It is well known that the team scoring first has an advantage. Over the past two regular seasons, 2024-25 and 2025-26, teams that scored first won 66.5 percent of games.
That is the top-line number, but I wanted to go one level deeper. Does team strength, venue, or the timing of the first goal change that advantage? The short answer is yes: all three influence the winning percentage.
Most statistics below cover the previous two regular seasons unless otherwise noted. I will start with league-wide trends and finish with how the Seattle Kraken perform when scoring first. Let’s get into it.
Favorite or underdog?
Three buckets were created: Favorite, Toss-Up, and Underdog. Here is how each bucket was defined:
Favorite: Points percentage was at least .050 higher than the opponent.
Toss-Up: The difference in points percentage between the teams was less than .050.
Underdog: Points percentage was at least .050 lower than the opponent.
Over an 82-game season, a .050 difference in points percentage is equivalent to 8.2 standings points.
Overall, NHL teams that score first win 66.5 percent of games. Favorites, however, win 77.6 percent of games after scoring first. Toss-Up games closely match the overall win percentage, at 66.4 percent compared with 66.5 percent. That means Underdogs are pulling down the overall percentage. They still benefit from scoring first, but their win rate is only 2.9 percentage points above a coin flip.
The second chart looks at teams that scored first but later allowed the opponent to tie the game. The most interesting number to me is the 49.9 percent win rate for the Toss-Up bucket. That suggests the advantage of scoring first is essentially erased once a Toss-Up game is tied. Favorites still push through at a higher rate, while Underdogs struggle once their initial advantage disappears.
Home-ice advantage
A while back, I looked at whether home-ice advantage really exists in the NHL. In that analysis, home teams enjoyed a 5.5 percent boost in standings points compared with their performance on the road. A similar benefit appears when looking at teams that score first. Teams that score first at home win 6.6 percentage points more often than teams that score first on the road.
The same pattern holds after an equalizer. Home teams that score first and later allow the opponent to tie still win 5.1 percentage points more often than road teams in the same situation.
Now let’s combine home and road games with the Favorite, Toss-Up, and Underdog buckets.
The home-ice advantage is clear in every bucket. One interesting result is that Away Underdogs that score first still lose more often than they win. Another takeaway from both Home-versus-Away charts is that Home teams score first more often than Away teams. Even when Away teams score first, their win percentage is lower than that of Home teams scoring first.
When the first goal is scored
Now let’s look at when the first goal is scored and how that impacts the winning percentage.
The trend is clear: the later the first goal is scored, the more likely that team is to win. If a goal is scored in the opening minute, the opponent has 59 minutes to respond.
Keep in mind that the sample size also decreases significantly in each period. The overtime win percentage is 100 percent because the first overtime goal ends the game.
Period Splits with matchup role
The third-period sample sizes get small, but the trend is obvious in the first two periods. So maybe the trick to winning is to score first, but wait a while to do so?
First goal by five-minute increments
Let’s break each period down further into five-minute increments.
There is a lot going on in this chart, so the key is to look at each time bucket independently. The chart shows how many first goals were scored in each bucket. It also shows how often that team won, represented by the blue line, and how often the game was later tied, represented by the red line.
There were too few first goals in the third period to break them into five-minute increments. Because of that, all first goals after 40 minutes were grouped together.
There are several interesting trends. The blue line, representing teams that scored first and won, remains relatively flat until after the 25-minute mark. The red line, representing games that were later tied, also begins declining after 25 minutes. In other words, after the five-minute mark of the second period, the game result becomes harder to change based on which team scored first.
The blue and red lines cross in the 10-to-15-minute bucket. Before the 10-minute mark, games were tied again more often than the team scoring first ultimately won. The overall takeaway is that early first goals are less predictive of the final outcome than late first goals.
First goal vs making the playoffs
Scoring first improves a team’s chances of winning an individual game. Based on that, I wanted to see whether scoring first more frequently also translated into making the playoffs. For this section, we are looking only at data from the 2025-26 season.
Teams in bold on the left made the playoffs. The chart is sorted by the number of times each team scored first. I expected to see playoff teams bunched near the top, but they are spread fairly evenly throughout the chart.
Three teams won fewer than 50 percent of their games when scoring first: the Vancouver Canucks, Toronto Maple Leafs, and Chicago Blackhawks. All three finished in the bottom five of the league. Surprisingly, Chicago tied for eighth in the NHL by scoring first in 45 games.
