What if the NHL had a 3-2-1-0 points system?
By Ari Yanover
7 years agoThe NHL points system is a little… odd, to say the least.
I mean, you get points for losing. That’s really all you have to say to question it. That doesn’t make sense.
But it does create the interesting spectacle of three-point games, which contributes to intense playoff races. That’s a large part of the justification for the system, and it’s been going strong for several years now.
There’s another points system that the NHL could adopt instead, though: three points for a win, two points for an overtime win, one point for a shootout win, and no points for a loss. The idea behind it: you don’t reward teams for losing, and you don’t encourage them to just wait out the clock and play for overtime instead of playing to win, either.
Would it make that much of a difference in the standings, though?
For this exercise, I’ve decided to look only at the Western Conference since the wild card format was introduced. It’s not a big sample size, but it is a snapshot of what would have changed in recent years – particularly as the Flames were either tanking, or fighting for a playoff spot of their own.
Any changes in the standings are italicized.
2013-14
2-0-1 points system | 3-2-1-0 points system | ||||||||||
Team | W | L | OT | PTS | Team | W | OTW | SOW | L | PTS | |
Central Top 3 | Colorado | 52 | 22 | 8 | 112 | Colorado | 37 | 10 | 5 | 30 | 136 |
St. Louis | 52 | 23 | 7 | 111 | St. Louis | 40 | 3 | 9 | 30 | 135 | |
Chicago | 46 | 21 | 15 | 107 | Chicago | 39 | 1 | 6 | 36 | 125 | |
Pacific Top 3 | Anaheim | 54 | 20 | 8 | 116 | Anaheim | 44 | 7 | 3 | 28 | 149 |
San Jose | 51 | 22 | 9 | 111 | San Jose | 37 | 4 | 10 | 31 | 129 | |
Los Angeles | 46 | 28 | 8 | 100 | Los Angeles | 34 | 4 | 8 | 36 | 118 | |
Wildcard | Minnesota | 43 | 27 | 12 | 98 | Dallas | 34 | 2 | 4 | 42 | 110 |
Dallas | 40 | 31 | 11 | 91 | Minnesota | 32 | 3 | 8 | 39 | 110 | |
Out of Playoffs | Phoenix | 37 | 30 | 15 | 89 | Nashville | 33 | 3 | 2 | 44 | 107 |
Nashville | 38 | 32 | 12 | 88 | Phoenix | 28 | 3 | 6 | 45 | 96 | |
Winnipeg | 37 | 35 | 10 | 84 | Vancouver | 25 | 6 | 5 | 46 | 92 | |
Vancouver | 36 | 35 | 11 | 83 | Winnipeg | 24 | 5 | 8 | 45 | 90 | |
Calgary | 35 | 40 | 7 | 77 | Calgary | 21 | 6 | 7 | 47 | 82 | |
Edmonton | 29 | 44 | 9 | 67 | Edmonton | 20 | 5 | 4 | 53 | 74 |
In 2013-14, there aren’t any real changes in the playoffs. Dallas and Minnesota swap spots – eliminating the tiebreaker of ROW, and going with just regular wins as the first time breaker – meaning Minnesota would face off against the Ducks instead of the Avalanche (and probably lose), while Dallas would get the Avalanche (and have a better shot at advancing).
That’s about it, though. Nashville would have been a win closer to making the playoffs, but still wouldn’t have made it; Phoenix would have had significantly less hope. Vancouver and Winnipeg’s draft positions would be affected, but they may have ended up selecting Jake Virtanen and Nikolaj Ehlers respectively, anyway.
All in all, though? Not much changes.
