It shows up most clearly late in games, especially when things are tied in the third period. You’ll see two teams that have battled hard for 50 minutes suddenly shift gears. The pace slows, the risks disappear, defensemen stop pinching, and forwards don’t push as aggressively. It’s not because they’re out of gas…it’s because both teams are thinking the same thing: let’s just get the point. When the system affects the game itself, you really need to look at it harder. Let's get back to basics.
What is a "Game?"
Think about what happens when a game ends and someone asks you later, “Did we win?”
That question should always have a simple answer: yes or no. But NHL fans have trained ourselves to say something else entirely.....“We lost, but we got a point." We say this because we do get a point for losing if we can get it overtime...and we somehow don't realize how that loser point has diminished the competition.... and artificially kept teams looking better than they actually are...
You don’t play Monopoly and finish second and say you didn’t lose. You lost. That’s the point of games. Winning matters, and losing matters. Even in the Olympics, where silver and bronze medals exist, the mindset is still the same. Ask the men's and women's Canadian hockey teams after losing a gold medal game how they feel. They don’t sit there celebrating that they got something out of it. They lost. And that feeling sucks. And that feeling drives you to do better the next time.. That feeling is part of what makes winning meaningful in the first place.
A few years back, I sat down with Bill Daly for lunch in NYC and brought this exact idea up. I asked him why the NHL wouldn’t consider a system where regulation wins were worth more—three points for a regulation win, two for an overtime win, and nothing for a loss. We talked about how.teams were being artificially kept in the race by picking up these extra points in overtime losses. His answer was simple, and honestly understandable. He said that everyone was happy with how things were going because more teams were staying competitive right to the end of the season.
But is THIS what is happening or it all a mirage?
The NHL wants playoff races. They want as many markets engaged as possible for as long as possible, and this system appears to do that. But it also creates an illusion. Look at the standings and Flyers for example. The other night they suffered a devastating loss to a team. They were chasing the Columbus blue jackets. Everybody I've talked to who's the Flyers fan, and I see a lot of them because it's the team I live closest to. It's telling me that the Flyers are done after that loss and it's kinda hard to say that they aren't. But when you look at the standings they are five points out of a wildcard with three teams between them and the wildcard spot, all of whom they have games at hand on. The Flyers have 12 games left, so a possible 24 points. There are five points back and yet they feel like they're out of it.... so maybe 10 years ago teams fan bases felt like this was better to have everybody close like this, but overtime people have realized that Five Points might as well be 15 if there's three teams between you and a spot..
And I think we all believe teams who make the playoffs should be over 500 right?
Meaning they should've won more games than they've lost or else. They really don't deserve to be in the playoffs.? here's a big deception that's going on by the NHL... in every other sport, we are trained that a team's record is given and wins losses and ties. Look at an NHL team that’s, say, 20-13-13. Most fans glance at that and their brain processes it as wins, losses, and ties. You think that team is seven games over .500 and doing pretty well. But that’s not reality. That team has left the rink 26 times after losing and only 20 times after winning. They’re not seven games over .500. They’re six games under. That’s a completely different team, and it shows how the NHL is playing us for fools.
Do you prefer to watch hockey where teams are playing to win or playing not to lose?
The current system rewards teams for not losing in regulation. So late in games, especially this time of year, the calculation changes. If it’s tied with 10 minutes left, the focus isn’t necessarily on winning anymore—it’s on making sure you don’t walk away with nothing. That’s why you see the game tighten up. That’s why the third period can feel cautious instead of desperate. As we get closer to the playoffs, this behavior becomes even more noticeable. The value of that guaranteed point increases, and teams adjust how they play to secure it. The result is more games going beyond regulation and less urgency in moments where the game should be at its most intense. If 3 points were on the line, suddenly the playoff races are real again...
There’s a simple way to fix this. Three points for a regulation win, two for an overtime or shootout win, and zero for any loss. Now the incentives flip. Finishing the game in regulation matters more, and playing for overtime becomes a fallback instead of a strategy. Teams tied late would push for that extra point instead of protecting the one, and the standings would start to reflect something closer to reality.
We already track the stat that points us in that direction—regulation wins.
The best teams in the NHL tend to finish games without needing extra time. They impose their game, they close, and they move on. Right now, those teams are treated the same as teams that need overtime or a shootout to get the job done, and that’s where the system blurs the line between truly strong teams and teams that are just good at hanging around. 3 v 3 OT hockey is played an entirely different way and shouldn't be looked at it the same thing as a regulation win.
Before we start rewriting the standings or changing the points system, there’s one more piece of this that matters, and it’s something I’ve been digging into. If what we’re seeing is real—if teams really are playing for that point late in games—then it should show up in the numbers. It should show up in how many games are actually going beyond regulation, especially this time of year.
And the early look at it is exactly what you’d expect. More games going to overtime as the season tightens, as the standings compress, and as the value of that single point increases.
The next step is to break that down properly—not just overall, but in segments. March, April, year over year, to see if this trend is as real as it feels when you’re watching the games.
Because if it is, then this isn’t just a theory. It’s a pattern. And if it’s a pattern, it’s something the league should probably be paying attention to.
We’ll get into that tomorrow…