19 regulation wins. That’s all the Los Angeles Kings have to show for this season—and somehow, they’re still clinging to playoff contention.

It amounts to just 24% of their games, a staggering number that cuts through the noise of the standings. While the race suggests relevance, the reality tells a different story—one that raises serious questions about how sustainable this run truly is.

And if 19 sounds alarming, consider this: it’s the lowest regulation-win total for a postseason team in an 80-plus game season since the Toronto Maple Leafs managed it nearly 40 years ago.

Which makes the timing feel especially heavy. This was supposed to be a celebration—a fitting final chapter for Anze Kopitar, one of the most respected two-way players of his generation. Instead, it’s become something far more uneasy: a season defined not by dominance, but by survival.

And maybe that’s the bigger conversation lurking beneath it all.

Because if a team can reach the playoffs with so few regulation wins, what does that really say about how we measure success? The NHL’s point system continues to reward simply getting to overtime, blurring the line between winning and not losing.

The Kings aren’t breaking the system—they’re exposing it.

And as the postseason approaches, their season may end up fueling a familiar debate with fresh urgency: whether it’s time to rethink how those extra points are handed out in the first place. The solution? Strip it down—reward winning, not survival, and leave no room for mediocrity.

In my view, overtime losses shouldn’t be rewarded with a point at all. That concept simply doesn’t exist in the postseason, so why should the regular season operate under a different standard? If the goal is consistency, the system should reflect that across the board.

Removing the point for overtime or shootout losses would also change how teams approach late-game situations. Right now, there’s an incentive to play it safe and “lock in” a point by reaching overtime. Without that safety net, teams would have to approach overtime—and the shootout—with far more urgency. Every possession would matter a little more, and the mindset would shift from preservation to competition.

It could also make the extra period more engaging for fans. Instead of teams easing into overtime, knowing they’ve already secured something, there would be a stronger push to actually win the game in regulation or overtime.

On top of that, the format of overtime itself could use an adjustment. Extending 3-on-3 overtime from five minutes to 10 would give teams more time to create meaningful chances before resorting to a shootout. Shootouts have their place, but they feel more like a tiebreaker than a true conclusion. Giving overtime more runway would make the game feel more complete before it gets to that point.

And again—without sounding dismissive—the Los Angeles Kings don’t really belong in the playoff conversation based on how the season has played out.

That said, this isn’t about blaming the team or the organization for taking advantage of the system in front of them. If the structure of the standings allows for it, then they’ve done what any competitive franchise would do: stay in the race and maximize every opportunity. In that sense, they’re not the problem—they’re a reflection of how the rules are currently designed.

But that’s exactly why the league needs to take a hard look at how points are awarded. When a team can remain in playoff position despite limited regulation success, it raises a fair question about whether the system is truly rewarding the right things. The NHL shouldn’t be in the business of effectively handing out participation points that soften the impact of actually winning games in regulation.

At some point, the focus has to shift back toward rewarding teams that win outright, not just those that consistently reach overtime.