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

[Toby91ca]

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

But.....it's not....at all

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.

Do you mean points/164? Because that's what it already is, otherwise, a team that finishes 41-41 would have a points% based on your calc of 1.00.

But....I get you prefer win% metric, but what value does that have, at all, in the NHL?

 

[Crabapple]

.500 has nothing to do with wins or losses, it based entirely on points earned. A team going 0-0-82 would be a .500 team

 

[hairylikebear]

Do you mean points/164? Because that's what it already is, otherwise, a team that finishes 41-41 would have a points% based on your calc of 1.00.

Points per 82 games played, so win your first game of the year and your points/82 is 164

But....I get you prefer win% metric, but what value does that have, at all, in the NHL?

Not much, I guess, but it's easier to understand than points% IMO. I see a lot of people confuse a .500 points % with a league average record, but that's not actually what it means. .500 points% means you've earned half of the points available to you.

While points/82 gives all the same info as points% but it doesn't trap casual fans in the belief that .500 = average that they learned from following baseketball/baseball/nfl standings.

I don't think win% should be added to the NHL standings or anything, just that points% should become points/82GP.

 

[Toby91ca]

Points per 82 games played, so win your first game of the year and your points/82 is 164


Not much, I guess, but it's easier to understand than points% IMO. I see a lot of people confuse a .500 points % with a league average record, but that's not actually what it means. .500 points% means you've earned half of the points available to you.

While points/82 gives all the same info as points% but it doesn't trap casual fans in the belief that .500 = average that they learned from following baseketball/baseball/nfl standings.

I don't think win% should be added to the NHL standings or anything, just that points% should become points/82GP.

Right....so the exact same metric used today, just presented in points rather than %. Either is easy to follow as the team with the highest number is highest in standings....my issue is Win % would be super confusing as it will not help you figure out where a team should be in the standings at all.

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

Under the current point system it's impossible for .500 to be league average unless every game ends in regulation time

 

[hairylikebear]

Right....so the exact same metric used today, just presented in points rather than %. Either is easy to follow as the team with the highest number is highest in standings....my issue is Win % would be super confusing as it will not help you figure out where a team should be in the standings at all.

I mean, it's not for your benefit. You're not a casual fan so I wouldn't expect you to get confused by the idea that a team performing below league average could have a points% above .500. For an NHL fan that's just normal. But for a non-NHL fan it could be confusing.

And given that you understand it's the exact same metric, what difference does it make to us anyway?

Also, I guess I need to say it again, I don't think win% adds anything of value to NHL standings.

 

[Toby91ca]

I mean, it's not for your benefit. You're not a casual fan so I wouldn't expect you to get confused by the idea that a team performing below league average could have a points% above .500. For an NHL fan that's just normal. But for a non-NHL fan it could be confusing.

And given that you understand it's the exact same metric, what difference does it make to us anyway?

Good point.....I have to be honest.....I pretty much NEVER look at the metric....I simply look at points and scan games played just to get sense, but never look at the %.

My issue with Win % is having someone scan the numbers and see the team with the highest Win % and thinking that must be the best team, when it's possible they could be outside the playoff picture (unlikely of course, but possible).

 

[hairylikebear]

Good point.....I have to be honest.....I pretty much NEVER look at the metric....I simply look at points and scan games played just to get sense, but never look at the %.

My issue with Win % is having someone scan the numbers and see the team with the highest Win % and thinking that must be the best team, when it's possible they could be outside the playoff picture (unlikely of course, but possible).

My only attachment to win% is that when someone says a team is playing at a .500 level, I would like the default assumption to be that they are referring to win%, because .500 isn't a meaningful breakpoint in points%

 

[banks]

Point percentage isn't the same thing as win percentage.

36-36-10 is .500 points percentage. It's not .500 win percentage.

How is this even a conversation?

 

[MasterofGrond]

it's .500 points percentage, but .500 points percentage is below average and so I generally avoid referring to NHL teams as above or below .500 because it's a pretty low bar.

 

[Golden_Jet]

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

Yes I agree with that, that’s why it’s called points percentage, not win percentage

I want
2 for regulation win
1.5 OT/SO win
0.5 OT/SO loss

All 2 point games

 

[ole ole]

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.

Or the other team was gifted a point in 10 of those wins on a gimmick.

 

[Fataldogg]

Its not .500 factually. If you win 36 in 82 games, your win % is .439. Below 500.

If you are talking about point percentage, thats different.

 

[Sun God Nika]

Wow the IQ of these boards is showing .

This isn’t subjective .500 is referring to point percentage not win/loss.

44% of voters voted wrong

 

[swissexpert]

Yes I agree with that, that’s why it’s called points percentage, not win percentage

I want
2 for regulation win
1.5 OT/SO win
0.5 OT/SO loss

All 2 point games

Yeah this or just
3 W
2 W OT/SO
1 L OT/SO
0 L

Like in every league across europe...
Every game is worth 3 points.

It's such stupid system to hand out either 2 or 3 points (50% more!) for a game.

To OP: it can be both depending if you see it as W% or P%.
But then again, it doesn't mean anything since its meaning depends on how often the other teams go into overtime. See stupid points system above....

 

[Golden_Jet]

Yeah this or just
3 W
2 W OT/SO
1 L OT/SO
0 L

Like in every league across europe...
Every game is worth 3 points.

It's such stupid system to hand out either 2 or 3 points (50% more!) for a game.

To OP: it can be both depending if you see it as W% or P%.
But then again, it doesn't mean anything since its meaning depends on how often the other teams go into overtime. See stupid points system above....

The reason I chose that breakdown, is so the points standings , over history can be compared, albeit the last 15 years, are probably bloated by an average of 10 points per team.
3 point system, you have 160+ teams, l

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Question is ambiguous.

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

That's fair BUT usually when people say that the record above is below .500 they don't make the distinction and just say .500. I find it mostly used by fans to bitch about their own team to troll another team.

 

[Foppberg]

Below. They won 36 times and lost 46 times.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

Winners push to win. If they can't do that in regulation time they'll settle on winning in post-regulation.

Losers accept losing. They believe that post-regulation losses are somehow "better" than regulation losses. It's the same sort of defeatist mentality that paints a 7-game playoff series loss as "better" than losing in 4, 5 or 6 games.

 

[Mike C]

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.

Both teams are gifted a point at the end of regulation. The winning team earns a bonus point if they win in OT or shootout

 

[GeeoffBrown]

36-36-10 is one of the worst records you can have because you're probably out of the playoffs but not bad enough to get a good pick in the draft

Like you can call this 0.500 but you are probably 14 or 15 points out of a playoff spot

 

[Artorius Horus T]

46 losses is 46 losses

 

[Toby91ca]

46 losses is 46 losses

That’s true, but there should be no comparison of 46 losses in regulation vs 36 losses in regulation + 10 losses in shootout….not at all comparable other than you are still on the ice with a goalie and a net for shootout

 

[Eddie Munson]

Below .500.

If every game were worth two points then it would be .500 based solely on math. But the loser point has changed that. So to me, it's under .500.

 

[Vipers31]

Open NHL app or NHL.com. Go to standings. See whether point or win percentage is being displayed in a format like .500. Debate ended.