In a league that has historically reported similar results, the “loser points” system introduced in 2001 has become particularly perplexing this season. With over a third of the NHL schedule played amid a break, the Toronto Maple Leafs stand at 27-21-9 and are six points shy of a playoff spot. Conversely, the Vegas Golden Knights have recorded 27 wins, 16 losses, and 14 overtime losses. Both teams have won 27 out of 57 games, but the Golden Knights have accumulated five additional points due to their overtime and penalty losses, which grants them an advantage despite their higher number of losses. Additionally, their play in a weaker division further skews their standing, putting them in a different position altogether—from the Leafs, despite identical win totals.
I’m not suggesting that the Leafs and Golden Knights are on entirely equal footing. The Leafs’ current rank reflects their performance, but the Golden Knights’ 27 wins rank them tied for 20th across the NHL. They hold the third spot in their division wins-wise but still maintain the top seed in their playoff bracket. At this pace, some teams might believe they’re on track to make the playoffs based on their win count, but due to divisional strength or earning fewer overtime “loser points,” they may fall short.
In essence, overtime has become a critical skill in the NHL, and it’s hard to deny its increasing significance. The league is on track to set a record for the most overtime “loser points” awarded in a single season. Many observers remark that the third period often becomes dull, especially in tied games nearing the end, as teams play more conservatively to secure at least a point.
Despite ranking 12th in total points, the Golden Knights’ position illustrates complexities within the league’s point system. This division-based playoff structure and the differential points awarded for regulation and overtime losses are unique to the NHL among the four major sports leagues—NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL. The NFL, for instance, ends games in a draw if no winner emerges after overtime and does not award “loser points.” Such a system makes it increasingly difficult for teams just a few points behind to catch up if they lose in overtime, especially when the league’s points system essentially values a road to the playoffs as a “three-point game.” Interestingly, the NHL adopted a three-point system—triple for regulation wins, two for overtime wins, and one for overtime losses—during the Four Nations series, which many players have expressed a preference for, favoring more incentive to push for regulation wins rather than settling for overtime.
Fans and analysts alike note that the league’s continuation of this structure might discourage teams from pushing in the third period, knowing they already have a point secured. While immediate reform seems unlikely, there’s a compelling argument for the league to revert to a standard 1-8 conference seeding system, a move favored by players and fans alike. This shift would prevent top-tier teams from meeting early in the playoffs, making the postseason more balanced and thrilling. The hesitance to change possibly stems from the league’s ongoing adaptation to the current system, but if enough top teams—those with the highest win counts—miss the playoffs due to the current setup, it could trigger the reforms needed to improve the sport’s competitiveness and fairness.
Fan Take: This convoluted point system and playoff seeding approach diminish the excitement and fairness of playoff qualification, which matters deeply to hockey fans craving genuine competition. A move toward a more straightforward, merit-based playoff structure could reinvigorate the sport and make postseason battles more meaningful.
