By Sylvain Vegiard, Features writer
At the 4 Nations Face-Off in February, the NHL opted to use the 3-2-1-0 points system in the round-robin phase of the tournament: three points were given for a regulation win, two for an overtime or shootout (OS) win, one for an OS loss and zero for a regulation loss.
The IIHF has long used this system, as has the PWHL since its inception. The KHL used it, too, until 2017-18, when it switched to the 2-2-1-0 system that the NHL had previously introduced in 1999-00. Most North American minor-pro and junior leagues also currently use the 2-2-1-0 system.
The main advantage of the 3-2-1-0 is that it always distributes three points in every game, no matter the outcome. In contrast, the 2-2-1-0 distributes two points in each game, except for those that go past regulation: the OS winner still receives two points, while one point is given to the loser. Fans have long debated this now 26-year-old system, as it rewards losing teams with an extra point in OS.
Is the points system a real problem? To this question, I answer both no and yes.
No, because all teams know the current 2-2-1-0 system before the season starts, so they can manage their strategies to maximize the points they earn in the standings. The same rules apply for all, as every point is earned fairly, so no problem there.
The big benefit of the HPM is that it incentivizes teams to go for the win in regulation instead of playing not to lose.-
Yes, because if fans want the standings to reflect the relative performance between teams, as they should, the current system struggles to meet that objective. With the league adding 11 teams since 1991-92 – and more on the way – the standings are more crowded and closer than ever.
At the end of 2024-25, nearly half the teams (15 out of the 32) were tied with another squad in the standings, as was the case the previous season (and 14 the year before that). Over the past two decades, this number averaged close to 13. We know that parity is paramount to the NHL, but the number of ties proves the current system is flawed. The final standings are crucial not only for playoffs but for draft rankings (including lottery probabilities), so the method used to calculate points is critical. In case of a tie, the first tiebreaker is the number of regulation wins, so why not introduce this aspect directly into the points system itself?
In 1983-84, the NHL instituted five-minute 5-on-5 overtime as a way to reduce the number of tie games, with two points to the winner, zero points for the loser and one point for each team in the event of a tie. The same number of points were at stake in overtime, so the difference in points between a win and a loss was kept at two. During the first 11 seasons of this new era, 18 percent of games went into overtime, and ties were broken in 35 percent of them. However, in the four seasons following the 1994-95 lockout, even though 20 percent of games were going into overtime, only 29 percent of ties were broken, as teams began adjusting their strategies in overtime to maximize their expectations in points, playing more conservatively than the NHL had hoped when it first instituted the extra frame. Securing the guaranteed point for a tie had become more important than going for the extra point in a win.
To increase the number of wins and reduce the number of ties even more, the NHL changed the five-minute overtime to 4-on-4 for 1999-2000 and amended its points system to the 2-2-1-0 currently in use today. In overtime, the winning team earned two points, just as before, but the big change was that the losing team earned one point. The attraction of the guaranteed point for a tie was gone because it was now credited to each team before overtime. So, with the two-point budget totally spent, the NHL brought in a third point for overtime. Not only did the total number of points allocated in overtime change to three instead of the traditional two that the NHL had used for more than 80 years, it also meant that the points at stake in overtime dropped from two to one. This did indeed reduce the number of ties, as the share of games going into overtime went up to 24 percent, and nearly half (46 percent) featured a winner.
Then, six years later, for 2005-06, the NHL made another change when it introduced the shootout in the event of a tie after overtime in order to ensure every game had a winner. The OT format remained the same until 2015-16, when it became 3-on-3.
The obvious generosity of the 2-2-1-0 system, however, developed one major drawback. Late in the third period with the score tied, teams adjusted their strategies to lean on conservative hockey, just as they’d done in overtime when it was first introduced. This allowed them to protect the point they were guaranteed to get if the game went to overtime while still preserving the possibility of earning two points for a win.
So, with all this in mind, how do we get back to a pure two-point system while still keeping one point at stake in OS? By carving a new system out of the current one by removing half a point from both the winner and the loser in the OS part of the 2-2-1-0 system. This would mean the winning team would earn 1.5 points and the losing team 0.5 points. Just like in the pure three-point system, the losing team in OS is still rewarded but only with 0.5 points.
This system, 2-1.5-0.5-0, which I named the “half-point model” (HPM), has the same level of competition as the 2-2-1-0 while maintaining a pure two-point system without a statistically awkward third point blurring the standings. The HPM also comes with an interesting feature in that it allows half-points to appear in the standings, reducing the number of teams involved in a tie. Under the HPM model, only four teams, instead of 15, would have ended up tied in the 2024-25 standings (see sidebar), with six for 2023-24 and 12 for 2022-23. In all three seasons, the same 16 teams were in the playoffs, and only a handful of playoff positions changed.
The big benefit of the HPM is that it incentivizes teams to go for the win in regulation instead of playing not to lose, as teams winning in OS earn 0.5 points less than the two points they would for a regulation win. The expectation of fewer points for a win in OS would change the way teams play in a tie game toward the end of the third period, stretching the excitement of OS into the latter part of regulation time.
We know that parity is paramount to the NHL, but the number of ties proves the current system is flawed.-
If the standings should measure the relative performance of teams in competition, how relevant is it to include an extra point allocated only in OS? On this argument alone, this extra point should be abandoned, which would immediately improve the standings and make them more reflective of the relative performance of all 32 teams.
As it stands now, the current 2-2-1-0 system is well-intentioned but too generous. It’s well-intentioned because the one point at stake in OS seems appropriate, so the HPM keeps this characteristic. It’s too generous, however, because the extra point blurs the clarity of the standings, which are already crowded by 32 teams and a growing level of parity. More data is needed to achieve a definitive conclusion, but it is clear that the HPM should be examined seriously by the NHL for its potential future implementation. By adopting the HPM, the league can get back to a pure two-point system.
Sylvain Végiard is a career statistician who worked with official and research statistics from various government agencies for more than 30 years. He resides in Lévis, Que.
Reimagined Standings
Using the HPM, fewer teams would have been tied with another club at the end of 2024-25
■ Red denotes tied with another team | * Denotes wild-card playoff team ■
This article appeared in our 2025 Meet the New Guys issue. The cover story for this issue features the newest Vegas Golden Knight, Mitch Marner, as he looks to shine in the desert. We also include features on new Jets forward Jonathan Toews, Canadiens D-man Noah Dobson and more. In addition, we take a look at the top 'new guys' from each NHL division.
You can get it in print for free when you subscribe to The Hockey News at THN.com/Free today. All subscriptions include complete access to more than 76 years of articles at The Hockey News Archive.