[PGT] Flames beat Coyotes 2-1 in OT

[Conroy4Mayor]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

You're wrong. The media and everyone in the NHL uses the points percentage as the deciding factor for a team being .500.

Even the damn coach who coaches the Calgary Flames said "we are finally at .500 when they won to make themselves 13-13-2.

You can use all the fancy numbers you want and call us kids but you're wrong and all NHL teams consider point percentage for whether they're .500 or not.

I think we are being deliberately duped into using the .500 points percentage by the league and the media, because it fools us into thinking our teams are "average" when they really are not.

Interesting fact... 26 out of 30 teams in the NHL are at or above the .500 points percentage. Only Winnipeg, Vancouver, Colorado and Phoenix fail to meet that pathetic measure.

For that reason, I really dislike the idea that points determine what .500 is for most people. .500 should mean "average" or "mean".

[Street Pharmacist]

There are currently only 3 teams below .500 pts% in the entire league and they're all in the west (VAN, ARI, COL)

[Hockeyguy15]

All this .500 talk...There is a greater than .500 chance that one/some of you need a kick in the butt.

[GioforPM]

How do we all feel about the "is Pluto a planet or not" issue?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

There are currently only 3 teams below .500 pts% in the entire league and they're all in the west (VAN, ARI, COL)

So the Flames are now among that elite group of 27/30 teams that are at or above .500?

Excellent!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Conroy4Mayor

I think we are being deliberately duped into using the .500 points percentage by the league and the media, because it fools us into thinking our teams are "average" when they really are not.

Interesting fact... 26 out of 30 teams in the NHL are at or above the .500 points percentage. Only Winnipeg, Vancouver, Colorado and Phoenix fail to meet that pathetic measure.

For that reason, I really dislike the idea that points determine what .500 is for most people. .500 should mean "average" or "mean".

Looking at the season so far:

Spoiler!

1 Montreal Canadiens 0.722
2 Columbus Blue Jackets 0.708
3 Pittsburgh Penguins 0.685
4 Chicago Blackhawks 0.661
5 New York Rangers 0.661
6 Washington Capitals 0.660
7 Ottawa Senators 0.630
8 St. Louis Blues 0.630
9 Philadelphia Flyers 0.603
10 Minnesota Wild 0.600
11 San Jose Sharks 0.596
12 New Jersey Devils 0.577
13 Anaheim Ducks 0.574
14 Boston Bruins 0.571
15 Edmonton Oilers 0.552
16 Los Angeles Kings 0.538
17 Nashville Predators 0.538
18 Detroit Red Wings 0.537
19 Tampa Bay Lightning 0.536
20 Calgary Flames 0.533
21 Carolina Hurricanes 0.519
22 New York Islanders 0.519
23 Buffalo Sabres 0.500
24 Dallas Stars 0.500
25 Florida Panthers 0.500
26 Toronto Maple Leafs 0.500
27 Winnipeg Jets 0.483
28 Vancouver Canucks 0.481
29 Colorado Avalanche 0.420
30 Arizona Coyotes 0.404

the midpoint would be the Oilers at 0.552. The numerical average, which probably means nothing is 0.5646.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

How do we all feel about the "is Pluto a planet or not" issue?

The dress was blue.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

What a gift the pacific division has been this year. With that start we should be done. That being said the schedule is silly. How have the flames played 5 more games than LA? When the dust settles they should be in the race. Here's hoping they stay consistent and keep on truckin

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Toonage

The dress was blue.

There are 4 LIGHTS!!

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

Thank you for using the sensible 0.500 (although the points available per game is already two wins above mathematical 500, this 500 (equal number of weeks and losses) is really what matters, and similar (but not identical) to what the black snake line represents.

I don't follow your logic here. Standings are based on points, regardless of how they are gained. Wins and losses don't actually matter. If I understand it the black snake is based on points required not wins, so again points per game is more relevant.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

How do we all feel about the "is Pluto a planet or not" issue?

I'm sure we can all agree, Pluto is a dog.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I'm sure we can all agree, Pluto is a dog.

Yeah, but what the hell is Goofy?

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

The Oilers record in their last 3 is OTL, OTL, L

The Oilers have lost 3 in a row?

How you answer this question defines your definition of .500

Thr NHL has their streak a 1 L. The Score app at 3 L.

I like to think they've solidified their death spiral to lottery land.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Conroy4Mayor

I think we are being deliberately duped into using the .500 points percentage by the league and the media, because it fools us into thinking our teams are "average" when they really are not.

Interesting fact... 26 out of 30 teams in the NHL are at or above the .500 points percentage. Only Winnipeg, Vancouver, Colorado and Phoenix fail to meet that pathetic measure.

