• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
WingsFan2007

Is there a better way to sort teams in the NHL standings?

Rate this topic

41 posts in this topic

If the Wings are 19-18-0 and the Blackhawks are 20-21-0, the Blackhawks will be listed ahead of the Wings. Yet if the Tigers are 19-18 and the White Sox are 20-21, the Tigers would be listed ahead of the White Sox.

Also, let's say the Wings are 20-10-0 and the Blackhawks are 21-10-0. The Blackhawks will be listed ahead of the Wings. If the Blackhawks lose three games while the Wings don't play, the Blackhawks (21-13-0) will still be listed ahead of the Wings (20-10-0).

Now let's say the Tigers are 20-10 and the White Sox are 21-10. The White Sox will be listed ahead of the Tigers. If the White Sox lose three straight games (to become 21-13) while the Tigers don't play, the Tigers (20-10) will move ahead of the White Sox (21-13).

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why does the NHL do it this way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, the Blackhawks will never be 21-10-0..... :P

The NHL standings are based on a points earned system (2 per win, 1 per OT/shoot out loss). Baseball does not use a points system. So if the wings are 21-10-1-1, they have a total of 44 points. The team with more points is listed ahead, regardless of the number of games played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, the Blackhawks will never be 21-10-0..... :P

The NHL standings are based on a points earned system (2 per win, 1 per OT/shoot out loss). Baseball does not use a points system. So if the wings are 21-10-1-1, they have a total of 44 points. The team with more points is listed ahead, regardless of the number of games played.

Yes, the Blackhawks would never be 21-10-0 <_<

When I ask why the NHL does it this way, what I'm really getting at is why they use points to sort teams when the method used in baseball seems to be a more viable option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of a pointless way to put things because baseball teams never have more than a day off between games, except for the All-Star break. So there will never be more than about a two-game difference in games played.

But this is pretty simple. The NHL uses points instead of percentages because ties used to be common, and percentages are too wacky (and can actually be calculated different ways to come up with different numbers) when large numbers of ties are involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you guys know, in case you've missed Rimouski's threads from a while back.

It's not about actually answering his question or arriving at a point, he just loves to hear himself talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of a pointless way to put things because baseball teams never have more than a day off between games, except for the All-Star break. So there will never be more than about a two-game difference in games played.

But this is pretty simple. The NHL uses points instead of percentages because ties used to be common, and percentages are too wacky (and can actually be calculated different ways to come up with different numbers) when large numbers of ties are involved.

As a tie (or now OTL) is the net equivalent of half a win and half a loss, the presence of ties can't be the reason the NHL uses a points system instead of the more viable games behind or winning percentage system used in baseball.

Take for example the Red Wings record of 35-14-6, which is 76 points in 55 games. If we take those 6 OTLs and disperse them half among wins and half among losses, we get 38-17-0, which is also 76 points in 55 games. The winning percentage can be figured from there, which will be the same as points percentage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you guys know, in case you've missed Rimouski's threads from a while back.

It's not about actually answering his question or arriving at a point, he just loves to hear himself talk.

Ahhh ok thanks for clearing that up, i was confused here :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a tie (or now OTL) is the net equivalent of half a win and half a loss, the presence of ties can't be the reason the NHL uses a points system instead of the more viable games behind or winning percentage system used in baseball.

Take for example the Red Wings record of 35-14-6, which is 76 points in 55 games. If we take those 6 OTLs and disperse them half among wins and half among losses, we get 38-17-0, which is also 76 points in 55 games. The winning percentage can be figured from there, which will be the same as points percentage.

Actually the NHL does it this way simply to annoy you. And by you I mean YOU personally. Nobody else really cares but they new that you did so they just wanted to make sure they could annoy somebody.

The second reason why they do it, and this is a doozy, i'm not going to tell you. Most people know why but its sort of like a secret handshake kind of thing. You are either part of the in crowd or you're not. And per Fight Club rule #27b, I cannot tell you for that would jeopardize my standing within the secret, mow-mow, pooh-pooh, society of I know s*** that you don't know so bite me club.

Have a great one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the NHL does it this way simply to annoy you. And by you I mean YOU personally. Nobody else really cares but they new that you did so they just wanted to make sure they could annoy somebody.

The points system was in place long before I was even born. Therefore, they couldn't have done it this way specifically to annoy me.

