GDT: Game 54: Columbus at Calgary | 2/5 9PM EST

[blahblah]

21 wins in 46 games...that's not .500. 23 wins in 46 games would be .500. If we can win our next four in a row under Torts he will be .500 with us. This "OT" tree point games farce the NHL has forced down fans throats has really started fooling people.

Don't be fooled..stay smart!

Old stupid agreement. You see math is hard; there are 162 possible points and 81 of them is 50%. Thus the .500. You can look at it either way.

You see, a team is still considered very good at 27-15-12 and they aren't considered a mere .500 team. I'd love to see a 14-0-68 team exist and make it into the playoffs just to screw with everyone.

Jackets played a smart game last night. I really would like to see the next part of this improvement is to cut down on the number of shots and attempted shots and spend a lot more time in their zone - consistently that is.

 

[EspenK]

Old stupid agreement. You see math is hard; there are 182 possible points and 81 of them is 50%. Thus the .500.[/B].

Well, you just proved your premise.

 

[blahblah]

Well, you just proved your premise.

lol, typo. Resolved.

 

[Kfarschman]

Maths. Strike 2. 164 points anybody?

 

[Kfarschman]

Feel good story but waaaayyyyy too early. Steve Mason had one amazing season and never replicated it. Korpisalo has less than a dozen games under his belt. Not going there any time soon.

Mason's first full season in Philly he had same number of wins and a better SV% than his Calder winning season with us. The season following that he actually had better GAA and SV% but had less wins. This "one good season Mason" rhetoric is a nice little story people like to believe but isn't really the whole truth.

 

[blahblah]

Maths. Strike 2. 164 points anybody?

Meh, for some reason I was thinking there are 81 games in a regular season - not sure why (by thinking, I mean wasn't really thinking about it at all). 81x2 is 162, so no not a math fail that time. Maybe because we have 41 home dates.

 

[EDM]

Send Korp to LEM. We do not need another pointless late season run.

 

[EDM]

Actually it would be point full rather than pointless. ;-)

 

[Viqsi]

Tortorella, sometime around in the 2nd, seems to have opted for blueline pairings of "one shot-suppressing offensive black hole" and "one top-pairing PMD" with Tyutin-Jones and Murray-Prout. I'm... not entirely sure if it worked, per se, but it's certainly an interesting theoretical approach.

 

[Doggy]

Old stupid agreement. You see math is hard; there are 162 possible points and 81 of them is 50%. Thus the .500. You can look at it either way.

You see, a team is still considered very good at 27-15-12 and they aren't considered a mere .500 team. I'd love to see a 14-0-68 team exist and make it into the playoffs just to screw with everyone.

Jackets played a smart game last night. I really would like to see the next part of this improvement is to cut down on the number of shots and attempted shots and spend a lot more time in their zone - consistently that is.

I guess it depends on your definition of .500. In your world, win-loss record means something and 24 of the 30 teams are currently .500 or better. That makes no sense at all, .500 should be somewhere near the median in such a small sample size. The league has devalued the meaning of .500 to the point it is meaningless...or even worse...a negative. In the new NHL, even Ottawa and Vancouver fans can look at their teams and say "hey we aren't that bad...we are at least .500). SHEEP! In the inflated world of three point games the league allows 25 out of 30 teams to think they are at least average...not mathematically logical.

In my world (the real world that doesn't believe the NHL BS), win-loss record means nothing, its all about points/game and the concept of being ".500" is the concept of being "average" in comparison to what the rest of the league is doing. The "bar" for what constitutes as average changed as soon as the league instituted the three point game and then changed again when they added the shootout. Average meant a .500 record (1.00 points/game) before 1983 when OT came into existence but not anymore.

In 1982-1983 (pre-OT), 11th out of 21 teams (just past median) scored 75 points in 80 games (0.94 ppg).
In 1984-1985 (post-OT) 11th out of 21 teams (just past median) scored 83 points in 80 games (1.04 ppg)
In 2005-2006 (SOs), 16th out of 30 teams (just past median) scored 92 points in 82 games (1.12 ppg)

In the last four seasons, the #16 team in the league has averaged 1.14, 1.18, 1.11 and 1.15 ppg. So in the real world, 1.145 ppg is "average". Torts is 21-21-5 good for 47 points in 47 games. That's 1.00 ppg. It's an improvement over the 0-7 that Todd Richards was to start this season but its nothing to celebrate or even aspire to. It's well below average!

 

[blahblah]

I guess it depends on your definition of .500.

You've added nothing new, I'm done. .500 is either half the points or half the wins. Get over it already.

