Sorting the teams in the NHL standings

[Guest BCM]

Because there is always a discrepancy in games played, the points column is not completely meaningful. I always look at how many games over .500 (in the win-loss column) a team is to figure our relative strength. For instance, both Pit and Det have 50 points but Det is 14 games over .500 (23-9) while Pit is 13 games over (24-11). Pit has played one more game. Even though they are tied atop the standings, Det has the league's best points-attained percentage, which projected over a full season would have them at No. 1. The NHL uses points actually attained rather than percentage of possible points attained, which would provide a more accurate picture of teams' relative strength. This was especially noticeable early in the season, when Det had three or four teams ahead of them in points. They had earned a higher percentage of possible points than the other teams but had played fewer games so were ranked lower even though their actual success rate was higher.

Very well said. But this does little to answer the question of why the NHL sorts by points when more viable options such as games behind, games above .500 or points percentage are available.

[paulwoodsfan 52]

Very well said. But this does little to answer the question of why the NHL sorts by points when more viable options such as games behind, games above .500 or points percentage are available.

It's been done like that forever, who knows why but one possible reason is that when the NHL was a small league, games were mostly played on the same nights each week (Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday) so instances of games-played discrepancy were rare.

[thedisappearer 291]

It did?

That's funny.

[Buppy 1,720]

What if you need to make an assessment?

Let's say the Wings go 9-7-1 (19 pts) in December and 9-4-0 (18 pts) in January. You're assigned the task of reporting to the public if the Wings had a better W-L-OTL record in January than they did in December. Since you voted for 15-14-1 over 16-17-1, I'll take that to mean you'd say the Wings did better in January (9-4-0) than they did in December (9-7-1). Am I right?

That has nothing to do with standings or how they're sorted mid-season.

Say instead you're assigned the task of reporting to the public if the Wings gained more points in January than they did in December. It's just as relevent a report, but has the opposite answer.

If you need to make an assessment or compare two teams, there are many, many variables you should take into account. Even point% doesn't give you a completely accurate picture.

How about this:

Team 1: 20-10-10

Team 2: 15-4-21

I would say Team 1 is better, even though Team 2 has more points and a better point %, the higher win % puts them ahead IMO.

Team 1: 20-10-10

Team 2: 21-16-3

Here Team 2 has a better win %, but I would still say Team 1 is better, based on the higher point %.

Team 1: 36-36-10

Team 2: 2-0-0

Could you honestly consider Team 2 better than Team 1, even though they would technically be a game ahead?

Mid-season evaluations need to consider a lot more than just record. Stop reading too much in to the standings.

The NHL uses points as a simple indicator of standing. Standings only matter at the end of the season, when points, point%, and games back all produce the exact same result. The NHL chooses to use points. They have for many, many years. It works fine. Since they use points, it makes sense to show how many points teams have accumulated during the season.

And again I'll remind you that if you want to see point%, it's very easy to find.