NHL: When Playing Safe Pays Too Much

There is something quietly absurd about a sport as fast, physical, and unforgiving as hockey being decided, at times, by hesitation. Not the kind that comes from fear of contact, because hockey players settled that long ago, but the calculated kind that creeps in late in a tied game.

With five minutes left, sometimes ten, both benches start managing the clock instead of attacking the moment, fully aware that if they simply hold the line, they are guaranteed something for their efforts. In a game built on urgency, that shift toward caution feels out of place, yet it has become part of the strategy.

The current points system did not set out to create this mindset. It evolved with good intentions, moving away from ties to give fans a winner, then layering in overtime and shootouts to ensure every night ends with a result. But in doing so, the league introduced a quiet safety net. That single point awarded for reaching overtime has changed behaviour more than most realize. It encourages teams to protect what they have not yet earned, turning what should be the most intense minutes of a game into something closer to a negotiated ceasefire.

A Simple Idea That Changes Everything

A concept originally put forward by my former colleague Bob Trask at Cheering The Logo and The Sick Podcast a while ago, offers a refreshingly honest alternative, one that does not try to reinvent hockey, but simply rebalances it:

2 points for a regulation win
1 point for a win in extra time
0 points for the loser

It is clean, easy to understand, and more importantly, it removes the comfort of playing not to lose. There is no guaranteed reward for drifting into overtime, no quiet handshake between teams to secure a point and figure out the rest later. If you want something, you have to go get it.

Under this structure, the final minutes of a tied game take on a completely different tone, particularly for teams needing those points. Coaches are no longer protecting a point that does not exist, and players are pushed to find that extra gear instead of waiting for overtime to bail them out. The game opens up when it should, not earlier, not artificially, but right when the stakes are highest.

Carrot, Stick, and a Bit of Honesty

What makes this approach so effective is how naturally it balances reward and consequence. The incentive is obvious. Win in regulation and take the full two points. Finish the job when it matters most. The consequence is just as clear. Lose, whether in regulation or overtime, and you walk away with nothing.

That changes decisions in a hurry.

Even overtime finds its proper place again. It becomes a second chance rather than an equal outcome, still meaningful, still worth something, but not quite the same as getting it done in sixty minutes. That distinction matters, not just in the standings, but in how teams approach the game from the opening faceoff to the final whistle.

And speaking of standings, this might be where the impact is felt the most over time. The current system has a way of bunching teams together, creating the illusion of parity as clubs collect points without necessarily proving they can close games. The NHL likes that.

It rewards persistence, yes, but also mediocrity. By removing the extra point for losing, the league would start to separate teams more honestly. Those who can finish rise, and those who cannot are forced to confront it. It becomes a clearer reflection of performance, not just survival.

Let Hockey Be Hockey Again

There is also the matter of how games end, and this is where the conversation often drifts into uncomfortable territory. Right now, fans are treated to what can feel like three different sports in one night. A structured hockey game, followed by wide-open three-on-three play, and then, if needed, a shootout that resembles a skills competition more than a team result. For a while, it worked for entertainment, but it does not always feel true to the game itself and people are tired of it.

There is a strong case to be made for extending overtime slightly and letting the game resolve itself in a more natural way. My suggestion is one that the BCHL used to play. The first 5 minutes of overtime were played at four-on-four. If still tied, teams would then play the next 5 minutes at three-on-three. Eliminate the shootouts.

Let fatigue, skill, and instinct decide things over a longer stretch, and if after that the game is still tied, then perhaps both teams have earned their point the old-fashioned way. Not every contest needs to be forced into a winner and a loser when the battle itself has already delivered. A few years ago, I had compiled stats and over a 5-year period, less than 2% of the games ended in a tie.

Here is what today’s standings would look like under the 2-1-0 points system, highlighting which teams have benefited the most from the “loser point”:

EASTERN CONFERENCE

RANK	TEAM	GP	W	L	OT	PTS (old)	RW	ROW	PTS (new)	DIFF
1	CAR	82	53	22	7	113	39	48	87	-26
2	BUF	82	50	23	9	109	42	45	87	-22
3	TBL	82	50	26	6	106	40	46	86	-20
4	OTT	82	44	27	11	99	38	41	79	-20
5	MTL	82	48	24	10	106	34	44	78	-28
6	WAS	82	43	30	9	95	37	41	78	-17
7	BOS	82	45	27	10	100	33	41	74	-26
8	PIT	82	41	25	16	98	34	38	72	-26
9	DET	82	41	31	10	92	30	39	69	-23
10	NYI	82	43	34	5	91	29	39	68	-23
11	NJD	82	42	37	3	87	29	38	67	-20
12	FLA	82	40	38	4	84	32	35	67	-17
13	CBJ	82	40	30	12	92	28	33	61	-31
14	PHI	82	43	27	12	98	27	33	60	-38
15	NYR	82	34	39	9	77	25	31	56	-21
16	TOR	82	32	36	14	78	23	31	54	-24

