What is .500 hockey? - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

FlamesFan68 · 12-09-2016, 09:34 AM

I really hate it when the "media" calls for .500 hockey when they don't even know what .500 hockey is. Before we had overtime losses we had ties. At that time I had no problem with .500 hockey. Example 10-10-5 is 25 points and .500 hockey is when the 5 were ties and both teams got 1 point. Right now, we have overtime losses, they are not ties. One team is giving up an extra point as a win to the other team. So there are extra points given. So to say a .500 team is average is false. So I have made up two new terms. A winner's .500 and a loser's .500

Winner's .500 is a team that has as many wins as they do losses and OTL's combined. Example, 15-10-5 is a winner's .500

Loser's .500 is a team that has as many wins as they do they do losses and the extra point doesn't matter. Example 10-10-5 is a loser's .500

I noticed playing NHL 10 that if I have a better than winner's .500 I quite often make the playoffs. If I have a slightly better than loser's .500 I quite often don't make the playoffs.

I think this is a more accurate way of looking at .500 in an overtime loss era of hockey.

The Yen Man · 12-09-2016, 09:38 AM

Winning % .500 is really the only way to use the term accurately IMO. All those "oh, well it's not a 0.500 record if you count OTL" arguments are meaningless in the end. A team can statistically go 0-0-82 and end up with the exact same number of points as a team going 41-41-0. So why is one team considered 0.500 and the other team not?

And yes, I do realize the 41-41-0 team would win the tie breaker, but the tie breaker is outside of the .500 metric.

nfotiu · 12-09-2016, 09:41 AM

I agree with you. Real .500 is a decent goal to have. .500 not counting OTLs as losses is usually a poor season. It's too bad the NHL can't figure out a way to publish standings that take into account games played. It seems silly to to have Calgary and Edmonton at the top right now. It really should be 1. San Jose, 2. Ducks, 3. Edmonton, and 4. Calgary/LA.

It would be easy to do if they killed the OTL, and made .500 hockey great again!

FlamesAddiction · 12-09-2016, 09:42 AM

I think it is simplest to just look at it as a ratio of points obtained vs. points that were available for taking.

For all intents and purposes, an OT loss is a tie.

thymebalm · 12-09-2016, 09:43 AM

These days it seems like .500 hockey refers to points percentage and "true .500" refers to win percentage.

I flip back and forth on the definition depending on what makes the Flames sound better and the Oilers sound worse.

Vinny01 · 12-09-2016, 09:44 AM

82pts on the year is .500 hockey no matter how you get there. It is about point % not wins vs losses

FlamesFan68 · 12-09-2016, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Winning % .500 is really the only way to use the term accurately IMO. All those "oh, well it's not a 0.500 record if you count OTL" arguments are meaningless in the end. A team can statistically go 0-0-82 and end up with the exact same number of points as a team going 41-41-0. So why is one team considered 0.500 and the other team not?

And yes, I do realize the 41-41-0 team would win the tie breaker, but the tie breaker is outside of the .500 metric.

BUT, there are extra points floating around out there that wouldn't be in the system with the overtime wins. In a typical win 2 points is awarded to a winning team. in an overtime win game 3 points is awarded in the game. That extra points is kicking around out there, it didn't just disappear. You now need more points to make the playoffs, you can't just be a loser's .500 and think you have a good chance.

If you OTL all the way through the season, which is a loser's .500 If you go and get a winner's .500 split wins and losses you get in playoffs over the other team even though the points are the same. Although, likely both teams don't make the playoff unless you're in the East Conference.

nfotiu · 12-09-2016, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny01

82pts on the year is .500 hockey no matter how you get there. It is about point % not wins vs losses

If every team averages 90 points, then 82 points is not .500. .500 should be half of the ~2.2 points given out every game.

Since slightly more than half the teams make the playoffs, it roughly works out that real .500 is the mark needed to make the playoffs. Of course the big assumption is everyone gets roughly an average amount of OTLs.

Hack&Lube · 12-09-2016, 09:49 AM

I wish I could score 50% on tests and still be lauded as doing well...

Calgary4LIfe · 12-09-2016, 09:49 AM

I would assume it is points percentage.

If someone talks win percentage, then it is wins and losses - including OT/SO losses.

Since the introduction of the extra point in OT/SO, it really does make more sense to talk about point percentages as '.500 hockey'.

