Is a record of 36-36-10 .500 or below .500?

[Pavels Dog]

That's an 82 Point team. I'd call them .500 but .500 doesn't make a team great or even good.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

Many mediocre teams put up point records that, on the surface, obscure the team's mediocrity.

Look at the Leafs. Their regular season point numbers often hide the fact that when it comes down the playoffs where results matter and points are irrelevant, the true fraudulent nature of the Leafs is exposed.

 

[Deas]

".500" is still a saying for a record with equal number of wins and losses, but sometimes used without thinking about how that's not an ok record.

So saying "they're still at 0.500 no big deal they're in the race" is wrong, but some people still hasn't realized that.

 

[bobholly39]

500 to me is all about points. 82 games/82 points - 500, regardless of if its 42/42 wins and losses, or 0/0 and all 82 OT losses.

Yes it's a bit weird maybe, and count me in the camp who would like to see the point system reworked to give wins 3 points, but for the time being, for me I voted 500

 

[MtoD]

On another note, when will we break the fractional % redundancy? It’s 50% win or .5 win probability. .500 W% is 1 win every 200 games.

Fair! I was using P% and W% to help people keep track but you're absolutely right re: redundacy.

 

[NORiculous]

I personally hate when people say that's a 10 games under .500 record consider if a team had a 36-46 record they'd have 10 fewer points in the standings but there are some people on these boards that HATE LOSING SO MUCH that they don't acknowledge the fact that the NHL point system gives points for overtime and shootout losses for over two decades now.

So which is it?

Question is ambiguous.

I can’t answer until I know what kind of .500 you want. P% or W%?

 

[dangomon]

Except that since there are no ties, the team has won 36 games and lost 46.

They were gifted a point in 10 of those losses.

I'm not sure when this narrative started, but losing in overtime doesn't get you a 'loser point'.

Regulation in the NHL is worth 2 points, if the game is tied at the end of regulation the two teams split those points. You're then battling for the 3rd point in OT/SO. You don't get the point at the end of the shootout for losing, you get it at the end of regulation for tying.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Umm

If 2 teams play each other 50 times in a year and Team 1 wins 20, loses 20 and loses 10 in overtime, the stat line looks like:

20 - 20 - 10

That's 50% win and 50% of possible points right.
50 games * 2 points per game = 100 points up for grabs.
Team 1 earned 50 points by winning 20 games and losing 10 in overtime.


Except the other team's statline looks like:

30 - 20 - 0

Team 2 earned 60 points out of the 100 points up for grabs.

Is Team 2 now a 60% winning team?
Yes.

How is it possible that between the 2 teams, there is one team with a 50% winning % and one with a 60%. The math doesn't add up.

Except in 10 games you gave out 3 points not 2. You handed out a total of 110 points in 50 games

Points at the end of each season , seem to be inflated by probably on average about 10 points per team, due to the loser point.

 

[Lshap]

I'm not sure when this narrative started, but losing in overtime doesn't get you a 'loser point'.

Regulation in the NHL is worth 2 points, if the game is tied at the end of regulation the two teams split those points. You're then battling for the 3rd point in OT/SO. You don't get the point at the end of the shootout for losing, you get it at the end of regulation for tying.

Exactly. Regular hockey ends after 60 minutes. If the game is tied, both teams earn a point. Why should a team have their point removed because of a contrived contest that follows, which is played under an entirely different format with a different strategy?

I have no problem with the entertainment value of OT/SO. But let's be clear about what it is – it's an artificial setup designed to create an artificial win, which rewards the contest winner with an artificial point.

 

[dangomon]

Exactly. Regular hockey ends after 60 minutes. If the game is tied, both teams earn a point. Why should a team have their point removed because of a contrived contest that follows, which is played under an entirely different format with a different strategy?

I have no problem with the entertainment value of OT/SO. But let's be clear about what it is – it's an artificial setup designed to create an artificial win, which rewards the contest winner with an artificial point.

Petition to stop people from saying the losing team got a 'loser point' but instead say the winning team got a 'gimmick point'.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Either way, every game needs to be worth the same amount of points. I'd rather just make the shootout count for 2 points and give the loser 0 points, but the three point system works too if you prefer it. It's just hogwash to reward teams for playing to a tie by ensuring that a collective three points are awarded as opposed to 2. Incentivizes teams late in a tie game to just hold for the regulation tie and then they can try to score again in OT, especially if between teams not in the same division.

 

[Bedards Dad]

I don’t necessarily agree but 30-30-10 is .500. Just the way it’s been interpreted by the league.

It's point %. That's not really subjective. 70 games can produce a max of 140 points for a team, if you have 70 points after 70 games you do in fact have a point % of .500.

 

[Machinehead]

Just going to copy and paste the rant I ranted on the Rangers board when this argument started.

The NHL doesn't get to change the definition of .500 because they feel like it.

.500 is a winning percentage. Wins/games. It's been that way since the beginning of time.

It also misses the colloquial definition of ".500." ".500" means not good but not terrible. It's a playoff team in the NBA. There's probably at least one 9-8 NFL playoff team in this day and age too which is just over .500. These teams are getting slaughtered in the first round, sure, but they're not terrible.