This shows that simply scoring the first goal is not enough. What matters most is converting that early advantage into wins.
Where the Kraken rank
As you may have noticed in the previous section, the Kraken scored first in 41 games during the 2025-26 season. That is exactly half their games and tied for 16th in the NHL. It is a substantial improvement from 2024-25, when Seattle scored first 35 times and ranked 29th in the league.
Using the .050 winning-percentage difference for the three matchup buckets, the Kraken rarely qualified as a Favorite. Over the past two seasons, Seattle was a Favorite only 11 times and scored first in seven of those games. In the four games when Seattle did not score first, they went 1-3.
When the Kraken were a Favorite or Toss-Up and scored first, they won 22 of 28 games. They struggled as an Underdog, winning only 47.9 percent of the time after scoring first. Holding a lead is one area the Kraken can improve.
Kraken splits with home versus away
Seattle performed markedly better when scoring first at home than on the road. The Kraken were a few percentage points below the league-wide home win rate of 69.6 percent, while their road win rate was well below the 63.0 percent league average.
The Kraken left some points on the table here. Matching the league averages in these situations would be worth about six additional standings points. Holding leads is an area Seattle can improve, but doing so alone would not be enough to push them into playoff contention.
Kraken splits with matchup role
The sample sizes get smaller here, but the trend follows the rest of the league. Seattle is above average in win percentage during Favorite and Toss-Up games, while its overall percentage is dragged down by away games when the Kraken are Underdogs. This feels similar to how the Kraken struggled in the 2024-25 season during the second game of back-to-backs, when they went 0-12.
Does the first goal matter?
Overall, scoring first provides an advantage, but it is not a substitute for playing a full 60 minutes. The 2025-26 data did not show a clear relationship between how frequently a team scored first and whether it made the playoffs.
The 2026 Stanley Cup Final featured the Carolina Hurricanes and Vegas Golden Knights. Carolina ranked fourth in the league by scoring first in 49 games. The three teams ahead of Carolina were tied with 50 games. Vegas ranked 28th, scoring first only 34 times. Two very different paths to the Final.
I think the Kraken will be better than the general consensus expects this season. Even so, they will likely enter plenty of games as Underdogs. The good news is that falling behind is not necessarily decisive. If Seattle can tie the score, the game essentially resets to a 50-50 proposition.
If you have any comments or questions, please leave them below.
Blaiz Grubic
Blaiz Grubic is a contributor at Sound Of Hockey. A passionate hockey fan and player for over 30 years, Blaiz grew up in the Pacific Northwest and is an alumni of Washington State University (Go Cougs!). When he’s not playing, watching, or writing about hockey, he enjoys quality time with his wife and daughter or getting out on a golf course for a quick round. Follow @blaizg on BlueSky or X.
Washington is one of nine states with no state income tax. Within those nine states are six NHL teams:
Florida Panthers (Florida)
Tampa Bay Lightning (Florida)
Dallas Stars (Texas)
Nashville Predators (Tennessee)
Vegas Golden Knights (Nevada)
Seattle Kraken (Washington)
NHL teams span the United States and Canada, and income tax rates vary by country, state, province, and city.
Let’s start with a blanket disclaimer. Taxes vary significantly based on an individual’s situation. This article will focus on how income tax applies at a high level.
First, we’ll look at how NHL players are taxed and run through some hypothetical examples. Then we’ll determine whether the Kraken benefit from playing in a state without an income tax.
Types of income tax
Income taxes can be assessed at the federal, state or provincial, and city levels. Many jurisdictions use marginal tax rates.
This chart shows the top marginal tax rate for each team’s location, which provides a rough indication of how states rank from lowest to highest income tax.
Looking at this graph alone, it appears the Kraken and other no-income-tax teams have a significant advantage when it comes to signing players. But the way taxes are calculated is more complicated and is not based solely on a player’s team location.
Duty days
NHL players don’t just pay taxes where their team is based. They can also owe taxes in locations where they travel for work. These are calculated using “duty days.” Games, practices, team meetings, road travel, and other team-related activities can count as duty days.
There are 185 days in the NHL regular season. With training camp and preseason added, we’ll round that number to 200 duty days.
