With all 31 general managers getting together in Florida the week for their annual meetings, a handful of topics have come to the forefront of the NHL conversation. Offsides, review and bye-week discussions are all taking place as the GMs break into different groups to discuss the game, but one topic continually has fans talking; what about the shootout, and that nasty little “loser point”?
The NHL has long maintained its need for parity league-wide, keeping smaller markets relevant into the late stages of the season and not allowing the powerhouses to push them out financially. It’s why the salary cap was introduced in the first place, as teams like New York and Toronto would buy up all the good players every year and force the Carolinas and Floridas of the world to feast on the scraps. The idea that almost every team was still in the playoff hunt at the deadline—sorry Colorado—was one the NHL relished even if it did make for a less exciting trading atmosphere. One of the other things many people point to is that “loser point”, which is the one earned if the score is tied at the end of regulation regardless of what happens afterwards.
But is that really forcing parity in the league, or is it something else? Mark Stepneski of NHL.com tweets that it has a lot to do with that salary cap, and he’s probably right. That has a much bigger impact on competitive balance league wide, even if not all teams are spending equally.
Looking at an example, the standings in the Western Conference right now are as follows: