Oilers win by a touchdown.

[The Joker*]

So glad we won. Not a math expert but, in my calculations we need to win the next one. That simple. They need to go out and win one at a time. Try as hard as they can to win that one. Repeat.

Would that win be a half game over .500 or a full game over .500 though?

That's the real question.

If a win is equal to half a game over .500, and a loss is equal to half a game under .500, then 38-0 is indeed 19 games above .500 and 0-38 would be 19 games below .500.

 

[Aequitas]

100 game season.

50-50 equals a .500 record.

60-40 equals a .600 record or 10 games above .500.

70-30 equals a .700 record or 20 games above .500.

80-20 equals an .800 record or 30 games above .500.

90-10 equals a .900 record or 40 games above .500.

100-0 equals a 1.000 record or 50 games above .500.

No troll.

You dont seem to get the term above .500. Yes 50-50 is .500 and Mathematically yes 100 wins is 50 more then .500 but when someone uses the term above 500 they are stating how many wins would u have to erase for the record to be even. It's not a mathematical formula its not a point percentage. It's just stating how many more wins then losses u have.

Edit: at least hockey people do that. If you watch any hockey media above .500 is just how many more wins they have.

It's also based on the fact u havnt finished the season yet. 5-3 is 2 games above .500 because it would take 2 losses to get back to .500

 

[LTIR]

Will Acton was 9-0 (100%) on the dot last night.

 

[Diamondillium]

Would that win be a half game over .500 or a full game over .500 though?

That's the real question.

If a win is equal to half a game over .500, and a loss is equal to half a game under .500, then 38-0 is indeed 19 games above .500 and 0-38 would be 19 games below .500.

That math in the bottom half is correct. That is how .500 works.

If you are 10-10 and you win a game, you are 11-10. That is half a game over .500, because .500 would be 21 points and you have 22.

If you then go to be 12-10, you are 1 game above .500, because potential .500 22 games into the season is 22 points, and you have 24.

You dont seem to get the term above .500. Yes 50-50 is .500 and Mathematically yes 100 wins is 50 more then .500 but when someone uses the term above 500 they are stating how many wins would u have to erase for the record to be even. It's not a mathematical formula its not a point percentage. It's just stating how many more wins then losses u have.

Edit: at least hockey people do that. If you watch any hockey media above .500 is just how many more wins they have.

It's also based on the fact u havnt finished the season yet. 5-3 is 2 games above .500 because it would take 2 losses to get back to .500

I get where you're trying to go with this but I just don't see any real logic behind this way of thinking. Say you are 10-6. By my definition you are 2 wins over .500 because .500 16 games into the season is 8 wins, and you have 10. By yours, you are 4 games over .500, because if you remove those wins, your team is .500. The problem I see with that is if you remove those wins, that .500 number is the .500 stat for 4 games ago. That does not show what the potential .500 is for the current amount of games played, but rather shows an older version.

You have to stay current when doing it. If you are 10-6, .500 at that many games played is 8-8. You have to compare your standings to what .500 currently is in order for it to work.

 

[oXo Cube]

This thread is giving me frightening flashbacks of highschool math class.

Also, Yaks best NHL game ever? I think so.

 

[AUAIOMRN]

If you're 38 meters above the ground, how many meters of altitude must you lose before you are at the ground?

If you're 38 games above .500, how many games must you lose before you are at .500?

 

[The Joker*]

I'm retiring from this argument because it's stupid.

Diamondillium isn't wrong about what he's saying, he's just wrong for saying it. How can you only be a half game above .500 when you're 1-0? 1-1 is .500, you're 1 game above that. You can't lose half of a game.

 

[Aequitas]

That math in the bottom half is correct. That is how .500 works.

If you are 10-10 and you win a game, you are 11-10. That is half a game over .500, because .500 would be 21 points and you have 22.

If you then go to be 12-10, you are 1 game above .500, because potential .500 22 games into the season is 22 points, and you have 24.




I get where you're trying to go with this but I just don't see any real logic behind this way of thinking. Say you are 10-6. By my definition you arie 2 wins over .500 because .500 16 games into the season is 8 wins, and you have 10. By yours, you are 4 games over .500, because if you remove those wins, your team is .500. The problem I see with that is if you remove those wins, that .500 number is the .500 stat for 4 games ago. That does not show what the potential .500 is for the current amount of games played, but rather shows an older version.