For example, the Seattle Kraken will travel to Boston this season. Let’s assume they spend two duty days in Massachusetts and the player makes $10 million per year (there are no Kraken players making $10 million currently, but this gives us easy math).
Massachusetts has a 5 percent state income tax if income is under $1 million. The player’s Massachusetts income would represent two of his 200 duty days.
The calculation would be:
This calculation continues for each state or province where the player works.
Crossing the U.S.-Canada border can add another layer. So can playing in cities that impose their own income taxes. You can see how this gets complicated quickly.
Profile players
Let’s look at estimated taxes for players across all 32 NHL teams.
We’ll use five salary levels: $900,000, $3 million, $6 million, $10 million, and $15 million.
The model assumes 88 games, including an 84-game regular season and four preseason games.
It also assumes two duty days for each of 44 road games. That produces 88 road duty days and 112 home duty days.
The 84-game regular-season schedule breaks down as follows:
Four games against each divisional opponent: 28 games
Three games against each non-divisional conference opponent: 24 games
Two games against each team in the other conference: 32 games
Divisional and interconference matchups have equal numbers of home and road games.
The three-game conference matchups are different. Some teams will play twice at home, while others will play twice on the road.
That creates some variability because the tax rate depends on where those additional road games are played.
Division and conference alignment also matter.
Division
Average tax rate
Pacific
46.8%
Atlantic
46.5%
Metropolitan
45.7%
Central
42.4%
Canada and California have some of the league’s highest income tax rates. The Pacific Division includes six teams from Canada and California which causes an uptick in the division due to road duty days in high-tax locations.
Residency
The player profiles above assume the player establishes tax residency where their NHL team is located. If they do not, taxes will also depend on the rules of their primary residence.
Every jurisdiction has different residency rules. However, several factors commonly help determine someone’s primary tax residence:
Maintaining a permanent year-round residence
Where a spouse or children live
How much time the person spends in a jurisdiction
Residency is highly dependent on each player’s circumstances. Establishing residency can be easier when a player’s spouse and children move with him and maintain a year-round home.
It can be more difficult for young prospects. Players on entry-level contracts may find it harder to afford a year-round residence, and without a spouse or children they may have fewer personal ties that support establishing residency there.
The key here is just because a player plays in a high-tax location, such as Toronto, does not necessarily mean all his income faces Toronto’s tax rate.
Signing bonuses
Another wrinkle in taxes is how NHL compensation can come in the form of salary or signing bonuses.
The Canada-U.S. tax treaty handles signing bonuses differently from regular salary. Tax on qualifying signing bonuses can be capped at 15 percent.
This can particularly benefit U.S. residents playing in Canada.
For example, a U.S. player in Canada would pay only 15 percent Canadian tax on a qualifying signing bonus. He would then owe up to an additional 22 percent (to get to 37 percent) in U.S. federal tax on that income, subject to applicable foreign tax credits.
Auston Matthews example
Auston Matthews is an Arizona resident for tax purposes. He maintains a year-round home there and has family ties to the state.
His contract also pays most of his compensation through signing bonuses.
About 94 percent of his four-year contract comes through signing bonuses, totaling $49.65 million of the $53 million contract.
His actual salary is therefore near the league minimum. Matthews is scheduled to earn $11.08 million in 2026-27. Of that, $10.18 million is a signing bonus and $900,000 is salary.
Here’s how the estimated tax bill breaks down:
$1.53 million: 15 percent Canadian tax on the $10.18 million signing bonus
$2.19 million: Approximately 22 percent additional marginal tax to the IRS
$254,000: Arizona state income tax at 2.5 percent
$451,000: Estimated duty-day taxes tied to his $900,000 salary
Despite Toronto’s overall top income tax rate of roughly 53.5 percent, Matthews’ estimated effective tax rate is about 39.9 percent.
That leaves approximately $6.66 million of his $11.08 million in compensation after income taxes.
Leo Carlsson example
Let’s look at another player who has been all over hockey news after signing an $18 million offer sheet.
Leo Carlsson is a Swedish citizen who plays in another high-tax location: Anaheim, California.
Roughly 95 percent of Carlsson’s $90 million contract, or $85.3 million, comes through signing bonuses.
For the upcoming season, he will receive a $19.95 million signing bonus and $850,000 in salary.
