Blah. Was excited about 4+ pages to read in the GDT but it’s all about .500 semantics.
I'm just glad that a final resolution to this topic will be determined in the GDT of game 3 of the season and will never, ever again be discussed on CP.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to D as in David For This Useful Post:
The points percentage thing the NHL does, including the loser point, is designed to make people feel that their mediocre team is better than they are. 3 on 3 OT is fun, but you shouldn't base your judgments about a team's quality on anything that happens after regulation, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, because of the points system, there's an argument that you also shouldn't judge based on how a team plays in a third period of a close game because everyone's playing to make sure they end up with at least a point. It absolutely sucks. The league needs to go to 3-2-1 or some variation of it more than it needs anything else.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Unfortunately, because of the points system, there's an argument that you also shouldn't judge based on how a team plays in a third period of a close game because everyone's playing to make sure they end up with at least a point. It absolutely sucks. The league needs to go to 3-2-1 or some variation of it more than it needs anything else.
I agree, play for an extra point.
I would also be interested in some type of bonus point for scoring x number of goalie or losing by only x number of goals in a loss.
Reward adventurous play
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop
I will never, ever.....ever.......understand what Torts thought he was going to accomplish there other than the immediate suspension he received afterwards.
One of my favorite moments because it was so bizarre.
Oh....and glad Grats was policing everyone....Malarchuk could have escalated that to a point of no return.
The Following User Says Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
I'm just glad that a final resolution to this topic will be determined in the GDT of game 3 of the season and will never, ever again be discussed on CP.
Indeed it will!
To properly calculate whether a team is over 0.500 you have consider the percentages of points gained and points lost to an opponent. If the percentage points gained and the inverse percentage of points lost together average over 50%, the team is over 0.500.
It's true. I read it on QuantaMagazine.
Now there is no more need to ever discuss it again.
Hoping to see CGY take the initiative on puck drop. CGY has a nice template from previous game but need to come out with the best jump, playing on toes and executing their game.
Play hard, make plays and have fun!!!
Last edited by Jeff Lebowski; 01-18-2021 at 03:36 PM.
This .500 talk is ridiculous. A couple of you nailed it early on: you guys are talking about two different metrics, in this case fractions.
Point % = Points Earned / Total Potential Points
Win % = Wins / Total Games Played
There is no right or wrong answer for a .500 (50%) team unless specify what your measuring. But of course points are what get you into the playoffs, so logically it is the more important/meaningful metric.
I have now fallen victim and added to the meaningless .500 semantics debate.
GO FLAMES!
The Following User Says Thank You to Big Erned Nevergivn For This Useful Post:
The points percentage thing the NHL does, including the loser point, is designed to make people feel that their mediocre team is better than they are. 3 on 3 OT is fun, but you shouldn't base your judgments about a team's quality on anything that happens after regulation, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, because of the points system, there's an argument that you also shouldn't judge based on how a team plays in a third period of a close game because everyone's playing to make sure they end up with at least a point. It absolutely sucks. The league needs to go to 3-2-1 or some variation of it more than it needs anything else.
I was on the 3-2-1 train for a long time. I now think the league simply needs to determine a winner and a loser in each game. 2 points or zero.
The problem with that is that 3 in 3 and shootout doesn’t reflect how the Stanley Cup is awarded and now you’re giving quite a reward for how you play in those situations. Is there an other major sport that changes the rules from regular season to playoffs?
But I say the league just needs to pick a format and go with it. The threat of losing is what makes winning so fun. I like having it all on the line in OT.
The problem with that is no one will agree to let the shootout determine a game for win/lose (2 pts or 0). And without the shootout, you don't know how long a game will continue, before a winner is determined.
The simplest scenario is the 3-2-1
And the bottom line, for me, is that making it to OT is better than a regulation loss, and therefore should be worth more
