Why aren't losses factored into sorting teams in the standings?

[Nenikoj]

Point totals are not limited to one team. So five losses resulted in wins for other teams. Plus you have the results over the same time span in the rest of the league that also produced wins.

So winning teams would move ahead of or approach the losing teams in a point based system. Trackable across conferences, divisions and within. Reflective of league play as a whole.

Let's say Detroit is 17-13-7 and then loses five straight to become 17-18-7. According to points, they aren't any worse off at 17-18-7 than they were at 17-13-7, as in each case, they have 41 points. So you are not even using the value in the L column when sorting teams. You're really looking at 17-x-7 and 17-y-7 where the values of x and y are immaterial. How do you feel about ignoring some 40% of the results of games when it comes to the way teams are sorted in the standings?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hate to Tell You

Let's say Detroit is 17-13-7 and then loses five straight to become 17-18-7. According to points, they aren't any worse off at 17-18-7 than they were at 17-13-7, as in each case, they have 41 points. So you are not even using the value in the L column when sorting teams. You're really looking at 17-x-7 and 17-y-7 where the values of x and y are immaterial. How do you feel about ignoring some 40% of the results of games when it comes to the way teams are sorted in the standings?

100% of the results are included all the time. Losses are by default included in the wins since a team cannot win without another losing or one game being played.

 

[Nenikoj]

100% of the results are included all the time. Losses are by default included in the wins since a team cannot win without another losing or one game being played.

Not true. If you needed to sort the teams in the standings and all you had was Detroit 17-x-7 and Toronto 17-y-6 - where x and y are unknown, would you be able to sort the teams? If so, how would you do it? If not, what missing information would you need?

 

[Doctor No]

What's the official purpose for sorting the standings prior to season's end (at which point, all teams have the same number of games played, and losses can be calculated uniquely)?

 

[morehockeystats]

Let's say Detroit is 17-13-7 and then loses five straight to become 17-18-7. According to points, they aren't any worse off at 17-18-7 than they were at 17-13-7, as in each case, they have 41 points. So you are not even using the value in the L column when sorting teams. You're really looking at 17-x-7 and 17-y-7 where the values of x and y are immaterial. How do you feel about ignoring some 40% of the results of games when it comes to the way teams are sorted in the standings?

The key is that the points do not matter in the end. The placements matter. If Detroit goes from 40-25-7 to 40-35-7 but stays in the same place, they aren't any worse off.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Multiple

What's the official purpose for sorting the standings prior to season's end (at which point, all teams have the same number of games played, and losses can be calculated uniquely)?

Multiple reasons from ticket sales to various elements of strategy(game and roster) passing thru the need to reserve arenas or venues for possible playoffs, travel arrangements for post season play.

 

[Nenikoj]

The key is that the points do not matter in the end. The placements matter. If Detroit goes from 40-25-7 to 40-35-7 but stays in the same place, they aren't any worse off.

Not true.
40-25-7 = 87 pts with 10 games remaining
40-35-7 = 87 pts with 0 games remaining

If at 40-35-7, they aren't any worse off than at 40-25-7, then it should read as follows:

40-25-7 = 87 pts with 10 games remaining
40-35-7 = 87 pts with 10 games remaining

If they were 40-35-7 and had 10 games remaining (for a total of 92 games), how would it be determined who they were to play in those extra 10 games?

 

[morehockeystats]

Not true.
40-25-7 = 87 pts with 10 games remaining
40-35-7 = 87 pts with 0 games remaining

If at 40-35-7, they aren't any worse off than at 40-25-7, then it should read as follows:

40-25-7 = 87 pts with 10 games remaining
40-35-7 = 87 pts with 10 games remaining

If they were 40-35-7 and had 10 games remaining (for a total of 92 games), how would it be determined who they were to play in those extra 10 games?

I intentionally put 40-35-7 to end up at 82 games. When they're 40-35-7, the season is over. No games are remaining. Their placement cannot become worse. I imply that all the teams have completed the 82 games by ten.

 

[Nenikoj]

Point totals are not limited to one team. So five losses resulted in wins for other teams. Plus you have the results over the same time span in the rest of the league that also produced wins.

