THE NHL STANDINGS SYSTEM IS BROKEN. WE CAN FIX IT
Last night’s game between Philadelphia and Carolina had a ton of excitement in it, but like many other games we’ve seen, it ended in the most boring way possible. And the boredom started with about 10 minutes left in the third. With both teams tied, and both in the same division, a great game turned into a boo-fest. You had fans booing both teams as they both simply tried to get to overtime.
And overtime wasn’t any better. Carrying all the thrills of a preseason box lacrosse game, teams kept taking the puck back from the attack and retreating into their own zone. It was more brutal than I’ve ever seen it — and I’ve seen it get pretty brutal before. So I called Dani Tzabari and asked if he could work on getting money back to the paying fans who sat there and watched both teams do nothing for 15 minutes, only for it to end in a shootout, with Carolina missing four of their shots but eventually winning.
Remember the amazing days of 3-on-3 overtime, when teams were going back-and-forth and everything was exciting? If you don’t, it probably means you’re in high school or younger. This has gotten to a point where the NHL, the owners, and the GMs need to step up and admit: we are putting a horrible product on the ice by doing overtime this way.
I know some people want to change it so you can’t bring the puck back over the center line once you’ve gained the zone — but that will only make this boring, too. Players still won’t give up the puck, and it will still be all about possession.
We need to remember why we are playing games: to win or lose them… not to lose, or lose “a little less badly.”
This problem can be fixed off the ice by simply changing what matters and bringing back the concept of trying to win — which is all the fans want, and all any player in any game from Uno to the NHL should want.
So what we’ve done is put together four alternate-reality point systems to compare with the one we currently have. And let me say this: there’s a major flaw baked in, because the only data we can work with is last regular season. If teams knew they could get more points for regulation wins, they absolutely would have played differently.
In 2010, I sat down in New York at a lunch spot with one of the top people at the NHL. I told him that three points for a regulation win would make the game so much more exciting. Back in 2010 my reasoning wasn’t about boring overtimes — it was about how impossible it was for teams to make the playoffs if they were down a few points late in the year, watching three-point games happen everywhere. You could be five points out with time to go and still have no prayer, because so many extra points were being handed out to teams for losing.
I knew the NHL had run simulations and models on this. So I asked: Why isn’t this happening?They basically said the current system keeps the standings the most competitive. What they meant was: if you give no points for losing, the really good teams will run away with it.
So I asked, Is it more important to prevent the good teams from running away with it, or to give teams further behind a real chance to catch up by chasing regulation wins?
“Not going to happen,” I was told
I’ve talked about this for years, and so have many others, but the reality is I never had a group of really good spreadsheet interns with really accurate statistics to figure out exactly what it means if we change how points are awarded for wins, losses, shootout wins, overtime wins, etc.
We did enough research to build a buck on that so I’m gonna do this in two parts maybe I should do it more but I think those are interested will be fine reading a lot more than normal those are interested I don’t want them to have five days of this today and tomorrow..
**The Five Systems Explained**
For clarity, we’ll use dual naming: **System # (Five-digit code)** where the code shows points awarded for: **Regulation Win – Overtime Win – Shootout Win – Overtime Loss – Shootout Loss**
**System #1 (22211) – Current NHL System**
*Philosophy:Rewards all wins equally, provides “loser points” for close games
**Points:** RW:2, OTW:2, SOW:2, OTL:1, SOL:1
**System #2 (32100) – Regulation Priority**
**Philosophy:** Heavily rewards teams that finish games in regulation
•**Points:** RW:3, OTW:2, SOW:1, OTL:0, SOL:0
**Goal:** Incentivizes aggressive play in regulation, reduces 3-on-3/shootout reliance
**System #3 (22200) – Win-Only / No Loser Points**
• **Philosophy:** Pure wins and losses—closest to traditional sports
• **Points:** RW:2, OTW:2, SOW:2, OTL:0, SOL:0
• **Goal:** Eliminates the controversial “loser point”
**System #4 (21100) – Reduced Value**
• **Philosophy:** Moderate regulation preference
• **Points:** RW:2, OTW:1, SOW:1, OTL:0, SOL:0
• **Goal:** Balances regulation priority with reasonable point totals
**System #5 (33201) – Shootout Loser Point**
• **Philosophy:** Values regulation/OT wins equally, soft on shootout losses
• **Points:** RW:3, OTW:3, SOW:2, OTL:0, SOL:1
• **Goal:** Rewards decisive wins while recognizing shootouts are essentially coin flips
——————make sense?……………………..
For me the main thing about these four new systems is you reward going for the win. When you think about it it’s ridiculous I have to even say that when this is a sport we’re talking about… But here we are..
So later today, around 5, I’m going to add the numbers that we ran on this and it’s amazing it’s going to blow your mind the teams who have been benefited and the teams have been destroyed needlessly by this NHL rewarding losses philosophy…
Then Tomorrow I will post how this has really affected this year’s races already…. And how much better it could be
FOR ME THE GOAL IS REWARDING TEAMS FRO WINNING AND MAKING EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY GAME MATTER.
DO YOU HAVE A WAY THAT YOU THINK POINTS SHOUD BE GIVEN OUT?
NOW THAT WE HAVE THE PROGRAMS WE COULD RUN SIMULATIONS FOR YOUR SYSTEM.