that now with the addition of the shootout, it would be too arbitrary to award a full win based on winning a three-shot shootout.

Right? Isn't that the answer? So why should we penalizing overtime winners and rewarding overtime losers in hockey, but not in any other sport? Even currently, if you win in overtime, it's a win.

So let's take a look at an alternate idea, one that I haven't seen talked about at all.

Proposal B: Hoagie Central's 3-point plan
Reg Win/OT Win = 3 points
SO Win = 2 points
SO Loss = 1 point
Reg Loss/OT Loss = 0 points

Let's look at the problems with the current system.

Yep, all games are worth the same amount of points.

Now what about teams tied in the 3rd playing cautiously? I think this would work even better than Proposal A. There is no incentive to get to overtime. If you make it to overtime, you still haven't earned a point yet.

So teams would play hard in the 3rd. And I think it would make overtime even better as well. For a team that is excellent in the shootout, like Colorado (7-1) or Detroit (7-2), currently they have an incentive to play cautiously in overtime. But with an overtime win being worth 3 and a shootout win being worth 2, I think all teams would play to win in OT.

And it makes sense, according to the reason why we don't just count wins in the first place. Because the shootout is sort of arbitrary and winning the shootout isn't really the same as winning the game in regulation or overtime. So the fans still get a winner or loser. And if your team loses in the shootout, at least you still got a point out of it.

I really don't see a problem with this idea.