Post-Game Talk: Father defeats son

[stickty111]

I would say okay, given the competition. I was surprised that Keefe didn't revert back to Muzzin-Holl for this game given their success against McDavid in the past. Muzzin-Liljegren had by far the most 5v5 ice time of any pair and drew the most of McDavid and Draisaitl.

Now I don't know if they necessarily came out on top of that matchup, they were hemmed in a lot but did a decent job of not allowing too many grade A chances. The numbers aren't pretty but it seems to more reflect losing the quantity battle by a landslide.

Timothy Liljegren — This is a weird one. His pairing with Jake Muzzin got shelled statistically, but I thought, individually, Liljegren played pretty well.
Now, he probably needs to stop going for so many of those home-run stretch passes, which either led to icings or the dreaded stretch pass tip-in we saw so often in the Mike Babcock era. Liljegren is a good puck mover, but he could definitely benefit from hitting his “checkdown” receiver instead of always going for the Hail Mary.
In contrast to Muzzin, Liljegren did a great job at keeping his man in front of him, closing the gap, and killing the rush.

Iam gave Lilly a 3 star performance which is fair. The pair got dominated as the stats say but Lilly played well individually. In fact he probably carried Muzzin.

 

[Ciao]

You're making it up, Zeke.

The NHL has published rules that don't match your imaginary rules.

When they adjudicate waiver claims mid-season they use the NHL's actual rules. The team with the fewest points goes first. The team with the most points goes last.

If two or more teams have the same number of points, then they apply the tiebreakers.

My sincere apologies. @zeke

I am obviously wrong and I stand corrected!

 

[Aus34Matt]

My sincere apologies. @zeke

I am obviously wrong and I stand corrected!

No need to apologize, he's quite wrong most of the time

 

[justashadowof]

Using points percentage makes complete sense. Why does the tie-breaking blurb below the NHL standings on the NHL website imply straight points are the first criteria of standing regardless of games played? I assume that's where the confusion comes from.

Tie-Breaking Procedure

If two or more clubs are tied in points during the regular season, the standing of the clubs is determined in the following order:

1. The fewer number of games played (i.e., superior points percentage).
2. The greater number of games won, excluding games won in Overtime or by Shootout (i.e., "Regulation Wins"). This figure is reflected in the RW column.
3. The greater number of games won, excluding games won by Shootout. This figure is reflected in the ROW column.
4. The greater number of games won by the Club in any manner (i.e, "Total Wins"). This figure is reflected in the W column.
5. The greater number of points earned in games against each other among two or more tied clubs. For the purpose of determining standing for two or more Clubs that have not played an even number of games with one or more of the other tied Clubs, the first game played in the city that has the extra game (the "odd game") shall not be included. When more than two Clubs are tied, the percentage of available points earned in games among each other (and not including any "odd games") shall be used to determine standing.
6. The greater differential between goals for and against (including goals scored in Overtime or awarded for prevailing in Shootouts) for the entire regular season. This figure is reflected in the DIFF column.
7. The greater number of goals scored (including goals scored in Overtime or awarded for prevailing in Shootouts) for the entire regular season. This figure is reflected in the GF column.

NOTE: In standings a victory in a shootout counts as one goal for, while a shootout loss counts as one goal against.

The statement "if two teams are tied in points during the regular season" implies that accrued points are the first determination. As in a team with 50 points in 50 games is always listed ahead of another team with 49 points in 47 games. And after all that's how the standings are listed. i.e. Detroit is above Boston in the current standings but presumably Detroit has waiver claim priority over Boston.

 

[ToDavid]

Can we stop.

According to the league, we are in first place. People can stomp their feet and say it's not the right way to do it all they want, but in an ordinary season the league seeds teams according to points with games played being the first tie breaker. That's why there's a big #1 beside the Toronto Maple Leafs on the standings page.

That said, being in first is basically meaningless until the end of the season when every team has played the same number of games. And, in the event the season ended without all teams playing the same number of games, the league would almost certainly change their standings to reflect point percentage like in 19-20. So it's also entirely valid to consider first by point percentage to be "first place".

There's nothing to argue about. Both of these things are entirely true. There is quite literally no right or wrong here.

