Who invented points and why?

[Filthy Dangles]

Basketball comparison is null, a lot more points get scored in a basketball game vs a hockey game and it's completely different.

Points do a pretty good job of saying who the best contributors are on manufacturing goals either by putting it in themselves or setting up others. No one stat is perfect at telling the proper story 100% of the time for all players, but the best players generally score the most points. It's fine the way it is.

 

[bossram]

Y'know, I have to give the OP credit for coming up with an original idea that isn't completely nuts. Yes, goals and assists are part of a continuum that results in goals. But in baseball RBIs and hits are part of that same continuum that result in runs. In baseball, those stats are distinct and never mixed together, why not in hockey?

I'm not in favour of changing anything, but I appreciate looking at an old picture from a different angle.

He actually is on to something intelligent.

I mean, the scoring system won't change. But in terms of how to analyze or evaluate players, it would be far more useful to consider goals/assists separately. And secondary assists are largely luck dependent.

 

[LuGBuG]

Who invented sticks? When is winter? Are there cats?

Rusty ones

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

Who decided hockey should be played on the ice? Basketball and soccer and football all don't need to be played on ice.

Its slippery and silly. When players skate it chops up the ice and little bits fly up everywhere. Its course and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Then it melts and gets wet.

 

[daver]

He actually is on to something intelligent.

I mean, the scoring system won't change. But in terms of how to analyze or evaluate players, it would be far more useful to consider goals/assists separately. And secondary assists are largely luck dependent.

Aside from the best playmakers generally accumulating the most 2nd assists.

In terms of evaluating players using goals and assists separately, what is stopping you from doing that?

 

[avsfan09]

Who invented Gravity? Also Aids which was the worst invention of all time.

 

[Suntouchable13]

Boy, I bet in the 1920s (or whenever), they had debates like this too like we are having about advanced stats.

 

[MartinS82]

From a coaching point of view, points are the best way to measure a players overall offensive impact on a game. It does not measure who the "better" players are, but it is pretty accruate as to which players impact the game more offensively.

I often have to coach against teams/players that I have never seen play before, and use their league's websites to get a preliminary "scouting report" on which players we might have to focus on. Points is the first stat I use.

 

[Albi34]

It's LOSING. If you're going to continue with this dumb argument that has nothing to do with the thread, at least spell the word correctly when you use it over and over and over again.

Thank God someone said this, seeing loosing typed over and over was really bothering me lol

 

[Randyne]

Aside from the best playmakers generally accumulating the most 2nd assists.

Goalscorers generate 2nd assists too but they aren't counted.

 

[RustyCat]

Rusty ones

Well played, friend. Well played.

 

[snu22fint]

"You get 0 points for loosing in regulation and 0 points for loosing in OT/SO. A team in the nhl cannot be in a situation where loosing will award any points."

Except you never said that before. Above in quotations is what you said. You worded it as if a team gets no points whatsoever for losing in OT or a SO.

But they do get 0 points for losing in OT, like I have said 10 times already. They get 1 point for the draw, like I said 10 too. What is it with 1 + 0 = 1 that you find hard?

Looks like you are now backtracking now because you were wrong before. But continue embarassing yourself please. It's quite enjoyable.

I'm not wrong, and was never wrong. Read the official rules. I don't know what more to say.

It's LOSING. If you're going to continue with this dumb argument that has nothing to do with the thread, at least spell the word correctly when you use it over and over and over again.

top 3 things to do if you're losing or loosing an internet argument:

1. Call your opponents dumb without any explanation at all.
2. Point out that what you are arguing about has nothing to do with something completely different like it would give you some extra credit.
3. Pick on the other guys spelling of a word. I mean who cares if the other guy is a Swede with dyslexia.

Btw, its not a dumb argument, it's a fact. It's in the rulebook. I will quote it again in hopes that it will finally sink in:

"84.1 Overtime – Regular-season - During regular-season games, if at the end of the three (3) regular twenty (20) minute periods, the score shall be tied, each team shall be awarded one point in the League standings. The teams will then play an additional overtime period of not more than five (5) minutes with the team scoring first declared the winner and being awarded an additional point"

 

[bossram]

Aside from the best playmakers generally accumulating the most 2nd assists.

In terms of evaluating players using goals and assists separately, what is stopping you from doing that?

The best playmakers generally accumulate the most primary assists too. Secondary assists are statistically shown to be less repeatable, and mostly clutter the data. They're noisy.

And nothing is "stopping" us from analyzing goals/assists separately. But you're more likely to find points/game, points/60 used in player evaluation than goals/60, primary assists/60, etc.

 

[daver]

The best playmakers generally accumulate the most primary assists too. Secondary assists are statistically shown to be less repeatable, and mostly clutter the data. They're noisy.

And nothing is "stopping" us from analyzing goals/assists separately. But you're more likely to find points/game, points/60 used in player evaluation than goals/60, primary assists/60, etc.

That was my point. The players, more specifically forwards, who get the most 1As tend to get the most 2As, so assist totals, and point totals, are reflective of offensive contribution.

 

[Hockeyholic]

But they do get 0 points for losing in OT, like I have said 10 times already. They get 1 point for the draw, like I said 10 too. What is it with 1 + 0 = 1 that you find hard?