Here’s how the estimated tax bill breaks down:
$7.33 million: 36.75 percent federal income tax
$2.62 million: 13.15 percent California state income tax
$435,000: Estimated duty-day taxes on his $850,000 salary
Carlsson will earn $20.8 million and pay an estimated $10.39 million in taxes, an effective rate of 49.95 percent.
That assumes he is considered a California resident for tax purposes. Carlsson spends his offseason in Sweden. If Sweden is considered his tax residence, he could also be subject to Sweden’s tax rules. Using a Swedish income tax rate of 50.6 percent, Carlsson could owe roughly another $125,000 as a tax top-up.
Had Anaheim not matched the offer sheet, Carlsson’s estimated take-home pay in Philadelphia would have increased by about $870,000 to $11.26 million.
Stanley Cup champions
Going back to the 2005 lockout, 17 of the past 21 Stanley Cup champions come from teams that rank in the league’s lower half in terms of income tax rates.
The trend becomes even more pronounced recently.
The past seven Stanley Cup champions have come from eight teams ranked in the league’s lowest-tax quartile. Those eight include the six teams in states without an income tax, plus Colorado and Carolina.
Does this help the Kraken?
The short answer is yes, but the benefit depends heavily on each player’s tax residency.
When a player establishes residency where his team plays, the difference can be substantial. In some examples, take-home pay differs by 30 to 35 percent between the lowest- and highest-tax locations.
Across every salary level in this model, Seattle ranks among the six teams with the lowest estimated taxes. Those six are all the teams located in states without a state income tax. However, players need to establish Washington as their tax residence to realize the full benefit.
Philipp Grubauer lives in the Pacific Northwest year-round. Former Seattle Kraken, Jamie Oleksiak, used to call the Seattle area home year-round. Many players, however, spend their offseason somewhere else.
Non-U.S. players could receive a significant tax benefit from establishing residency in Washington. U.S. players can benefit as well, although the difference may be smaller unless they are coming from places such as California or New York City.
For the right player, the tax savings could make Seattle financially attractive.
Millionaires’ tax
Washington has passed a millionaires’ tax scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2028. That could significantly reduce Seattle’s current tax advantage for NHL players.
For stars earning north of $10 million, the new tax would put Seattle in the top third of the league’s highest tax locations.
For established middle-six players, Seattle would move closer to the middle of the league, while it would remain one of the lowest-tax locations for prospects and players earning near the league minimum.
Jason Robertson provides an interesting example.
Robertson recently rejected a $15 million contract from the Kraken and eventually signed a one-year, $12 million deal with Dallas.
At first glance, leaving $3 million on the table seems remarkable. But once Washington’s millionaires’ tax takes effect, the estimated take-home amounts become much closer. As shown above, a $15 million Seattle salary would produce approximately $7.7 million in take-home pay. Recognizing Robertson’s new deal will expire before the new tax kicks in, it’s still worth noting that a $12 million salary in Dallas would produce approximately $7.3 million in take-home pay.
That’s a difference of only about $400,000, and that’s before we take into account the fact that the cost of living is at least 25 percent cheaper in Dallas compared with Seattle.
It’s still meaningful money, but a $400,000 delta between the Seattle offer and the Dallas offer is nowhere near the $3 million discrepancy we saw on the contracts’ face values.
There is obviously more involved in Robertson’s decision than taxes. Still, the example illustrates how different income tax rates can produce surprisingly similar take-home pay.
Final thoughts
I know everyone’s favorite topic is taxes, but all good things must come to an end.
There are also factors beyond NHL salary, including endorsements or sales tax, that can further complicate a player’s tax situation. Ultimately, taxes need to be evaluated player by player. Residency, contract structure, family circumstances, and salary levels can all change the equation.
Seattle’s lack of state income tax does provide the Kraken with an advantage today, but how meaningful that advantage is depends on the player. And beginning in 2028, the equation could look much different.
If you have any questions, please leave them in the comments below.
Blaiz Grubic
Blaiz Grubic is a contributor at Sound Of Hockey. A passionate hockey fan and player for over 30 years, Blaiz grew up in the Pacific Northwest and is an alumni of Washington State University (Go Cougs!). When he’s not playing, watching, or writing about hockey, he enjoys quality time with his wife and daughter or getting out on a golf course for a quick round. Follow @blaizg on BlueSky or X.
