Oilers win by a touchdown.

[Da McBomb]

Now there was the Yakupov we all know and love. Really hope he's got his confidence back now. When his feet is moving like last night, he's a very effective player. He easily could have had 3-4 points last night.

Perron is becoming a favorite of mine. And the best part is that he is doing this playing on the 3rd line with Gordon and Smyth. This allows Yakupov to be on the top 2 lines.

 

[Kepler 186f]

wow, ok i'll try this one more time, and please people, remember that I was responding to someone else's post about getting 57 pts in 38 games, I wasn't the one throwing those numbers out there, I was just saying what their record would have to be in order to get 57 pts in the next 38 games!!

Here goes... and try to keep up....

if the Oilers go 24-5-9 in the next 38 games, how many points would they get in those 38 games? In case you cant do basic math, its....tada, 57 pts! Now, how many games OVER .500 is that record? Again, in case you aren't good at math (which it looks like many are on here), its...tada...19 games over .500!! (24 - 5 =19 by my math).

same goes for if they went 25-6-7 in the next 38 games, that's 57 pts AND 19 games over .500 (25-6=19 by my math).

ugh, I don't know why i'm even bothering with this, its simple math, but apparently some people just aren't very good at math on here.

You need to take a remedial math course. Soon.

Each game has a maximum of 2 points available. Over a 38 game stretch there are 76 points available. In the NHL OT losses also get you 1 point. To attain a .500 record over 38 games a team needs to get 38 points (whether by wins or OT losses).

At .500 they would have 38 points. To be 19 games over .500 they would need a further 38 points (2 points max/game X 19 = 38).

So indeed to be 19 games over .500 in a 38 game stretch a given team would need to go 38-0-0. Period.

Let us revisit your examples.

if the Oilers go 24-5-9 in the next 38 games, how many points would they get in those 38 games? In case you cant do basic math, its....tada, 57 pts! Now, how many games OVER .500 is that record? Again, in case you aren't good at math (which it looks like many are on here), its...tada...19 games over .500!! (24 - 5 =19 by my math).

In this example they went 24-5-9. You are correct that is 57 points. Out of a possible total of 76. So, by simple math their winning percentage (in NHL terms) is 57/76 = .750 which is .250. Which is 9.5 games above .500. (76/4=19 points, 19/2=9.5 games)

same goes for if they went 25-6-7 in the next 38 games, that's 57 pts AND 19 games over .500 (25-6=19 by my math).

In this example they went 25-6-7. You are again correct that is 57 points. Out of a possible total of 76. So, by simple math their winning percentage (in NHL terms) is 57/76 = .750 which is .250, Which is 9.5 games above .500. (76/4=19 points, 19/2=9.5 games)

Maybe you should rethink your statement casting aspersions on the math skills of others, yes?

 

[NAF]

wow, ok i'll try this one more time, and please people, remember that I was responding to someone else's post about getting 57 pts in 38 games, I wasn't the one throwing those numbers out there, I was just saying what their record would have to be in order to get 57 pts in the next 38 games!!

Here goes... and try to keep up....

if the Oilers go 24-5-9 in the next 38 games, how many points would they get in those 38 games? In case you cant do basic math, its....tada, 57 pts! Now, how many games OVER .500 is that record? Again, in case you aren't good at math (which it looks like many are on here), its...tada...19 games over .500!! (24 - 5 =19 by my math).

same goes for if they went 25-6-7 in the next 38 games, that's 57 pts AND 19 games over .500 (25-6=19 by my math).

ugh, I don't know why i'm even bothering with this, its simple math, but apparently some people just aren't very good at math on here.

Haha. Nice. Let's review, because I think you're getting confused.

Raab wrote: "we need around 57 points in the next 38 games to make it interesting down the stretch"

You wrote: "lol, you really think this team can go 19 games over .500 in the next 38 games? No offense, but that is preposterous. And yes, in order for them to get 57 pts in 38 games, they have to go 19 games over .500 to achieve that"

And then I pointed out that 57 points in the next three games is not 19 wins over .500. It's 19 points over .500. (38+19=57)

Since a .500 record in a 38 game span would be 19-19 (let's ignore the loser point for now), if we were to win, as you say, 19 games over .500, we'd be winning 38 games out of 38 games.

I don't know why this is so contentious. It is, as you say, pretty simple math.

