What do you need to see before you're totally bought in?

[Drunkard]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

 

Correct.

@Hank -- when has an average of one point per game ever meant ".500"?

As a factual matter, ".500" means "50%".

IMHO, in the sports context, it has always meant "winning 50% of your games."

When the NHL eliminated ties, I think it also introduced the bastardized ".500" concept as a way to deceive fans of lousy teams into thinking that their teams had better chances of making the playoffs than they actually did.  E.g.:  "we're 18-18-9 -- we're .500 -- so we must be in the playoff race!  [even though that record actually has them 8 points out of the playoffs with less than a 10% chance of making it]"

But SabreSpace knows better, I hope.

I agree with you, but the loser point wasn't some oversight. The league did it that way on purpose in order to keep more teams alive for the playoffs later into the season. If your team gets eliminated in February I imagine the number of butts in the stands and eyes on the televisions drop off significantly from that point until the end of the season, so the best way to delay that is to get as many teams as possible statistically alive for the playoffs for as long as possible. Heck even during the tank years we weren't eliminated until February or so, even though everyone and their uncle knew we had zero chance at the playoffs from the initial puck drop of the season.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Drunkard

[SwampD]

It's the bonus point.

[Slack_in_MA]

What I need to see:

1. Consistency of effort. Every team throws up a stinker every now and then, but it needs to be once every 10-12 games, not once every four.

2. Commitment by upper management to improve the team. Make hard decisions about goalie, top 6 winger, etc.

3. Toughness/grit - you cannot get pushed around and be successful over the long run in the NHL. Especially come playoff time when the whistles get swallowed.

[dudacek]

57 minutes ago, Slack_in_MA said:

What I need to see:

1. Consistency of effort. Every team throws up a stinker every now and then, but it needs to be once every 10-12 games, not once every four.

This is interesting and certainly open to interpretation.

IMO there have been four “stinkers”: Game 11 (Rangers), 14 (Caps), 20 (Hawks), 21 (Wild).

Wasnt sure whether to include 24 (Lightning) in there or not. It was certainly the most depressing game of the year, but I didn’t think the issue was effort.

[Thorner]

On 12/5/2019 at 3:25 PM, dudacek said:

Deluca .500 is just a way of translating the significance of the pre-OT NHL .500 to the modern significance and only really matters to us fans who grew up in the ‘70s when .500 meant something it no longer means.

What we old guys tend to forget that muddies the issue is that half the league misses the playoffs now, as opposed to 5 teams back in the day.

Also, Deluca .500 equates OT losses as actual losses, when actually they are ties. It’s the OT wins that actually skew things.

Translating today’s standings to Adams Division rules: Buffalo 10/10/8 for 28 points, exactly a .500 team.

Boston 18/3/7 43

Buffalo 10/10/8 28

Montreal 9/10/9 27

Tampa 10/9/6 26

Florida 8/9/10 26

Toronto 9/13/8 26

Ottawa 10/16/3 23

Detroit 6/20/4 16

You are correct that it's the OT wins skewing things, in the sense that those wins are a net positive relative to the team only getting the 1 point. But an OT loss certainly isn't a tie, as you are losing ground relative to the team you are playing. 

- - - 

Basically, 1 point is not "break even", as it must be, for a .500 points % to matter. You are losing ground when you gain a point. It is not indicative of a good or even break even/tie result, nor is a .500 points % indicative of a good team. 

Gaining a point is in fact a statistically poor result in the context of a single hockey game. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Thorny

[Thorner]

On 12/6/2019 at 12:23 PM, Curt said:

I say 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win.  No loser point.  Take away the incentive to just play it safe and get the game to OT.

All games should be worth the same amount, it's only logical. The above wouldn't work for that. Should be 3-2-1. 

All teams should be entering into every game with the exact same amount of points "on the line". 

[Slack_in_MA]

7 hours ago, dudacek said:

This is interesting and certainly open to interpretation.

IMO there have been four “stinkers”: Game 11 (Rangers), 14 (Caps), 20 (Hawks), 21 (Wild).

Wasnt sure whether to include 24 (Lightning) in there or not. It was certainly the most depressing game of the year, but I didn’t think the issue was effort.

