Do tight NHL standings strengthen the case for a three-point model?

With the NHL on Olympic break, I have been looking at how tight the league’s standings have been this season. Although they have spread out a bit over the past month-plus, and there is now a buffer after the final wild card team in each conference, things are still compressed. In the Western Conference, that buffer is three points. In the Eastern Conference, it is four points. On Jan. 1, there was a one-point buffer in the East and no buffer in the West, where three teams were tied for the final spot.

With Olympic hockey underway in Milano, Italy, the tournament has again put a spotlight on the three-point standings model. This is the standard model used in international play, as well as in the PWHL.

Standings models explained

Here is how the three-point model works:

• Three points for a regulation win.
• Two points for an overtime or shootout win.
• One point for an overtime or shootout loss.
• Zero points for a regulation loss.

The NHL currently uses a two-point model:

• Two points for any win, whether in regulation, overtime, or a shootout.
• One point for a loss in overtime or a shootout.
• Zero points for a regulation loss.

Standings congestion

Although there is now a small buffer between the final wild card spot and the next team, the standings remain tightly bunched.

There is a lot to digest in this chart, but it shows that 14 teams are within four points, plus or minus, of the final wild card spot in each conference during the 2025-26 season. Those 14 teams can reasonably be considered in the playoff mix.

Looking back at the previous four completed seasons, I increased the spread of points until at least 14 teams were in the mix. Over that span, the race for the final playoff spots has become tighter each year, with the current season showing the most congestion.

Overtime on the rise

One major driver of the tight standings is the number of games going beyond regulation. Of the 908 games played so far this season, 233 have ended in overtime or a shootout. That is 25.7 percent of games, the highest rate in NHL history.

Overtime formats have changed several times since being introduced in the 1983-84 season, when 5-on-5 overtime was added. In 1999-00, overtime shifted to 4-on-4, and the “loser” point was introduced. At that time, games could still end in a tie. That changed in 2005-06 with the introduction of the shootout, while 4-on-4 overtime remained.

The current format arrived in 2015-16, when the league moved to 3-on-3 overtime followed by a shootout if needed.

Should the NHL move to the three-point model?

I explored this question in January 2025. At the time, the three-point model showed only minor improvements over the NHL’s two-point system.

With overtime and shootout games continuing to rise, and standings congestion remaining high, it is worth revisiting whether the three-point model would now provide more clarity.

Teams with a red or green line in the chart would either move up or down in the standings with the introduction of the three-point system. There is some movement under the three-point model, but every team currently in a playoff position remains there. Buffalo benefits the most, while Montreal is penalized the most. That outcome aligns with how the three-point model rewards regulation wins.

At the time of writing, Montreal has 21 regulation wins, while Buffalo has 26. Montreal has also played the most overtime games in the Eastern Conference at 19. That boosts Montreal’s position under the two-point model but works against the Habs under the three-point system.

Does the three-point model reduce congestion?

Another way to evaluate the model is by looking at overall standings congestion. Moving from a two-point to a three-point system increases the total points available, so a 1.5x multiplier is used here to normalize the comparison.

Somewhat surprisingly, the three-point model shows very similar congestion in the current season. Completed seasons do show slightly larger spreads, but the difference is modest.

2024-25 data

Since the original analysis, the 2024-25 season has concluded. Below is the movement chart from that season under a three-point model.

There would have been no changes to the playoff teams, but there were shifts that could have affected draft positioning. Seattle would have finished 24th instead of 26th. If the draft lottery had played out the same way, the Kraken would have selected 10th instead of eighth.

That swing could have meant missing out on Jake O’Brien, who leads the Ontario Hockey League in points per game at 1.68.

Would a three-point model be a good choice for the NHL?

The three-point model has minimal impact on which teams make the playoffs, but it does place greater value on regulation wins. That can influence which teams earn home-ice advantage and how teams at the bottom of the standings are ordered for the draft.

Those effects are relatively small and do not resolve the current standings congestion. Over time, however, team behavior could shift simply because regulation wins would be worth three points instead of two.

One clear benefit of the three-point model is consistency. Every game awards three points, regardless of how it ends. Under the two-point system, regulation games award only two total points, while overtime and shootout games award three. That imbalance slightly inflates points percentages.

For example, under the two-point model, the Seattle Kraken hold a .562 points percentage with a 27-20-9 record.

Under the three-point model, overtime and shootout wins are tracked separately, creating a four-part record of W-OTW-OTL-L. The Kraken sit at 21-6-9-20, good for 84 points. With 56 games played and a maximum of 168 points available, Seattle would hold a .500 points percentage.

If you have questions or want to dig deeper into any of the data, drop them in the comments below.