ExiledInIllinois Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 3 minutes ago, Doc said: Sorry, I thought that was directed to me. Back to .500 hockey! Happy now! 😉😜 😆 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) 3 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said: But they ain't 29-32.😆 They are 29-28-4 with 62 points and and winning % of .508. That's a winning record anywhere! 29 wins 32 losses Not a winning record anywhere. The NHL standings are about points, not wins and losses. Some games count for 2 points toward the league standings........but some count for 3 because of OT Losses. Other sports have a set amount of wins and or ties that can be had during a season. You don't get loser points in the MLB/NFL/NBA. That allows for a true winning %. That's not the case in the NHL. Edited March 4 by BADOLBILZ 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 3 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: 29 wins 32 losses Not a winning record anywhere. The NHL standings are about points, not wins and losses. Some games count for 2 points toward the league standings........but some count for 3 because of OT Losses. Other sports have a set amount of wins and or ties that can be had during a season. You don't get loser points in the MLB/NFL/NBA. That allows for a true winning %. That's not the case in the NHL. Such a great sport, and such a badly run league. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 2 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: 29 wins 32 losses Not a winning record anywhere. The NHL standings are about points, not wins and losses. Some games count for 2 points toward the league standings........but some count for 3 because of OT Losses. Other sports have a set amount of wins and or ties that can be had during a season. You don't get loser points in the MLB/NFL/NBA. That allows for a true winning %. That's not the case in the NHL. Dude. After tonight's game, they are 29-29-4. They just lost to the Jets. Where are you getting 32 regulation losses from?😆🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Dude. After tonight's game, they are 29-29-4. They just lost to the Jets. Where are you getting 32 regulation losses from?😆🤣 I think he's counting the Overtime losses as losses, which they are, even if you get a loser point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Just now, Dr. Who said: I think he's counting the Overtime losses as losses, which they are, even if you get a loser point. I know. But the second column is for regulation losses only In other words, he's making shi... up! 😏 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Just now, ExiledInIllinois said: I know. But the second column is for regulation losses only In other words, he's making shi... up! 😏 I think he just doesn't like the loser point idea. I don't like it, either. I really liked it when a game that ended in a tie was a tie, but I guess that just means I'm old. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinceThe70s Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 3 minutes ago, Dr. Who said: Such a great sport, and such a badly run league. Not sure exactly why you think the league is run so badly - but if your point is that teams are incentivized to play for a tie towards the end of tie games I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Just now, SinceThe70s said: Not sure exactly why you think the league is run so badly - but if your point is that teams are incentivized to play for a tie towards the end of tie games I agree. Ahh, that's too long a discussion, but certainly, that's part of it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Horseheads Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 13 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: 29 wins 32 losses Not a winning record anywhere. The NHL standings are about points, not wins and losses. Some games count for 2 points toward the league standings........but some count for 3 because of OT Losses. Other sports have a set amount of wins and or ties that can be had during a season. You don't get loser points in the MLB/NFL/NBA. That allows for a true winning %. That's not the case in the NHL. if you can't do math under the current rules don't blame @ExiledInIllinois 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said: I think he just doesn't like the loser point idea. I don't like it, either. I really liked it when a game that ended in a tie was a tie, but I guess that just means I'm old. Fair enough. But why is it a loser point? Why not a Winner point? After ties were abolished, they went from 2 point games to 3 point games if the game reached OT. They should all be 3 points now. 3 Reg 2 OT/SOW 1 OT/SOL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Fair enough. But why is it a loser point? Why not a Winner point? After ties were abolished, they went from 2 point games to 3 point games if the game reached OT. They should all be 3 points now. 3 Reg 2 OT/SOW 1 OT/SOL I understand. It's an atavistic remnant from the days when you got 2 points for a win, and if it was tied, each team split the point. So folks that hearken back to the purity and simplicity of the math in those days often don't think of the OT winner as getting the "winner's point," because OT wins used to be reserved for the post-season, where the loser would get nothing. Hence, the extra point for a team that actually loses is a "loser's point." It is perhaps a semantic nicety. Given the convention of the 3 point rules, all that you indicate is correct. Nonetheless, somehow it introduces an element that seems to me sophistical, and a sign of decadence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 3 minutes ago, Dr. Who said: I understand. It's an atavistic remnant from the days when you got 2 points for a win, and if it was tied, each team split the point. So folks that hearken back to the purity and simplicity of the math in those days often don't think of the OT