Western Conference
Anahiem Ducks | 46 |
Colorado Avalanche | 41 |
San Jose Sharks | 41 |
Chicago Blackhawks | 40 |
Minnesota Wild | 38 |
St. Louis Blues | 37 |
Phoenix Coyotes | 37 |
LA Kings | 34 |
Vancouver Canucks | 31 |
Winnipeg Jets | 27 |
Dallas Stars | 25 |
Nashville Predators | 25 |
Calgary Flames | 20 |
Edmonton Oilers | 12 |
Eastern Conference
Tampa Bay Lightning | 36 |
Boston Bruins | 35 |
Pittsburgh Penguins | 35 |
Detroit Red Wings | 32 |
Toronto Maple Leafs | 31 |
Montreal Canadiens | 31 |
Washington Capitals | 28 |
Ottawa Senators | 27 |
New York Rangers | 26 |
Carolina Hurricanes | 26 |
New Jersey Devils | 23 |
Philedelphia Flyers | 23 |
New York Islanders | 22 |
Columbus Blue Jackets | 20 |
Florida Panthers | 15 |
Buffalo Sabres | 13 |
These standings look pretty similar to the actual NHL in terms of order, but one thing it does is make the teams at the bottom seem even less likely to be able to catch up. The optics of it are worse, even if the likelihood of catching up is still about the same. With a two point system, Edmonton is 17 points out of the playoffs. In a three point system, Edmonton is 22 points out (yikes!). Even if it looks worse, a three point system might benefit the Oilers (if they would actually earn regulation wins). It would only take seven and a third wins to gain the 22 points that the Oilers are back of the number eight ranked Kings in a three point system. In the current two point system it would take eight and a half games to gain the 17 points Edmonton is behind. The two point system would also probably award loser points to a lot of the teams along the way making the climb even more steep. Obviously both of the hypothetical situations are incredibly unlikely, but the three point system may work better for good teams that have bad stretches as well as for truly determining who is the best regular season team.
No comments:
Post a Comment