Edit: Doppler Drift: Thank you. Except, in your last sentence, you said 12.5 games over 500, but I think you rushed the math there. 57 points out of 76 is 9.5 games over .500

 

[mkwong268]

Hate to douse the fire...but...is this not totally typical of our team, to have a cascade of terrible performances...interrupted by two freakish, fluke-ish breaks in between the brutalness?

Are you saying I shouldn't be expecting Gagner to get another 8 point night on Monday?

 

[Dooman]

You need to take a remedial math course. Soon.

Each game has a maximum of 2 points available. Over a 38 game stretch there are 76 points available. In the NHL OT losses also get you 1 point. To attain a .500 record over 38 games a team needs to get 38 points (whether by wins or OT losses).

At .500 they would have 38 points. To be 19 games over .500 they would need a further 38 points (2 points max/game X 19 = 38).

So indeed to be 19 games over .500 in a 38 game stretch a given team would need to go 38-0-0. Period.

Let us revisit your examples.



In this example they went 24-5-9. You are correct that is 57 points. Out of a possible total of 76. So, by simple math their winning percentage (in NHL terms) is 57/76 = .750 which is .250 or 12.5 games over .500



In this example they went 25-6-7. You are again correct that is 57 points. Out of a possible total of 76. So, by simple math their winning percentage (in NHL terms) is 57/76 = .750 which is .250 or 12.5 games over .500.

Maybe you should rethink your statement casting aspersions on the math skills of others, yes?

Your math is wrong too. 25% of 38 games is 9.5, not 12.5.

 

[Kepler 186f]

Your math is wrong too. 25% of 38 games is 9.5, not 12.5.

Correct, I wrote that too fast. 19 points is 25% of the available points or 9.5 games. I divided the percentage difference in my haste. Thanks for the correction. I have edited the original.

 

[The Joker*]

If we agree that .500 is equal to earning half the points (which you all do), and a game over .500 is equal to earning both points (again, you all do), then a 2-1 record where you earn 4 of 6 points, is 1 game over .500, as you have 3 (.500 point) + 1 additional point.

A 38-0 record is 38 games above .500, as you have earned 76 points, 38 additional points on top of the .500 point.

Let's look at it this way: The Oilers are 38-0. This, according to some troll, is 19 games above .500. The Oilers then lose 38 straight games, in which they earn 0 points (below .500). This leaves their record at 38-38. Are the Oilers now 19 games below .500?

Let's not compare baseball as baseball doesn't use a 2 points per game system, they use a 1 w per game system. In order to obtain the same math there you have to divide the hockey system in half.

 

[s7ark]

Instead of talking about games over .500, I think we should start talking in terms of possible point percentages. There seems to be less confusion around that.

The Oilers would need 57p in 38gp. 76 possible points, 57/76 = .750 of the possible points. Quick easy and less possibility of confusion.

 

[OneMoreAstronaut]

Hey this math discussion has been sweet

How about that game last night?

 

[Kepler 186f]

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.

 

[Da McBomb]

Gagner just can't buy a goal this year. At least he's starting to contribute now with assists. Seems like he and Yaks have good chemistry.

 

[EchoesoftheEighties]

I appreciate the optimism guys but this team needs to go on a Blackhawks-like streak of 24 undefeated to have a SHOT at playoffs.

This season is a write off.

Good to see them put a few W's together though. Hopefully more will come

 

[tempest2i]

Gagner just can't buy a goal this year. At least he's starting to contribute now with assists. Seems like he and Yaks have good chemistry.

Gagner certainly looked rusty when he came back. He got robbed last night from scoring, but goals will come with him because they always do. I'm very interested to see how he plays after the jaw protection comes off.

 

[Oilslick941611]

figures, people still critizing after a 7-0 win. I can't believe it, and people in GDT saying how different the game could have been with Belovs giveaway.........

get over it.

Oilers won, be happy

 

[ales83fan]

I was at the game last night.

It was epic! Best game i have ever seen live.

I don't think we're seeing playoffs, but if you promise me that type of effort, I will stay tuned.

 

[ghostnights]

Oilers aren't a playoff team in the west but that doesn't mean they won't be able to pull them self out of the cellar and finish between 20-22.

 

[NAF]

A 38-0 record is 38 games above .500, as you have earned 76 points, 38 additional points on top of the .500 point.

Let's look at it this way: The Oilers are 38-0. This, according to some troll, is 19 games above .500. The Oilers then lose 38 straight games, in which they earn 0 points (below .500). This leaves their record at 38-38. Are the Oilers now 19 games below .500?