This offseason has brought a steady stream of roster movement across the Pacific Division. Between an unusually high number of trades, a wave of early‑July free‑agent signings and a signed offer sheet that shook a franchise in Southern California, it’s been a little tricky to keep track of who’s coming, who’s going, and how each team’s depth chart is shaping up. So consider this a check‑in on where things stand to date: a snapshot of the roster changes across the division and how they shape the outlook for 2026‑27.
One quick note before we dive in. I’m not covering the Seattle Kraken here. Darren Brown already broke down the Kraken offseason in detail last week, and he covered all the important details and then some.
The player‑movement tables I’ve compiled are based strictly on end‑of‑season rosters and who is currently listed on each team’s NHL roster page from the media site. That means no projected rookies or expected call‑ups—so someone like Ivar Stenberg, who is almost certainly starting the season in San Jose, won’t appear in the Sharks’ table because he’s not officially listed yet.
For skaters, I included 2025‑26 games played, goals, and goals per game. For goalies, I listed games started, wins, and save percentage. As a reminder, teams generally ice a 20‑player roster: 12 forwards, 6 defensemen, and 2 goalies. They can also carry up to three extras for a 23-man roster. Over last season’s 82 games, that translates to roughly 984 forward man‑games, 410 defense man‑games, and 82 goalie starts. It’s a useful barometer for understanding how “full” a roster is at the moment, and how much space remains. And yes, next season jumps to 84 games, but I’m not normalizing the numbers for simplicity’s sake.
Anaheim Ducks
The Ducks were one of the best stories in the league last season, making the playoffs and knocking off Edmonton in Round 1. With a young core finally materializing, the future looked bright. Then came the offseason.
First, Anaheim traded Olen Zellweger to Buffalo. Then, in a move that surprised a good chunk of the hockey world, they shipped out Mason McTavish, once considered a franchise pillar, to the St. Louis Blues for two first‑round picks. Whether that was cap‑driven or a shift in organizational philosophy, it’s a significant subtraction.
Then came the offer sheet saga. Philadelphia signed Leo Carlsson to an $18 million offer sheet. Feeling vulnerable to another offer sheet, the Ducks were forced to sign restricted free agent, Pavel Mintyukov, to a five-year $36 million contract that carries a $7.2M AAV.
They of course matched the Carlsson offer sheet, but the ripple effects are significant: the Ducks now have only $9 million in cap space to sign their remaining RFAs, including Cutter Gauthier, who scored 41 goals last season and will command north of $10 million. Someone will need to be moved.
On defense, Anaheim let Jacob Trouba, John Carlson, and Radko Gudas walk. None of those departures are catastrophic individually, but combined with the Zellweger trade, the blue line suddenly looks thin, and this was already a team that allowed the fourth‑most goals in the league.
I still like their forward group, and Beckett Sennecke feels poised for another step forward, but losing McTavish’s production and facing a looming cap crunch is tough.
Verdict: A step back feels likely. Without meaningful defensive improvement, they could miss the playoffs entirely.
Calgary Flames
We don’t need to spend much time here. Calgary’s notable moves were acquiring Simon Nemec from New Jersey and trading Blake Coleman (20 goals) to Minnesota. They were bad last season and probably got worse this offseason, but that’s intentional. The Flames are still waiting for their prospect pool to ripen.
Verdict: A bottom‑of‑the‑Pacific battle with Vancouver seems inevitable.
Edmonton Oilers
As long as Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl are on the roster, Edmonton will always be a fringe contender at worst. That’s just the reality.
This summer, they finally addressed their biggest weakness: goaltending. The Oilers signed 36‑year‑old Frederik Andersen, whose consistency has been… let’s call it “variable.” They also acquired Devon Levi and Connor Ingram, giving them a three‑deep safety net.
If Andersen plays anywhere close to “Playoff Freddy,” or if Levi or Ingram can deliver league‑average goaltending, Edmonton could be the team to beat in the Pacific.
Verdict: Still dangerous. Still flawed. Still a playoff team.
LA Kings
I didn’t think the Kings were very good last season, and I still don’t understand how they made the playoffs. With a full season of Artemi Panarin and a healthy Kevin Fiala, you can squint and see marginal improvement, but I’m not buying it.
Their current roster age is 30.3 years—oldest in the Pacific, fourth‑oldest in the league. They made no significant offseason changes.
Verdict: Regression feels inevitable. I will be a bit surprised if they return to the playoffs.