You're right, certainly subjective. If you only watch one team regularly (not saying you do), it's hard to discern how that team's average effort level compares to other teams' average effort level. Living where I do, I see a lot of Bruins games, and it seems they are more consistent in their level of effort on a nightly basis. But they're on a 4-game skid, so...

And I also find it difficult to determine how much is due to effort vs. talent.

[Drunkard]

9 hours ago, Thorny said:

All games should be worth the same amount, it's only logical. The above wouldn't work for that. Should be 3-2-1. 

All teams should be entering into every game with the exact same amount of points "on the line". 

While a 3-2-1 setup would probably be more accurate for reflecting the best teams overall in the standings, it would reduce the "parity" in the standings and cause more teams to get eliminated from playoff contention earlier in the season. That's not good for the leagues finances. They exist to make money, not to necessarily put out the best product, and they definitely don't exist to make the standings the most accurate reflection of league parity.

[Hank]

Last year Pittsburgh finished with more points than two teams that had a better deluca .500 record. It happens every year. Deluca .500 doesn't matter. Points does. Three OT losses are more valuable than one win. 

[nfreeman]

4 hours ago, Hank said:

Last year Pittsburgh finished with more points than two teams that had a better deluca .500 record. It happens every year. Deluca .500 doesn't matter. Points does. Three OT losses are more valuable than one win. 

No one is saying that wins are more important than total points.

The point is that if you are happy with a record of, say, 18-18-9, even though it gives you 45 pts in 45 games, you are missing the forest for the trees.  With that record you are almost certainly going to miss the playoffs.  You need to average well above one point per game if you want to make the playoffs, and by far the most likely way to achieve that is wins -- not an absurd albeit theoretically possible number of OTLs.

That is why, as noted upthread:

Quote

only 1 of the last 32 playoff teams (and 3 of the last 48) was below DeLuca .500, and it hasn't happened in the EC in the last 2 years.  

 

[Thorner]

4 hours ago, Hank said:

Last year Pittsburgh finished with more points than two teams that had a better deluca .500 record. It happens every year. Deluca .500 doesn't matter. Points does. Three OT losses are more valuable than one win. 

You aren’t arguing the same thing as everyone else. No one disagrees that points are the defining factor. The point people are making is in regards to the idea, specifically, of “FIVE HUNDRED”. A .500 points % is not good, whereas Deluca .500 *is*. 

Of course, at the end of the year, teams are sorted by points %, but you’ll find that only those around .580 or more ( a .585 represents a 96 point pace) make the playoffs. Whereas, teams with a Deluca .500 mark or better (yes, as a measuring stick, not the actual means by which the teams are ranked) almost always make the playoffs. 

[Thorner]

It’s fine to deal wholly in points percentage, but when doing so, “five hundred” doesn’t have the positive connotation some think it does. 

“Deluca Five Hundred” DOES have a positive connotation, regardless of it not being the way the NHL sorts it’s standings.  

[pi2000]

18 hours ago, dudacek said:

This is interesting and certainly open to interpretation.

IMO there have been four “stinkers”: Game 11 (Rangers), 14 (Caps), 20 (Hawks), 21 (Wild).

Wasnt sure whether to include 24 (Lightning) in there or not. It was certainly the most depressing game of the year, but I didn’t think the issue was effort.

You can have a bad effort and win, likewise you have a good effort and lose.

Both the EDM and STL games we're inconsistent efforts IMO.... they won, but they didn't play that well consistently throughout the game.    I thought they played better against Tampa in Sweden, but came out on the losing end.    That's hockey.

Win or Lose I just want to see a consistent good effort, shift to shift, period to period over the course of a dozen games or so.     They haven't had that in the eons it seems.

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, pi2000 said:

Win or Lose I just want to see a consistent good effort, shift to shift, period to period over the course of a dozen games or so.     No NHL team has had that Ever it seems.

 

[MattPie]

I'm guessing the DeLuca 500 folks would be just as happy over the last 10 with a 5-4-1 record as the Sabres' current 5-1-4, right? :)

(that's a solid 0.700, BTW)