Bad hockey teams lose.The smart ones lose in overtime.
A look at the NHL standings shows how many points a team has.
The Loser Point dissects how many come from games they didn’t win.
Loser Point Loop
| # | Team | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LAKLos Angeles KingsPacific | 35–27–20 | 90 | 92.2 | OT —SO — | +20.5 | 42.6% | — | Elite LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 2 | COLColorado AvalancheCentral | 55–16–11 | 121 | 124.0 | OT —SO — | +11.3 | 40.7% | — | Elite LosersTrue Contenders | |
| 3 | VGKVegas Golden KnightsPacific | 39–26–17 | 95 | 97.3 | OT —SO — | +17.4 | 39.5% | — | Elite LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 4 | PITPittsburgh PenguinsMetro | 41–25–16 | 98 | 100.4 | OT —SO — | +16.4 | 39.0% | — | Elite LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 5 | DALDallas StarsCentral | 50–20–12 | 112 | 114.7 | OT —SO — | +12.3 | 37.5% | — | Elite LosersTrue Contenders | |
| 6 | MINMinnesota WildCentral | 46–24–12 | 104 | 106.5 | OT —SO — | +12.3 | 33.3% | — | Elite LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 7 | PHIPhiladelphia FlyersMetro | 43–27–12 | 98 | 100.4 | OT —SO — | +12.3 | 30.8% | — | Elite LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 8 | MTLMontréal CanadiensAtlantic | 48–24–10 | 106 | 108.6 | OT —SO — | +10.2 | 29.4% | — | Elite LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 9 | OTTOttawa SenatorsAtlantic | 44–27–11 | 99 | 101.4 | OT —SO — | +11.3 | 28.9% | — | Elite LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 10 | CBJColumbus Blue JacketsMetro | 40–30–12 | 92 | 94.2 | OT —SO — | +12.3 | 28.6% | — | Elite LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 11 | BUFBuffalo SabresAtlantic | 50–23–9 | 109 | 111.7 | OT —SO — | +9.2 | 28.1% | — | Average LosersTrue Contenders | |
| 12 | TORToronto Maple LeafsAtlantic | 32–36–14 | 78 | 79.9 | OT —SO — | +14.3 | 28.0% | — | Average LosersHot Garbage | |
| 13 | BOSBoston BruinsAtlantic | 45–27–10 | 100 | 102.4 | OT —SO — | +10.2 | 27.0% | — | Average LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 14 | EDMEdmonton OilersPacific | 41–30–11 | 93 | 95.3 | OT —SO — | +11.3 | 26.8% | — | Average LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 15 | STLSt. Louis BluesCentral | 37–33–12 | 86 | 88.1 | OT —SO — | +12.3 | 26.7% | — | Average LosersHot Garbage | |
| 16 | CHIChicago BlackhawksCentral | 29–39–14 | 72 | 73.8 | OT —SO — | +14.3 | 26.4% | — | Average LosersHot Garbage | |
| 17 | WPGWinnipeg JetsCentral | 35–35–12 | 82 | 84.0 | OT —SO — | +12.3 | 25.5% | — | Average LosersHot Garbage | |
| 18 | DETDetroit Red WingsAtlantic | 41–31–10 | 92 | 94.2 | OT —SO — | +10.2 | 24.4% | — | Average LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 19 | CARCarolina HurricanesMetro | 53–22–7 | 113 | 115.8 | OT —SO — | +7.2 | 24.1% | — | Average LosersTrue Contenders | |
| 20 | WSHWashington CapitalsMetro | 43–30–9 | 95 | 97.3 | OT —SO — | +9.2 | 23.1% | — | Average LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 21 | SEASeattle KrakenPacific | 34–37–11 | 79 | 80.9 | OT —SO — | +11.3 | 22.9% | — | Average LosersHot Garbage | |
| 22 | NSHNashville PredatorsCentral | 38–34–10 | 86 | 88.1 | OT —SO — | +10.2 | 22.7% | — | Average LosersHot Garbage | |
| 23 | CGYCalgary FlamesPacific | 34–39–9 | 77 | 78.9 | OT —SO — | +9.2 | 18.8% | — | Bad LosersHot Garbage | |
| 24 | NYRNew York RangersMetro | 34–39–9 | 77 | 78.9 | OT —SO — | +9.2 | 18.8% | — | Bad LosersHot Garbage | |
| 25 | TBLTampa Bay LightningAtlantic | 50–26–6 | 106 | 108.6 | OT —SO — | +6.1 | 18.8% | — | Bad LosersTrue Contenders | |
| 26 | SJSSan Jose SharksPacific | 39–35–8 | 86 | 88.1 | OT —SO — | +8.2 | 18.6% | — | Bad LosersHot Garbage | |
