Just like Lundqvist, we have everything covered in this New York Rangers (and NHL) Blog

Alternative Standings Systems – 2011-12

This page shows alternative standings systems for the 2011-12 NHL Season. Each spreadsheet includes conference, division, and league standings. They all update automatically when NHL.com updates their stats.

Projected Points System | Win % System | Two Point Systems | Three Point Systems | Five Point System

Projected Points System:

Win % System:
Wins and losses only. Tiebreakers are GP then goals for.

The numbers in the first column of each of the conference standings is either a magic number or tragic number. 1 has a magic number for clinching the conference title. 2 through 8 have magic numbers for clinching a playoff birth. 9 through 15 have tragic numbers for being eliminated from playoff contention.

Back to the Top

Two Point Systems:
For this system, games that go to a shootout are considered ties. Teams are awarded 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie and no points for a loss. This system was used in the NHL prior to the 1999-2000 season.

This system also considers games that go to a shootout as ties. Teams are awarded 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie and 1 point for an Overtime loss. This system was used in the NHL from the 1999-2000 season until the lockout.

Back to the Top

The next system was suggested by Alitaki on the Rangerland.net forum. In this system, teams are awarded two points for winning in regulation or in overtime and only one point for winning in a shootout. No points are awarded for a loss of any kind.

Back to the Top

Three Point Systems:
The three point system works as follows. 3 points for a regulation win (W), 2 points for an OT/SO win (W+), 1 point for an OT/SO loss (L+), 0 points for a regulation loss (L):

This next system was suggested in the comments. It is a three point system with 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win, and 1 point for a SO win. No points for losses of any kind. I feel that this system is not very useful as almost every game has a different amount of points awarded while the other three point system always awards three points between the two teams.

Back to the Top

Five Point System:
The five point system works as follows. 5 points for a regulation win (W), 4 points for an OT win (OTW), 3 points for a SO win (SOW), 2 points for a SO loss (SOL) , 1 point for an OT loss (OTL), 0 points for a regulation loss (L):

Back to the Top


  1. so this is the current results of my alternate method.


    it is a percentage of points won. what it does different is to penalize a winning team for surrendering the ‘loser point.’ it is calculated from the current point distribution system in this way;
    lps = losing points surrendered, ie how many points did you give to the losing team that you eventually beat. it is numerically the same as the number of overtime & shootout wins.
    pt& = pts awarded/pts available in games played; the denominator here is 2 for games completed in regulation and 3 for games that went into overtime – regardless of outcome
    there are many ways to calculate the denominator

  2. Interesting that in every different point system the Devils finished 6th regardless. Especially with the league’s most shootout wins.

  3. Hey. How about Points For-Points Against?

    Regulation Win = 2-0
    OT/SO Win = 2-1

    Regulation Loss = 0-2
    OT/SO Loss = 1-2

    Example: The Red Wings 102-80 +22, Canucks 111-77 +34, Rangers 109-74 +35, Blues 109-73 +36, Predators 104-76 +28, Blackhawks 101-85 +16

    or Win%. It’s doesn’t need to be +/-

  4. There’s an alternative to the three point system you list above (the first one):

    3 pts: Regulation or overtime win
    2 pts: Shootout win
    1 pt: Shootout loss
    0 pts: Regulation or overtime loss

    What do you think of that? I like it better, since it doesn’t treat overtime and shootout as the same, it treats regulation and overtime as the same, since they’re the team portion of the game, and the shootout is just the individual skills competition. I do like the Win-Loss system best (with teams ranked on win %), but I think this would be a viable alternative, and certainly better than the standard three point system. It’s kind of a happy medium between the two. Maybe you could include this one in your future Alternative Standings Systems page, if you continue to do it every year.


  1. In Isner, U.S. Has a Player Too Good to Ignore | nonasty.com

Leave a Response