winner as getting the "winner's point," because OT wins used to be reserved for the post-season, where the loser would get nothing. Hence, the extra point for a team that actually loses is a "loser's point." It is perhaps a semantic nicety. Given the convention of the 3 point rules, all that you indicate is correct. Nonetheless, somehow it introduces an element that seems to me sophistical, and a sign of decadence. Yeah... But they aren't playing real hockey in OT. It's 3 on 3. ShootOut isn't real hockey either. That's why loser gets a point. AND you most certainly can't justify or validate moving those losses into to regulation loss column. The game is played radically different in OT. The points even don't line-up doin that! Like I suggested above... Better to just split the points between wins/losses if you want two neat columns only. Anyway, winner in OT is just getting the extra winner point. It's 2 points anyway and can be added to the win column. This all started because they said Sabres still had a losing record. How is: 29-28-4 losing? That's .508 They are .500 now @ 29-29-4. Still not a losing record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinceThe70s Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 17 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Fair enough. But why is it a loser point? Why not a Winner point? After ties were abolished, they went from 2 point games to 3 point games if the game reached OT. They should all be 3 points now. 3 Reg 2 OT/SOW 1 OT/SOL All good, but then how do you define having a winning record? Usually it's more wins than losses and there's a tacit assumption - at least on my part - that there will be as many teams with winning records as there are with losing records. Not the case with the NHL. It devalues the notion of having a winning record IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Dr. Who said: I think he's counting the Overtime losses as losses, which they are, even if you get a loser point. That's how it goes in every pro sport (except for the NFL, where teams can end a non-playoff game in a tie). Edited March 4 by Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 5 minutes ago, SinceThe70s said: All good, but then how do you define having a winning record? Usually it's more wins than losses and there's a tacit assumption - at least on my part - that there will be as many teams with winning records as there are with losing records. Not the case with the NHL. It devalues the notion of having a winning record IMO. Winning record is above .500. .500 is neither winning or losing. 5 minutes ago, Doc said: That's how it goes in every pro sport (except for the NFL, where teams can end a non-playoff game in a tie). They can't be regulation losses. The only reason they move the winner point to the win column because it doesn't matter, it's neat and tidy and there's no 4th column. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinceThe70s Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Just now, ExiledInIllinois said: Winning record is above .500. .500 is neither winning or losing. For most leagues the collective winning percentage is .500. Not so with the NHL where the collective winning percentage is currently (assuming I did the math right) at .560. Logically I have a problem with having more winning teams than losing teams. Emotionally I'm not OK with handing out a winner 'trophy' based on same. I love hockey, but I stopped looking at wins/losses/ties awhile ago. Points and games played/remaining are what matter to me - and yes I understand that a regulation win counts more than an OT win for tie-breaker - for now I put that in the same category as many NFL tie-breakers, be aware but worry about it when it matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Ahhh, this takes me back to the days when TBD would argue how many picks we traded for Sammy Watkins. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) .500 in hockey is not .500 as we have come to know it any other sport. Some games are worth more points, and more wins are awarded than losses (if you don't count the otl as losses) so the actual mean point amount in the league is higher. Right now only 7 of the 32 teams are .500 or below. .500 is not any sort of accomplishment by a franchise in year 13 of a rebuild. It is like being 7-10 in the nfl or losing 90 games. Edited March 4 by May Day 10 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 10 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said: They can't be regulation losses. The only reason they move the winner point to the win column because it doesn't matter, it's neat and tidy and there's no 4th column. It's still a loss. Hence the name "overtime loss." 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muppy Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 who knew that NHL scoring was such a conundrum. all these points totals are moot until the end of the season anyway . I'll check back then and see how they officially landed in the standings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 It would make most sense to make games worth 3 points. If you win in regulation, you get all 3. If you win in OT, you get 2 and the other team gets 1. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, Doc said: It would make most sense to make games worth 3 points. If you win in regulation, you get all 3. If you win in OT, you get 2 and the other team gets 1. this is the easiest and obvious answer. All games should be and need to be weighted the same. Imagine if a Jets/Dolphins game ended up being worth 1.5 wins in the standings because they went to overtime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 4 hours ago, muppy said: who knew that NHL scoring was such a conundrum. all these points totals are moot until the end of the season anyway . I'll check back then and see how they officially landed in the standings In this context it is. Kevyn Adams gaslights the .500 thing (as he does in today's TBN interview) to imply that the Sabres are average and better than they are. It is a deception as they have the 8th-worst record in the league. