0.560 is the new 0.500

[DL44]

I put this on the NHL Main board when it should of gone in here...

Due to the bonus pt that's been handed out with a lot more regularity since the lockout... 0.500 is no longer the pure league "average" which it has traditionally been.

Everyone knows this... but what exactly IS the present era equivalent for 'AVERAGE'?


Here are the numbers.

05-06 - 2741 pts - 91.37 pts/team - 0.557
06-07 - 2741 pts - 91.37 pts/team - 0.557
07-08 - 2732 pts - 91.07 pts/team - 0.555
08-09 - 2742 pts - 91.40 pts/team - 0.557
09-10 - 2761 pts - 92.03 pts/team - 0.561
10-11 - 2757 pts - 91.90 pts/team - 0.560
11-12 - 2760 pts - 92.00 pts/team - 0.561

Overall in the post lockout era = 91.56 pts/team = 0.558
Over the last 3 yrs = 91.98 pts/team = 0.561

So basically a 92 pt pace

A 0.500 peforming team is now a below par performing team in this era...

So for simplicity's sake... consider a 92 pt pace as average.. or 0.560 as average (basically the whole era with a little more weight to the recent 3 yrs yrs of the league..)


What does this mean for the 48 game schedule...

If OT/SO rates remain consistent - which you can see they have been AMAZINGLY consistent over the last 7 seasons - the league average in pts this yr will be around -54 pts.

That should also be the approximate target pt total to be the 8th/9th seed in either conference.


Presently, in the league..
West - 43 gms with 12 gms going into extra time
East - 44 gms with 8 gms going into extra time
Total : 87 games, 20 gms in extra time = 194 pts handed out = 2.23 pts/gm = 0.557 as the present 'average'.
The 'average' has traditionally increased during the year teams and game tighten up, so should end up near that 0.560 pt as per usual.

So there ya go... Consider 0.560 as league average for reference purposes...

Them the facts... use with enthusiasm and care.

EDIT:
We're talking Point Percentage here

Click to read more...

 

[fastvoteman]

Very interesting thanks. I can't stand it when TV broadcasters say that a team is playing .500 when in fact they are not. Also saying a team is x amount of games over .500 is useless too. If a team is say 12-5-5 they might say they are 7 games over .500 when in fact they are only 2 games over .500.

 

[DL44]

Very interesting thanks. I can't stand it when TV broadcasters say that a team is playing .500 when in fact they are not. Also saying a team is x amount of games over .500 is useless too. If a team is say 12-5-5 they might say they are 7 games over .500 when in fact they are only 2 games over .500.

I'm the same way. It really bugs me when a team has losing winning % bit.the announcers are still trying spin the above 500 thing... I.e. a 5-4-3 record.

Do what I do... When you hear '7 gms over 500', just switch 'gms' with pts in your mind..

The team is 7 points over 500...

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Very interesting thanks. I can't stand it when TV broadcasters say that a team is playing .500 when in fact they are not. Also saying a team is x amount of games over .500 is useless too. If a team is say 12-5-5 they might say they are 7 games over .500 when in fact they are only 2 games over .500.

Based on points percentage, they're 4.5 games over .500.

 

[Jyrki]

Not really news. A team that is at .500 essentially means that it has lost more than it has won due to the OT/SO loss point; by the end of the season it's intuitive to assume that a 36-36-10 team is in fact below par.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Not really news. A team that is at .500 essentially means that it has lost more than it has won due to the OT/SO loss point; by the end of the season it's intuitive to assume that a 36-36-10 team is in fact below par.

On the one hand, it's "not really news", but on the other hand, people still talk using the old nomenclature (so it's news), and not just on a superficial level, but when describing how teams above 0.500 are missing the playoffs, et cetera.

You're ascribing intuition to people where it may not actually exist.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Loser points are garbage. Point percentage is stupid.

I consider all OTL as losses, not these stupid loser point tie things that the NHL considers them.

You win or you lose. You cannot have one team win while the other team gets a tie - that is stupidity.