WESTERN CONFERENCE

RANK	TEAM	GP	W	L	OT	PTS (old)	RW	ROW	PTS (new)	DIFF
1	COL	82	55	16	11	121	48	51	99	-22
2	DAL	82	50	20	12	112	38	44	82	-30
3	UTA	82	43	33	6	92	33	43	76	-16
4	EDM	82	41	30	11	93	32	41	73	-20
5	MIN	82	46	24	12	104	31	42	73	-31
6	STL	82	37	33	12	86	33	36	69	-17
7	VEG	82	39	26	17	95	30	38	68	-27
8	SJS	82	39	35	8	86	27	37	64	-22
9	ANA	82	43	33	6	92	26	35	61	-31
10	NSH	82	38	34	10	86	28	33	61	-25
11	WPG	82	35	35	12	82	28	33	61	-21
12	SEA	82	34	37	11	79	26	32	58	-21
13	CGY	82	34	39	9	77	27	30	57	-20
14	LAK	82	35	27	20	90	22	30	52	-38
15	CHI	82	29	39	14	72	22	26	48	-24
16	VAN	82	25	49	8	58	15	19	34	-24

We can hear fans of teams who have benefited the most start screaming at the idea. However, while this may hurt them today, it may benefit them tomorrow and then, they will praise the concept. The criticism must be taken with a grain of salt and a whole lot of context.

At its core, this is not about complicating the NHL or overhauling its identity. It is about restoring something that has been quietly diluted over time. Hockey is at its best when it rewards boldness, when it forces decisions, and when the final minutes feel like they matter. Right now, the system softens that edge just enough to notice. This idea sharpens it again, not with gimmicks, but with clarity.

Reward the teams that push. Penalize the ones that wait. Let the final minutes mean something again, not just something to survive. And let the standings reflect who truly earned their place, rather than who managed the system most effectively.

Sometimes, the smartest fix is the one that simply stops rewarding caution in a game that was never meant to be played that way.

EFFECT ON NHL DRAFT

For the fun of it, here’s how it would affect the odds of lottery for the NHL Draft.

RANK	TEAM	GP	W	L	OT	PTS (old)	RW	ROW	PTS (new)	DIFF
1	COL	82	55	16	11	121	48	51	99	-22
2	CAR	82	53	22	7	113	39	48	87	-26
3	BUF	82	50	23	9	109	42	45	87	-22
4	TBL	82	50	26	6	106	40	46	86	-20
5	DAL	82	50	20	12	112	38	44	82	-30
6	OTT	82	44	27	11	99	38	41	79	-20
7	MTL	82	48	24	10	106	34	44	78	-28
8	WAS	82	43	30	9	95	37	41	78	-17
9	UTA	82	43	33	6	92	33	43	76	-16
10	EDM	82	41	30	11	93	32	41	73	-20
11	MIN	82	46	24	12	104	31	42	73	-31
12	BOS	82	45	27	10	100	33	41	74	-26
13	PIT	82	41	25	16	98	34	38	72	-26
14	STL	82	37	33	12	86	33	36	69	-17
15	DET	82	41	31	10	92	30	39	69	-23
16	VGK	82	39	26	17	95	30	38	68	-27
17	NYI	82	43	34	5	91	29	39	68	-23
18	NJD	82	42	37	3	87	29	38	67	-20
19	FLA	82	40	38	4	84	32	35	67	-17
20	SJS	82	39	35	8	86	27	37	64	-22
21	ANA	82	43	33	6	92	26	35	61	-31
22	NSH	82	38	34	10	86	28	33	61	-25
23	WPG	82	35	35	12	82	28	33	61	-21
24	CBJ	82	40	30	12	92	28	33	61	-31
25	PHI	82	43	27	12	98	27	33	60	-38
26	SEA	82	34	37	11	79	26	32	58	-21
27	CGY	82	34	39	9	77	27	30	57	-20
28	NYR	82	34	39	9	77	25	31	56	-21
29	TOR	82	32	36	14	78	23	31	54	-24
30	LAK	82	35	27	20	90	22	30	52	-38
31	CHI	82	29	39	14	72	22	26	48	-24
32	VAN	82	25	49	8	58	15	19	34	-24

Give me this format well before the artificially inflated and highly overrated option of the 3-2-1 points format some people are pushing. If a team needs a point, that 3-2-1 format won’t prevent teams from playing it safe to get that point. With the 2-1-0 format, it gives teams incentives to try winning games and doesn’t reward them losing or playing for the one point! Well done, Bob.