You have to stay current when doing it. If you are 10-6, .500 at that many games played is 8-8. You have to compare your standings to what .500 currently is in order for it to work.

yes in already played games .500 is what you say but like I said in edit. If im 5-3 I'm 2 games above .500 because i can't possibly get back to .500 in less than 2 games but if you only played 8 games total you would only be 1 game over. see my point. It's more of a timeline statement than mathematical

 

[AUAIOMRN]

I'm retiring from this argument because it's stupid.

Diamondillium isn't wrong about what he's saying, he's just wrong for saying it. How can you only be a half game above .500 when you're 1-0? 1-1 is .500, you're 1 game above that. You can't lose half of a game.

Neither is right or wrong. It's not about "math", it's about a common definition. I happen to agree with you that most people would consider 10-6 to be "4 games above .500". But not because it's "mathematically correct", but just because I think that's the definition most people go by.

 

[czar99]

Nice to see TSN used our touch down headline.

 

[Mcnofool6110]

So... everyone agrees that OT losses ruin things with the loser point, right?

 

[NAF]

My enjoyment of this win is really being harshed by the fact there are people on this board arguing that:

19 plus 38/2 does not equal 38

38 is 38 more than half of 38

If there are 38 cookies on the table for us to share and I take all 38, I am taking 38 more than half because you'll need to go get 38 of your own cookies to have the same amount as me.

 

[Raab]

You dont seem to get the term above .500. Yes 50-50 is .500 and Mathematically yes 100 wins is 50 more then .500 but when someone uses the term above 500 they are stating how many wins would u have to erase for the record to be even. It's not a mathematical formula its not a point percentage. It's just stating how many more wins then losses u have.

Edit: at least hockey people do that. If you watch any hockey media above .500 is just how many more wins they have.

Using wins as a definition isn't a true reflection of .500 since its based on points and with the NHL using a 3 point system it skews the numbers. For example there's 76 points available in the 38 games before the TD. If we want to go .500 over the next 38 games we'd need 38 points in that time. We need to be around 71 points by the end of the 38 games to be on pace for 96 points on the season. Which means we need 57 points in those games. To figure out the winning percentage we'd need you take 57/76 which gives us a .750 winning percentage. Then to figure out the games over 500 we'd need to go. You take 76x.5/2=19 then 76x.75/2=28.5. You then take 28.5-19 which gives you 9.5 games over .500 in the next 38 games is what we need to play to get into a playoff spot by TDD. Now we don't need to be in a playoff spot but we need to be within 4 points which means we would only have to go 7.5 games over .500 on those 38 games to be close to being on track for a playoff spot. Probable not really but definitely possible if they get the right pieces in place.

Also to the poster .500 is the percentage of points you've earned vs points available. So you play 5 games worth 2 points and only pickup 5 points in those games your a .500 team because there were 10 points available. You pick up 8 points in those 5 games and your a .800 team. People use to measure the way you described since it was easier but that was before they introduced the loser points which threw everything out of whack.

 

[Diamondillium]

I'm retiring from this argument because it's stupid.

Diamondillium isn't wrong about what he's saying, he's just wrong for saying it. How can you only be a half game above .500 when you're 1-0? 1-1 is .500, you're 1 game above that. You can't lose half of a game.

As a result of overtime losses, it is reasonable to expect 1-0 to be half a game over. 500. The team could have gone 0-0-1 and have acheived .500.


I would actually be really interested to see what the guys down at by the numbers day about this, because both sides have reasonable merit, if you think about it in different ways. It actually is an intriguing conversation.

 

[Del Preston]

1 + 1 = 2

 

[CornKicker]

im having flashbacks of the milan kytnar thread where there was dozens of pages showing the math of how its cheaper to fly from point A then it is from point b including layover, transfers, fuel consumption etc.

oilers won by 7 goals. 7 over 0 or 7 over .500?

there is a 1.000 chance this thread has reached ridiculous, it will take more than .500 hockey talk to bring it back.

just lock the thing already

 

[thinlizzy]

Much better effort from all lines out there. Hope we can take the momentum against Florida as Chi town will be the big test for the club. That being said I also looked at the boxscores noticed what Mr. Willis tweeted on the 16 giveaways and 19 hits total for the game. Teams like Chicago will feast on this for sure.

Other tid bits. Nuge and Gags are getting hammered on the draw. Gags needs to go to the wing and Arc needs to be inserted into the lineup. If he sits another game his confidence could drop and there are others that should sit. Does DD keep rolling or do you save him for Chicago ?

 

[Ol' Jase]

Wonder how quickly Dellow and his merry band turn this .500 issue into an advanced stat...