Winning % is the same it always was - just use L and OTL as losses and you have it.

 

[CerebralGenesis]

cool I was wondering what this would be with 3 points and what the pace was this year

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Not really news. A team that is at .500 essentially means that it has lost more than it has won due to the OT/SO loss point; by the end of the season it's intuitive to assume that a 36-36-10 team is in fact below par.

That team would be exactly .500.

82 points of a possible 164 points. .500 has not had any relevant meaning in this sport at any time in history as there have always been ties and bonus points. Something unique to hockey. A .500 team is not necessarily the league median. In any sport a .500 team is below par. Particularly in basketball.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Loser points are garbage. Point percentage is stupid.

I consider all OTL as losses, not these stupid loser point tie things that the NHL considers them.

You win or you lose. You cannot have one team win while the other team gets a tie - that is stupidity.

Winning % is the same it always was - just use L and OTL as losses and you have it.

Be that as it may, this is the system being used by the NHL, and it's important to understand the consequences of that.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Loser points are garbage. Point percentage is stupid.

I consider all OTL as losses, not these stupid loser point tie things that the NHL considers them.

You win or you lose. You cannot have one team win while the other team gets a tie - that is stupidity.

Winning % is the same it always was - just use L and OTL as losses and you have it.

A lot of "garbages" and "stupids" in there. Why is it stupid, exactly?

 

[Ogopogo*]

A lot of "garbages" and "stupids" in there. Why is it stupid, exactly?

Because the NHL is crediting teams that win with 2 points and teams that lose with 1 point. That artificially creates tighter standings by giving teams credit they don't deserve.

The NHL has always given 2 points for a win and 1 to each team for a tie. A loss has always been 0. So now, an overtime game has no losers. One winner and one team gets a tie - honestly it is embarrassing. How many other sports give teams a half win for losing in OT? None.

So, this completely skews stats and has teams like 2-4 Vancouver sitting in the top 8 right now when they shouldn't be there. The NHL either needs to do the right thing with the 3-2-1-0 point system or just do wins and losses. They said they wanted to eliminate ties, they never did. Now they just give ties out to teams that lose and that is complete garbage.

A team could go 10-0-72 and make the playoffs with 92 points. 62 games under .500 and a team could make the playoffs. Embarrassing.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

A team could go 10-0-72 and make the playoffs with 92 points. 62 games under .500 and a team could make the playoffs. Embarrassing.

First of all, that's never going to happen (so saying that it "could" happen is a lark).

Second of all, it relies entirely upon your definition of "0.500".

 

[Ogopogo*]

First of all, that's never going to happen (so saying that it "could" happen is a lark).

Second of all, it relies entirely upon your definition of "0.500".

No, it relies on giving a point for losing a game - a half-win if you will.

Sure, 10-0-72 won't happen but teams will make the playoffs on the strength of losing games and getting points for the loss. It is a crime when they beat out teams that have legitimately won more games. It is a farce.

The NHL needs to do the 3-2-1-0 system or just have W-L-GB. This half-win crap is embarrassing.

 

[DL44]

Because the NHL is crediting teams that win with 2 points and teams that lose with 1 point. That artificially creates tighter standings by giving teams credit they don't deserve.

The NHL has always given 2 points for a win and 1 to each team for a tie. A loss has always been 0. So now, an overtime game has no losers. One winner and one team gets a tie - honestly it is embarrassing. How many other sports give teams a half win for losing in OT? None.

So, this completely skews stats and has teams like 2-4 Vancouver sitting in the top 8 right now when they shouldn't be there. The NHL either needs to do the right thing with the 3-2-1-0 point system or just do wins and losses. They said they wanted to eliminate ties, they never did. Now they just give ties out to teams that lose and that is complete garbage.

A team could go 10-0-72 and make the playoffs with 92 points. 62 games under .500 and a team could make the playoffs. Embarrassing.

No, it relies on giving a point for losing a game - a half-win if you will.

... It is a farce.