San Jose Sharks
A lot of people hated the Sharks’ offseason, especially the acquisitions of Darnell Nurse and Jacob Trouba. But here’s the thing: San Jose was electric last season because they didn’t play defense. They needed veteran stability, and Nurse plus Trouba gives them some of that.
The forward group will continue to evolve. Michael Misa should take another step, and Ivar Stenberg, this year’s No. 2 pick, is expected to play a full NHL season.
Verdict: Better next season, and potentially much better. A playoff spot feels likely.
Vancouver Canucks
The worst team in the league last season made no meaningful roster changes. Vancouver is still in full teardown mode, stockpiling prospects and waiting for the next wave.
Off the ice, they’re rebooting the front office and coaching staff. On the ice, they’ll have Liam Ohgren and Zeev Buium via the Quinn Hughes trade, but neither is ready to move the needle.
Verdict: Still rebuilding. Still bottom‑tier.
Vegas Golden Knights
Vegas continues to Houdini their way through cap problems with ruthless roster management. They traded Pavel Dorofeyev (37 goals) and as of now, haven’t re‑signed Reilly Smith. Yes, they won the Pacific and reached the Stanley Cup Final, but they struggled through long stretches of last season.
I’m not writing them off (and never will again) but losing that much scoring is significant. Add in an aging core and recent injury history, the warning lights are blinking. But they’ve been blinking for years now.
Verdict: Still competitive, but the margin for error is shrinking.
Summary
At this point in the offseason, two Pacific Division teams feel meaningfully better: Edmonton and San Jose. The Oilers finally addressed their goaltending volatility with a trio of netminders, and the Sharks added the defensive stability they desperately needed while continuing to build out a young, dynamic forward core. Both clubs look like playoff teams on paper.
After that, things get murky. Anaheim’s cap crunch and blue‑line departures introduce real volatility. Vegas lost a pile of goals and hasn’t replaced them. LA is older, stagnant, and trending the wrong direction. Calgary and Vancouver are still in the “collect prospects, endure pain” phase of their rebuilds. Seattle is likely in the middle of this group somewhere.
So the race for the final one or two Pacific playoff spots is wide open. No team has clearly separated itself through its offseason moves, and several have taken small steps backward. That creates a division where injuries, chemistry, and who might step up may matter more than any remaining transaction.
The door is open for a surprise. The question is who might grab that opportunity?
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.
Blaiz Grubic
Blaiz Grubic is a contributor at Sound Of Hockey. A passionate hockey fan and player for over 30 years, Blaiz grew up in the Pacific Northwest and is an alumni of Washington State University (Go Cougs!). When he’s not playing, watching, or writing about hockey, he enjoys quality time with his wife and daughter or getting out on a golf course for a quick round. Follow @blaizg on BlueSky or X.
“We’re going streaking! Through the quad, and into the gymnasium!” – Frank Ricard, Old School, 2003
The Seattle Kraken have had an up-and-down season, bouncing between winning and losing streaks. Recently, the crew at Sound Of Hockey held a Mailbag segment on Episode 369 of the Sound Of Hockey Podcast. They did not get through every question, but one submission stood out to me and inspired this article.
FMammal asked on the Patreon, “Does it matter if a team is streaky the way the Kraken seem to be, or is the only important thing the point total after all 82 games?”
We are going to take this one level deeper and also explore how streaky teams perform in the playoffs.
Definitions
Let’s start by defining the types of streaks used in this analysis.
Point streak: Three or more consecutive games in which a team earns at least one point in each game. This includes wins of any kind and overtime or shootout losses.
Losing streak: Three or more consecutive games in which a team loses. This includes regulation losses, overtime losses and shootout losses.
Win streak: Three or more consecutive games in which a team wins and earns two points in each game, including regulation, overtime and shootout victories.
To evaluate streakiness and playoff success, I created the following metrics:
Streakiness tier: Low (under 49 games spent in point streaks or losing streaks), Medium (50 to 60 games), High (61 games or more).
Balance ratio: The number of games teams are on point streaks divided by the total number of games on any streak. Any value above 0.50 means a team earned points in more games than it lost while streaking.
Playoff depth score (PDS): Teams earn one point for making the playoffs and one point for each round won. A Stanley Cup champion earns five points. Teams that miss the playoffs earn zero. For example, when Seattle made the playoffs in 2022-23 and lost in the second round, the Kraken earned a PDS of two.