 

[CornKicker]

Much better effort from all lines out there. Hope we can take the momentum against Florida as Chi town will be the big test for the club. That being said I also looked at the boxscores noticed what Mr. Willis tweeted on the 16 giveaways and 19 hits total for the game. Teams like Chicago will feast on this for sure.

Other tid bits. Nuge and Gags are getting hammered on the draw. Gags needs to go to the wing and Arc needs to be inserted into the lineup. If he sits another game his confidence could drop and there are others that should sit. Does DD keep rolling or do you save him for Chicago ?

i think you have to roll dubnyk after a SO even if he only got 10 shots.

arco should play over acton at least but same time acton was 9/9 on the draw 1.000, if he lost the next 9 faceoffs he would be .500 on teh dot for the game

 

[Aequitas]

Using wins as a definition isn't a true reflection of .500 since its based on points and with the NHL using a 3 point system it skews the numbers. For example there's 76 points available in the 38 games before the TD. If we want to go .500 over the next 38 games we'd need 38 points in that time. We need to be around 71 points by the end of the 38 games to be on pace for 96 points on the season. Which means we need 57 points in those games. To figure out the winning percentage we'd need you take 57/76 which gives us a .750 winning percentage. Then to figure out the games over 500 we'd need to go. You take 76x.5/2=19 then 76x.75/2=28.5. You then take 28.5-19 which gives you 9.5 games over .500 in the next 38 games is what we need to play to get into a playoff spot by TDD. Now we don't need to be in a playoff spot but we need to be within 4 points which means we would only have to go 7.5 games over .500 on those 38 games to be close to being on track for a playoff spot. Probable not really but definitely possible if they get the right pieces in place.

Also to the poster .500 is the percentage of points you've earned vs points available. So you play 5 games worth 2 points and only pickup 5 points in those games your a .500 team because there were 10 points available. You pick up 8 points in those 5 games and your a .800 team. People use to measure the way you described since it was easier but that was before they introduced the loser points which threw everything out of whack.

You and others are taking the argument out of context. It's not whether the term is mathematically correct its whether he used it properly and in the context yes he did. Anyways its a dumb argument they need a lot of wins.

 

[The Joker*]

i think you have to roll dubnyk after a SO even if he only got 10 shots.

arco should play over acton at least but same time acton was 9/9 on the draw 1.000, if he lost the next 9 faceoffs he would be .500 on teh dot for the game

He's only 4.5 draws over .500 though.

 

[Dooman]

I think it depends on your view.

If a team finishes 42-40, they are indeed only one game above .500, but it would two losses to get to .500.

Your ratio is changing though.

The reason the distinction matters, is because of the OT loss.

If you go 41-39-2, you have the same number of points. But by your definition, went from two games above .500, to even.

 

[The Joker*]

I think it depends on your view.

If a team finishes 42-40, they are indeed only one game above .500, but it would two losses to get to .500.

Your ratio is changing though.

The reason the distinction matters, is because of the OT loss.

If you go 41-39-2, you have the same number of points. But by your definition, went from two games above .500, to even.

42-40=2
41-39=2

You're still 2 games above .500, so nothing changed.

Winning % is based on number of points taken divided by number of points possible.

1/2 = .500
0/2 = .000 = 1 game below .500
2/2 = 1.00 = 1 game above .500

If you get 1 point in a game, you were .500. If you get 2 points in a game that was a game above .500. Thus, you are one game above .500. If you lose the next game you're then .500 again. If you lose the following game as well you now have 2/6 = .333 winning percentage, which is a game below .500, as it will take a win to get you back to .500.

 

[Dooman]

42-40=2
41-39=2

You're still 2 games above .500, so nothing changed.

Winning % is based on number of points taken divided by number of points possible.

1/2 = .500
0/2 = .000 = 1 game below .500
2/2 = 1.00 = 1 game above .500

If you get 1 point in a game, you were .500. If you get 2 points in a game that was a game above .500. Thus, you are one game above .500. If you lose the next game you're then .500 again. If you lose the following game as well you now have 2/6 = .333 winning percentage, which is a game below .500, as it will take a win to get you back to .500.

So you completely ignore overtime losses?

 

[The Joker*]

So you completely ignore overtime losses?

I don't know why there's so much confusion about overtime losses. An overtime loss is .500, yes it's completely ignored. You got 1/2 points. 1/2 = 0.5

If you go 0-0-82 you're .500.

If you go 1-1-80 you're .500.

If you go 2-2-78 you're .500.

If you go 82-0-0 you're 82 games above .500.

If you go 0-82-0 you're 82 games below .500.

This is such basic math that it's ridiculous this conversation is still taking place.