The NHL needs to do the 3-2-1-0 system or just have W-L-GB. This half-win crap is embarrassing.

Wow... you are definitely passionate in your hate/anger/embarrassment over this issue..

Frankly i think it's 95% wasted energy on your part.
I find it completely ridiculous that you are so embarrassed over such minuscule issue...
And yes, at the end of the day it is a minuscule issue in the grand scheme things especially when you consider the pros of the system and the 'artificially' compressed standings..

You would think after 14-15 seasons of the bonus point being handed out you'd be over it by now.


Or maybe you aren't old enough to remember how much of joke a hockey game became in the final minutes of tie game and how useless OT had become prior to the change to the OT format. Teams didn't care about winning... they cared about not losing. Brutal.

I don't think you have an understanding of what the alternative would produce.
How do you think teams would act when they are risking losing 3 pts in the standings late in a game? Hint : it would NOT be the magical barn burning hockey affair some people expect to be produced... the opposite.

Take a look at the the OT records of teams in the 98-99 season for fun..
imagine being a flyers fans of that team and sitting thru 19 ties watching 2 teams playing catch with the puck for 5 mins of OT plus whatever portion of the 3rd.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=19992ALLSAAALL&sort=otTies&viewName=overtimeRecords


you are much better off focusing your energy to other aspects of the game... the way the standing are done should be a lot lower on any list of "things wrong with the NHL".

 

[RandV]

That team would be exactly .500.

82 points of a possible 164 points. .500 has not had any relevant meaning in this sport at any time in history as there have always been ties and bonus points. Something unique to hockey. A .500 team is not necessarily the league median. In any sport a .500 team is below par. Particularly in basketball.

Technically it depends on whether your talking about winning percentage or point percentage. If we're talking about winning percentage then mathematically in the 36-36-10 record then it's only correct to state you have 36 wins out of 82 games, and a 43.9 winning percentage. It's the most basic of mathematics where the label has to actually mean what you're counting. An OTL gets you points but it's not a win.

So the problem is people usually say winning percentage as it sounds better but what they're really talking about is point percentage. An OTL is a point, and certainly counts towards a 50.0 point percentage.

 

[Ogopogo*]

you are much better off focusing your energy to other aspects of the game... the way the standing are done should be a lot lower on any list of "things wrong with the NHL".

When your team misses the playoffs even though they win more games that the 8 seed, you will agree.

I really don't believe the 3-2-1-0 system will result in boring games at the end.

 

[cujoflutie]

and to take it a step further, in the 10-0-72 scenario above, those 10 wins could be all via shootout.

The entire system is ludicrous because the purpose of the regular season is there to decide the playoffs; whom makes it and which ranks. Yet the playoffs do not have loser points and shootouts. Yet every year we see teams in/out of the playoffs and having higher/lower seeds due to shootouts and loser points.


NBA: exact same tie breaking format for regular season and playoffs and no convoluted points system
MLB: see NBA
NFL: pretty much the same other than the fact that ties are allowed but appropriately scored as half a win.

 

[cujoflutie]

Consider the following;

Columbus plays Minnesota 7 times, Columbus wins 4 games in OT, Minnesota 3 in regulation;

if it's regular season games, Minnesota is deemed the winner due to 10 points to Columbus' 8.

So while you can use the argument (oh no team makes the playoffs with 72 losses), I can easily counter, a team is deemed the 'winner' of a season series despite winning fewer games than the opposition in such common games.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Technically it depends on whether your talking about winning percentage or point percentage. If we're talking about winning percentage then mathematically in the 36-36-10 record then it's only correct to state you have 36 wins out of 82 games, and a 43.9 winning percentage. It's the most basic of mathematics where the label has to actually mean what you're counting. An OTL gets you points but it's not a win.

So the problem is people usually say winning percentage as it sounds better but what they're really talking about is point percentage. An OTL is a point, and certainly counts towards a 50.0 point percentage.

