Standings Showdown: Effects Of The “Loser Point”

With all 31 general managers getting together in Florida the week for their annual meetings, a handful of topics have come to the forefront of the NHL conversation. Offsides, review and bye-week discussions are all taking place as the GMs break into different groups to discuss the game, but one topic continually has fans talking; what about the shootout, and that nasty little “loser point”?

The NHL has long maintained its need for parity league-wide, keeping smaller markets relevant into the late stages of the season and not allowing the powerhouses to push them out financially. It’s why the salary cap was introduced in the first place, as teams like New York and Toronto would buy up all the good players every year and force the Carolinas and Floridas of the world to feast on the scraps. The idea that almost every team was still in the playoff hunt at the deadline—sorry Colorado—was one the NHL relished even if it did make for a less exciting trading atmosphere. One of the other things many people point to is that “loser point”, which is the one earned if the score is tied at the end of regulation regardless of what happens afterwards.

But is that really forcing parity in the league, or is it something else? Mark Stepneski of NHL.com tweets that it has a lot to do with that salary cap, and he’s probably right. That has a much bigger impact on competitive balance league wide, even if not all teams are spending equally.

Looking at an example, the standings in the Western Conference right now are as follows:

1. Minnesota – 90 pts
2. Chicago – 89 pts
3. San Jose – 83 pts
4. Edmonton – 78 pts
5. Anaheim – 76 pts
6. Calgary – 76 pts
7. Nashville – 73 pts
8. St. Louis – 69 pts
9. Los Angeles – 68 pts
10. Winnipeg – 66 pts
11. Vancouver – 63 pts
12. Dallas – 62 pts
13. Arizona – 53 pts
14. Colorado – 37 pts

In the conference Anaheim and Dallas lead the way with 10 overtime or shootout losses, and Colorado (of all teams) has the fewest with 3. Obviously, if the point was eliminated people would play differently in the late stages of a game, and the idea of “just making it to overtime” would likely be eliminated all together. But in a theoretical sense, this would be the standings if the overtime point was taken away.

1. Minnesota – 84 pts
2. Chicago – 84 pts
3. San Jose – 76 pts
4. Calgary – 72 pts (+2 spots)
5. Edmonton – 70 pts (-1 spot)
6. Anaheim – 66 pts (-1 spot)
7. Nashville – 64 pts
8. St. Louis – 64 pts
9. Los Angeles – 62 pts
10. Winnipeg – 60 pts
11. Vancouver – 56 pts
12. Dallas – 52 pts
13. Arizona – 46 pts
14. Colorado – 34 pts

While it would move Calgary up the rankings, the idea that it creates parity on its own is tenuous at best. The conference would still have a very intense playoff race, with only 10 points separating fourth and ninth place—the same difference found now. Perhaps Dallas is the one team that may have felt in the race longer than it should have but that team sold at the deadline anyway, knowing they couldn’t keep up.

The point is that while getting rid of the “loser point” may still be the right decision, it isn’t affecting the standings as much as some might think. The Eastern Conference has a similar structure, though the top teams would pull away a bit more drastically than those fighting for the last playoff spot. Right now more than anything, it looks like it is just adding a random factor into the standings for teams like the Flames or Rangers, who have managed to avoid extra time all together one way or another.

Bottom line, the NHL loves the races they’ve created through the salary cap or point structure. The fact that on March 6th, only two teams in the entire league are more than 10 points out of a playoff spot is music to their ears. Even though the Islanders would still be (tied for) the last playoff team in the East should the loser point be eliminated, 30-34 doesn’t sound like the record of a team heading to the postseason, and it sure doesn’t look as nice on an advertisement.