NHL teams with 82 points are terrible. They're out of the playoff race before March. Meanwhile, an NHL team with 41 wins (and let's say 8-12 OT losses, that's about the going rate) has 89-93 points, and an outside shot at sneaking into the playoffs.

That's .500.

It's not about being "edgy." Counting points percentage as .500 goes against everything .500 has ever implied.

 

[Machinehead]

You can define the extra point and the tiebreaker however you want. .500 was 41 wins even when there were ties.

.500 literally means 50% - a 50% win rate out of your games.

 

[AvroArrow]

.500 yes, 3 on 3 OT is just there to quickly end games and to keep it entertaining for fans. They don't want to eliminate the shootout, it's just a way to end games quickly before going to a shootout. It's a flawed but entertaining way to end a regular season game. If it was legit, it would be adopted in the playoffs as well but obviously that isn't the case.

 

[abo9]

Wow the votes are closer than I thought.

I guess OP forgot to mention what units are the 0.500 counted against.

In terms of points - 36-36-10 is exactly .500
In terms of wins, it's below.

 

[Ace36758]

You can define the extra point and the tiebreaker however you want. .500 was 41 wins even when there were ties.

.500 literally means 50% - a 50% win rate out of your games.

Not sure I follow-in the era of ties, I would have always considered a 36-36-10 team as .500. After all, that team has the same 82 points as the 41-41 team.
I agree that practically speaking, a 36-36-10 team in the shootout era is not a .500 team.

 

[Toby91ca]

Just going to copy and paste the rant I ranted on the Rangers board when this argument started.

The NHL doesn't get to change the definition of .500 because they feel like it.

.500 is a winning percentage. Wins/games. It's been that way since the beginning of time.

It also misses the colloquial definition of ".500." ".500" means not good but not terrible. It's a playoff team in the NBA. There's probably at least one 9-8 NFL playoff team in this day and age too which is just over .500. These teams are getting slaughtered in the first round, sure, but they're not terrible.

NHL teams with 82 points are terrible. They're out of the playoff race before March. Meanwhile, an NHL team with 41 wins (and let's say 8-12 OT losses, that's about the going rate) has 89-93 points, and an outside shot at sneaking into the playoffs.

That's .500.

It's not about being "edgy." Counting points percentage as .500 goes against everything .500 has ever implied.

Maybe you are caught up in different sports though....the NHL uses a points system.....what would be the significance of showing a win% that is absolutely meaningless to the standings? Shouldn't the team higher in the standings show a higher number in the .500 way of looking at things?

Example: Team A finishes with a 41-40-2 record....win% is .500 and p% is 0.512. Team B finishes with a 40-18-24 record....win% is 0.488 and p% is 0.634. What would be the point of showing Team A at 0.500 and Team B at 0.488? Team A is way out of the playoffs and Team B is healthy in the playoffs.

I honestly can't even remember looking at standings 30 years ago and whether percentages were shown or not. I think NHL.com only added a column for P% a couple years ago, but could be wrong.

 

[ThankGord]

OP needs to define whether they're talking about Win percentage or Points percentage.

 

[Legion34]

Except that since there are no ties, the team has won 36 games and lost 46.

They were gifted a point in 10 of those losses.

Hockey is defined as 60 minutes of 5 on 5 play.

If you are tied after 60 minutes of 5 on 5 play you did not lose a standard hockey game.

Other NA sports do not drop down to a half court shot/field goal/home run competition.

They play the game until a win happens with full teams.

That’s the difference

 

[pcruz]

Except in 10 games you gave out 3 points not 2. You handed out a total of 110 points in 50 games

Points at the end of each season , seem to be inflated by probably on average about 10 points per team, due to the loser point.

So, how many points are available to be won per game?

Is it 2.
Is it 3.

The fact that we can't answer that question is the reason why it's difficult to quantify when a team is sitting at .500

 

[Toby91ca]

So, how many points are available to be won per game?

Is it 2.
Is it 3.

The fact that we can't answer that question is the reason why it's difficult to quantify when a team is sitting at .500

There is nothing to figure out here.....the maximum points a team can earn in a game is 2....the fact that another team can also earn 1 in the same game you win 2 has nothing to do with your % regardless of whether you look at it as win % or point %.

I'll ask the question again though, perhaps someone is smarter than me: What would be the logical reason for looking at win% for an NHL team? Very simple question. I don't have a logical reason as that % is absolutely meaningless. Point % on other hand......

 

[BCNate]

.500 points %
.439 Win %

The NHL is a points based league, so yes, that record is .500.

So, how many points are available to be won per game?

Is it 2.
Is it 3.

The fact that we can't answer that question is the reason why it's difficult to quantify when a team is sitting at .500

Doesn't matter how many points can come out of a game, it is how many points 1 team can earn, which is 2.

 

[hairylikebear]

I prefer the win% metric because there .500 is true average, whereas in points % the true average needs to be calculated based on how many loser points have gone out around the NHL. If it were up to me I would replace points% with points/82

So to answer the original question, 36-36-10 would be below average in the NHL and therefore below .500 in my eyes.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

L is a L and W is a W. as simple as that