NHL Points/Standings System Discussion Thread

[Mathgod]

Can we talk about it in here and leave it out of other threads? Thanks.

I'll start...

.500 points percentage and .500 win percentage are two different things.

A record such as 12-12-3 implies a .500 points % but not a .500 win %.

Ultimately neither of these are relevant in the 3-point era. The only thing relevant is how many total wins you have minus regulation losses, compared to the other teams in the standings.

At the time of posting this, the teams in front of the Flames right now are +12, +8, +7, +5, so the Flames at 0 have their work cut out for them.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Fights always start when people aren't specific. "We are at .500!" Every time I see this sentence, I will try to remind myself to congratulate them in their determination to finally become potty trained.


There will be no more confusion, and therefore no more arguments, if people just say: "The Flames are at .500 points percentage" or "The Flames are .500 in games". Points or games - just don't forget to add that to your post, or it will just trigger 50% on this board who feel that this ambiguous comment is wrong.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Can we talk about it in here and leave it out of other threads? Thanks.

I'll start...

.500 points percentage and .500 win percentage are two different things.

A record such as 12-12-3 implies a .500 points % but not a .500 win %.

Ultimately neither of these are relevant in the 3-point era. The only thing relevant is how many total wins you have minus regulation losses, compared to the other teams in the standings.

At the time of posting this, the teams in front of the Flames right now are +12, +8, +7, +5, so the Flames at 0 have their work cut out for them.

Which is exactly what I was at least trying to say.

Wins of any type minus wins is equal to what I call .500, which is when total wins equal regulation loses. Which is the first two columns in the standings.

So while Calgary may be 4 points behind Calgary, since Montreal has a game in hand, it really equates to about 5 points, which is their difference in win/loss differential.

Calgary likely needs to be at about +9 when the season is over, so that’s the goal. Equates to 95 points on a full season.

It starts tonight. Calgary can go to +1 and bring Montreal back to +4. That’s pretty close and can be overcome quickly with a bit of a winning streak and a few Montreal loses.

This would be a great game to be at the Saddledome.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Fights always start when people aren't specific. "We are at .500!" Every time I see this sentence, I will try to remind myself to congratulate them in their determination to finally become potty trained.


There will be no more confusion, and therefore no more arguments, if people just say: "The Flames are at .500 points percentage" or "The Flames are .500 in games". Points or games - just don't forget to add that to your post, or it will just trigger 50% on this board who feel that this ambiguous comment is wrong.

If your winning percentage is .500 you will have the exact same number of total wins as regulation loses. If your point percentage is 50% , you will have the same number of total wins as regulation loses. I’m confused as to why it should matter what someone means, it’s the same. If you multiply a teams winning percentage or point percentage by 2, and then by the number of games, you get their total points.

Point percentage and win percentage is always the exact same.

Of course, at the end of the year, there is usually only about 8 teams below .500. There is currently 11, but that may be attributable to a smaller sample size.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GranteedEV]

it's not that complicated.

If you win half your games, you are an average team. You want to win more than half of your games to be an above-average team.

If you get half of the available points, you are a below-average team.

If you only care about points percentage, pick a points percentage that matters, around .575 or greater.

If you watch sports to see your team win, pick a win percentage that matters, which is .500 or greater.

A .500 points percentage is like a 1.0 GPA. It's a really low, and ultimately meaningless bar. Even you passed every course, it isn't enough.

A .500 win percentage is like a 2.0 GPA. It's still low, and you do want to be above that mark even if a 4.0 is an unrealistic target - but at least you're hanging in there.

[DoubleK]

Said it before, will say it again.

It's either win/loss or all games are worth the same amount of points. It doesn't makes sense to have some games worth 3 points and others worth 2.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Said it before, will say it again.

It's either win/loss or all games are worth the same amount of points. It doesn't makes sense to have some games worth 3 points and others worth 2.

I agree, if you need to give out loser points, have regulation wins worth 3 points, other wins worth 2.

FWIW, soccer awards 3 points for a win, 1 point each for teams that tie. That ‘s how they encourage teams to attempt to win at all costs.

Although I do love the excitement of OT. I could do without shootouts.

I’ve convinced it’s done so that fans think their teams are better than they actually are. A team that gets 82 points in a season appears OK, when they are in fact below average. It’s about marketing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Itse]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

If your winning percentage is .500 you will have the exact same number of total wins as regulation loses. If your point percentage is 50% , you will have the same number of total wins as regulation loses. I’m confused as to why it should matter what someone means, it’s the same. If you multiply a teams winning percentage or point percentage by 2, and then by the number of games, you get their total points.

Point percentage and win percentage is always the exact same.

Of course, at the end of the year, there is usually only about 8 teams below .500. There is currently 11, but that may be attributable to a smaller sample size.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nope, because loser points are a thing.

