NHL Standings under a 3-point system

First, a recap.

Back in March 2012, I solved the problem with the NHL standings point system.

In August 2013, Grantland touches on it but even when talking about a 3-point system neglects the key difference that OT wins should be worth 3 points and OT losses should be worth nothing.

In January 2014, the same guy at Grantland writes an entire article about it, repeating the same stuff.

- - -

Now then. I thought it would be interesting to compare the current 2-1-0 system to my 3-2-1-0 system.

Here's the current standings for above .500 teams, as always sorted by points percentage.

Here are the standings with 3 points for a ROW, 2 points for a SOwin, 1 point for a SOloss, 0 points for a ROL.

Ducks: 113 points / 153 possible = .739
Penguins: 98 points / 144 possible = .681
Blues: 94 points / 141 possible = .667
Avs: 93 points / 144 possible = .646
Bruins: 92 points / 144 possible = .639
Blackhawks: 97 points / 153 possible = .634
Sharks: 90 points / 147 possible = .612
Kings: 85 points / 147 possible = .578
Lightning: 85 points / 150 possible = .567
Canadiens: 81 points / 147 possible = .551
Canucks: 78 points / 150 possible = .520
Wild: 79 points / 153 possible = .516
Coyotes: 69 points / 144 possible = .479

In terms of league standings, the Penguins move up from 4 to 2, the Blackhawks fall from 2 to 6.

- - -

This system increases the value of a regulation or overtime win. It decreases the value of a shootout win, shootout loss, and overtime loss.

To repeat, it will reward teams that are winning outright in regulation and overtime play.
It will punish teams that are scraping by with shootout wins, shootout losses or overtime losses.

I think these are good, fair things.

I didn't expect to actually make much of a difference in the standings order. I think the real benefit comes with the standardization that every game is worth the same amount of points. And that there is little incentive to play for overtime or play for a shootout, resulting in better hockey.