155 replies to this topic

[ZeroWolf]

In the NHL, a 13-12 team would be listed ahead of a 12-10 team. But in the NBA or MLB, the 12-10 team would be listed ahead of a 13-12 team. In the NHL, if a 15-10 team lost five games while a 14-11 team doesn't play (I know that's not likely - it's just an illustration), the formerly 15-10 team would still lead the 14-11 team. In the NBA or MLB, if that were to happen, the 15-10 (or now 15-15) team would fall behind the 14-11 team.

Why does the NHL do this differently? It can't be because they have ties (or now overtime losses), as a tie (or now OTL) has the net value of half a win and half a loss. Why not simply use games behind and winning percentage as is used in MLB and the NBA?

Does anyone have an explanation for this?

[XxBMW85xX]

Incredibly stupid question, 15-14-1 is much better than 16-17-1 because the 15 Win record has played 4 less games. However, the team with 16 wins has more POINTS.

How they are ranked at that moment does not matter, there is no bonuses for position during the season, each team plays 82 games, so at the end of the season, it is all a moot point

Between this thread and your last thread, I must ask, did you just start watching hockey earlier this afternoon... or sports for that matter?

[D5Shark]

Is this a serious question?

It's a points system vs. a winning % system. Like BMW said, at the end of the season, it's all the same.

[ZeroWolf]

D5Shark, on 17 January 2011 - 07:00 PM, said:

Is this a serious question?

Yes.  I'd like to know why the NHL uses points earned to sort the teams when there are more viable options available such as winning percentage or games behind.

Quote

It's a points system vs. a winning % system. Like BMW said, at the end of the season, it's all the same.

If at the end of the season it's all the same, then why not use a percentage or games behind system during the season?  A points system treats a regulation loss precisely the same as not playing, while in a percentage or games behind system, you fall back with a loss and move forward with a win.

[ZeroWolf]

XxBMW85xX, on 17 January 2011 - 05:15 PM, said:

Incredibly stupid question, 15-14-1 is much better than 16-17-1 because the 15 Win record has played 4 less games. However, the team with 16 wins has more POINTS.

That's why I wonder why they use points to sort the teams.  Do you know?
If they used winning percentage or games above/below .500, then the 15-14-1 team is listed ahead - as they should be.

Quote

How they are ranked at that moment does not matter, there is no bonuses for position during the season, each team plays 82 games, so at the end of the season, it is all a moot point

If it doesn't matter during the season, then why does virtually every major newspaper and sports news website in the USA and Canada publish the standings on a daily basis during the season - and uses a method to sort the teams in which a regulation loss is precisely the same as not playing?

Quote

Between this thread and your last thread, I must ask, did you just start watching hockey earlier this afternoon... or sports for that matter?

I've been a hockey fan for well over 20 years.

[petshark]

I don't follow ball games, I could care les what they do, but I do have a related question: how do division standings get calculated as part of the  conference and league standings?

[ZeroWolf]

petshark, on 18 January 2011 - 03:15 PM, said:

I don't follow ball games, I could care les what they do, but I do have a related question: how do division standings get calculated as part of the  conference and league standings?

For the post season, the division leaders are seeded #1, #2 & #3 - regardless of record.  Then the other 12 teams are seeded according by points earned.

During the regular season, sometimes the division leaders are listed 1, 2 & 3 - regardless of record and sometimes the teams are merely sorted by record without respect to whether or not they're a division leader.

[Fugazi]

ZeroWolf, on 18 January 2011 - 04:40 PM, said:

For the post season, the division leaders are seeded #1, #2 & #3 - regardless of record.  Then the other 12 teams are seeded according by points earned.

During the regular season, sometimes the division leaders are listed 1, 2 & 3 - regardless of record and sometimes the teams are merely sorted by record without respect to whether or not they're a division leader.

Sounds like you have a beef with Gary Bettman. He has a radio show, you should call him and get back to us on his answer

[ZeroWolf]

fugazi, on 18 January 2011 - 05:37 PM, said:

Sounds like you have a beef with Gary Bettman. He has a radio show, you should call him and get back to us on his answer

I might actually contact the NHL directly at some point in the future regarding this.  But for now, I would think an educated & intelligent base of hockey fans might come up with something I haven't yet thought of.

[sharkfriend]

XxBMW85xX, on 17 January 2011 - 05:15 PM, said:

Incredibly stupid question, 15-14-1 is much better than 16-17-1 because the 15 Win record has played 4 less games. However, the team with 16 wins has more POINTS.

How they are ranked at that moment does not matter, there is no bonuses for position during the season, each team plays 82 games, so at the end of the season, it is all a moot point

Between this thread and your last thread, I must ask, did you just start watching hockey earlier this afternoon... or sports for that matter?