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsPride12 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Lindy Ruff out in NJ. Cruel business https://www.nhl.com/news/lindy-ruff-fired-by-new-jersey-devils Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 21 minutes ago, BillsPride12 said: Lindy Ruff out in NJ. Cruel business https://www.nhl.com/news/lindy-ruff-fired-by-new-jersey-devils Granato is now the 6th longest tenured head coach in the NHL. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Bring Lindy back! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turk71 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 3 pts regulation win 2 pts OT or shootout (SO) win 1 pt to OT or SO loser It makes sense on so many levels. Each game having the same total points awarded being chief among them. Beyond that it fixes the incentive teams have in the late 3rd of a tie game. Would fans rather watch teams battle for a 3 point win or try to hang on for a guaranteed point? Teams should be incentivized to play for the 3 pt. win in regulation. Not to play for the guaranteed pt. of a tie. This is a huge mistake by the NHL that should be fixed after this season. If they don't like the 3 point win they should do away with the 1 pt. ties altogether. Using the shootout there are no more ties anyway. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muppy Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 (edited) 2 game stretch beginning today Mar 6 2024 🏒 Buffalo Sabres @ Toronto Maple Leafs 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM PST Scotiabank Arena Edited March 6 by muppy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 Sabres trade. Kevin Weekes on X: "**Breaking News** 🚨📰 @BuffaloSabres are trading F Mittelstadt to the @Avalanche for D Byram. #HockeyX https://t.co/rUeNjSD0pD" / X (twitter.com) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coloradobillsfan Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 The Sabres sole reason for existence.. is to be a farm team for the rest of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hammersticks Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 I don’t mind this deal so much. It is clear that they weren’t going to extend Mitts anyway, and are getting a solid top 4 defenseman that is under contract until the end of next season. While I hate seeing Mitts go, I think the compensation here is pretty freaking solid. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 7 hours ago, Johnny Hammersticks said: I don’t mind this deal so much. It is clear that they weren’t going to extend Mitts anyway, and are getting a solid top 4 defenseman that is under contract until the end of next season. While I hate seeing Mitts go, I think the compensation here is pretty freaking solid. I just don't understand why they're stockpiling LHD when they need righties. Also the kid is 22 (great!) but has already missed significant time with 3 concussions (yikes!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That's No Moon Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 (edited) 7 hours ago, Johnny Hammersticks said: I don’t mind this deal so much. It is clear that they weren’t going to extend Mitts anyway, and are getting a solid top 4 defenseman that is under contract until the end of next season. While I hate seeing Mitts go, I think the compensation here is pretty freaking solid. Not sad to see him go in the least. Career high 15 goals AND it gets him out of what has to be an absolute garbage locker room based on the ridiculous season they've had? Sold. Wherever will all the boys go to game now? So sad. Skinner next no matter the price to move him and frankly I'd like Tuch gone too. His home/away splits are abysmal. Away being the better of the two which is bizarre and points to a problematic situation of some nature that magically doesn't follow him onto the team charter. Move Okposo and E. Johnson out of respect, but that's not going to yield anything noteworthy. I think one of the young D is going too but I'm not sure which one. Too much youth and too much left handedness with Bryam in the fold. Again, that might be a summer move. Edited March 7 by That's No Moon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zevo Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 8 hours ago, QCity said: I just don't understand why they're stockpiling LHD when they need righties. Also the kid is 22 (great!) but has already missed significant time with 3 concussions (yikes!) I believe he plays right as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muppy Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Mar 7 2024 🏒 Buffalo Sabres @ Nashville Predators 5:00 PM - 8:00 PM PST Bridgestone Arena a rebound is in order. I will be watching but late. I am not a patient puck fan. I want a DUB and I want it TONIGHT! GO SABRES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hammersticks Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 11 hours ago, zevo said: I believe he plays right as well Yeah, he shoots left but can play on the right side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsPride12 Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 New guy is in tonight Go Sabres 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zevo Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 1 hour ago, BillsPride12 said: New guy is in tonight Go Sabres And a goal! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muppy Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 (edited) our sabres are losing handily 4-1 with 10 minutes left third period. PIFFLE I hate those mustard yellow uniforms Nashville pfft a comeback is unlikely a la ****** poop. SABRES!~!~!!!🤨 EDIT: 4-2 Sabres lose Edited March 8 by muppy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.