Does changing the standings change anything?

Ever since the NHL introduced six more teams in 1967, there have been complaints about how the standings end up, and how the NHL seeds the playoffs.

Lately a hot topic has been to move to a three point system like international tournaments use. Three points for a regulation win, two for overtime, one for losing in the extra frame, and no points for losing in regulation.

Others want the standings set by points percentage. Some want to go back to seeding 1-8 in the conference, rather than use divisional playoffs.

I’ve been pushing the idea of seeding the OHL 1-16 like the QMJHL, and that’s probably the most fair system, giving the top team the weakest (in theory) opponent.

Today we’ll look at how five different standings systems turned out based on the 2016-17 schedule, and what playoff match ups that would give us.

For mobile users, when I post a table I’ll also share a link, since not all of these tables are mobile friendly.

For a reminder here’s the current standings:

Seeding teams 1-16

Easily the fairest system, this seeding rewards the best team with the weakest opponent. It has it’s flaws - in the NHL you could have cross continent travel for every round for one team. TV broadcasters wouldn’t allow it, because it’s not TV friendly, with half the series in eastern time and half in central or western. It also doesn’t address the shootout, or overtime. it’s using the current points system.

It’s a system best suited for regional leagues like the QMJHL, which uses it, or the OHL which should. Here it is though, the final standings seeded 1-16:

I put the conference leaders at 1 & 2 seeds, because that’s what leagues would/currently do. In this format we have 5/8 series crossing over between conferences, something I’m sure no one in the NHL would want.

All of the current playoff teams still make it, the only change to the playoffs are the opponents. We don’t get any rivalry match ups, most of these teams haven’t played each other very much so there’s no sense of familiarity. This version of the playoffs isn’t the most fun, though later rounds will be more likely to be best on best. The greatest thing we could see here is a 16 seed upsetting the top team in the league.

Our next format is a classic, and missed by some: Seeding each conference 1-8 would take us back to the most recent playoff set up. Division leaders are seeded 1-2 and the rest fall in line. You can view the seeding below or click here.

Aside from the Capitals vs the Maple Leafs, the Eastern Conference sees much different seeding occur, which reflects the better finishes for the Metro Division. This does give us a Boston vs Montreal first round though, and who doesn’t love those series?

The Western Conference is almost the same, with the middle two series swapping partners from Edmonton/San Jose and Minnesota/St. Louis becoming Edmonton/St. Louis and Minnesota/San Jose.

This next one is my preference. With most other sports leagues sorting by win percentage, and giving teams just wins or losses, it gives a simpler record (W-L) and can give you a better picture of just how close teams are.

This method had very little change from the current standings. The Toronto Maple Leafs were eliminated from the playoffs, and sat behind 9th place New York Islanders. The Tampa Bay Lightning’s surge at the end of the season made them the Capitals opponent. Columbus and Pittsburgh swapped home ice, and out west, the Pacific Division was redone and gave us the opening round series that we wanted: Calgary vs Edmonton and San Jose vs Anaheim

This set up is more regular season focused than playoffs. A single win can jump a team up or down a couple spots, and a team that is far back can benefit more from a winning streak (Tampa Bay) than they currently could. Alternatively, a team that loses a few of their final games (Toronto) can see their playoff hopes crumble just days before making it.

One downside to this format that’s been brought up to me is that it doesn’t make the shootout less significant other than a tie breaker. Still using regulation/over time wins re-seeded a few teams, but yes, this format doesn’t downplay the shootout at all.

The next format has been brought up more often this season than I’ve ever seen. Keeping the current point rules, we’ll sort teams by points percentage. Teams can get a maximum of 164 points in a season, and we’ll compare their final point totals to that number. Link is here.

Oh look nothing changed. Wow what a great way to sort the standings, so much better than by points. Okay, sarcasm aside this one’s more of a regular season one as well, but...eh. If we’re having points just sort by points.

Now the big one.

The current point system doesn’t differentiate between wins in regulation and wins in extra time. Changing to a three point system does: 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for extra time, 1 point for an overtime/shootout loss, and 0 for a regulation loss. Decreasing the points gained by the amount of game played in theory makes teams want to win in regulation more.

Adding that extra point increases the max points from 164 to 246, and the fewer OT/SO wins a team has the higher they should be in the standings. This is a very popular format to witch to, and here is how the final standings and playoffs would look in the current divisional format with a three point system:

Again, not much changes in the playoff opponents. Boston and Ottawa swap home ice in the East, but in the West, Minnesota takes the Central Division and gets Nashville, while St. Louis and Chicago face off in the first round.

The wild card spots stay the same and there’s some minor shuffling in the lottery standings. The benefits in this system are that regulation wins are celebrated more, and teams that can win in 60 have an advantage over those who need some extra time to get things done.

Big thanks to Sarah Hall at Five For Howling for letting me use her 3 point standings tracking document.

The biggest surprise to me when compiling these new standings is that only one - Win % - saw a non-playoff team become a playoff team.

When people talk about changing how the standings work, it’s focused on giving the better teams the chance to succeed. Some of these formats do that, others just mimic what we have now, in a different way.

If you had your preference, what would it be? Share ideas in the comments or simply vote below.