I'm not wrong, and was never wrong. Read the official rules. I don't know what more to say.





top 3 things to do if you're losing or loosing an internet argument:

1. Call your opponents dumb without any explanation at all.
2. Point out that what you are arguing about has nothing to do with something completely different like it would give you some extra credit.
3. Pick on the other guys spelling of a word. I mean who cares if the other guy is a Swede with dyslexia.

Btw, its not a dumb argument, it's a fact. It's in the rulebook. I will quote it again in hopes that it will finally sink in:

"84.1 Overtime – Regular-season - During regular-season games, if at the end of the three (3) regular twenty (20) minute periods, the score shall be tied, each team shall be awarded one point in the League standings. The teams will then play an additional overtime period of not more than five (5) minutes with the team scoring first declared the winner and being awarded an additional point"

You came out and said that a team doesn't get a point for losing in OT or a shootout. As if to imply a team doesn't get one point before the game went to OT or shootout. You never said anything about both teams already having a point when tied after regulation. But the fact of the matter is a team can be tied after regulation, thus ensuring they get a point even if they lose in OT or a SO. The point also remains that the NHL remains the only sport where a team can not win a game, yet somehow still get a point in the standings.

If team A goes into a match with 68 points, yet end up tied after regulation, they are guaranteed at least 69 poi ts before OT or a SO begins. Which is BS. It shouldn't be that way.

 

[saluki]

It's just human nature.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

John Point. He was bored.

Braydens great grandfather. Bloodlines in NHL run strong

 

[kladorf2005]

top 3 things to do if you're losing or loosing an internet argument:

1. Call your opponents dumb without any explanation at all.
2. Point out that what you are arguing about has nothing to do with something completely different like it would give you some extra credit.
3. Pick on the other guys spelling of a word. I mean who cares if the other guy is a Swede with dyslexia.

Btw, its not a dumb argument, it's a fact. It's in the rulebook.

I apologize for criticizing your English. I didn't know you were Swedish. I have a lot of respect for people being bilingual. I regret never having learned a second language myself. FWIW, lose is the opposite of win. Loose is the opposite of tight. Hope that helps.

I wasn't calling you dumb, btw. It was the argument you were having with a handful of other posters that I was calling dumb. It was unrelated to the thread and both sides are just arguing semantics. Neither side is outright wrong. I actually think you made an interesting point that most people probably never considered.

Never said you were wrong. I just think you should have dropped the mic and walked away after your 2nd or 3rd post on the matter.

 

[555Upstairs]

Nice to see how half the posts in this thread discuss a topic that has nothing to do with what OP was asking...

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

it's completely arbitrary, and that's why it makes no sense for people to treat the NHL's scoring system as an infallible way to rank players

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

Thomas Edison invented points in 1870 as a way to determine which of his assistants was most helpful.

 

[snu22fint]

You came out and said that a team doesn't get a point for losing in OT or a shootout. As if to imply a team doesn't get one point before the game went to OT or shootout.

I didn't imply a damn thing thank you. You did.

You never said anything about both teams already having a point when tied after regulation. But the fact of the matter is a team can be tied after regulation, thus ensuring they get a point even if they lose in OT or a SO.

"So you get 1 point for a draw and 0 points for OT and SO loss." This is from page 1 in this thread. I've said it numerous times in other post after that and also provided quotes from actual rules with the exact same fact." How can I be more precise than this? tell me?

The point also remains that the NHL remains the only sport where a team can not win a game, yet somehow still get a point in the standings.

Except literally all other sports including the biggest sport in the world Soccer, or just football as we call it in Europe. Ties have always awarded teams with a point. Even NHL didn't use to have the OT nor SO. Just ties with both teams awarded 1 point each.

If team A goes into a match with 68 points, yet end up tied after regulation, they are guaranteed at least 69 poi ts before OT or a SO begins. Which is BS. It shouldn't be that way.

I think it's fair that each get 1 point in a game where a win equals 2 points. I personally think it would be better if they didn't play OT and SO at all for an extra point. I think Soccer have a pretty good system where a win gets you 3 points and a tie 1. That means that there is 2 points to be handed out to the team that is going for a win in the end of the match and only 1 to loose.

 

[snu22fint]

I apologize for criticizing your English. I didn't know you were Swedish. I have a lot of respect for people being bilingual. I regret never having learned a second language myself. FWIW, lose is the opposite of win. Loose is the opposite of tight. Hope that helps.

I wasn't calling you dumb, btw. It was the argument you were having with a handful of other posters that I was calling dumb. It was unrelated to the thread and both sides are just arguing semantics. Neither side is outright wrong. I actually think you made an interesting point that most people probably never considered.

Never said you were wrong. I just think you should have dropped the mic and walked away after your 2nd or 3rd post on the matter.

I probably should have quit after 2 or 3 post but there is something in my nature that keeps me arguing when I know I'm in the right. I was like pulling stuff out of the official rule book and people would still not believe that you earn 0 points for loosing in OT and SO, you earn the point when you finish a game in a tie. I donno man. Enough internet for today I guess.

 

[Laodongxi]

The OP has a valid point.

 

[Thread The Needle]

The OP has a valid point.

Is it a goal or an assist?