For that reason, I really dislike the idea that points determine what .500 is for most people. .500 should mean "average" or "mean".

It's part of the fake every team is in the playoff race narrative the NHL tries to sell. Real .500 has meaning in that assuming you pick up an average share of loser points (in the past this has been random) you will make the playoffs with a real .500. That has value and meaning. At real .500 you are better than half the teams.

For the pro fake .500 people what is the meaning of that number. When a team reaches a point percentage of .500 and someone tells me this what information am I supposed to be receiving?

Currently the only meaning I used to see was that you were a lottery team that could be the number 1 pick if you were less than 500. And not with everyone in the lottery for number 1 that meaning is gone.

500 needs to imply some meaning. In Baseball it means you had an okay season. NFL its a meaningless stat so you don't here it much. College football it gets you to a bowl game. In the NBA it more or less gets you to the playoffs. In sports where its talked about it has meaning.

In the NHL a points % of 500 its just trying to sell faux parity. For playoffs you need to be 10 games above 500.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Yeah, but what the hell is Goofy?

Also a dog. But he wears pants.

[CroFlames]

That's why we have the playoff snake. Point percentage and all that noise can shove it.

When the red snake reaches the black line, all is well.

[the2bears]

I personally don't care what .500 someone uses, just that they specify which one. They can both be accurate descriptions, based on the results of applying a formula. It's the context that matters.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by dying4acup

Forget the salary then. My question is:

Is Tkachuk not playing the way one might have expected Brouwer to when he was acquired?

No. That was not the expectation for Brouwer at all. Brouwer is a big, physical, 2 way forward that can be counted on to do his job, stand up for his team-mates, and generate 40-45 points. His value will be more understood by fans as the season wears on and game intensity ramps up. Then, once we hit the playoffs, he'll be loved.

Tkachuk is a very different, and very rare type of player. Very few guys - VERY few - can bring the combo of top line skills, physical play, and agitator. There is maybe one real agitator per team (probably less). And very few of them are highly skilled.

Brouwer was never an agitator.

Tkachuk is a very special player because he is an agitator AND (developing towards) an elite offensive player.

I'm trying to think of good comparisons and there aren't many. Bertuzzi in his prime? Marchand with even more upside? Shanahan?

Tkachuk is awesome. Don't hold that against Brouwer.

[Enoch Root]

So typical for Flames fans...

The team wins its 5th in a row and is 10-3-1 in its last 14, and now has as many points as any team in the division, and all people want to talk about is the two different ways to look at the definition of being .500

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by GGG

It's part of the fake every team is in the playoff race narrative the NHL tries to sell. Real .500 has meaning in that assuming you pick up an average share of loser points (in the past this has been random) you will make the playoffs with a real .500. That has value and meaning. At real .500 you are better than half the teams.

For the pro fake .500 people what is the meaning of that number. When a team reaches a point percentage of .500 and someone tells me this what information am I supposed to be receiving?

Currently the only meaning I used to see was that you were a lottery team that could be the number 1 pick if you were less than 500. And not with everyone in the lottery for number 1 that meaning is gone.

500 needs to imply some meaning. In Baseball it means you had an okay season. NFL its a meaningless stat so you don't here it much. College football it gets you to a bowl game. In the NBA it more or less gets you to the playoffs. In sports where its talked about it has meaning.

In the NHL a points % of 500 its just trying to sell faux parity. For playoffs you need to be 10 games above 500.

Real .500 has nothing to do with being better than half the teams. Why do people think that being .500 means there is an equal number of teams above and below? It has never meant that. I just means you have won more than you lost, other than that it has no relevance.

2015-16 There were 13 teams above, 3 teams at and 14 teams below real .500

2014-2015 There were 17 above, 2 at and only 11 below.

Saying you were over .500 gives no meaning to how you will finish in comparison at all, in fact in 2014-2015 Columbus was 2 games over real .500 and finished 23rd (behind 6 teams with a worse real .500 record). The Flames were 8 games over real .500 and barely made it into the playoffs, Washington was 8 games over and 9th overall in the league.

Unlike other sports where .500 helps identify position in the standings it doesn't work for hockey because of the loser point.

Fake .500 tells me the team will finish with 82 points. No enough for the playoffs, more work to do, but it does provide a benchmark.

Real .500 tells me the team will finish with anywhere from 82-123 points. No relevant information at all. I can't use this to compare to how other teams will finish or even to how well the same team did in a previous season.

Real .500 is only good for saying my team won more than they lost, yay us! Fake .500 provides a statistically significant number for comparing competitiveness.