So winning teams would move ahead of or approach the losing teams in a point based system. Trackable across conferences, divisions and within. Reflective of league play as a whole.

I still don't quite understand where you stand on this.

Again: If you needed to sort the teams in the standings and all you had was Detroit 17-x-7 and Toronto 17-y-6 - where x and y are unknown, would you be able to sort the teams? If so, how would you do it? If not, what missing information would you need?

 

[Nenikoj]

I intentionally put 40-35-7 to end up at 82 games. When they're 40-35-7, the season is over. No games are remaining. Their placement cannot become worse. I imply that all the teams have completed the 82 games by ten.

By that logic, if the team is no worse off at 40-35-7 than they were at 40-25-7, then what is your justification for removing the 10 games left to play for the 40-25-7 team? If you let them play their ten remaining games, then they are actually better off at 40-25-7 than they would be at 40-35-7.

 

[morehockeystats]

By that logic, if the team is no worse off at 40-35-7 than they were at 40-25-7, then what is your justification for removing the 10 games left to play for the 40-25-7 team? If you let them play their ten remaining games, then they are actually better off at 40-25-7 than they would be at 40-35-7.

My logic is that a team is as well off, as it's placed in the standings by the points it collected. All the rest are speculations. If they are 3rd in the division and 8th in the conference and remain 3rd and 8th after 10 losses to conclude the season, they are neither better, nor worse off. That's the rationale behind ranking by points, and I said multiple times, this ranking is used worldwide in many disciplines.

Have you ever watched a traditional Nordic ski or a biathlon race? The competitors are never ranked by their average speed, only by their time at finish (or at checkpoints).

 

[Nenikoj]

My logic is that a team is as well off, as it's placed in the standings by the points it collected. All the rest are speculations. If they are 3rd in the division and 8th in the conference and remain 3rd and 8th after 10 losses to conclude the season, they are neither better, nor worse off. That's the rationale behind ranking by points, and I said multiple times, this ranking is used worldwide in many disciplines.

Have you ever watched a traditional Nordic ski or a biathlon race? The competitors are never ranked by their average speed, only by their time at finish (or at checkpoints).

We're still not connecting. How about this:
A team starts out the season 5-0-0 (10 points). Then they lose ten straight games to become 5-10-0 (10 points). Are they worse off now than they were when they were 5-0-0?

 

[morehockeystats]

We're still not connecting. How about this:
A team starts out the season 5-0-0 (10 points). Then they lose ten straight games to become 5-10-0 (10 points). Are they worse off now than they were when they were 5-0-0?

Only if their placement in the standings became worse.

 

[Nenikoj]

Only if their placement in the standings became worse.

As going from 5-0-0 to 5-10-0 will likely change a team's placement in the standings, we'll use a more reasonable example.

Let's say team A is 20-15-5, in 4th place in a five team division. They lose ten straight to become 20-25-5 and are still in 4th place in a five team division. Are they any worse off at 20-25-5 than they were at 20-15-5?

I was wondering if you could answer the question I asked Canadiens1958.
If you needed to sort the teams in the standings and all you had was Detroit 17-x-7 and Toronto 17-y-6 - where x and y are unknown, would you be able to sort the teams? If so, how would you do it? If not, what missing information would you need?

 

[morehockeystats]

As going from 5-0-0 to 5-10-0 will likely change a team's placement in the standings, we'll use a more reasonable example.

Let's say team A is 20-15-5, in 4th place in a five team division. They lose ten straight to become 20-25-5 and are still in 4th place in a five team division. Are they any worse off at 20-25-5 than they were at 20-15-5?

No, they are not.

I was wondering if you could answer the question I asked Canadiens1958.
If you needed to sort the teams in the standings and all you had was Detroit 17-x-7 and Toronto 17-y-6 - where x and y are unknown, would you be able to sort the teams? If so, how would you do it? If not, what missing information would you need?

Yes. Detroit is above Toronto. All the rest is wishful thinking.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Need

I still don't quite understand where you stand on this.

Again: If you needed to sort the teams in the standings and all you had was Detroit 17-x-7 and Toronto 17-y-6 - where x and y are unknown, would you be able to sort the teams? If so, how would you do it? If not, what missing information would you need?