Kraken streaks this season
For this piece, streak data is based on point streaks and losing streaks, unless otherwise noted.
The Kraken rank 13th in the NHL with nine total streaks this season.
The streaks break down as follows:
Five-game point streak (Oct. 9–18): eight of 10 points
Five-game point streak (Oct. 23–Nov. 3): eight of 10 points
Three-game point streak (Nov. 11–15): five of six points
Three-game point streak (Nov. 20–23): five of six points
Six-game losing streak (Nov. 23–Dec. 8): one of 12 points
Four-game losing streak (Dec. 12–18): zero of eight points
10-game point streak (Dec. 20–Jan. 8): 18 of 20 points
Four-game losing streak (Jan. 14–19): one of eight points
Four-game win streak (Jan. 25–31): eight of eight points
It may not feel like it at times, but Seattle has had six point streaks and only three losing streaks. That amounts to 30 games on point streaks and 14 games on losing streaks.
The 10-game point streak ranks sixth in the NHL this season.
Streakiness and playoff results
Data was collected only from seasons in which the Kraken have existed, covering 2021-22 through the current season.
During that span, teams with a balance ratio below 0.50 never made the playoffs. A balance ratio under 0.50 means a team spent more games on losing streaks than point streaks. Losing more games than you win is not a recipe for success.
The heatmap focuses on teams with a balance ratio of 0.51 or higher. The Kraken currently sit at 0.68, based on 30 point-streak games and 14 losing-streak games (30 of 44 games).
Playoff depth score (Number of teams in bucket)
The results seem to align with intuition. Teams with higher balance ratios perform better in the playoffs. There is also a trend showing that playoff depth score improves as streakiness increases for teams above a 0.68 balance ratio.
Balance ratio 0.68–0.84: PDS rises from 1.57 to 1.77, a 12.7 percent increase
Balance ratio 0.85–1.00: PDS rises from 2.25 to 2.60, a 15.6 percent increase
The Kraken currently sit at a 0.68 balance ratio and are trending toward 67 total streak games. That would place them in the High streakiness tier.
Among the 13 teams in that bucket, 12 made the playoffs in the last four seasons, and eight reached at least the second round. The 2023-24 Edmonton Oilers advanced the furthest, losing in the Stanley Cup Final.
Seattle sits on the cutoff line. When teams drop below a 0.68 balance ratio, only eight of 16 made the playoffs. Of those eight, six entered as wild cards and two finished third in their division. In every case, those teams opened the playoffs as underdogs, drawing higher-seeded opponents and facing a steeper path to advancing.
A necessary caveat
This heatmap has a flaw.
As streakiness increases, teams with strong balance ratios are also winning more games overall. That inflates playoff success. Looking at average standings points for teams in the 0.68–0.84 bucket shows the issue clearly.
Low streakiness: 98 points
Medium streakiness: 102 points
High streakiness: 106 points
It would be expected that a 106-point team would perform better in the playoffs than a 98-point team, and that is exactly what is being shown here.
Standings points matter more
Breaking standings points into buckets and slicing them by streakiness tier produces inconsistent results. If streakiness alone drove playoff success, each standings-point bucket would show the same trend. The buckets do not show this.
The consistent signal is simpler as shown in the next chart. As standings points increase, playoff depth scores increase. Better teams tend to go further in the playoffs.
Final takeaway
So, does it matter if a team is streaky, or is the final point total all that matters?
The standings point total matters most.
How a team gets there matters less than the final point total. Streaks can help build momentum, but they ultimately show up in the standings. Make the playoffs, and the slate is mostly clean.
Streakiness only becomes an issue when losing streaks pile up. As long as the Kraken keep their balance ratio at or above 0.68, they are positioning themselves to qualify and avoid the most difficult first-round matchups.
Some bonus charts
As part of this research, I pulled additional streak data to provide more context. The charts below show how the Kraken have compared to league averages over the past four seasons in terms of their longest winning, point and losing streaks.
As the season continues, the focus should remain on the standings rather than the emotional swings that come with streaky play. If Seattle keeps earning points at its current rate, the path to the playoffs remains clear, regardless of how bumpy the ride feels along the way.