 

[Raab]

Yes, but you did say 19 games over .500 over the next 38 games.
What you said doesn't make sense because in 38 games, a .500 record would be 19 wins.
If you then went "19 games over .500" (like you said) it would mean that you would win all 38 games.

I have no idea why 38 games was even mentioned since there are more than 38 games remaining in the Oilers season.

38 games takes us to TDD. We'll have to make a decision if were going for it or not by then.

 

[Beerfish]

If we agree that .500 is equal to earning half the points (which you all do), and a game over .500 is equal to earning both points (again, you all do), then a 2-1 record where you earn 4 of 6 points, is 1 game over .500, as you have 3 (.500 point) + 1 additional point.

A 38-0 record is 38 games above .500, as you have earned 76 points, 38 additional points on top of the .500 point.

Let's look at it this way: The Oilers are 38-0. This, according to some troll, is 19 games above .500. The Oilers then lose 38 straight games, in which they earn 0 points (below .500). This leaves their record at 38-38. Are the Oilers now 19 games below .500?

Let's not compare baseball as baseball doesn't use a 2 points per game system, they use a 1 w per game system. In order to obtain the same math there you have to divide the hockey system in half.

Here is the key, what is earning half the points available in a game?

Do you use 2 points for a game or more since there are actually 3 points available to be earned in a game. The issue I have with the usual .500 discussion is that people count ot and so wins but ignore ot and so loses.

In any case using a .500 record as any kind of means for success in the NHL is faulty compared to how it is viewed traditionally.

 

[LTIR]

What do you guys think of Ference? IMO he was the weakest Dman for us last night in terms of decision making and effectiveness.

The hugging Jenner in front of the net and the diving penalty surely made it worse.

 

[randomrob7]

What do you guys think of Ference? IMO he was the weakest Dman for us last night in terms of decision making and effectiveness.

The hugging Jenner in front of the net and the diving penalty surely made it worse.

I didn't get to see the diving penalty, if there a vid/gif of it?

 

[ales83fan]

I didn't get to see the diving penalty, if there a vid/gif of it?

it wasn`t that bad.

but they called it because Clb maybe were about to get a one on one with the goalie.

They called coincidental minors and let them play 4 on 4, but neither team got an advantage.

 

[Replacement*]

Hate to douse the fire...but...is this not totally typical of our team, to have a cascade of terrible performances...interrupted by two freakish, fluke-ish breaks in between the brutalness?

Its amazing how much people read into one game like last night. As stated in the GDT we own the Blue Jackets at Rexall. Several of our players traditionally get bushels of pts playing against the jackets and starting with Hemsky through to Gagner, Hall, Eberle, RNH our players have learned to feast on this club. Blue jackets consistently bring awful efforts to Rexall. They may as well mail in the pts.

Consider how odd it is that a worst team in the league, like the Oilers, with abominable home records in recent years would now be 6-0 against the Jackets at Rexall over the last 4 seasons.

Heres the scorelines (note that on 4 occasions the Oilers have piled up 6 or more goals. This is freakish deviation from the norm);


2010-11 season: Thu Dec 16 2010 at Edm Edmonton 6, Columbus 3

2010-11 season: Thu Mar 3 2011 at Edm Edmonton 4, Columbus 2

2011-12 season: Fri Dec 2 2011 at Edm Edmonton 6, Columbus 3

2011-12 season: Wed Mar 14 2012 at Edm Edmonton 3, Columbus 0

2012-13 season: Thu Mar 28 2013 at Edm Edmonton 6, Columbus 4

2013-14 season: Tue Nov 19 2013 Edmonton 7, Columbus 0



Primary team Edmonton: 6-0 in these games.
Goals for Edmonton: 32
Goals against Edmonton: 12

 

[SometimesY]

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.

 

[s7ark]

I appreciate the optimism guys but this team needs to go on a Blackhawks-like streak of 24 undefeated to have a SHOT at playoffs.

This season is a write off.

Good to see them put a few W's together though. Hopefully more will come

Playoffs aren't likely, but wins are never bad. This team needs to build some confidence and if they can go on a bit of a run and generally play well until the end of the season, that will help them next season.


A couple of interesting tweets to the getting hit and giving the puck away = losses crowd.

Jonathan Willis ‏@JonathanWillis 22m

Man, #CBJ outhit the #Oilers 45-19 and Edmonton made three times as many giveaways. It's sad to see the Oilers show run like that.

Jonathan Willis ‏@JonathanWillis 24m

Oh, you say the score was 7-0? It's almost like "getting hit" and "giving the puck away" are things that happen when you have the puck a lot