This entire thread is based upon the fact that winning % in a meaningless point of reference. Winning % in a system where there are more than 2 results is inherently flawed.

 

[cujoflutie]

This entire thread is based upon the fact that winning % in a meaningless point of reference. Winning % in a system where there are more than 2 results is inherently flawed.

well to be fair, there's always been more than 2 results (win, loss, or tie)

but the current system is inherently flawed for 2 main reasons;
-some games having 2 points awarded with others having 3
-the possibility of a game having a winner and NO loser.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

well to be fair, there's always been more than 2 results (win, loss, or tie)

but the current system is inherently flawed for 2 main reasons;
-some games having 2 points awarded with others having 3
-the possibility of a game having a winner and NO loser.

I said in an earlier post in this thread that I've always considered winning % as a flawed measure. I will agree it is even more flawed now, however it has always been flawed to me.

 

[Juicy Couturier*]

A team could go 10-0-72 and make the playoffs with 92 points. 62 games under .500 and a team could make the playoffs. Embarrassing.

If we're going to go by a strictly theoretical situation since nobody would ever lose 72 times in a row in OT, what if a team lost all of those games in the shootout? That 10-0-72 team was never actually outscored in an entire season. That means that that team would have been considered, before the last lockout, undefeated over an 82 game season. If that were the situation, I would much rather see them in the playoffs over a team that went 45-37 with 20 shootout wins which really makes them 25-37-20.

I think the bigger problem than the loser point is the shootout. I'd have no problem eliminating the loser point if they eliminated the shootout. I'd hate to see my team miss the playoffs because they lost a bunch of games the way they could never lose in the playoffs. It's a gimmick aimed specifically at the casual hockey fan that just wants to see something "fun". Why not just have your teams fighters have a go after OT and based on fan vote via text and internet, whoever wins get the win for the game? That makes about as much sense as the shootout which has nothing to do with a team sport.

 

[Plural]

If we're going to go by a strictly theoretical situation since nobody would ever lose 72 times in a row in OT, what if a team lost all of those games in the shootout? That 10-0-72 team was never actually outscored in an entire season. That means that that team would have been considered, before the last lockout, undefeated over an 82 game season. If that were the situation, I would much rather see them in the playoffs over a team that went 45-37 with 20 shootout wins which really makes them 25-37-20.

I think the bigger problem than the loser point is the shootout. I'd have no problem eliminating the loser point if they eliminated the shootout. I'd hate to see my team miss the playoffs because they lost a bunch of games the way they could never lose in the playoffs. It's a gimmick aimed specifically at the casual hockey fan that just wants to see something "fun". Why not just have your teams fighters have a go after OT and based on fan vote via text and internet, whoever wins get the win for the game? That makes about as much sense as the shootout which has nothing to do with a team sport.

I agree with you that shootout should be taken away. I feel like it is too much of a luck when deciding the game in there. But i really don't want ties back either. So it creates a problem.

I think most of us fans would enjoy the game being decided in same way as it is done in the play off's. I just don't see how it could be done since it could make games so long that TV companies would protest. ETC.

 

[Juicy Couturier*]

I agree with you that shootout should be taken away. I feel like it is too much of a luck when deciding the game in there. But i really don't want ties back either. So it creates a problem.

I think most of us fans would enjoy the game being decided in same way as it is done in the play off's. I just don't see how it could be done since it could make games so long that TV companies would protest. ETC.

Agreed. I guess it's a different topic for a different thread but I think it could easily be decided if they went 4v4 for 5 minutes followed by 3v3 until someone scores. As much as people wouldnt necessarily like to see 3v3, it's at least still hockey that promotes team play instead of a 1 on 1. You would have highlight reel goals and back and forth, end to end, non stop action that appeals to the casual fan which is obviously a factor while still keeping the integrity of the game. I can't see more than a few games a season going more than 5-10 minutes into that 3v3 OT and when it does happen it would be a nail biter that would be the talk of the league the next few days. It last about the same length as the shootout which is so drawn out with the multiple replays and stat lines for each player.