2014-15
2-0-1 points system | 3-2-1-0 points system | ||||||||||
Team | W | L | OT | PTS | Team | W | OTW | SOW | L | PTS | |
Central Top 3 | St. Louis | 51 | 24 | 7 | 109 | St. Louis | 37 | 5 | 9 | 31 | 130 |
Nashville | 47 | 25 | 10 | 104 | Minnesota | 38 | 4 | 4 | 36 | 126 | |
Chicago | 48 | 28 | 6 | 102 | Nashville | 34 | 8 | 6 | 35 | 124 | |
Pacific Top 3 | Anaheim | 51 | 24 | 7 | 109 | Anaheim | 35 | 8 | 8 | 31 | 129 |
Vancouver | 48 | 29 | 5 | 101 | Vancouver | 36 | 6 | 6 | 34 | 126 | |
Calgary | 45 | 30 | 7 | 97 | Calgary | 32 | 9 | 4 | 37 | 118 | |
Wildcard | Minnesota | 46 | 28 | 8 | 100 | Chicago | 36 | 3 | 9 | 34 | 123 |
Winnipeg | 43 | 26 | 13 | 99 | Los Angeles | 37 | 1 | 2 | 42 | 115 | |
Out of Playoffs | Los Angeles | 40 | 27 | 15 | 95 | Winnipeg | 34 | 4 | 7 | 39 | 111 |
Dallas | 41 | 31 | 10 | 92 | Dallas | 33 | 4 | 4 | 41 | 111 | |
Colorado | 39 | 31 | 12 | 90 | San Jose | 34 | 2 | 4 | 42 | 110 | |
San Jose | 40 | 33 | 9 | 89 | Colorado | 27 | 2 | 10 | 43 | 95 | |
Edmonton | 24 | 44 | 14 | 62 | Edmonton | 17 | 2 | 5 | 58 | 60 | |
Arizona | 24 | 50 | 8 | 56 | Arizona | 14 | 5 | 5 | 58 | 57 |
There are more changes this time around. The Flames still make the playoffs – but in this scenario so do the Kings, who Calgary eliminated in the penultimate game of the regular season using the 2-0-1 system. Winnipeg fails to advance.
Chicago also no longer finishes top three in their division, Minnesota shooting way up to claim that spot.
The Flames still play the Canucks, though – but in the second round, they would face either Anaheim or Chicago. It’s difficult to imagine them making it past either of those teams, so not much else changes.
The point separation is a little greater, but then, wins are worth more, so it’s not as difficult to close the gap. All in all, though? Still not that much changes.
2015-16
2-0-1 points system | 3-2-1-0 points system | ||||||||||
Team | W | L | OT | PTS | Team | W | OTW | SOW | L | PTS | |
Central Top 3 | Dallas | 50 | 23 | 9 | 109 | Dallas | 42 | 6 | 2 | 32 | 140 |
St. Louis | 49 | 24 | 9 | 107 | Chicago | 36 | 10 | 1 | 35 | 129 | |
Chicago | 47 | 26 | 9 | 103 | St. Louis | 36 | 8 | 5 | 33 | 129 | |
Pacific Top 3 | Anaheim | 46 | 25 | 11 | 103 | Anaheim | 39 | 4 | 3 | 36 | 128 |
Los Angeles | 48 | 28 | 6 | 102 | Los Angeles | 34 | 12 | 2 | 34 | 128 | |
San Jose | 46 | 30 | 6 | 98 | San Jose | 37 | 5 | 4 | 36 | 125 | |
Wildcard | Nashville | 41 | 27 | 14 | 96 | Nashville | 35 | 2 | 4 | 41 | 113 |
Minnesota | 38 | 33 | 11 | 87 | Minnesota | 34 | 1 | 3 | 44 | 107 | |
Out of Playoffs | Colorado | 39 | 39 | 4 | 82 | Colorado | 33 | 2 | 4 | 43 | 107 |
Arizona | 35 | 39 | 8 | 78 | Arizona | 29 | 5 | 1 | 47 | 98 | |
Winnipeg | 35 | 39 | 8 | 78 | Winnipeg | 29 | 3 | 3 | 47 | 96 | |
Calgary | 35 | 40 | 7 | 77 | Calgary | 24 | 9 | 2 | 47 | 92 | |
Vancouver | 31 | 38 | 13 | 75 | Vancouver | 22 | 4 | 5 | 51 | 79 | |
Edmonton | 31 | 43 | 8 | 70 | Edmonton | 20 | 7 | 4 | 51 | 78 |
The Flames still end up with a pretty high draft pick (although they’re noticeably much better than the Canucks or Oilers). As for meaningful standings changes, Chicago and St. Louis switch home ice in the playoffs. That’s it.