In reality neither system is perfect. You can't ignore games in hand. At the same time, points earned > points potentially earned.

 

[ACC1224]

Can we stop.

According to the league, we are in first place. People can stomp their feet and say it's not the right way to do it all they want, but in an ordinary season the league seeds teams according to points with games played being the first tie breaker. That's why there's a big #1 beside the Toronto Maple Leafs on the standings page.

That said, being in first is basically meaningless until the end of the season when every team has played the same number of games. And, in the event the season ended without all teams playing the same number of games, the league would almost certainly change their standings to reflect point percentage like in 19-20. So it's also entirely valid to consider first by point percentage to be "first place".

There's nothing to argue about. Both of these things are entirely true. There is quite literally no right or wrong here.

In reality neither system is perfect. You can't ignore games in hand. At the same time, points earned > points potentially earned.

Whole thing is stupid. When you're near the top, Standings don't matter until the end of the season.

 

[RunItBackAgain]

Good game.

Keep it up boys!

 

[Havoc]

Can we stop.

According to the league, we are in first place. People can stomp their feet and say it's not the right way to do it all they want, but in an ordinary season the league seeds teams according to points with games played being the first tie breaker. That's why there's a big #1 beside the Toronto Maple Leafs on the standings page.

That said, being in first is basically meaningless until the end of the season when every team has played the same number of games. And, in the event the season ended without all teams playing the same number of games, the league would almost certainly change their standings to reflect point percentage like in 19-20. So it's also entirely valid to consider first by point percentage to be "first place".

There's nothing to argue about. Both of these things are entirely true. There is quite literally no right or wrong here.

In reality neither system is perfect. You can't ignore games in hand. At the same time, points earned > points potentially earned.

100% correct. Both are valid and simple common sense will dictate which one you should prefer given the context. You nailed it by touching on the fact points% has a flaw of awarding points that may never come, since you have to account for there being a fixed number of games teams need to meet. In similar ways its easy to state the flaws of raw points. Conclusion: Use common sense to decide which one you should prefer in the moment.

 

[zeke]

Can we stop.

According to the league, we are in first place. People can stomp their feet and say it's not the right way to do it all they want, but in an ordinary season the league seeds teams according to points with games played being the first tie breaker. That's why there's a big #1 beside the Toronto Maple Leafs on the standings page.

That said, being in first is basically meaningless until the end of the season when every team has played the same number of games. And, in the event the season ended without all teams playing the same number of games, the league would almost certainly change their standings to reflect point percentage like in 19-20. So it's also entirely valid to consider first by point percentage to be "first place".

There's nothing to argue about. Both of these things are entirely true. There is quite literally no right or wrong here.

In reality neither system is perfect. You can't ignore games in hand. At the same time, points earned > points potentially earned.

We could have stopped , but you continued.

According to the league, we are not in first place, as the 2019-20 season shows. If the season stopped today, we would not be first seed, and would not draft 32nd.

This isn't just true, but also happens to be the only logical result.

Points standings tell us nothing, and mean nothing, and even worse they are completely illogical, as they literally pretend Losses don't exist or matter.

 

[zeke]

Using points percentage makes complete sense. Why does the tie-breaking blurb below the NHL standings on the NHL website imply straight points are the first criteria of standing regardless of games played? I assume that's where the confusion comes from.




The statement "if two teams are tied in points during the regular season" implies that accrued points are the first determination. As in a team with 50 points in 50 games is always listed ahead of another team with 49 points in 47 games. And after all that's how the standings are listed. i.e. Detroit is above Boston in the current standings but presumably Detroit has waiver claim priority over Boston.

It's merely an anachronism. Points are how they did it way back when they started, and what fans are used to.

But that's just superficial - whenever the standings have actual implications on or off the ice, they use points percentage, always.

 

[zeke]

100% correct. Both are valid and simple common sense will dictate which one you should prefer given the context. You nailed it by touching on the fact points% has a flaw of awarding points that may never come, since you have to account for there being a fixed number of games teams need to meet. In similar ways its easy to state the flaws of raw points. Conclusion: Use common sense to decide which one you should prefer in the moment.

points percentage doesn't award any points that may never come. Points percentage always takes into account the result of every game played.

Points, however, simply ignores Losses altogether. It pretends they don't exist. That doesn't make sense at all.

