Again, you are *still* not understanding me. It's like the difference between Corsi and Fenwick and shots on net. They're useful for different things. Sometimes you
want to take shots blocked into account. For example, WIIM did an analysis on the Wing's PK and used Fenwick because it did take that into account. In a PK situation, shot blocking is useful for trying to see how good your team is at blocking shots and preventing shots on net. That's an important skill. That's what you're trying to measure. You're not trying to measure possession.
On the other hand, if you are trying to measure possession, then Corsi is better. Because even if you block a shot, it means the other team had the puck in your zone and was able to direct a shot towards your net, blocked or not. It's not ignoring context to use one or the other. It's about using the one properly suited for the purpose.
So yes, counting the points from SO/OT losses is important and useful when you're trying to look at some things. But I'm not looking at what you're looking at. I am just looking at the strength of the team overall. And yes, if you can't win even half your games, I don't think that bodes well for your team. If you are getting a significant number of points from OT/SO losses, then you're just not that good a team.
Plus, what I'm doing is not even that different from looking at total points, it's just a different approach. Total points is used to point to better and worse teams. Better teams tend to have more points. Is that always the case? No. Is it possible to steal points while not being the better team? Sure. Does every team have the same kind of schedule and travel? No. Are you really going to say that means when I look at points as an indication of team competitiveness that I'm "ignoring the context?"
Do you have a fundamental issue with my assertion that even in OT/SO, the better team tends to win? Are there inferior teams out there that are winning in SO/OT at a higher than expected clip?
And I'll be sure to include the word "perspective" next time to avoid mod edits. Thanks for the tip.
If two teams went 0-82, but team 1 lost every game in overtime, and team 2 lost every game by a score of 10-0, would you describe the two teams as identical?
I'm not trying to compare two teams. I'm trying to look at just ONE team. I just do not have confidence that a team that loses more games than it wins can go far in the playoffs. We're looking at different things. It's a blunt tool for a blunt purpose. "Is this team good enough?" When was the last time a team that had more total losses than wins made it far into the playoffs? I think when you separate the losses, it loses that effect. You are encouraged by the fact that the regulation losses is a lower number than the wins column. I think when you are asking yourself "How good is this team?" that separation creates false hope.