Cecil Terwilliger · 12-09-2016, 09:51 AM

In hockey it most often refers to points % but that is meaningless considering that 27 of 30 teams are .500 or better right now.

Winning % is the better stat for determining if a team is good, since pts % has been watered down so much.

nfotiu · 12-09-2016, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I wish I could score 50% on tests and still be lauded as doing well...

If your tests were a 1:1 battle with each classmate, then 50% would probably be decent. I think class would be more fun too.

JiriHrdina · 12-09-2016, 09:52 AM

I think the media understand what .500 is - just because you don't agree with the definition doesn't make it wrong.
Most fans will simply look at the standings and see if a team has as many, or more, wins as losses, and associate .500 with that.
But really it is just an arbitrary line, because a .500 hockey team won't likely make the playoffs.
So not sure what it is something to get twisted up about.

FlamesFan68 · 12-09-2016, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I wish I could score 50% on tests and still be lauded as doing well...

Yes, my point is. The NHL has a weird way of looking at 50% now.

It's the same as me awarding you 50% on your test even though you only got 45%, but I gave you an extra 5% for your attendance record.

FlamesFan68 · 12-09-2016, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I think the media understand what .500 is - just because you don't agree with the definition doesn't make it wrong.
Most fans will simply look at the standings and see if a team has as many, or more, wins as losses, and associate .500 with that.
But really it is just an arbitrary line, because a .500 hockey team won't likely make the playoffs.
So not sure what it is something to get twisted up about.

I like merit where it is deserved, and the Flames aren't far off because they have almost made the winner's .500 The Oiler's have had more combined losses than the Flames, but with a game in hand. I think it is a more accurate way of looking at things. A team gets a better than winner's .500 hockey they likely make the playoffs with 16 teams making the playoff out of 30.

The Fonz · 12-09-2016, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesFan68

Yes, my point is. The NHL has a weird way of looking at 50% now.

What is weird about it? You make the playoffs based off of how many points you get, not how many wins. That being said, why should .500 refer to anything other than points%?

It wouldn't make any sense to speak of .500 in terms of win%.

GranteedEV · 12-09-2016, 10:04 AM

.500 means winning as often as you lose.

If a league has ties, .500 is Wins = Half of (Wins+Losses)

If a League has 3 point games, .500 is (Regulation Wins + Overtime Wins + Shootout Wins) = Half of (Games Played)

Now if you want to talk about points percentage, then it should be denoted. A .500 Points Percentage is not ".500" but it is a .500 Points Percentage. Not that a .500 Points Percentage has any real value as you have to be a total bottom feeder to fall below that mark.

FlamesFanStrandedInEDM · 12-09-2016, 10:05 AM

I like the NBA and MLB's approach, No Pts, just wins.

The Fonz · 12-09-2016, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesFan68

I like merit where it is deserved, and the Flames aren't far off because they have almost made the winner's .500 The Oiler's have had more combined losses than the Flames, but with a game in hand. I think it is a more accurate way of looking at things. A team gets a better than winner's .500 hockey they likely make the playoffs with 16 teams making the playoff out of 30.

There is no "winner's .500" or "loser's .500". There is win% and point%.

squiggs96 · 12-09-2016, 10:08 AM

.500 is points won divided by points available. It doesn't matter how many points are given out, a team can only earn a maximum of two points per game. If you get half of those points, you are .500.

Since .500 is simply math, it's not a term that equates a team to playoffs or not. This is especially true when playoff teams aren't exactly 50% of the total teams, don't play the same schedule, and where one team can have a better record than another team, but miss the playoffs due to divisional alignment. Even before the 3 point games were introduced, .500 (82 points) didn't guarantee you a playoff berth, but you could get into the playoffs with less than 82 points. In 1995-96 NJD missed with 86 points, and 5 teams made the western playoffs with less than 81 points.

How can you say that a 41-41-0 record is better than a 40-21-20 record? Some here would say that the former is .500 while the latter is .487. The former received 82 points and the latter received 100 points. Which record would you want your team to have? One is likely out of the playoffs and one is definitely in, with a shot at winning the division. One got .500 of the points, while the other got .610 of the points. I know which one I'd pick.

All .500 means is do you have half the amount of points you could have. It's easier to spot in the NBA and MLB where there aren't ties, but the theory isn't much different in the NFL and NHL.