Wild Card Race (Western Conference)

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

100+ points is more than "golden"

No kidding. Any team who finishes the Last game of the year with over 100 points will enjoy a golden shower post game.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

No kidding. Any team who finishes the Last game of the year with over 100 points will enjoy a golden shower post game.

[Street Pharmacist]

Has a team ever missed with 96 points? I kinda doubt it

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Has a team ever missed with 96 points? I kinda doubt it

In 2010/11 Dallas finished 9th with 95 points, CHI was 8th with 97 points.

In 2006/07 Colorado finished 9th with 95 points, CAL was 8th with 96 points.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

In 2010/11 Dallas finished 9th with 95 points, CHI was 8th with 97 points.

In 2006/07 Colorado finished 9th with 95 points, CAL was 8th with 96 points.

So really, 96 points is "golden". 97 would be "platinum"

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

So really, 96 points is "golden". 97 would be "platinum"

I'd say so yeap.

27 points out of 42 and we are "platinum" (0.642)
26 points out of 42 and we are "golden" (0.619)

Flames currently have 70 points in 61 games this season (0.573)

[polak]

to me Golden means it's a guarantee.

100 points would be a guarantee.

[Komskies]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

In 2010/11 Dallas finished 9th with 95 points, CHI was 8th with 97 points.

In 2006/07 Colorado finished 9th with 95 points, CAL was 8th with 96 points.

Colorado was playing some insane hockey to finish that 2006-07 season. They won 15 of their final 19 games, including 11 wins in March. 3 of those wins came against the Flames too.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Minnesota has played 18 games since acquiring Dubnyk. In those 18 they've played Buffalo, Arizona, Edmonton 3x, Columbus, Carolina, Colorado, Dallas.

Took care of business tonight against the team with the best home record in the league. It's simply not going to be easy for the Flames as they will have to take care of their own business as OOT scoreboards aren't helping them very much.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Took care of business tonight against the team with the best home record in the league. It's simply not going to be easy for the Flames as they will have to take care of their own business as OOT scoreboards aren't helping them very much.

Too true. 12 more wins gets it done if they are ROW wins, I'd say.

[JJ1532]

Well, almost a perfect OOT night for us, but the Preds had to spoil things slightly. Can't grumble too much though, Kings and Canucks lose games against non play off teams that they should have easily won. Jets lose in a SO. Man I hope Gio's injury isn't serious, because if he doesn't miss any games/a couple at most, we have a great shot at making the play offs. Vancouver relying on Lack, the Jets tough run in. Fingers crossed for good news tomorrow.

[mister__big]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Has a team ever missed with 96 points? I kinda doubt it

It could well happen this year. Look at how many loser points are being handed out on a daily basis.

If it weren't for their 12(!) loser points, LA would be pretty much out of playoff contention right now, and yet they are within striking range of 2nd in the Pacific.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by mister__big

It could well happen this year. Look at how many loser points are being handed out on a daily basis.

If it weren't for their 12(!) loser points, LA would be pretty much out of playoff contention right now, and yet they are within striking range of 2nd in the Pacific.

People keep pointing up this "loser point" thing, as if it's somehow more gimmicky than winning that 3rd point. I see those as equally "gimmicky."

Also, IMO it's not an indication that LA is higher up in the standings than they "should be", more like the opposite. There is so much luck involved in OT/SO. Just getting a bit closer to statistical average should give them extra points for the same play. (Not that they need it with the way they're playing now.)

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Itse

People keep pointing up this "loser point" thing, as if it's somehow more gimmicky than winning that 3rd point. I see those as equally "gimmicky."

They are, in fact, the same gimmick. It's ludicrous that in a game where the winner gets 2 points, the league is handing out an average of about 2.2 points for every game played.

In my own opinion, there should never be a third point handed out for a game; but which point you take away depends on how the game was decided. I'm opposed to giving out a point for losing in overtime: let the OT winner get the traditional 2 points, and let the loser eat cake.

But I'm also opposed to giving out an extra point for winning at a cheap show-biz gimmick like the shootout. Every shootout I've ever been to was dull as ditchwater to actually watch, however pretty it may have looked when compressed into a 30-second highlight reel. Most of the time is spent sitting around waiting for the next shooter; most of the shooters try the same two or three tricks; and it all gets very much the same in a hurry.

The only reason I stick around for shootouts is that after investing three hours of my life in regulation + OT, I want to find out how the damned game ends. At that point, I'd be just as happy with a tie. Sure, a tie is an unsatisfying finish to a game, but it's neat, simple, and good enough for the most popular team sport in the world. There's no reason why it isn't good enough for hockey. If OT ends without a decision, I say split the two points and call it a day.

In L.A.'s case, they would have lost 1 point for a SOW and 5 points for OTLs. Calgary would also have 6 fewer points. The real hog at the trough this year has been Winnipeg, with 6 SOWs and 7 OTLs. They have settled less than two-thirds of their games in regulation, and been rewarded with 13 extra points (compared to the pre-OTL, pre-shootout system) for dragging the games out as long as possible. The standings make it look like the Jets are good at winning hockey games, when in reality they are only good at not deciding games.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Itse

People keep pointing up this "loser point" thing, as if it's somehow more gimmicky than winning that 3rd point. I see those as equally "gimmicky."

