The Numbers Game

I don’t have a lot of beefs with the rules of hockey these days. I could stand to see the instigator rule disappear, and I think the trapezoid behind each net is unnecessary, but these are minor quibbles that I can live with. There is, however, one big issue that really gets under my skin: overtime/shootout losses. The issue to me isn’t so much that a point is awarded for overtime/shootout losses, but that it causes some games to be worth three points, while others are worth two. I’ve taken enough finance and accounting classes to be sufficiently bugged by that imbalance.

And so, after fretting over this for the past several seasons, I decided to run the numbers and see what the impact of the single point OT/SO loss. Perhaps there are teams who are really getting shafted by the current standings, or perhaps it is just the nerds like me who are bothered by this. Let’s take a look, shall we?

In the chart below, you will find the NHL standings through the end of March 16, and comparison standings for two other alternatives:

1. The ‘3-Point Game’
   In this format, a regulation time winner would be awarded three points, while overtime/shootout winners would earn two points. Overtime/shootout losses would continue to be worth a single point, and regulation losses worth none.
2. Straight Win-Loss
   The points system could be eliminated entirely and, much like MLB and the NBA, base the standings solely on number of wins, regulation or not.

NHL Standings (through March 16/08)

Big picture: Only in one place do we see a difference in who makes the playoffs (Nashville bumping Vancouver in one instance). We see a bit of bouncing amongst the tighter divisions (Ottawa/Montreal, Minnesota/Colorado/Calgary), but not much that’s really significant. The seedings would get stirred up a fair bit in both conferences if we applied the 3-point game. In fact, only two teams would retain their seeding in the Eastern Conference. The one big move that we notice is pretty predictable: those pesky Oilers. Edmonton is the one team in the NHL who has won more games in overtime/shootout than in regulation this year, and the 3-point game would not be friendly to them, bumping them to 14th in the conference.

Theory debunked? Is my taste for stats just being fueled by my hatred of the Oilers? Before we settle on any conclusions, let’s apply the theory to another league: the WHL.

2007-2008 WHL Final Standings

Again, if we look at the big picture of who makes the playoffs, there is no difference between who falls on either side of the cut-off. In this instance, though, there’s a pretty big mix-up in the Eastern Conference seeding when using the 3-point games: Brandon up from sixth to second (by virtue of winning their division), Regina down from second to fifth, and Kootenay down from fifth to seventh. Only a single playoff match-up (Calgary vs. Moose Jaw) would remain in-tact. In the Western Conference, Spokane would be the only major benefactor, leapfrogging Tri-City and Vancouver to win the top seed.

So what sort of conclusions can be drawn from this comparison? Here’s what I’ve boiled it down to:

• Straight win-loss records don’t vary too much from the existing 2-point win format.
• The 3-point win format is more likely to have an impact on the standings.
• The line between playoff and non-playoff teams doesn’t shift much, if at all, regardless of the format applied, but the 3-point game can re-arrange the seedings noticeably.
• I still hate the Oilers.