Blaiz Grubic
Blaiz Grubic is a contributor at Sound Of Hockey. A passionate hockey fan and player for over 30 years, Blaiz grew up in the Pacific Northwest and is an alumni of Washington State University (Go Cougs!). When he’s not playing, watching, or writing about hockey, he enjoys quality time with his wife and daughter or getting out on a golf course for a quick round. Follow @blaizg on BlueSky or X.
With Berkly Catton on the shelf for the foreseeable future, out week-to-week with an upper-body injury, it puts a pause to his much anticipated rookie season.
It was promising to see him out with a red sweater at morning skate on Sunday morning, but coach Lane Lambert said he’s still pretty far from a return.
20 games (well, 21 now) into his NHL career, the 19-year-old remains one of the youngest players in the league. Yet, it’s looking more and more like he will stay with the team for the entire season.
There are a lot of high hopes for Catton among Kraken faithful, with many thinking his playmaking abilities would pay dividends right away for a team that has struggled to find a consistent source of offense. In certain ways he has helped in this regard, but the player who once scored 54 goals in a season in the WHL has yet to find the back of the net as a pro, so the scoring touch hasn’t yet translated.
Obviously, the first 20 games are not going to define the next 20, the next 200 or an entire career. Not all development paths are created equal, but this is a large enough sample size to begin comparing and contrasting.
So, while his season is on pause, let’s take some time to compare Catton’s first 20 games with the other two Kraken first-rounders to reach that mark: Matty Beniers and Shane Wright.
Catton’s first 20
The Kraken had the option of sending Catton back to the Spokane Chiefs for another season, where he did not have much left to prove, or keeping him in the NHL for a full year and burning a season of his entry-level contract.
Drafted No. 8 overall by the Kraken in 2024, the decision to have him spend his first season in the pro ranks was a heavily calculated one by the front office and coaching staff, who felt it was in his best interest to stay in the NHL and learn the ropes a little earlier than normal.
Catton has experienced some ups and downs to start his NHL career. He came out of the gates hot with three assists in his first five games, including an assist in his debut.
But he went quiet over his next 15, recording only two helpers. He’s totaled 17 shots on goal so far with some quality chances, but he just hasn’t been able to finish.
He’s getting close, though, and gaining confidence along the way. Here’s one of those opportunities he had against the Islanders on Nov. 23.
Golden opportunity for Berkly Catton to get his first NHL goal, but Rittich shuts it down.
Catton has spent the majority of his young career playing on a line with Jordan Eberle and the aforementioned Wright, but he has also seen his fair share of different combinations—six in total, according to MoneyPuck.
He was averaging a little more than 12 minutes per night, with that number fluctuating game-to-game, as it often does for players his age.
Comparing it to Wright and Beniers
Wright, drafted No. 4 overall by the Kraken in 2022, split his first 20 NHL games across three seasons from 2022-23 to 2024-2025. He spent time in the OHL, AHL and at World Juniors between his NHL debut and reaching the 20-game mark.
When he was on the ice with the Kraken during those early stints, he produced at roughly the same pace he is producing at now, totaling five goals and two assists while getting about 11 minutes a game. It took Wright until the eighth game of his career to score his first NHL goal, memorably against Montreal.
While Wright hasn’t been the world-breaker he was hyped to be during his junior career, he has still developed into a solid NHL producer, with 63 points in 124 games.
Matty Beniers, meanwhile, is much more of an outlier when it comes to early-career production for the Kraken. His Rookie of the Year award and scoring in just his second ever game underscore that point.
Through his first 20 games, 10 at the end of the 2021-22 season and 10 in 2022-23, Beniers averaged nearly a point per game at seven goals and 10 assists. He was playing more than 18 minutes per night, a luxury that came when the Kraken were just starting out and building their foundation.
What’s to come…
In terms of production, it’s safe to say Catton’s first 20 games looked far more like Wright’s than Beniers’, although his path to 20 has been far more linear than that of Wright. While Catton is probably the most offensively gifted player of the three, it was always going to take something monumental to match Beniers’ first-year totals.
Many different factors play into these development paths. Top picks are always given plenty of runway, and Catton, like the rest of the Kraken’s first-rounders (all of whom are still under the age of 23), undoubtedly has way more time to become the player he was drafted to be. Benchmarks like these simply give context for what may come next.
So when he gets back, how do you think the next 20 games will look for Catton?
