What's the worst word/saying on this site

[Quiet Jack]

And generational. When I hear generational I expect to look at the scoring leaders and see someone miles ahead of anyone else.

 

[cgf]

Ending a question with "_____, no?" instead of "______, right?" in an attempt to sound intellectual/cultured, or something. If you do this, I hope you fall in a volcano.

That seems excessive, no?

 

[psycat]

"In today's hockey..." Everytime somebody starts a sentence like that I know im in for some, often rather ill informed, opinion stated as truth.

 

[Butch 19]

NM.

Are you saying NM to your initial response (which you then deleted) or is NM your reply to thread?

oh, NM

 

[Tofveve]

joke

I hate all of the defaming uses it is usually used, like: "and that's why this league is a joke" "the NHL reffing is a joke" etc.

 

[SladeWilson23]

“Offsides”

It’s offside

Offsides is a plural noun.
Offside is an adjective.

Both are correct.

 

[Faterson]

He's a horse.

An insult in most languages, I believe, but for some reason, it's a compliment in Canadian hockey English.

 

[Sam Spade]

Are you saying NM to your initial response (which you then deleted) or is NM your reply to thread?

oh, NM

All of the above.

 

[Trilliann]

Compete level
Tier

 

[td_ice]

"but why?"

"Why though?"

"Y?"

Those when there is nothing else accompanying it. I see that a ton. Sometimes several in the same thread.

It really adds nothing. I really don't care you are baffled or perplexed, if that is your only comment. Add something to it.

 

[Neuf]

The idea that "pace" is the same as actual points. Especially prorating points over large gaps or to compare to a player who actually played those games.

Hockey is gruelling and scoring is non-linear.

 

[pineapplestastegood]

You do realize that this is probably more related to where a person is from and what their native language is than an attempt to "sound cultured" yes? Speech patterns and word usage tends to be a regional thing much like pronunciation and accents.

I'm not talking about the people who are from areas where that's the normal dialect, I know that's normal in some areas. I'm talking about like, people who are from Massachusetts.

 

[HaNotsri]

Looks bad.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

"Anti-Leafs bias"

Been proven wrong on multiple occasions

 

[Holtbyisms]

"underrated"

 

[karnige]

throwing in analytics with pace. give me a break. I dont live in a "what if" world.

 

[FerrisRox]

It's not a word or a saying, but every there's nothing more painful to me then when people make incredibly lame "jokes" and then follow it up with this:

I have truly never seen a good post on here that includes that emoji.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Classless

 

[rh71]

This thread is a list of "Words Pierre would use".

 

[ichabod13]

cringe worthy

 

[DonM]

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.

Given that when this term would have originated, win % and points % were likely identical, I'm going to need a source on one being actually official like you claim. Your explanation about the decimal places is sheer nonsense as well, as other winning percentages could require 3 decimal places as well.

 

[Claypool]

"Eklund"

 

[Scott Stevens]

I have another one. When someone wants to belittle someone else and calls their idea or sentiment “cute”.

 

[PunkRockLocke]

Given that when this term would have originated, win % and points % were likely identical, I'm going to need a source on one being actually official like you claim. Your explanation about the decimal places is sheer nonsense as well, as other winning percentages could require 3 decimal places as well.

When this term originated the NHL tallied wins, losses, and ties. You could achieve points by either winning or tying a game. So, no, winning % and points % were not identical.

In those days, if a team had 20 wins, 20 losses, and 5 ties, they were called a .500 team (as they were, having achieved half of the points available to them), despite winning less than half of their games and having a winning % of less than .500.

Seeing as this term originated when the NHL was a win-loss-tie league and teams with equal amounts of wins and losses (regardless of number of ties) were regarded as .500, I think that's pretty conclusive evidence that the term refers to pts %, not winning %.