by | Feb 16, 2026 | 8 comments
With the NHL on Olympic break, I have been looking at how tight the league’s standings have been this season. Although they have spread out a bit over the past month-plus, and there is now a buffer after the final wild card team in each conference, things are still compressed. In the Western Conference, that buffer is three points. In the Eastern Conference, it is four points. On Jan. 1, there was a one-point buffer in the East and no buffer in the West, where three teams were tied for the final spot.
With Olympic hockey underway in Milano, Italy, the tournament has again put a spotlight on the three-point standings model. This is the standard model used in international play, as well as in the PWHL.
Here is how the three-point model works:
The NHL currently uses a two-point model:
Although there is now a small buffer between the final wild card spot and the next team, the standings remain tightly bunched.
There is a lot to digest in this chart, but it shows that 14 teams are within four points, plus or minus, of the final wild card spot in each conference during the 2025-26 season. Those 14 teams can reasonably be considered in the playoff mix.
Looking back at the previous four completed seasons, I increased the spread of points until at least 14 teams were in the mix. Over that span, the race for the final playoff spots has become tighter each year, with the current season showing the most congestion.
One major driver of the tight standings is the number of games going beyond regulation. Of the 908 games played so far this season, 233 have ended in overtime or a shootout. That is 25.7 percent of games, the highest rate in NHL history.
Overtime formats have changed several times since being introduced in the 1983-84 season, when 5-on-5 overtime was added. In 1999-00, overtime shifted to 4-on-4, and the “loser” point was introduced. At that time, games could still end in a tie. That changed in 2005-06 with the introduction of the shootout, while 4-on-4 overtime remained.
The current format arrived in 2015-16, when the league moved to 3-on-3 overtime followed by a shootout if needed.
I explored this question in January 2025. At the time, the three-point model showed only minor improvements over the NHL’s two-point system.
With overtime and shootout games continuing to rise, and standings congestion remaining high, it is worth revisiting whether the three-point model would now provide more clarity.
Teams with a red or green line in the chart would either move up or down in the standings with the introduction of the three-point system. There is some movement under the three-point model, but every team currently in a playoff position remains there. Buffalo benefits the most, while Montreal is penalized the most. That outcome aligns with how the three-point model rewards regulation wins.
At the time of writing, Montreal has 21 regulation wins, while Buffalo has 26. Montreal has also played the most overtime games in the Eastern Conference at 19. That boosts Montreal’s position under the two-point model but works against the Habs under the three-point system.
Another way to evaluate the model is by looking at overall standings congestion. Moving from a two-point to a three-point system increases the total points available, so a 1.5x multiplier is used here to normalize the comparison.
Somewhat surprisingly, the three-point model shows very similar congestion in the current season. Completed seasons do show slightly larger spreads, but the difference is modest.
Since the original analysis, the 2024-25 season has concluded. Below is the movement chart from that season under a three-point model.
There would have been no changes to the playoff teams, but there were shifts that could have affected draft positioning. Seattle would have finished 24th instead of 26th. If the draft lottery had played out the same way, the Kraken would have selected 10th instead of eighth.
That swing could have meant missing out on Jake O’Brien, who leads the Ontario Hockey League in points per game at 1.68.
The three-point model has minimal impact on which teams make the playoffs, but it does place greater value on regulation wins. That can influence which teams earn home-ice advantage and how teams at the bottom of the standings are ordered for the draft.
Those effects are relatively small and do not resolve the current standings congestion. Over time, however, team behavior could shift simply because regulation wins would be worth three points instead of two.
One clear benefit of the three-point model is consistency. Every game awards three points, regardless of how it ends. Under the two-point system, regulation games award only two total points, while overtime and shootout games award three. That imbalance slightly inflates points percentages.
For example, under the two-point model, the Seattle Kraken hold a .562 points percentage with a 27-20-9 record.
Under the three-point model, overtime and shootout wins are tracked separately, creating a four-part record of W-OTW-OTL-L. The Kraken sit at 21-6-9-20, good for 84 points. With 56 games played and a maximum of 168 points available, Seattle would hold a .500 points percentage.
If you have questions or want to dig deeper into any of the data, drop them in the comments below.
Blaiz Grubic is a contributor at Sound Of Hockey. A passionate hockey fan and player for over 30 years, Blaiz grew up in the Pacific Northwest and is an alumni of Washington State University (Go Cougs!). When he’s not playing, watching, or writing about hockey, he enjoys quality time with his wife and daughter or getting out on a golf course for a quick round. Follow @blaizg on BlueSky or X.
Why are some people concerned about the divisions being “too tight”? In a recent Rob Simpson article, he complained “the NHL’s coveted parity might better be described as mediocrity” because only three teams are decidedly ahead in the west. What’s more exciting? A situation where every game your team plays matters, or playing a bunch of helpless games because you will never catch up? I’d rather have every game matter. Is there some bias toward having distinct winners and losers as the season progresses? Is it like having stars on teams, because that just gives the media something to talk about?