 

[budzz]

So to sum up the game...

- Drai misses an open net
- Drai takes a stupid penalty on Kerfoot to allow us the first goal of the game.
- McDavid nicely tips Brodie's point shot for his first of the year
- McDavid coasts trying to backcheck Nylander, who creates a great play for Reilly's goal
- Matty goes all Matty and pots 2

 

[ACC1224]

So to sum up the game...

- Drai misses an open net
- Drai takes a stupid penalty on Kerfoot to allow us the first goal of the game.
- McDavid nicely tips Brodie's point shot for his first of the year
- McDavid coasts trying to backcheck Nylander, who creates a great play for Reilly's goal
- Matty goes all Matty and pots 2

Think the penalty was on Dermott.

 

[budzz]

Think the penalty was on Dermott.

Ahh ok I think you're right I stand corrected. Still a dumb penalty though

 

[frog]

mathews is heating up he is 5th in league points, and catching up to Kadri for 4th in the league

 

[justloveleafs]

Kadri with simmonds and bunting......

I can dream right.....

 

[7even]

points percentage doesn't award any points that may never come. Points percentage always takes into account the result of every game played.

Points, however, simply ignores Losses altogether. It pretends they don't exist. That doesn't make sense at all.

And points percentage, as a proportional measure, pretends gross games played doesn't exist. Which is both its strength and its weakness. This is intuitive because the schedule is zero sum and the two are converging metrics. The only thing that's meaningless is the standings themselves when there's still games left on the table. Points and P% are ultimately two sides of the same thing.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

points percentage doesn't award any points that may never come. Points percentage always takes into account the result of every game played.

Points, however, simply ignores Losses altogether. It pretends they don't exist. That doesn't make sense at all.

I've always been an advocate of ignoring losses in that I believe standings should be winning percentage based, not points percentage. You lose? Too bad. No participant medals either.

 

[zeke]

And points percentage, as a proportional measure, pretends gross games played doesn't exist.

Que?

Points Percentage counts all games played.

Thats all that matters.

 

[zeke]

 

[justloveleafs]

I didn't jump on the fire everyone brigade zeke, and of course, you certainly didn't, but I have to say, I was a loss or two from losing it...

Only thing that stopped me was old age and wisdom in knowing that when you add a fair amount of fresh troops, it usually takes time to work out...

I am far too frugal from throwing an expensive mlse jersey on the ice. But my computer was close to getting trashed once or twice, the start to this season, was tough, real tough...

What has occured since, is, surreal.... Three guys that were in danger of never working again in the NHL, in any meaningful capacity, are rock stars now...

Crazy ass season, its been a lot of fun to observe...

 

[zeke]

I didn't jump on the fire everyone brigade zeke, and of course, you certainly didn't, but I have to say, I was a loss or two from losing it...

Only thing that stopped me was old age and wisdom in knowing that when you add a fair amount of fresh troops, it usually takes time to work out...

I am far too frugal from throwing an expensive mlse jersey on the ice. But my computer was close to getting trashed once or twice, the start to this season, was tough, real tough...

What has occured since, is, surreal.... Three guys that were in danger of never working again in the NHL, in any meaningful capacity, are rock stars now...

Crazy ass season, its been a lot of fun to observe...

Yeah it's all good.

But everyone should have known that this team was still really good.

 

[123offtheglass]

realizing he still has 5 years left until he's a UFA

 

[justloveleafs]

Yeah it's all good.

But everyone should have known that this team was still really good.

I still have no idea what u do to buy a steak, but its gotta be important, high paying and well deserved, cause you are a leaf treasure, and you never ask for praise.,.

Well, u just got some.. lol, u sure as heck deserve it, wouldn't surprise me if you were kyle or part of his crew.

 

[justloveleafs]

He is so much like his agent,and mentor and hopefully, best friend, Bobby Orr.

He at times is manic on the ice, demanding your attention, that he is the most dynamic player in the league.

And, he is, he is the most dynamic...

Five years to wait for him..

Wow, Marcel Pronovost's, there is a fair amount of them out there...

In the meantime, we have Auston Matthews, who, has raccoon eyes, dark circles, god knows what he is into, but he seems totally cool with being top five and just chilling..