What does "number of games over .500" mean?

[Bear of Bad News]

However imo the half of the available points definition is incorrect in the NHL as some games a total 2 points are awarded whereas other games a total of 3 points are. If you only look at one team the definition holds true. However it ignores the fact 3 point games exist. The only way I would ever use the half the available points definition was if I were to include all 30 teams to account for 3 point games.

No, it's correct. You're confusing the number of points available in total with the maximum number of points that one team can get.

Just because a game awards a total of three points does not mean that a given team can earn more than two points in the game.

And if the Blackhawks have played in ten games and have earned ten points, then they have earned 50% of the points available to them.

 

[youvegotit]

No, it's correct. You're confusing the number of points available in total with the maximum number of points that one team can get.

Just because a game awards a total of three points does not mean that a given team can earn more than two points in the game.

And if the Blackhawks have played in ten games and have earned ten points, then they have earned 50% of the points available to them.

I'm not confused, I understand that you are talking about .500 as equaling half the number of points one team can get. My issue is the sum all 30 of the maximum number of points one team can get does not equal the total points available. This should be a mathematical impossibility.

Anyways this article explains my rationale as to what I think .500 constitutes when taking about points earned which is probably much easier then me trying to explain it

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I'm not confused, I understand that you are talking about .500 as equaling half the number of points one team can get. My issue is the sum all 30 of the maximum number of points one team can get does not equal the total points available. This should be a mathematical impossibility.

Using the term "mathematical impossibility" is a bit of a lark - mathematics is built upon axioms, and the NHL's points system does not violate any axioms inherent to mathematics.

If you say "aesthetic impossibility", then I'd support you fully. Although it wouldn't carry the heft of the (false) statement.

 

[hatterson]

It appears the confusion arises from the difference between 'playing .500' and 'playing average'

In a scoring system like the NHLs .500 is not necessarily an average team.

In the MLB, NBA and NFL a .500 club is, by definition, average. In MLB and the NBA there are only wins and losses. In the NFL there are ties but they're worth exactly half a win and half a loss and are awarded to both teams.

However, in the NHL we have overtime losses and thus a team that earns exactly half of their available points may not be average. In practice a .500 team is always below average.

Currently this year (as of last ESPN standings update) the average NHL team has earned 30.1(6) points, however that doesn't change the fact that .500 ranges from 24 points (for Dallas) and 29 points for (Anaheim and Vancouver).

Although .500 and average can be used interchangeably in other major sports and thus often becomes interchangeable in people's minds in all circumstances, that's not always true. In the NHL they are fundamentally different.

 

[youvegotit]

Using the term "mathematical impossibility" is a bit of a lark - mathematics is built upon axioms, and the NHL's points system does not violate any axioms inherent to mathematics.

If you say "aesthetic impossibility", then I'd support you fully. Although it wouldn't carry the heft of the (false) statement.

Agree to disagree. Since our definitions of what constitutes .500 differ.

I define .500 by winning percentage instead of point percentage and in no way, shape or form consider them equivalent to one another in the NHL.
My rationale for this is that a .500 team (by winning percentage) is always better than or equal to a .500 team (by point percentage) in the NHL.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Agree to disagree. Since our definitions of what constitutes .500 differ.

I define .500 by winning percentage instead of point percentage and in no way, shape or form consider them equivalent to one another. My rationale for this is that a .500 team (by winning percentage) is always better than or equal to a .500 team (by point percentage) in the NHL.

Please give me your rigorous definition. It's difficult to have a conversation when terms are not defined.

Is it (wins achieved) divided by (wins available)? (Noting that the latter is equal to games played?)

 

[youvegotit]

Please give me your rigorous definition. It's difficult to have a conversation when terms are not defined.

Is it (wins achieved) divided by (wins available)? (Noting that the latter is equal to games played?)

Winning Percentage = Wins / Games Played

Is that rigorous enough for you

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Winning Percentage = Wins / Games Played

Is that rigorous enough for you

It was an honest question - I'm sorry that it offended you. In a thread where the entire premise is folks using different definitions, it seems like a pretty straightforward question.

If you're counting OTW and SOW in your definition (see how definitions are important?), then your method equates to "0.500" being equal to "average", per one definition.

 

[Guest]

I guess I had it all wrong, I picked 5. My logic was thinking that in 10 games a 5-5 is .500, so 10-0 is +5 games over .500.

I personally thinking that saying a 10-0 team is 10 games over .500 is false. That logic is like saying a team that is 20-10 is 10 games over .500 but .500 for 30 games is 15, not 10.

I can be wrong, it doesn't bother me, but I'm not sold on the concept.

 

[Bonk]

10.

The thing that bothers me is when a fan says their 12-12-6 team is .500.

YES! I was arguing with someone over this very point yesterday and had to find this post.

Even people who should know better, like announcers and writers do this and it drives me nuts!

 

[Bonk]

It appears the confusion arises from the difference between 'playing .500' and 'playing average'

In a scoring system like the NHLs .500 is not necessarily an average team.

In the MLB, NBA and NFL a .500 club is, by definition, average. In MLB and the NBA there are only wins and losses. In the NFL there are ties but they're worth exactly half a win and half a loss and are awarded to both teams.

However, in the NHL we have overtime losses and thus a team that earns exactly half of their available points may not be average. In practice a .500 team is always below average.

Currently this year (as of last ESPN standings update) the average NHL team has earned 30.1(6) points, however that doesn't change the fact that .500 ranges from 24 points (for Dallas) and 29 points for (Anaheim and Vancouver).

Although .500 and average can be used interchangeably in other major sports and thus often becomes interchangeable in people's minds in all circumstances, that's not always true. In the NHL they are fundamentally different.

Which is why in the post-tie era I always refer to a team's record as 41-41, etc. An overtime/shootout loss is still a loss and not a tie.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Which is why in the post-tie era I always refer to a team's record as 41-41, etc. An overtime/shootout loss is still a loss and not a tie.

There is no longer a "tie" column in the NHL standings.

 

[Bonk]

There is no longer a "tie" column in the NHL standings.

That's what I said...it's an OT or shootout LOSS and NOT a tie. That's why 12-12-6 should be considered "12-18".

 

[hatterson]

That's what I said...it's an OT or shootout LOSS and NOT a tie. That's why 12-12-6 should be considered "12-18".

But then two 12-18 teams can have dramatically different spots in the standings, which is awkward and silly.

12-18-0 vs 12-0-18

 

[Kane One]

But then two 12-18 teams can have dramatically different spots in the standings, which is awkward and silly.

12-18-0 vs 12-0-18

Both 12-18 teams should be right next to each other, with the 12-0-18 team on top. A loss is a loss.

 

[KI16]

Well, yeah, something like that makes sense. It's comical to spin teams with such a record as being above .500, but that's what the NHL wants to sell you on, I guess.

 

[Bonk]

But then two 12-18 teams can have dramatically different spots in the standings, which is awkward and silly.

12-18-0 vs 12-0-18

Exactly. It is both awkward and silly, which is why I'm not at all a fan of this points system. It defies basic math and common sense.

New Jersey (17-24 with 8 OTL) and the NY Rangers (20-21 with 2 OTL) have the same number of points because NYR has lost eight times in OT/SOs and NJ just twice.

Why are teams rewarded for being bad in overtime and skills contests?

 

[Bonk]

On a separate note, I really like what the NCHC in the NCAA does.

Win (regulation or OT) = 3 points
Tied at the end of OT = 1 point
Loss (regulation or OT) = 0 points

They have shootouts (which I'm not a fan of, but it's not going away), but the shootout winner gets a total of two points.