[GDT] Calgary Flames at Winnipeg Jets 6:00pm TV: SNW, TSN3 - RADIO SN960

[Cheese]

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by transplant99

To me its pretty simple

When a team starts the season, there are 164 points available to them...no more and no less. And since that is the first criteria the league uses to advance to the playoffs, then thats the one you base the argument off of.

To date, the Flames have played for 76 points.

.500 would be 38 pts.

They have 43 pts.

Therefore they are above .500.

100% my view as well

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I have no issues with people perceiving records in different ways, but amazing how controversial this is whenever it's brought up.

Stages I guess ...

1. If you look at it old school every tie is a point, and what happens after is irrelevant
2. You could eliminate shootout results and call them ties and build a record that way.
3. Do it like DoubleK above and you need to out win your extra time losses.

To me it's all points % and points / GP for .500

If it's all about points % then .500 is not a meaningful bar at all. over 80% of the league will have a p% over .500

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

If it's all about points % then .500 is not a meaningful bar at all. over 80% of the league will have a p% over .500

Then look at it differently ... up to you right?

I come from the tie era, the extra points add .500 teams, but it doesn't change how I view the losing team.

[mile]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1610373054994997251

[DJones]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

If it's all about points % then .500 is not a meaningful bar at all. over 80% of the league will have a p% over .500

Yep, .500 would be meaningful if all games were worth the same as that would give a decent idea of the top 16 teams.

But with the loser point its a meaningless value. 0.6 seems to be more accurate.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DJones

Yep, .500 would be meaningful if all games were worth the same as that would give a decent idea of the top 16 teams.

But with the loser point its a meaningless value. 0.6 seems to be more accurate.

But then again, does a straight W-L stat mean much more for PO position? Vegas was out last year with over .500 W-L. In 2021 the Habs were in and went to the finals with a sub-.500 W-L and were out the year before with well over .500 W-L.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

But then again, does a straight W-L stat mean much more for PO position? Vegas was out last year with over .500 W-L. In 2021 the Habs were in and went to the finals with a sub-.500 W-L and were out the year before with well over .500 W-L.

It doesn't mean anything. P% of .600 is much more important.

[Strange Brew]

The concept of .500 just doesn’t work for a league that is afraid to have real winners and losers of each game.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by DJones

Yep, .500 would be meaningful if all games were worth the same as that would give a decent idea of the top 16 teams.

But with the loser point its a meaningless value. 0.6 seems to be more accurate.

Well if we use 96 pts (the snek line) then .585 would be a reasonable bar.

I just think that typically, a team with a .500 win% will have a p% of about that much anyways. And .500 win% is a pretty normal bar in NA pro sports, especially baseball, basketball where W-L is the only metric

Originally Posted by GioforPM

But then again, does a straight W-L stat mean much more for PO position? Vegas was out last year with over .500 W-L. In 2021 the Habs were in and went to the finals with a sub-.500 W-L and were out the year before with well over .500 W-L.

I think typically there will be around half the league at .500 - no it doesn't mean you'll have a playoff spot as divisional and conference imbalance is a thing

[Enoch Root]

except, the NHL goes by points, and values a regulation tie

so using a system that incorporates that makes a ton more sense than clinging to a system that does not

[FBI]

How about we only look at winning percentage

[The Yen Man]

I mean, the definition of "0.500" is 50% of max available points, is it not? So Flames have over 50% of maximum points available, hence over 500. It's not that hard people.

Now, if you say 0.500 is not the bar that teams need to aim for anymore, that's a legit argument. But 0.500 has never been the bar, has it? Was 82 points ever enough to get into the playoffs since teams started playing 82 games?

[DJones]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I mean, the definition of "0.500" is 50% of max available points, is it not? So Flames have over 50% of maximum points available, hence over 500. It's not that hard people.

Now, if you say 0.500 is not the bar that teams need to aim for anymore, that's a legit argument. But 0.500 has never been the bar, has it? Was 82 points ever enough to get into the playoffs since teams started playing 82 games?

The term is used in all sports. In NBA and the NFL for example, being above 500 pretty much means you are in the playoffs.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I mean, the definition of "0.500" is 50% of max available points, is it not? So Flames have over 50% of maximum points available, hence over 500. It's not that hard people.

Now, if you say 0.500 is not the bar that teams need to aim for anymore, that's a legit argument. But 0.500 has never been the bar, has it? Was 82 points ever enough to get into the playoffs since teams started playing 82 games?

I know what you are saying, but interestingly as one example, in 95-96 the Flames were one of 5 teams in the West with less than 82 points that made the playoffs

[The Yen Man]

All I'm saying is, the math definition of .500 isn't subjective. The NHL has P% listed right there in the standings, and the Flames are .566, hence above .500.

[Goriders]

It’s time to win.

[DoubleK]

I really didn't mean to spark this debate.

My bad.

[MrMike]

TSN feed. Awesome!

[Moneyhands23]

If they play solid and win tonight I will be creeping in to the, I think their putting it together camp.

Setting myself up for it again lol.