Hahah this is our in house whackadoodle Whackadoodling.

[D5Shark]

ZeroWolf, on 18 January 2011 - 05:52 PM, said:

I might actually contact the NHL directly at some point in the future regarding this.  But for now, I would think an educated & intelligent base of hockey fans might come up with something I haven't yet thought of.

It sounds like a matter of personal preference. We all agree that at the end of the season, the standings are correct, so I don't know how you could claim one system is more viable than another.

Your whole argument is based off of the assumption that a loss should cost you in the standings. Ignoring the consideration of the loser point that comes with OTL's, a points system is good to measure absolute progress on any given day of the season. A team has XX amount of pts and if they lost every game from that point foward, that's what they would have. Any team trailing them would need to reach XX amount of pts to catch and then surpass them. The winning pct. or games behind system has teams rising and falling in the standings at the same time. Having games in hand would be harder to account for when you're dealing with winning pct. It could be more confusing to some people.  

Basically, at any point in the season where teams have not played an equal number of games (pretty much the entire season), it will require a little math to figure out how close teams are in relation to one another.

[Sam_Adelphia]

[Fugazi]

There's a lot of interesting opinions here, Maybe the board should invite Buttman to join the conversation.

[SharksAreChamps]

15-14 is better, while 16-17 gets you more points, 15-14 is still a higher win %.

[ZeroWolf]

SharksAreChamps, on 18 January 2011 - 08:37 PM, said:

15-14 is better, while 16-17 gets you more points, 15-14 is still a higher win %.

That being said, why doesn't the NHL use a points percentage or games above/below .500 method to sort teams in the standings?  Unlike the NHL's points earned system, neither of these systems treat a regulation loss as the same thing as not playing when it comes to sorting the teams in the standings.

[ZeroWolf]

D5Shark, on 18 January 2011 - 06:25 PM, said:

It sounds like a matter of personal preference. We all agree that at the end of the season, the standings are correct, so I don't know how you could claim one system is more viable than another.

Your whole argument is based off of the assumption that a loss should cost you in the standings.

Please explain why a regulation loss should not cost a team in the standings.  What is the advantage of having a regulation loss be equivalent to not playing when it comes to sorting teams in the standings.  Why ignore the detriment of a loss?

Quote

Ignoring the consideration of the loser point that comes with OTL's, a points system is good to measure absolute progress on any given day of the season.

A points system doesn't measure the negative progress (or regression) of missed points opportunities.  A 20-21-0 team will be tied with a 20-19-0 team because the NHL's points system doesn't count the negative progress of the losses.

Quote

A team has XX amount of pts and if they lost every game from that point foward, that's what they would have. Any team trailing them would need to reach XX amount of pts to catch and then surpass them. The winning pct. or games behind system has teams rising and falling in the standings at the same time. Having games in hand would be harder to account for when you're dealing with winning pct. It could be more confusing to some people.

The percentage & games behind system works just fine in the NBA & MLB.  And it counts losses just as negatively as it counts wins positively.  

Quote

Basically, at any point in the season where teams have not played an equal number of games (pretty much the entire season), it will require a little math to figure out how close teams are in relation to one another.

A little homework for you.  

1) Which is a better record:  20-62-0 or 19-0-0?

2) Which is a better record: 62-20-0 or 0-19-0?

[ZeroWolf]

fugazi, on 18 January 2011 - 08:07 PM, said:

There's a lot of interesting opinions here, Maybe the board should invite Buttman to join the conversation.

It would definitely be interesting to see what a guy like Gary Bettman has to say about this - especially since he came to the NHL from the NBA.

[D5Shark]

ZeroWolf, on 18 January 2011 - 09:16 PM, said:

Please explain why a regulation loss should not cost a team in the standings.  What is the advantage of having a regulation loss be equivalent to not playing when it comes to sorting teams in the standings.  Why ignore the detriment of a loss?



A points system doesn't measure the negative progress (or regression) of missed points opportunities.  A 20-21-0 team will be tied with a 20-19-0 team because the NHL's points system doesn't count the negative progress of the losses.


The percentage & games behind system works just fine in the NBA & MLB.  And it counts losses just as negatively as it counts wins positively.  


A little homework for you.  

1) Which is a better record:  20-62-0 or 19-0-0?

2) Which is a better record: 62-20-0 or 0-19-0?

I should've just listened to Sam.

[ZeroWolf]

Here's a little video which helps illustrate how silly the NHL's points earned system is in comparison to the winning percentage/games behind system used in MLB & the NBA

http://www.xtranorma.../watch/7725135/

[SharksAreChamps]

NFL uses that, too. if a team is 11-5 and another team is 9-7, the 11-5 is better because they won more games. you dont get points for winning games, just a win %.