Excellent stuff Blaiz. I feel like this – along with replay, playoff seeding and three-on-three overtime – get complained about way too much.
Go Kraken!!!
One thing I don’t like about the current scheme, which I’m not sure would be affected by a switch to 3 point model, is that when the game should be most exciting, tied with few minutes left, teams go conservative and boring to preserve the loser point. Conservatism plagues overtime too in my opinion. I’d like to see more analysis not just on how changing the model affects standings but in-game incentives.
For example, what about a system where standings were net regulation wins minus regulation losses, tiebroken by OT/SO net wins – losses. This would really emphasize teams to go for it in the third.
You know what I like best about that idea? The importance of overtime wins vs. overtime losses would be so diminished that it would not matter if the shootout were scrapped entirely and ties were reintroduced. The downside is that teams would play overtime to not get hurt, which means a miserably conservative 3-on-3.
Since regulation wins are the first tiebreaker, that goes part way to the effect of the extra point in the three-point system. I do think it would keep teams from playing conservatively at the end of regulation, which is boring.
I’m no psychologist, but I feel like the behavioral economics folks have pretty clearly established folks fear loss more than they value gain. I don’t think the change would actually affect the way teams play at the end of regulation.
I drafted responses to a few comments here that prompted me to think a bit deeper about this topic. It really boils down to what the objective is you’re trying to optimise for.
If the aim is to make teams play for Ws in regulation as opposed to get to overtime then you’re actually best placed to adopt a soccer model; W=3, T=1, L=0.
The score effects are clear, there are more goals scored in the last 5min of a soccer game than any other 5min section of the game, and it’s not even close.
That’s because a tie is detrimental to both teams, you both lose ground in the standings because the stand pat outcome is 1.5points and that is not achievable, importantly it’s not even possible to minimise by splitting the points 2&1, not awarding a winner point is critical.
If you draw, you are removing points from the league and the only teams that hurts are the two playing the game. And the disparity between 3point Wins & 1point Ties also creates real gaps in the standings, which can only be closed later in the season by taking even more risks to win games and not tie them, so the games see even more risks taken to win towards the end of the season.
Currently hockey is the reverse. If you go to overtime you’re adding a point to the league, to the detriment of every other team in the standings and benefitting only the two teams in the game. So, in the case of a tied game deep in the 3rd it’s actually in both teams interest to reach overtime. But this does make the standings tighter.
So what’s the objective?
League parity where every team has a chance to get to playoffs and take their shot in a knockout format?
Then stick with the current system, or move to a 3-2-1 model – the difference is almost negligible.
OR
More exciting end of regulation games resulting in real standings gaps?
Then adopt a soccer system.
Personally, I think league parity is a good thing, not bad. For me, a major attraction of the sport is the annual turnover in the playoff participants and how difficult it is to be successful for a sustained period of years.
My beliefs aside (which unfortunately count for nowt), the large scale economics are that the league wants as many teams in the mix down the stretch to maximise fan interest in the most markets and drive ticket sales throughout a long season.
That means league parity wins and individual game excitement in regulation loses. That’s why the powers that be are happy with the status quo and why the awarding of league points are unlikely to change anytime soon.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk, sorry for the length of post! 😬😂
If you look at the four major pro sports they all have different issues and honestly I find the NHL to be the least problematic. The Three point system may improve some of the issues but could also make it less competitive for the middle of the pack – which I think is the real draw of the loser point for owners and the league. Keeps fans engaged and willing to buy tickets. I accept that but would like to see OT rules changed to make it more exciting and less likely to go to shootouts.
NBA is super star driven so encourages teams to blatantly tank (just look at the fines recently) This is terrible for fans. The soft salary cap also hurts as it does allow big spending teams fortunes to swing even more quickly.
MLB lack of salary cap means half the teams will never win another championship in their fans lifetime and half a dozen teams can buy chances at dynasties.
NFL is QB dependent. Teams do tank with the hope of drafting a generational QB because without a top 10 QB you have almost no hope of winning. Though the 1 or done playoffs do create more chances for the weaker team to succeed in playoffs than any other sport.
NHL probably has too much parity with a lot of teams stuck in the mushy middle. Lots of bubble teams give fans something to cheer for down the stretch but they realistically have no real chance to win the cup unless they have a goalie who becomes a hero and delivers a miracle. The salary cap prevents teams from buying stars to build dynasties and the draft lottery / less dependence on a single player means teams are less likely to blatantly tank.
Tanking in the NHL means trading away expiring contracts for prospects and draft picks. In the NBA it means sitting all your starters for entire games.
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Continue reading
Hockey News