Why The NHL Standings Are Broken & How To Fix Them

The NHL is facing many problems, and there are no easy solutions to many of them, especially on the ice.  However, as the final playoff positions are settled today and tomorrow, one issue is really leaving me scratching my head.

The New York Rangers, with 44 wins (after Saturday) have their playoff fate in the hands of the Carolina Hurricanes, who enter play Saturday with 40 wins.  The fact is that should the teams be tied in points, the team with the most wins after removing the SHOOTOUT wins will advance.  Under this first tie-breaker criteria, Carolina would sit with 36 wins, while the Rangers have 35 (assuming Carolina wins in regulation or OT Saturday night).

I can’t understand why the NHL would spend the whole season giving equal weight to a win in regulation, OT or shootout by awarding two points for winning by each method, only to minimize one of those types of wins by removing it entirely from the formula, like the game never happened.

CURSE OF THE THREE POINT GAMES

One of my biggest complaints about the NHL is the 3 point game.  Scratch that, the three point game is fine.  My complaint is that EVERY game isn’t a 3 point game.  It just seems mickey-mouse to have one game on a certain night worth more than another one.  If you want to have a winner and a loser in every game, and want to reward one team for being close enough to go to extra time, so be it.  Going into Saturday, Carolina has participated in 5 more OT/SO games than the Rangers.  That is 5 nights where the games they played were worth a greater percentage in the standings than the game the Rangers played.

The NHL needs to realign their point distribution system to give 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT/SO win and 1 point for an OT/SO loss. Obviously losing in regulation gets nothing.  This concept is definitely not a new one, but I still think that there is not a level playing field when it comes to determining standings.

100 POINT SEASONS

The biggest argument I have heard against the 3 point for a win system is that it would spit in the face of tradition, and that reaching 100 points wouldn’t mean anything any more.  I counter that by asking, does 100 points really mean anything now?  Look at the evolution of the standings since the 1994 lockout:

• Between 1995-96 and 1998-99 (4 seasons), teams were granted 2 points for a win, and 1 for a OT tie.  In this period, there were a total of 14 teams reaching 100 points, for an average of 3.5 per season.
• Between 1999-2000 and 2003-04 (5 seasons), the additional point for an OT loss was introduced.  Games could still end in a tie, so it was 2 for a win, 1 for a tie and one for an OT loss. This period saw 34 teams surpass the 100 point plateau, for an average of 6.8 teams per season.
• Since 2005-06 (5 seasons not including the current one), when the shootout was introduced, the current system of 2 for a win, 1 for an OT loss was implemented, removing tie games from the equation.  There were 44 teams reach what was formerly a hallowed mark, or 8.8 per season.

It has gotten to the point where a team needs well over 90 points to even have a chance to make the playoffs.  One hundred points is already not what it used to be.  So traditionalists might not like it, but a fairer system of awarding points is needed.

THE SHOOTOUT – WHEN A WIN ISN’T NECESSARILY A WIN

Shootout wins count for the same number of points in the standings, all season, until the last day, when the NHL’s tie-breaking procedures will kick in (from NHL.com):

"The greater number of games won, excluding games won in the Shootout (NEW for 2010-11). This figure is reflected in the ROW column.The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any “odd” games, shall be used to determine the standing.The greater differential between goals for and against for the entire regular season."

So by the NHL’s “logic” a win counts for two points in the standings, but really only superficially.  A team can be eliminated with the same number of wins and losses as another team, but because they won an extra shootout game they would not make the playoffs.  Carolina could make the playoffs despite being tied with the Rangers in points but having gained 6 extra points from LOSING games, and losing 3 more games.

ELIMINATING A TEAM BASED ON A TIE-BREAKING FORMULA?

Am I the only one who believes that it is ridiculous to have two teams tied for the last playoff spot and eliminate one based on a formula?  After all, shouldn’t a point be worth a point, regardless of how it is obtained?  Or Dallas and Chicago could end up tied in points, and even in terms of Reg/OT wins.  It could come down to head to head matchup, where a game played in October could impact the playoff race.

Baseball, for its many issues, gets this one right.  If two teams are tied in the standings, there is a one game playoff.  How much exposure would the NHL get by having New York and Carolina, or Dallas and Chicago face off in a head to head match on Monday night with a playoff appearance on the line?

I certainly think that would be better than the system that is now in place, and might even go a long way to improving the image of the NHL in the USA.  Two teams come Sunday could be eliminated not by the play on the ice, but a  mathematical formula that makes absolutely no sense.