34 replies to this topic

[ladiesandgentlemen]

I constantly hear everyone saying a team (such as the Ducks) have "reached the .500 mark" with a record of 8-8-3, for example.

I would not consider that record to be .500 until it reached 11-8-3, since both of the last two columns (numbers) represent loses. But I am obviously wrong since I hear everyone (including fans, media, coaches, players, etc. etc.) calling a record even at .500 when the first two columns are even.

What am I missing?

I have considered that maybe people are referring to regulation .500 record, but that cannot be the answer because OT/Shootout wins are lumped together with regulation wins in the win column. The reason for having two columns for losses is to distinguish regulation losses (for which you don't earn any points) from OT/Shootout loses (where of course you do earn a point).

Go ahead and slap me if the answer is obvious, but please explain...

[MrsBevo]

The win percentage is based purely upon wins and losses, hence 8-8-3 is .500. Perhaps it goes back to when the games ended in ties, which was a 50/50 result already and that has just carried on through the ages.

[DUX714]

I too have found this too be a little misleading. I personally think a .500 team would mean a team that has earned the same amount of points in the standings that it has given to their opponets. Example the Ducks have 23 point standings.. in their 8 losses & 3 OT losses they have yeilded a total of 22 pts + another 4 pts is the 4 games the Ducks have won in shootouts for a total of 26 pts. So as of right now the Ducks are 3pts below the TRUE .500 level of play. Anybody agree??

[Todrick]

I too have found this too be a little misleading. I personally think a .500 team would mean a team that has earned the same amount of points in the standings that it has given to their opponets. Example the Ducks have 23 point standings.. in their 8 losses & 3 OT losses they have yeilded a total of 22 pts + another 4 pts is the 4 games the Ducks have won in shootouts for a total of 26 pts. So as of right now the Ducks are 3pts below the TRUE .500 level of play. Anybody agree??

i think it should be based of possible points:

8-8-3
is 19 of a possible 38 pts.

19/38 = .500

or currently:
10-8-3
23 of a possible 42
23/42 = .548

[IkKanLaz]

I too have found this too be a little misleading. I personally think a .500 team would mean a team that has earned the same amount of points in the standings that it has given to their opponets. Example the Ducks have 23 point standings.. in their 8 losses & 3 OT losses they have yeilded a total of 22 pts + another 4 pts is the 4 games the Ducks have won in shootouts for a total of 26 pts. So as of right now the Ducks are 3pts below the TRUE .500 level of play. Anybody agree??

that makes most sense to me

[ladiesandgentlemen]

i think it should be based of possible points:

8-8-3
is 19 of a possible 38 pts.

19/38 = .500

or currently:
10-8-3
23 of a possible 42
23/42 = .548

Todrick I think you have the answer. The way you approach it is the same way winning percentage is figured for determining standings for things like the waiver wire dibs. Thank you!

[LightItUp4126]

One win = 2 points
One loss = 0 points
One OT Loss = 1 point (which is in the middle, or at .500, so it doesn't really count)

[DUX714]

If it should be based on points vs. possible points (8-8-3 = 19 / 38pts) then the NHL needs to use a 3pt system. 3pts for a regulation win - 2pts for an overtime or shootout win - 1pt for and overtime or shootout loss. Then the Ducks record would be 6 wins (18pts) - 4 ot wins (8pts) = 26pts out of 63 possible points. OR 26 pts for the Ducks while giving up 28 pts for the opponents. Either way 8-8-3 or even 10-8-3 doesn't seem like .500 to me. Having some games worh a total of 3 points combined and other games worth a total of 2 is silly.

[DUX714]

One more way too look at this.. if 10-8-3 = 23/42 pts = .548 winning percentage, how do you classify the Ducks giving their opponents 26/42 points??? is that a .619 losing percentage?? Doesn't the total need to equal 1.000% ?? Or even better.. if 23+26 = 49 total points awarded in the Ducks 21 games played then the the record would be 23/49 or = .469 winning %. Sorry to beat this thing to death but hey I like math!! HAHA

[432j]

Having some games worh a total of 3 points combined and other games worth a total of 2 is silly.

I'm glad to finally hear someone else sharing this same opinion for once.

A game should either be worth 2 points or 3 points. Not 2 on some nights and 3 on others.

[jusducks6]

It's a fine system ecspically with a shoot-out installed because it is not fair for a team to lose in a non-regular play manner and not get one point. It's simple and fair.

[432j]

It's a fine system ecspically with a shoot-out installed because it is not fair for a team to lose in a non-regular play manner and not get one point. It's simple and fair.

It may be simple, but it is not fair.

