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

[Weave]

8 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

I understand that the NHL standings don't use De Luca .500, but the standings i look at most often don't display points percentage. Given the impressive accuracy the De Luca .500 benchmark is for playoff teams, and that adding integers is much easier than dividing them, it's a really handy, quick way to figure out how your team is doing and whether they're good to keep cruising the way they are, or need to put their foot on the gas.

Especially when you're looking at the standings with 50+ games left to play - everything is equally useless at that point because so much can happen, but when you're hovering at or above De Luca .500, you know you're in a good place and can move on to more intricate discussions of the position of your team.

Plus, the extreme scenarios that illustrate why you can be good enough for the playoffs while being significantly below it literally never ever happen 

This is a strange debate, really.  Deluca.500 was never anything more than a benchmark (you used the correct word).  Teams that manage to end the season at Deluca .500 or better make up the vast majority of the teams that make the playoffs.  It's an excellent benchmark to gauge whether your team is trending as a playoff team.  It's nothing more than that.  A quick evaluation of relative performance.

[shrader]

16 hours ago, Taro T said:

In the land of the "bonus" point for not being good enough to win under the normal rules 0.600 is the benchmark.

I love your description here.  You may be the first person I've seen to be on the same page as me in saying that the bonus point actually goes to the OT/shootout winner, not the loser.

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, shrader said:

I love your description here.  You may be the first person I've seen to be on the same page as me in saying that the bonus point actually goes to the OT/shootout winner, not the loser.

This is me. The game was a tie. Each team got a point.

One of them got a bonus point in circus time.

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, shrader said:

I love your description here.  You may be the first person I've seen to be on the same page as me in saying that the bonus point actually goes to the OT/shootout winner, not the loser.

It's been said many times here.

[miles]

They should eliminate the ot point all together. You win (ot or regulation) you get 2, you lose you get 0. I think they kept the tie point in for historical purposes only.

I also think the shootout should go away. Ot is 3 on 3 until someone scores. Maybe after 20 minutes you can do a 5 on 5, but no goalies ?

Edited December 6, 2019 by miles

[MattPie]

8 minutes ago, miles said:

They should eliminate the ot point all together. You win (ot or regulation) you get 2, you lose you get 0. I think they kept the tie point in for historical purposes only.

I also think the shootout should go away. Ot is 3 on 3 until someone scores. Maybe after 20 minutes you can do a 5 on 5, but no goalies ?

I feel like people don't remember the terrible hockey that was overtime before the 2004 lockout. Both teams played the trap in order to not lose a point and it was a miserable 5 minutes of grinding. For that matter, the last several minutes of the game were the same thing. If they did implement 0 points for OTL, you'd see teams skating 1 center and 2 D for OT and skating the puck around in circles in order to keep it from the opposing team.

[miles]

3 minutes ago, MattPie said:

I feel like people don't remember the terrible hockey that was overtime before the 2004 lockout. Both teams played the trap in order to not lose a point and it was a miserable 5 minutes of grinding. For that matter, the last several minutes of the game were the same thing. If they did implement 0 points for OTL, you'd see teams skating 1 center and 2 D for OT and skating the puck around in circles in order to keep it from the opposing team.

I was joking when I said no goalies after 20 minutes of ot, but really you could do something like that. Someone will score quickly. I just really hate the shootout and really don't care about the point for ot loss

Edited December 6, 2019 by miles

[MattPie]

3 minutes ago, miles said:

I was joking when I said no goalies after 20 minutes of ot, but really you could do something like that. Someone will score quickly. I just really hate the shootout and really don't care about the point for ot loss

3-on-3 seems to result in goals often enough that I'd be down for 3-on-3 until someone scores, but the NHL is also worried about time and flights and whatnot. The TV people don't want regular season games that go on forever.

[Curt]

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.

[Eleven]

3 for a win, 1 for a tie.  No OT.  No shootout.  Works wonders in soccer when a team really needs a win instead of a draw.

[shrader]

2 hours ago, MattPie said:

3-on-3 seems to result in goals often enough that I'd be down for 3-on-3 until someone scores, but the NHL is also worried about time and flights and whatnot. The TV people don't want regular season games that go on forever.

10 minutes of 3-on-3, after that, it's a tie.

[Curt]

2 hours ago, Eleven said:

3 for a win, 1 for a tie.  No OT.  No shootout.  Works wonders in soccer when a team really needs a win instead of a draw.

That would work really well too, if you eliminate OT entirely.

[shrader]

23 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

I understand that the NHL standings don't use De Luca .500, but the standings i look at most often don't display points percentage. Given the impressive accuracy the De Luca .500 benchmark is for playoff teams, and that adding integers is much easier than dividing them, it's a really handy, quick way to figure out how your team is doing and whether they're good to keep cruising the way they are, or need to put their foot on the gas.

Especially when you're looking at the standings with 50+ games left to play - everything is equally useless at that point because so much can happen, but when you're hovering at or above De Luca .500, you know you're in a good place and can move on to more intricate discussions of the position of your team.

Plus, the extreme scenarios that illustrate why you can be good enough for the playoffs while being significantly below it literally never ever happen 

Impressive accuracy? Half the teams in this league make the playoffs. On average, half the teams in the league will win over half of their games. So the teams that win are more likely to make the playoffs? That’s truly shocking stuff. What we’ve created is a new way to say that the win column is the most important. We’re one step away from solving world hunger. 

[Hank]

Three games in four nights in Western Canada and they go .500. Three games over .500 on the year and contending for a playoff spot. This team is better than last year and I'm encouraged. I'm still bought in. 

[North Buffalo]

7 minutes ago, Hank said:

Three games in four nights in Western Canada and they go .500. Three games over .500 on the year and contending for a playoff spot. This team is better than last year and I'm encouraged. I'm still bought in. 

Better, still a ways to go but better...

[Doohicksie]

On 11/11/2019 at 8:01 AM, Doohickie said:

I was totally bought in.

 

 

Was.

Beating St. Louis is tipping the needle back toward the present tense.

[Hank]

10 hours ago, Doohickie said:

Beating St. Louis is tipping the needle back toward the present tense.

How could you not be? Four games above .500!

[nfreeman]

25 minutes ago, Hank said:

How could you not be? Four games above .500!

Except that they've lost 2 games more than they've won...

[Doohicksie]

34 minutes ago, Hank said:

How could you not be? Four games above .500!

Because this team has extreme ups and extreme downs.  They're hot right now.  In January do you have faith they will still be playing good hockey?  I like to think they will, but I don't have much confidence this will be the case.

[Hank]

25 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Except that they've lost 2 games more than they've won...

32 games played. 32 points = .500. 36 points = above .500. 

[Weave]

7 minutes ago, Hank said:

32 games played. 32 points = .500. 36 points = above .500. 

You guys need a translator.  One is speaking points percentage and the other win percentage and they don’t mean the same.

[nfreeman]

10 minutes ago, Hank said:

32 games played. 32 points = .500. 36 points = above .500. 

 

1 minute ago, Weave said:

You guys need a translator.  One is speaking points percentage and the other win percentage and they don’t mean the same.

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.

[MattPie]

27 minutes ago, Hank said:

32 games played. 32 points = .500. 36 points = above .500. 

0.562. They need to win the next 3 to get to Taro Pie 0.600 (TM) and be on a playoff place.

[Hank]

34 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

 

Correct.

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

 

Since the NHL set itself apart from every other sports league with it's unique points system, making it the only points system that matters, even though you are factually correct. 

[shrader]

Are we still doing this?