Also, IMO it's not an indication that LA is higher up in the standings than they "should be", more like the opposite. There is so much luck involved in OT/SO. Just getting a bit closer to statistical average should give them extra points for the same play. (Not that they need it with the way they're playing now.)

The loser point is what it is. Every team has the same opportunities to get 1 or 2 points a game so if the Flames miss the playoffs because a team ahead of them collects more loser points then it's still on the Flames for not taking care of business and securing more points. The league does throw teams like the Flames a bone in that in the event of a tie they would get positioned ahead of most of the teams they are in the race with because they have more wins.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Took care of business tonight against the team with the best home record in the league. It's simply not going to be easy for the Flames as they will have to take care of their own business as OOT scoreboards aren't helping them very much.

They also beat us twice.

And while it is annoying that Nashville picked last night to lose at home, the OOT went about as well as we could have hoped. Just need to beat the Isles tonight (easy, right?) and take advantage.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Itse

People keep pointing up this "loser point" thing, as if it's somehow more gimmicky than winning that 3rd point. I see those as equally "gimmicky."

Also, IMO it's not an indication that LA is higher up in the standings than they "should be", more like the opposite. There is so much luck involved in OT/SO. Just getting a bit closer to statistical average should give them extra points for the same play. (Not that they need it with the way they're playing now.)

Depends on context. The only reason there is a third point is because of the gimmicky loser point. So no, winning in overtime and getting that third point is not gimmicky in the least. Winning in that idiotic shootout to "break" a tie game, however, is gimmicky.

LA has only five gimmick points, not 12. Four OT losses and one shootout win. Calgary has six. Three OT losses and three shootout wins.

[Tsawwassen]

After Thursday's games:


1. Winnipeg (31-20-12) 25 ROW, 74 pts
Vancouver (35-23-3) 32 ROW, 73 pts--second in Pacific Division
2. Minnesota (32-22-7) 30 ROW, 71 pts
Los Angeles (29-19-12) 28 ROW, 70 pts--third in the Pacific Division
3. Calgary (33-24-4) 30 ROW, 70 pts--and fourth in Pacific Division
4. San Jose (30-24-8) 28 ROW, 68 pts--and fifth in the Pacific Division
5. Dallas (27-25-9) 25 ROW, 63 pts
6. Colorado (26-24-11) 19 ROW, 63 pts

Wild won in regulation
Canucks, Kings, and Sharks lost in regulation
Jets lost in the shootout

[Itse]

For curiosity I checked what the standings would be if every game was worth 3 points. I was actually surprised that there is quite a lot of variation between teams with similar points.

Here's the whole western conference:

1. Nashville: 29
2. Los Angeles: 27
3. Minnesota: 27
4. Vancouver: 27
5. St. Louis: 27
6. San Jose: 26
7. Chicago: 25
8. Anaheim: 25
   
9. Dallas: 24
   
10. Calgary: 22
    
11. Winnipeg: 21
    
12. Colorado: 17
    
13. Arizona: 13
14. Edmonton: 12

The teams in bold are the ones that surprised me the most. In regulation wins Winnipeg is a bottom feeder, which is somewhat surprising. But the huge difference between Colorado and Dallas (who have the same amount of points in same amount of games) was the biggest surprise for me.

Here's how 3 point regulation wins would look for the current wild card race. The blue and red represent the current teams in playoff spots, with wildcards in red. This would not change much.

Most notable changes are the situation of Minnesota and Winnipeg.

Chicago: 104 (3rd in Central)
1. Minnesota: 101
Vancouver: 100 (2nd in Pacific)
Los Angeles: 97 (3rd in Pacific)
2. Winnipeg: 95
3. San Jose: 94
4. Calgary: 92
5. Dallas: 87
6. Colorado: 80


What's interesting is that the race would be MORE tight this way, even though the common reasoning seems to be that the current system keeps the race tight. I included Chicago in the list to demonstrate that for example Minnesota would be just 1 three point win behind them (with a game in hand), and the closest team chasing them would be San Jose, 4 wins behind. Currently it would take 3 wins from Winnipeg just to drop them to a wild card spot, and 6 wins for San Jose to catch them.

As another example, Dallas is now 5 wins behind the last wild card spot (8 points and a tiebreaker vs. Minnesota), which is unsurmountable. With 3 point regulation wins they would be only 3 wins (9 points) behind Winnipeg, with two games in hand.

You could also get past two teams that are tied with you, even if those teams played each other.

[Sainters7]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, I don't really get to check this site during work unfortunately, but...

Why is it showing the Kings ahead of us in the standings when we're tied in points? Don't we hold the tiebreaker on them? We have more wins too. I know they have a game in hand on us, but this isn't baseball..


Posted from Calgarypuck.com App for Android