Charity Point Index 2010-2011

Traditionalists in hockey circles are nearly unanimous in their distaste for the so-called charity point a team gets if they simply manage to make it to overtime.  Likewise, many people dislike the shootout, deriding it as a sideshow or skills competition.  Every team's point total is inflated due to some games being worth three points, but the inflation is never equitable across the board.

I've devised a quick and dirty Charity Point Index (CPI) to determine which teams are the biggest benefactors of the charity point, and then I'll discuss how the standings would have been different if the league suddenly decided to go back to 1998-1999 standards for scoring, when games could end in a tie and overtime losses were treated as actual losses, and there were always 2460 points to be had.

CPI can be expressed as the following:

via upload.wikimedia.org

That is, a ratio of actual points to non-charity points, expressed as a percentage.  CPI will always be at least 100%.

As you can see from the picture that led the story, the Colorado Avalanche had a higher percentage of their points come from charitable contributions than any other.  After all, they only had 68 points on the season, of which 13 came either from shootout wins or from overtime losses that didn't make it to the shootout.  Avs fans should actually be upset with this, though, because the benefit may actually end up hurting them in the draft lottery, given that it's the only reason they didn't finish last in the NHL.  Oops.

You want raw data?  Here you go:

Team	Points  OTL  SOW  SOL	Adj. Points	 CPI
 COL	   68    8    6    1	    55		123.64
 NYI	   73   13    4    6	    62		117.74
 CGY	   94   12    9    7        80		117.50
 BUF	   96   10    5    1	    82		117.07
 LAK	   98    6   10    2	    84		116.67
 PIT	  106    8   10    3	    91		116.48
 NSH	   99	11    6    4	    86		115.12
 ATL	   80   12    5    7	    70		114.29
 FLA	   72	12    4    7	    63		114.29
 CBJ	   81	13    5    8	    71		114.08
 PHX	   99   13    5    6	    87		113.79
 CAR	   91   11    5    5	    80		113.75
 NYR	   93	 5    9    3	    82		113.41
 TOR	   85   11    5    6	    75		113.33
 TBL	  103   11    6    6	    92		111.96
 STL	   87	11    4    6	    78		111.54
 CHI	   97	 9    6    5	    87		111.49
 DET	  104	10    4    4	    94		110.64
 DAL	   95	11    5    7	    86		110.47
 OTT	   74   10    2    5	    67		110.45
 WSH	  107   11    5    6	    97		110.31
 SJS	  105	 9    5    5	    96		109.38
 MTL	   96	 8    3    3	    88		109.09
 EDM	   62	12    2    9	    57		108.77
 PHI	  106	12    3    7	    98		108.16
 NJD	   81	 5    3    2	    75		108.00
 ANA	   99	 5    4    2	    92		107.61
 MIN	   86	 8    3    5	    80		107.50
 VAN	  117    8    3    5	   109		107.34
 BOS	  103   11    2    6	    96		107.29

And how would the standings look, you ask?

==EASTERN CONFERENCE==		==WESTERN CONFERENCE==
  PHI   98			  VAN  109
  WSH   97			  SJS   96
  BOS   96			  DET   94
  TBL   92			  ANA   92
  PIT   91			  PHX   87
  MTL   88			  CHI   87
  BUF   82			  DAL   86
  NYR   82			  NSH   86
 ----------			 ----------
  CAR   80			  LAK   84
  NJD   75			  MIN   80
  TOR   75			  CGY   80
  ATL   70			  STL   78
  OTT   67			  CBJ   71
  FLA   63			  EDM   57
  NYI   62			  COL   55

In the old days, Dallas would not have missed the playoffs, the Kings would have, and Tampa Bay beating Pittsburgh wouldn't have been an upset.  On the other hand, Nashville beating Anaheim would have been impossible because they wouldn't have faced each other, but if they had, it would have been an even bigger upset than it was.  Oh, and the folks over at Broad Street would have had cause for celebration.

If you have any questions about the methods here, please ask in the comments.  I'll try to answer.