Let's consider:


Anaheim 100 points
San Jose 99 points
Dallas 98 points
LA 12 points


Last day of the season, San Jose beats LA 10-1; Anaheim loses to Dallas in the shootout.

Anaheim 101
San Jose 101
Dallas 100
LA 12

(OK, the LA part is a joke, I don't know how they got to 12 points )

Why should the Anaheim/Dallas game be worth 3 points and the SJ/LA game be worth only 2?

Plain and simple, every game should have the same number of total possible points. Even without debating the "merits" of the skills competition at the end.

Why is the value of every playoff game the same as any other, but not the value of every regular-season?

I'd much rather see each game worth 3 points with 3 awarded for a regulation victory and the two teams splitting the points after that.


Is it fair that a team winning 10 shootouts beats out another team that never won a shootout but had 9 more regulation victories?

[jusducks6]

It may be simple, but it is not fair.

Let's consider:


Anaheim 100 points
San Jose 99 points
Dallas 98 points
LA 12 points


Last day of the season, San Jose beats LA 10-1; Anaheim loses to Dallas in the shootout.

Anaheim 101
San Jose 101
Dallas 100
LA 12

(OK, the LA part is a joke, I don't know how they got to 12 points )

Why should the Anaheim/Dallas game be worth 3 points and the SJ/LA game be worth only 2?

Plain and simple, every game should have the same number of total possible points. Even without debating the "merits" of the skills competition at the end.

Why is the value of every playoff game the same as any other, but not the value of every regular-season?

I'd much rather see each game worth 3 points with 3 awarded for a regulation victory and the two teams splitting the points after that.


Is it fair that a team winning 10 shootouts beats out another team that never won a shootout but had 9 more regulation victories?

yes it is because San Jose in this situation must of lost some games in less of an effort or didn't put it out in OT/SO. Let's look at your situation.

Anaheim 110
Dallas 109
San Jose 109
Phoenix 80
Los Angeles 23

Let's say the Ducks are playing the Sharks and they go to OT two evenly matched teams. Then San Jose wins but even though they won they get subtacted a point. Then Dallas plays LA a bad team the last night of the season kills them 8-4. Why is it fair for Dallas gets sneak into the playoffs because they could beat LA in the last night of the season a team totaly out of faith but the Sharks get knocked out of contention because they couldn't put it away in regulation against another playoff caliber team?

[432j]

Let's say the Ducks are playing the Sharks and they go to OT two evenly matched teams. Then San Jose wins but even though they won they get subtacted a point. Then Dallas plays LA a bad team the last night of the season kills them 8-4. Why is it fair for Dallas gets sneak into the playoffs because they could beat LA in the last night of the season a team totaly out of faith but the Sharks get knocked out of contention because they couldn't put it away in regulation against another playoff caliber team?

Well, either a win is a win or it's not a win.

IMO, all the games should be worth the same total points. How you do that is not really important, ie: you get 2 points for a win and nothing for a loss, no matter if it's regulation, OT, or SO, or 3 points for a regulation-victory and a 2-1 split for OT/SO.

Frankly, your example is way off base since those teams in your scenario all play each other 8 times in the course of a season, so Dallas sneaking by because they played LA is just making up for having played a tougher team earlier. There are quirks in the schedule, but that isn't one of them.

[jusducks6]

Well, either a win is a win or it's not a win.

IMO, all the games should be worth the same total points. How you do that is not really important, ie: you get 2 points for a win and nothing for a loss, no matter if it's regulation, OT, or SO, or 3 points for a regulation-victory and a 2-1 split for OT/SO.

Frankly, your example is way off base since those teams in your scenario all play each other 8 times in the course of a season, so Dallas sneaking by because they played LA is just making up for having played a tougher team earlier. There are quirks in the schedule, but that isn't one of them.

The teams featured don't make a whole lot a sence but look at how the Rangers/Isles/Flyers race will shape up it's not to far off. You just said a win is a win but then you put a 3 point regulation and 2 point OT it's not. I can't agree with nothing for a loss because an all grit team is not good in shoot-outs they should get screwed for just that fact. I think we can agree to disagree though. I do see where your coming from.

[432j]

The teams featured don't make a whole lot a sence but look at how the Rangers/Isles/Flyers race will shape up it's not to far off. You just said a win is a win but then you put a 3 point regulation and 2 point OT it's not. I can't agree with nothing for a loss because an all grit team is not good in shoot-outs they should get screwed for just that fact. I think we can agree to disagree though. I do see where your coming from.

Frankly, I do feel that a win is a win. That's how it works in the playoffs. You win or your lose. That could be a 10-1 blowout or a game that takes 8+ periods to decide.