 

[Doggy]

You've added nothing new, I'm done. .500 is either half the points or half the wins. Get over it already.

Fine, .500 is "half the points". The NHL has had 775 Games this year and awarded 1729 Points. That means the league has awarded 2.223 PPG. Getting "half the points" the league is awarding per game means you need to be getting 1.115 PPG to be .500. 21-21-5 is 1.000 PPG. By your definition...CBJ are not getting "half the points". IOW, below .500.

It's OK we can agree to disagree. My frustration is with the NHL...the three point games is the biggest farce they are pulling over on fans at this moment. Their goal is to create artificial competitive balance so almost every fan thinks their team has a shot at the playoffs deep into the season so they keep buying tickets and watching on TV. Even crappy teams have a fan base that think things aren't so bad because 21-21-5 is .500. It's a joke.

I'm not getting over it...it pisses me off. But that's cool, I won't bug you with it anymore.

 

[blahblah]

It's OK we can agree to disagree.

There is nothing to disagree about. You are trying to apply a win/loss method of analysis to a point system. This isn't baseball.

With the point system you can't put some arbitrary and anal garbage out there and claim it's the only way to look at it. It's a NHL point system problem. If you are going to penalize teams for an OT/SO loss you need to penalize teams for a OT/SO win if you are going to get anything useful out of it.

Go yell at the NHL instead of telling people to be smart or whatever you said.

For a while some have said.

3 points for regulation win
2 points for SO/OT win
1 point for SO/OT loss
0 points for a regulation loss

That gets you much closer. The traditionalists and record keepers will fight it.

 

[JacketsDavid]

Playing 500 ball in most other sports represents average.
In the NHL playing 500 (or PPG) is below average.

An average team in the NHL makes the playoffs (16 out of 30 teams). 82 points does not sniff the playoffs.

 

[blahblah]

Playing 500 ball in most other sports represents average.
In the NHL playing 500 (or PPG) is below average.

An average team in the NHL makes the playoffs (16 out of 30 teams). 82 points does not sniff the playoffs.

Not sure what this means really; but thank you for illustrating that the NHL has a point system. Also, .500 in baseball won't get you close. It only works in basketball (might get a team or two into the playoffs) because one conference is usually far inferior to the other.

 

[JacketsDavid]

Not sure what this means really; but thank you for illustrating that the NHL has a point system. Also, .500 in baseball won't get you close. It only works in basketball (might get a team or two into the playoffs) because one conference is usually far inferior to the other.

It usually works in the NBA and the NHL because 16 teams get into the playoffs.

It also happens occasionally in the NFL because a division (as a whole) stinks and someone sneaks in at 7-9.

What I was saying is playing 500 (81-81 in baseball, 8-8 in NFL, 41-41 in the NBA) represents an average team. The average of all teams records will get you to .500.
In the NHL an average team likely gets 90-94 points. It could be 46-36 or it could be 30-20-32, but an average team (if you take all 30 teams point totals and average them) is not represented by 500 in the NHL.

 

[Doggy]

There is nothing to disagree about. You are trying to apply a win/loss method of analysis to a point system. This isn't baseball.

With the point system you can't put some arbitrary and anal garbage out there and claim it's the only way to look at it. It's a NHL point system problem. If you are going to penalize teams for an OT/SO loss you need to penalize teams for a OT/SO win if you are going to get anything useful out of it.

Go yell at the NHL instead of telling people to be smart or whatever you said.

For a while some have said.

3 points for regulation win
2 points for SO/OT win
1 point for SO/OT loss
0 points for a regulation loss

That gets you much closer. The traditionalists and record keepers will fight it.

That's funny, I was going to say the same thing about you. You are simply looking at 21-21 (doesn't matter what the "OT Loss" is) and say the team has been .500 under Torts.

Being .500 in football, baseball and basketball means something because you can at least say you are "average" and in basketball means you even have a decent shot at the playoffs.

Being .500 is meaningless in the NHL. It does not mean you are average in hockey, in fact it means you are one of the ten worst teams in the league and likely have zero shot at the playoffs. In the NHL, what's important is the points and being average means earning 1.15 points per game which the CBJ have not yet achieved under Torts.

There are several ways to solve this...the above three point system is one which I would embrace. It is also one other leagues including the IIHF now uses. I suspect the NHL is reluctant to make the switch from their inane two points for regulation and three points for OT system because of money. Their system...as stupid and unfair as it is deceptively tightens the standings and the tighter the standings are perceived to be the longer into the season they can milk fans for money (though in reality the standings truly aren't that tight).

I think it is you trying to apply a win-loss rationale to a whacked out point system. I am the one looking at points.