What's the worst word/saying on this site

[Master P]

"But have you looked at his expected goals per game?"

 

[cgf]

"loser point"

It annoys me because that's actually one of the two legitimate points given out for the game that ends in a tie. The point that is given out because of the NHL's gimmicks is the point a team gets for winning at 3on3 or in the shoot out.

 

[PunkRockLocke]

"loser point"

It annoys me because that's actually one of the two legitimate points given out for the game that ends in a tie. The point that is given out because of the NHL's gimmicks is the point a team gets for winning at 3on3 or in the shoot out.

I've never looked at it from that perspective. Good point, you're right.

Having said that, I'm off the opinion that games should be 2 pts for a win, 0 for a loss regardless of how/when you lose (extending 3v3 OT to further reduce shootouts). So a win/loss record like NBA or MLB.

That would eliminate the "loser point" as it is incorrectly called.

But I digress...

 

[canuckslover10]

Ainec its ainec

 

[PunkRockLocke]

The lack of understanding of the term '.500'

With the current points system and the "extra ('loser') point" (see above...) some people claim that if a team is, say, 20-14-6 that they should be looked at as .500. In actuality, the term means, and originated, from points percentage. It means that a team has collected half of the points available to them thus far in a season. Hence talking it to three decimal points, as is often necessary with a percentage like that. If it were strictly showing what percentage of games a team had won, wouldn't '.50%' team suffice? "Fifty team" doesn't sound as good as "Five Hundred team", however.

For example:
A team that is 20-20-3 is a .500 team. They have collected 43 points in 43 games (a potential for 86 points). Half the available points.
A team that is 20-16-7 is an above .500 team. They are a .546 team to be exact. This is despite having only won 20 of their 23 games (46.5%).

You may not agree with it, but it is what the term .500 means.

 

[Steve]

Generational and AINEC

 

[eviohh26]

2 Pump Chump?

 

[Elvs]

"Who?"

 

[ViktorBaeArvidsson]

I love (Player name here), and thats from a Nashville fan.

Nashville fan here, and I just wanna say I respect blah blah blah blah blah.

NO ONE CARES WHO YOU ROOT FOR!

 

[Shaffer]

“Rigged”
“Homer”
“P/60”

 

[McClelland]

Swarm Defense!

 

[cyris]

________ is a generational player/line/team.

For a term that is supposed to be about something or someone that happens once or maybe twice in a generation that term sure gets thrown around a lot around here.

 

[Hasbro]

To Toronto ______

 

[brokenhole]

Bruh and hot garbage.

 

[Shareefruck]

Anyone who has ever used the term "hater" is a bad person/scum. Unless you're referring to the term itself, there is no acceptable context to actively use it. It's basically using antagonizing troll tactics while acting like you're taking the high road.

Not sure if this is just a hockey personality thing than a fan thing, but "real good" annoys me alot too. Just say "really"!

Beyond single words, nothing's more infuriating than when an analogy is made using an extreme example in order to illustrate logic and someone goes "Did you just compare <intentionally extreme example> to <less extreme example>!?"

Another annoying thing is when people go "First you complained about <one extreme>, now you're complaining about <polar opposite extreme>, make up your mind!" as if that's somehow an example of hypocrisy.

 

[PunkRockLocke]

hot garbage

Totally.
I don't find hot garbage any more offensive than cold garbage, really.

 

[Shareefruck]

"Never change, HF" grinds my gears

I hate when common internet trends get attributed to being HF-specific.

 

[SLAPSHOT723]

"Hey buddy, I've been a fan since 1972. I know what I'm talking about"

I don't care how old you are, you can still be an idiot.

 

[Ace of Hades]

"It's high time we give X player praise"

 

[TheAngryHank]

2017

 

[sadpanda]

Not on hfboards. But hockey players in general using the word "obviously". This might be more of a european thing?

"Get pucks down low and keep moving our feet" zzzz

 

[IDuck]

............is DESTROYING the game!

usually ends with the conclusion that it highly doubtful.

 

[rosscow]

The lack of understanding of the term '.500'

With the current points system and the "extra ('loser') point" (see above...) some people claim that if a team is, say, 20-14-6 that they should be looked at as .500. In actuality, the term means, and originated, from points percentage. It means that a team has collected half of the points available to them thus far in a season. Hence talking it to three decimal points, as is often necessary with a percentage like that. If it were strictly showing what percentage of games a team had won, wouldn't '.50%' team suffice? "Fifty team" doesn't sound as good as "Five Hundred team", however.

For example:
A team that is 20-20-3 is a .500 team. They have collected 43 points in 43 games (a potential for 86 points). Half the available points.
A team that is 20-16-7 is an above .500 team. They are a .546 team to be exact. This is despite having only won 20 of their 23 games (46.5%).

You may not agree with it, but it is what the term .500 means.

A team that is 20-20-3 is not a 500 hockey team. They are 3 games under 500. The fact is they are 20-23.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Generational

 

[Muston Atthews]

“Offsides”

It’s offside