If it were up to me, it would be 2 points for a victory and 1 point for a tie and there would be no shootout.

But, being realistic, the shootout (as invalid as it is) will not go away. So, the pragmatic part of me advocates 3-point games (because all games should have the same value) with the full amount awarded for a regulation victory and 2 for winning in OT or the SO and the losing team "earning" the remaining.

I realize I'm in the minority on this view, so agreeing to disagree probably makes you "right" - so to speak.

[Duck304]

i think it should be based of possible points:

8-8-3
is 19 of a possible 38 pts.

19/38 = .500

or currently:
10-8-3
23 of a possible 42
23/42 = .548

OWNED!!!

[Itlan]

I'm a little late to the party on this one, but I thought I'd share one of my "tools"...
Point System Calculator

* Requires IE, and possibly MS Office or a plugin...

Some possible settings:
Current is 2 2 1 2 1
Old School is 2 2 0 1 1
Progressive is 5 4 1 3 2
Nascar is 500 375 0 125 0

Any questions, please let me know!

[BritDuck]

I always learned that .500 was when the points you had equalled the number of games you've played. It basically the same as Todrick's system, but required no calculations!

[DUX714]

I always learned that .500 was when the points you had equalled the number of games you've played. It basically the same as Todrick's system, but required no calculations!

By that calculation a team could go 0-0-82 and be .500?? Aquiring 82 pts in 82 games yet yeilding 162 pts?? In the old NHL with ties I would agree with your statement but with some games having 3 total points awarded the new measuring sitck should be PA (ponts awarded) vs PY (points yielded). An overtime loss is not equal to the old Tie system because one team now earns 2 points in the process. But you can all fool yourself into thinking it doesn't matter.
FURTHERMORE. Under the old system (no shootouts) The Ducks record would be 6-9-6. That's right.. We would have 18 points in 21 games.. Enough said.

[Dutch Duck]

By that calculation a team could go 0-0-82 and be .500?? Aquiring 82 pts in 82 games yet yeilding 162 pts?? In the old NHL with ties I would agree with your statement but with some games having 3 total points awarded the new measuring sitck should be PA (ponts awarded) vs PY (points yielded). An overtime loss is not equal to the old Tie system because one team now earns 2 points in the process. But you can all fool yourself into thinking it doesn't matter.
FURTHERMORE. Under the old system (no shootouts) The Ducks record would be 6-9-6. That's right.. We would have 18 points in 21 games.. Enough said.

Well yeah, going 0-0-82 would mean you're at .500, cause it stands for points earned out of possible points. Todrick is right!
Besides didn't the old system before the shootouts also included OT loses? Where the winning team in OT gets 2 points and the losing team gets 1 point? In 2003 for example the Ducks went 40-27-9-6 = 95 points.

[DUX714]

Well yeah, going 0-0-82 would mean you're at .500, cause it stands for points earned out of possible points. Todrick is right!
Besides didn't the old system before the shootouts also included OT loses? Where the winning team in OT gets 2 points and the losing team gets 1 point? In 2003 for example the Ducks went 40-27-9-6 = 95 points.

Ok so the Ducks would have 19pts vs the 18pts I had stated.. Still under the 21 they would need to be .500
Whatever.. we choose to diagree.. so let's try on last scenario.. I give you $50 and you give me $100.. Then we will call it even. Get my drift??

[BritDuck]

Ok so the Ducks would have 19pts vs the 18pts I had stated.. Still under the 21 they would need to be .500
Whatever.. we choose to diagree.. so let's try on last scenario.. I give you $50 and you give me $100.. Then we will call it even. Get my drift??

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You can say "it should be this" as many times as you like, but the truth is, when a team is said to be playing .500 hockey, it means they have as many points as games played. That's it. No big "some games are worth 3 points, some 2 arguments". Sorry, but that's the way it is.

[DUX714]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You can say "it should be this" as many times as you like, but the truth is, when a team is said to be playing .500 hockey, it means they have as many points as games played. That's it. No big "some games are worth 3 points, some 2 arguments". Sorry, but that's the way it is.

That is the way it is your are correct.. Doesn't mean it makes the most sense.. .500 = 1/2 .. SOOOOO When the Ducks have 1/2 the number of wins as games played I will agree they are a .500 club.

[432j]

An overtime loss is not equal to the old Tie system because one team now earns 2 points in the process.

Unless, you're playing a team in the other conference, in which case, an OTL is essentially equal to a tie in the old system since the extra point will almost never hurt you in the standings -- unless the President's Trophy is on the line.