Growing up the NHL ranked team standings based on a point system that was easy to understand. A win was worth 2 points, a tie 1 point, and a loss 0 points.
Since that time there have been a few modifications. They got rid of ties, which have led to a few different ways of keeping track of the standings. The worst was a many-column system which required keeping track of overtime Wins and Losses (OTW and OTL) which resulted in a complicated record keeping system: Chicago Blackhawks (4-3-0-2). Today's system requires keeping track of Wins (2 points), Losses (0 points) and OT Losses (1 point). And when it comes to tie-breakers at the end of the season, there's a ROW (regulation Wins, i.e., wins that didn't go to overtime) column which is required.
Something like 25-30% of the games go to overtime, which means that three points are issued in the standings between the two teams. There are a couple of implications of note here: 1. there is less separation in the standings which means teams appear to be "in the hunt" longer into the season (which is good for fan involvement and making money), and 2. teams win percentages are artificially inflated.
Related to that second point, as we approach the season's quarter-pole the Red Wings, who lost six of their first seven games this season, have just clawed their way back to "NHL .500" last night by bringing their record to 8-8-2 (8 Wins, 8 Losses, 2 OT Losses) which is good for 18 points in 18 games (which is 18/18 = 1.00 point per game, which is 1.00/2 = 0.500 vs. possible total earnable points). (But really they've won 8 and lost 10, it's just they pushed two of those losses into OT before getting beat, earning a couple of consolation points.)
Compare "NHL .500" for the Red Wings to the rest of the league. Out of the 30 other teams in the league, how many teams would you expect are worse than NHL .500? The answer, as of today, is five: OTT (17 points in 18 games played), NJD (15 in 16 GP), CHI (16 in 18), LVK (15 in 18), and the woeful LAK (11 in 17).
The league loves this metric because as of today casual fans of 25 of 31 teams can look in their local newspaper read on the internet that their team is at or above middling, and isn't that cool that their team is better than half the league?
There are lots of ways to "fix" this issue, but from the league's perspective, there's absolutely no reason to.
Oh, and some guys went into the Hall of Fame earlier this week, and during the resulting in-season GM meetings, the big-wigs actually decided to recommend no rules changes to the competition committee for the first time I can remember.
Not a pathological narcissist.