2016-17
So it looks like the current system is actually doing a pretty good job. Yes, it could be better – that whole “reward for losing” thing remains odd – but even if you change the system to be geared more towards winning, the standings really aren’t all that affected. Maybe the on-ice games would be, but will alone can only take a team so far.
Above are all completed seasons, though. What does it look like about halfway through the season? Does the race itself look much different? The Flames are in the midst of a playoff race; this is highly relevant to my interests.
Standings up to date following the night of Jan. 6.
2-0-1 points system | 3-2-1-0 points system | ||||||||||
Team | W | L | OT | PTS | Team | W | OTW | SOW | L | PTS | |
Central Top 3 | Chicago – 42 GP | 25 | 12 | 5 | 55 | Minnesota | 20 | 3 | 1 | 13 | 67 |
Minnesota – 37 GP | 24 | 9 | 4 | 52 | Chicago | 18 | 5 | 2 | 17 | 66 | |
St. Louis – 39 GP | 20 | 14 | 5 | 45 | St. Louis | 15 | 4 | 1 | 19 | 54 | |
Pacific Top 3 | Anaheim – 41 GP | 20 | 12 | 8 | 50 | San Jose | 17 | 4 | 2 | 16 | 61 |
San Jose – 39 GP | 23 | 14 | 2 | 48 | Anaheim | 18 | 1 | 2 | 20 | 58 | |
Edmonton – 40 GP | 20 | 13 | 7 | 47 | Calgary | 16 | 3 | 2 | 20 | 56 | |
Wildcard | Calgary – 41 GP | 21 | 18 | 2 | 44 | Edmonton | 16 | 2 | 2 | 20 | 54 |
Vancouver – 41 GP | 20 | 18 | 3 | 43 | Winnipeg | 14 | 3 | 2 | 22 | 50 | |
Out of Playoffs | Los Angeles – 39 GP | 19 | 16 | 4 | 42 | Nashville | 16 | 0 | 1 | 22 | 49 |
Nashville – 39 GP | 17 | 15 | 7 | 41 | Los Angeles | 11 | 7 | 1 | 20 | 48 | |
Winnipeg – 41 GP | 19 | 19 | 3 | 41 | Vancouver | 11 | 5 | 4 | 21 | 47 | |
Dallas – 39 GP | 16 | 15 | 8 | 40 | Dallas | 14 | 2 | 0 | 23 | 46 | |
Arizona – 39 GP | 11 | 22 | 6 | 28 | Colorado | 8 | 5 | 0 | 26 | 34 | |
Colorado – 39 GP | 13 | 25 | 1 | 27 | Arizona | 6 | 2 | 3 | 28 | 25 |
Here we go: in the middle of the race, there are way more changes:
- Minnesota has taken the Central lead from Chicago.
- San Jose has the lead over Anaheim.
- Calgary is ahead of Edmonton, out of a wildcard spot and in the top three of the Pacific.
- Winnipeg has kicked Los Angeles out of its playoff spot, and Nashville is a little closer than they actually are.
- Vancouver remains further out (although one win would be enough to vault them back into things).
- Colorado is apparently noticeably better than Arizona.
The playoff race still looks pretty exciting to me, though. The races are still tight, and a number of teams are still just a win or two away from getting back into the dance.
All in all? Things really aren’t all that different. Though there’s the chance for a lot of changes in the middle of the race, still – but based on what’s happened in previous systems, and how similar things look already, I’d be willing to be any differences a change in systems by season’s end wouldn’t amount to much changing.
Recent articles from Ari Yanover