I was thinking about the .500 thread, if loser point is a good description for when a team loses in OT or a shootout, and what the standings would look like if the NHL gave 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime or shootout win, 1 point for an overtime or shootout loss, and 0 points for a regulation loss.
As documented in the .500 thread, I think .500 represents amount of points won out of points available. Opponents of this line of thinking debate that it's wins out of games played.
I dislike the term loser point because I don't think that's what it represents. Currently the NHL awards two points in each regulation game. If you're ahead after 60 minutes you get both of them. If you are tied you split the points, and if you are behind you get nothing. No matter what happens in OT or the SO, you already have earned your point. The NHL doesn't take away a point for losing in OT/SO. The OT/SO winning point is a bonus. Maybe this is just semantics/optics.
Part of what people don't like about the term .500, is that if you go by my version, there are 26 out of 30 teams that are at/over.500, because of the difference in number of points awarded in each game. If an equal number of points were awarded in each game, you'd think about 15 teams would be at/over .500. If the three point system was used, then 13 teams are at/over .500 based on points won out of total points available. The side that doesn't like my version of .500 states it's not meaningful, since 87% of teams are at/over .500. The three point system would bring it back closer to it "meaning" something. I'm not sure it's necessary, nor am I sure I'd care.
I redid the current NHL standings to go with the 3 point system. Obviously they wouldn't be exact, as teams wouldn't play the games the exact same way, but I think they'd be fairly close. What changes? Not much.
In the Western Conference seven of eight playoff teams are the same. Minnesota and Chicago flip the division lead, but that could happen once games even out anyways. Minnesota is one point behind Chicago, with four games in hand. In the wildcard standings, Calgary goes from 8th to 7th. Nashville also beats out LA for 8th spot due to the huge difference in regulation vs. OT wins.
In the Eastern Conference, again, seven of eight playoff teams are the same. The top six teams are the same. Once the games even out, Ottawa likely is back in front of Boston. The big change is Tampa moves from 10th in the conference, to the last wildcard spot, with Philadelphia dropping out of the playoffs.
So what does this mean? Not much, I guess. There has been debate here, and many other hockey sites that the NHL should go to a 3 point system. I still think they should, but I'm not sure that much changes. Maybe the biggest change would be how the end of games are played. Would teams go for it more in regulation to try and get 3 points, especially over a division rival? If traditionalists want only 2 points given for each game, I think OT has to go back to 5 on 5 (maybe 4 on 4), and the SO eliminated. I don't know how you can tell a team they played even with another team for 60 (65?) minutes, but lose in a SO, and they get nothing for that.
Here are the present and adjusted standings:
WESTERN CONFERENCE
EASTERN CONFERENCE
