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...
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.