50% of points is 82 points in a regular season and way out of the playoffs.
50% of wins is 96ish points and almost always in the playoffs.

No matter the point system and no matter the sport really, if there are no ties, half the teams are going to be above and half below the 50% win line, and when half the teams make the playoffs, the .500 line is always going to be very close to being the exact same thing as the playoff line.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Said it before, will say it again.

It's either win/loss or all games are worth the same amount of points. It doesn't makes sense to have some games worth 3 points and others worth 2.

Yep. I hate that an overtime game gets compensated better with an extra point given to the losing team. Makes winning in regulation "meh".

[activeStick]

I feel like someone here re-scored the standings going back 3 seasons using a 3-2-1 point system and 90% of the playoff spots remained the same, and more importantly, all playoff teams stayed the same.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I feel like someone here re-scored the standings going back 3 seasons using a 3-2-1 point system and 90% of the playoff spots remained the same, and more importantly, all playoff teams stayed the same.

Pretty meaningless exercise when one of the main purposes of adopting that system is to incentivize playing the games differently.

Yes, if the same things happened in those games, you'd end up with similar results. But the same things would not have happened.

[GirlySports]

Should be W/L like every other sport. NHL trying to manufacture parity. Scrap the shootout. Play 3 on 3 indefinitely.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Fights always start when people aren't specific. "We are at .500!" Every time I see this sentence, I will try to remind myself to congratulate them in their determination to finally become potty trained.


There will be no more confusion, and therefore no more arguments, if people just say: "The Flames are at .500 points percentage" or "The Flames are .500 in games". Points or games - just don't forget to add that to your post, or it will just trigger 50% on this board who feel that this ambiguous comment is wrong.

People shouldn't have to specify - it is always obvious which way they mean: Flames beat MTL and their record goes to 12-12-2. Someone says ".500!" Obviously they meant in points percentage. And anyone who brings up winning percentage at that point is either an asshat or a troll.

[Enoch Root]

News flash:

Some people prefer to use winning percentage.

Other people like to use points percentage.

Neither is more 'right' they are just two different things. It doesn't require a debate each time - we know how you feel, and it won't change anyone else's opinion.

So please just save it.

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Can we talk about it in here and leave it out of other threads? Thanks.

I'll start...

.500 points percentage and .500 win percentage are two different things.

A record such as 12-12-3 implies a .500 points % but not a .500 win %.

Ultimately neither of these are relevant in the 3-point era. The only thing relevant is how many total wins you have minus regulation losses, compared to the other teams in the standings.

At the time of posting this, the teams in front of the Flames right now are +12, +8, +7, +5, so the Flames at 0 have their work cut out for them.

Why total wins and not regulation wins if you are dumping on OT points? Rank the teams via regulations wins divided by games and you will get a true winning percentage.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Should be W/L like every other sport. NHL trying to manufacture parity. Scrap the shootout. Play 3 on 3 indefinitely.

1000% correct. Give me a winner and a loser.

Risk of injury? Negligible, more guys get hurt in warmups than in non-contact 3 on 3.

Unfair because players will be tired for the next game? Deal with it, every other sport does. And nothing stopping a team from playing more than the same 9 guys in the OT.

I can't stand the argument that a closer loss should be rewarded.

If you feel you must, end it after 20 minutes and call it a tie. Maybe you'd get 2 or 3 of those a year across the whole league.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

1000% correct. Give me a winner and a loser.

Risk of injury? Negligible, more guys get hurt in warmups than in non-contact 3 on 3.

Unfair because players will be tired for the next game? Deal with it, every other sport does. And nothing stopping a team from playing more than the same 9 guys in the OT.

I can't stand the argument that a closer loss should be rewarded.

If you feel you must, end it after 20 minutes and call it a tie. Maybe you'd get 2 or 3 of those a year across the whole league.

That's the penalty for not winning in regulation

I agree with you. I also think that teams wouldn't paly for the tie as much, if they weren't guaranteed at least a point from it.

Best of all though, no more of this ridiculous debate.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

Why total wins and not regulation wins if you are dumping on OT points? Rank the teams via regulations wins divided by games and you will get a true winning percentage.

I think it would have to be regulation wins vs. regulation losses. Treat anything OT and beyond as a tie for sake of this discussion.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think it would have to be regulation wins vs. regulation losses. Treat anything OT and beyond as a tie for sake of this discussion.

Hockey Reference has exactly this as the far right column

[Enoch Root]

The problem with the 'play for the W' is that there would be no distinction between winning in regulation, and winning in OT. And it rewards teams that are good in 3 on 3.

I still think a better way is the 3-2-1-0 point system. Each outcome has a unique value.