What is the need here? Other than extend a discussion where you have not shown any fundamental basis for a suggested issue.

 

[Nenikoj]

As going from 5-0-0 to 5-10-0 will likely change a team's placement in the standings, we'll use a more reasonable example.

Let's say team A is 20-15-5, in 4th place in a five team division. They lose ten straight to become 20-25-5 and are still in 4th place in a five team division. Are they any worse off at 20-25-5 than they were at 20-15-5?

No, they are not.

Do they still have the same number of games remaining to earn points at 20-25-5 as they did at 20-15-5?

I was wondering if you could answer the question I asked Canadiens1958.
If you needed to sort the teams in the standings and all you had was Detroit 17-x-7 and Toronto 17-y-6 - where x and y are unknown, would you be able to sort the teams? If so, how would you do it? If not, what missing information would you need?

Yes. Detroit is above Toronto. All the rest is wishful thinking.

How do you know 17-x-7 is above 17-y-6 in which x and y are unknown?

 

[Nenikoj]

What is the need here? Other than extend a discussion where you have not shown any fundamental basis for a suggested issue.

I'm trying to point something out to you. Again: If you needed to sort the teams in the standings and all you had was Detroit 17-x-7 and Toronto 17-y-6 - where x and y are unknown, would you be able to sort the teams? If so, how would you do it? If not, what missing information would you need?

 

[morehockeystats]

How do you know 17-x-7 is above 17-y-6 in which x and y are unknown?

if x - regulation losses for which 0 points are awarded, wins (17) are 2 points worth, and 6 and 7 are OT losses one point worth:

17*2 + x*0 + 7*1 <=> 17*2 + y*0 + 6*1
34 + 0 + 7 <=> 34 + 0 + 6

41 > 40​

HTH.

 

[Nenikoj]

if x - regulation losses for which 0 points are awarded, wins (17) are 2 points worth, and 6 and 7 are OT losses one point worth:

17*2 + x*0 + 7*1 <=> 17*2 + y*0 + 6*1
34 + 0 + 7 <=> 34 + 0 + 6

41 > 40​

HTH.

It sounds like you agree that you don't need to know the values of x and y. Correct?

 

[morehockeystats]

It sounds like you agree that you don't need to know the values of x and y. Correct?

Yes, I thought it were obvious.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Need

I'm trying to point something out to you. Again: If you needed to sort the teams in the standings and all you had was Detroit 17-x-7 and Toronto 17-y-6 - where x and y are unknown, would you be able to sort the teams? If so, how would you do it? If not, what missing information would you need?

Before answering needed has to be defined.

 

[Nenikoj]

Yes, I thought it were obvious.

Good. So we have 17-x-7 vs. 17-y-6 where x & y don't need to be known.

It would therefore follow that we don't even need to have x & y in the equation, as your formula indicates that regardless of the value of x and y, the point total ends up being the same. Therefore, x & y are completely disregarded when calculating the points total.

However, out of 4920 results for the 30 teams over an 82 game schedule (82 x 30 x 2 = 4920), some 40% of those results are an L or fit right into your equation where the x and y are. So I'd like to ask
1) how do you feel about ignoring or not using some 40% of NHL game results when compiling the standings?
2) would a system for sorting teams which factored in 100% of the results tell us more than a system which factors in only about 60% of the results?

 

[Nenikoj]

Before answering needed has to be defined.

I'll rephrase:

If your task is to sort the teams (Detroit and Toronto) in the standings by the methods used in the NHL standings and all you had was Detroit 17-x-7 and Toronto 17-y-6 - where x and y are unknown, would you be able to sort the teams? If so, how would you do it? If not, what missing information would you need?

 

[Canadiens1958]

No

I'll rephrase:

If your task is to sort the teams (Detroit and Toronto) in the standings by the methods used in the NHL standings and all you had was Detroit 17-x-7 and Toronto 17-y-6 - where x and y are unknown, would you be able to sort the teams? If so, how would you do it? If not, what missing information would you need?

You are just trying to find the golden BB that will give your idea legs. NOT interested.