NHL standings without the loser point

[PregnantNun]

Just for fun. I subtracted everyone's loser points from their point total and reordered the standings. Honestly, I expected more movement, so the loser point isn't making as big of a difference as I thought it did. The exception was Las Vegas which fell 3 positions. At 34 "adjusted points", Vegas goes from a dominant 1st place team to a bubble playoff team holding on to the last wild card spot.

Atlantic Adj Points
Detroit 44
Tampa Bay 42
Montreal 40
Florida 40
Boston 40 (rise by 2 positions)
Buffalo 38 (fall by 1)
Ottawa 36 (fall by 1)
Toronto 34

Metropolitan Adj Points
Carolina 46
NYI 42
Washington 40 (rise by 1 position)
New Jersey 40 (rise by 1)
Philadelphia 38 (fall by 2)
NYR 38
Pittsburgh 30
Columbus 30

Central Adj Points
Colorado 56
Dallas 50
Minnesota 46
Utah 36
Nashville 32 (rise by 1 position)
St. Louis 30 (fall by 1)
Winnipeg 30
Chicago 28

Pacific Adj Points
Anaheim 42 (rise by 1 position)
Edmonton 38 (rise by 1)
San Jose 36 (rise by 1)
Las Vegas 34 (fall by 3)
Los Angeles 32 (fall by 1)
Calgary 32 (rise by 1)
Seattle 30 (fall by 1)
Vancouver 30

[stlblue06]

The Blues have 7 “loser points” so I’m not sure what you did here. You should take out the extra point for an OT or SO W to see what the standings look like since that isn’t real hockey.

[PregnantNun]

I see 8 loser points in the standings, but I could have certainly made a mistake somewhere. I was just using the OTL column. You're right, SOWs are lame. Removing that might help highlight smoke and mirrors teams even more than getting rid of the loser point would.

[netboy65]

How were points given out before they instituted overtime? Both teams got a point.

So it’s not a loser point, it’s a bonus point for winning the game.

[Hazelwood72]

How were points given out before they instituted overtime? Both teams got a point.

So it’s not a loser point, it’s a bonus point for winning the game.

You, sir, are exactly correct.

Personally, I have no problem with the bonus point for an OT win. I’d play an 10 minute 3 on 3 OT and eliminate the shootout. Shootouts are not real hockey. If it’s still tied after OT, it should remain a tie with each team getting 1 point.

The shootout is NOT real hockey. It rewards a team with a lights out goalie or a shootout specialist who can’t score much during real hockey.

BTW, for the 10 min OT, I would also prohibit circling back behind the center ice redline, just like basketball.

[lidstrom5]

How were points given out before they instituted overtime? Both teams got a point.

So it’s not a loser point, it’s a bonus point for winning the game.

You, sir, are exactly correct.

Personally, I have no problem with the bonus point for an OT win. I’d play an 10 minute 3 on 3 OT and eliminate the shootout. Shootouts are not real hockey. If it’s still tied after OT, it should remain a tie with each team getting 1 point.

The shootout is NOT real hockey. It rewards a team with a lights out goalie or a shootout specialist who can’t score much during real hockey.

BTW, for the 10 min OT, I would also prohibit circling back behind the center ice redline, just like basketball.

Been crying for this for years. No points if you lose. You lost! After 10 minutes OT if tied a point each. I can't see a team not scoring in 10 minutes of 3 on 3. Also 3 points for a regulation win. No hanging on just to get a point. This one point nonsense is the only reason the Penguins are in the playoff hunt.

[LGB73]

Be interesting what the standings would be if they went with a 3(RW)-2(OTW)-1(SOW) point system. Never felt a loser should get a point but the quality of the win should be reflected as well.

[Chris2fer]

How were points given out before they instituted overtime? Both teams got a point.

So it’s not a loser point, it’s a bonus point for winning the game.

You, sir, are exactly correct.

Personally, I have no problem with the bonus point for an OT win. I’d play an 10 minute 3 on 3 OT and eliminate the shootout. Shootouts are not real hockey. If it’s still tied after OT, it should remain a tie with each team getting 1 point.

The shootout is NOT real hockey. It rewards a team with a lights out goalie or a shootout specialist who can’t score much during real hockey.

BTW, for the 10 min OT, I would also prohibit circling back behind the center ice redline, just like basketball.

What would the punishment be for coming back over the redline?

Given the amount of open space, the offensive zones are likely too small, which sounds counter intuitive given there's less players, but there's less players to chase the puck down and keep it in on errant plays. Personally I'd start with treating the red line as the offside's line in OT. Could lead to some intriguing plays. The puck and players move much faster than in basketball, it would be difficult to regulate prohibiting the crossing of the line, but perhaps using the red line as the offsides could be middle ground. You could potentially even force them back beyond the far blue line if they cross the center line as additional incentive to stay on the offensive size of the red.

Make your desired outcome the path of least resistance by making it more enticing to stay on the right side of the red.