kalaco

Member
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kalaco

  1. Here's another thing about hockey which I've never understood. Why does the NHL sort teams in the standings using points and not something more balanced such as points percentage or perhaps games above/below .500 as is used in the NBA and MLB? As points treats a regulation loss precisely the same as not playing, it doesn't consider the detriment of a regulation loss the way the percentage & games behind systems do in MLB and the NBA. For example, let's say the Rangers are 23-11-0 (46 pts) and the Bruins are 22-11-0 (44 pts). The Rangers have a better percentage and better games above/below .500 than the Bruins. The Rangers then lose two games while the Bruins don't play. Now the Rangers are 23-13-0 (46 pts) and the Bruins are 22-11-0 (44 pts). Now the Bruins have a better percentage and a better games above/below .500 than the Rangers, but the Rangers would still be listed ahead of the Bruins. If the Yankees were 23-11 and the Red Sox were 22-11 and the Yankees lost two in a row while the Red Sox didn't play, the Yankees (now 23-13) would fall behind the Red Sox (still 22-11). We know the reason isn't the presence of overtime losses (or one point games), as an overtime loss is the net equivalent of half a win and half a regulation loss. So what is the reason the NHL doesn't use points percentage or games behind like is used in the NBA and MLB?
  2. What is the purpose of the game winning goal statistic? Let's use the scoring line from game 4 of the Capitals-Knights finals series to examine this: 1st Period 09:54 WSH 1-0 T.J. Oshie (8) Evgeny Kuznetsov and Nicklas Backstrom 16:26 WSH 2-0 Tom Wilson (5) Evgeny Kuznetsov 19:39 WSH 3-0 Devante Smith-Pelly (6) Matt Niskanen and Alex Ovechkin 2nd Period 15:23 WSH 4-0 John Carlson (5) Evgeny Kuznetsov and T.J. Oshie 3rd Period 05:43 VEG 4-1 James Neal (6) Erik Haula and Colin Miller 12:26 VEG 4-2 Reilly Smith (4) Jon Marchessault and Luca Sbisa 13:39 WSH 5-2 Michal Kempny (2) Nicklas Backstrom and T.J. Oshie 18:51 WSH 6-2 Brett Connolly (6) According to how the GWG is defined, the GWG is awarded to Smith-Pelly, as that gave the Capitals a 3-0 lead and the Knights ended up with 2 for the entire game. We know it isn't meant to show which goal won the game, as Smith-Pelly's goal didn't win the game. It merely made a 2-0 undecided game a 3-0 undecided game. We know it isn't meant to show which goal was the most clutch goal, as at the time of Smith-Pelly's goal, there was no way of knowing that Vegas would end up with 2 goals. Nor is there anything to show that Smith-Pelly's goal was any more important than any of the other Capitals goals. Some people would argue, "if Smith-Pelly didn't score, then the Capitals wouldn't have won". That argument doesn't hold up, as if Smith-Pelly didn't score, then we don't know what would have happened. And if we assume all other scoring remained the same, then we end up with a 5-2 Capitals victory. So I ask, what purpose does this statistic serve? Does the NHL know it has no merit? Perhaps it could just be a marketing gimmick. Any thoughts out there?
  3. GWG should be ignored altogether, as it isn't recorded in real time and is dependent on things which happen after the GWG is scored.
  4. Buppy, how would you go about determining under which goaltender your team performed better: Goaltender A: 20-25-5 (50 pts) Goaltender B: 20-0-0 (40 pts) Think about it and let me know how you arrived at your conclusion. Toby - help myself and others understand why it would make more sense to list a 20-21 team ahead of a 19-18 team.
  5. You are correct that the standings don't matter until the end of the season. But if you are going to list the standings during the season, does it make more sense to use a method to sort the teams which: A) treats regulation losses the same as not playing B) differentiates regulation losses from not playing You are correct that the standings don't matter until the end of the season. But if you are going to list the standings during the season, does it make more sense to use a method to sort the teams which: A) treats regulation losses the same as not playing B) differentiates regulation losses from not playing Using points pct or GA500 would yield the same seedings at the end of the season and wouldn't treat a regulation loss the same as not playing. If you are going to list the standings during the season, does it make more sense to use a method to sort the teams which: A) treats regulation losses the same as not playing B) differentiates regulation losses from not playing
  6. Thanks for the response, but it doesn't answer the question. As indicated in the OP, since a tie is the net equivalent of half a win and half a loss, we know the reason can't be due to the presence of ties (or 1 point games). Perhaps you have some other ideas. Seeding teams by points pct or games above/below .500 would yield the same seedings as points. Unlike points, percentage or games above/below .500 would not treat a regulation loss as the same as not playing.
  7. Again, please show how PENS is going to define 19:39 of the 1st period as any more of a special moment than say 16:44 of the first period or 03:57 of the second period.
  8. I don't see that 19:39 of the 1st period is one of those special moments. If you do, let me know how you know this. Your stat Points Earned Numerically In Shots isn't going to define 19:39 of the 1st period as any more of a special moment than say 16:44 of the first period or 03:57 of the second period.
  9. So you're saying being up 2-0 at 19:39 of the 1st period is a 'special moment'. Again, how do you know this?
  10. Let's look at the example in the OP. Smith-Pelly's goal was at 19:39 of the 1st period and occurred with the Capitals up 2-0. By your logic, being up 2-0 at 19:39 of the 1st period is a 'special moment'. How do you know this? Very well said.