| 27 | ANAAnaheim DucksPacific | 43–33–6 | 92 | 94.2 | OT —SO — | +6.1 | 15.4% | — | Bad LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 28 | UTAUtah MammothCentral | 43–33–6 | 92 | 94.2 | OT —SO — | +6.1 | 15.4% | — | Bad LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 29 | VANVancouver CanucksPacific | 25–49–8 | 58 | 59.4 | OT —SO — | +8.2 | 14.0% | — | Bad LosersHot Garbage | |
| 30 | NYINew York IslandersMetro | 43–34–5 | 91 | 93.2 | OT —SO — | +5.1 | 12.8% | — | Bad LosersMediocre Middle | |
| 31 | FLAFlorida PanthersAtlantic | 40–38–4 | 84 | 86.0 | OT —SO — | +4.1 | 9.5% | — | Bad LosersHot Garbage | |
| 32 | NJDNew Jersey DevilsMetro | 42–37–3 | 87 | 89.1 | OT —SO — | +3.1 | 7.5% | — | Bad LosersHot Garbage |
The lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here staggers me.
Read the labels in the table like a helix genome lab. Points pace sets its Team DNA, and symbiotic Team Profile molecules do the sequencing through a bicameral culture system: how often its wins survived beyond regulation, and how often its losses left a fossil in the points column.
Hold on to your butts!
Are these wins natural, or just a very convincing sequence?
These labels are based on Gimmick Win Dependency (GWD): the share of a team's wins that came in overtime or a shootout. We know they're toxic but the good hockey teams don't eat them.
Righteous Winners
Rank in the bottom 10 of the league for GWD. A T-Rex doesn't want to be fed — he wants to hunt. You can't just suppress 65 million years of puck instinct.
Average OT Grifters
Rank in the middle 12 of the league for GWD. Uh, now eventually you do plan to have extra-time wins, yes, on this extra time win tour, right? Hello?
Gimmick Win Addicts
Rank in the top 10 of the league for GWD. An unusually large share of their wins came from eating teams off a toilet. When you gotta go, you gotta go.
When the fence goes down, do they get out with a point?
These labels are based on Loser Point Efficiency (LPE): the percentage of a team's losses that reached overtime or a shootout and still earned a standings point. Get rid of the flare!
Elite Losers
Rank in the league's top 10 most efficient losers. They're totally unappreciated in their time. You think that kind of automation is easy? Or cheap?
Average Losers
Rank amongst the league's middle 12 for LPE. God, do I hate being right all the time. Keep absolutely still — this label is based on movement.
Bad Losers
Sit in the league's bottom 10 for Loser Point Efficiency. I don't blame NHL teams for their mistakes but I do ask that they pay for them. Thanks, dad.
Your players were so preoccupied with whether they could earn the point, they never stopped to ask if they should.
The winning and losing labels describe a team's behavior after the cretaceous period. Its DNA label is lab-grown, a point-pace calculation designed by scientists doing things which nobody's ever done before. If there's one person here who can appreciate what I'm trying to do...?
True Contenders
On pace for at least 100 points through wins alone. Loser points are a bonus, not the foundation. The league may evolve and turn them into dinosaurs, but right now this is a group of apex predators.
Mediocre Middle
Below a 100-point pace through wins alone, but on pace for at least 90 once loser points are included. Thought you were one of your big brothers — you're not so bad. No wonder you're extinct.
Hot Garbage
That is one big pile of shit. These teams are on pace for fewer than 90 official points, even with all the extra-time accounting included. Garbage! We've got garbage here! See? Nobody cares...
The labels can evolve in surprising ways. A team can be a Righteous Winner and an Elite Loser, or a Gimmick Win Addict and an Average Loser.
Their standings position is a separate question: did all that natural selection produce a True Contender, a Mediocre Hockey Club, or a giant pile of Hot Garbage?