The second reason why they do it, and this is a doozy, i'm not going to tell you. Most people know why but its sort of like a secret handshake kind of thing. You are either part of the in crowd or you're not. And per Fight Club rule #27b, I cannot tell you for that would jeopardize my standing within the secret, mow-mow, pooh-pooh, society of I know s*** that you don't know so bite me club.

Have a great one.

I'm guessing there is either a conspiracy here to not look back into the history and try to get an answer to my question or there is something painful about talking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you guys know, in case you've missed Rimouski's threads from a while back.

It's not about actually answering his question or arriving at a point, he just loves to hear himself talk.

I'll never forget the thread during the lockout that consisted of several pages of increasingly-irritated people trying to explain the concept of a game-winning goal to him. Truly a LGW classic. Edit: Oh that's what the link is...nicely done

I did enjoy those little games he used to post about trying to guess the player by listing the teams he played for.

Edited by StaticWithABeat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The points system was in place long before I was even born. Therefore, they couldn't have done it this way specifically to annoy me.

I'm guessing there is either a conspiracy here to not look back into the history and try to get an answer to my question or there is something painful about talking about it.

Bingo. It's painful. You ignoring the part where I explained to you that there are several different ways to calculate the winning percentages with ties, and then explaining to me as if I were a two-year old the "correct" way to do it makes this a very painful discussion.

For example, you can do it the way you patronizingly explained to me. Or you can throw ties out altogether and count only wins and losses. Or you can do it the easy way, which is to assign point values. Which is why the NHL went to the point system. There. Your question is answered. Any more speaking in this thread from you, other than a "thank you very much for answering my question," is nothing more than an exercise to try and prove to the world you are smarter than the rest of us. Which I figure was probably the entire point in starting the thread in the first place, but whatever; your question is answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply thought that it was an easier way to keep track of standings due to the high number of ties in the "old days", doesn't pro soccer use a point based system as well? Have no fear though, the point system is a "tradition" of the NHL, which means that Bettman will do away with it soon enough! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares? This isn't baseball, why would the NHL want to follow how baseball presents their standings?

If you look at the year end standings, regardless of how you arrange the teams, winning percentage, points, etc., they will always be in the same order.....who cares what the order is throughout the year?

The points system allows for discussions about games in hand. Yes, we're 4 points down, but we have 3 games in hand. If you don't win those 3 games, you are still 4 points down, if you do, you move ahead. Putting the standings together assuming you are going to win future games based on previous games you have won doesn't necessarily make sense either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo. It's painful. You ignoring the part where I explained to you that there are several different ways to calculate the winning percentages with ties, and then explaining to me as if I were a two-year old the "correct" way to do it makes this a very painful discussion.

For example, you can do it the way you patronizingly explained to me. Or you can throw ties out altogether and count only wins and losses. Or you can do it the easy way, which is to assign point values. Which is why the NHL went to the point system. There. Your question is answered. Any more speaking in this thread from you, other than a "thank you very much for answering my question," is nothing more than an exercise to try and prove to the world you are smarter than the rest of us. Which I figure was probably the entire point in starting the thread in the first place, but whatever; your question is answered.

The point system that the NHL uses to sort teams causes a loss to have the same effect as not playing. Perhaps that's what I should have asked at the onset, as that's what I really want to know. Why does the NHL use a method for sorting the teams in the standings in which a loss is precisely the same as not playing - when a much more viable alternative, like that used in baseball, is available and has been used with success in many sports?

I feel I made a very good example with the 21-10 team losing three straight and falling to 21-13. In one sport, they lose a position to the 20-10 team, while in the other sport they don't.

I simply thought that it was an easier way to keep track of standings due to the high number of ties in the "old days", doesn't pro soccer use a point based system as well? Have no fear though, the point system is a "tradition" of the NHL, which means that Bettman will do away with it soon enough! :P

This is along the lines of what I suspect to be true. That the NHL had a lot of ties in the old days and was quite removed from the mainstream sports such as MLB. Perhaps in the early days of the NHL, all teams played on the same days, meaning there was never a discrepancy in games played. When there is never a discrepancy in games played, points earned works well. It's when you get discrepancies that is gets misleading. Take 20-10-0 vs. 21-13-0 for example.

While the NHL is very tradition based, I can't imagine that's the sole reason the NHL hasn't switched over to the baseball model for sorting teams. Tradition was violated when the NHL adopted the point for an overtime loss, when the league expanded from six teams and when they started having the home team wear the colored jerseys.

Who cares? This isn't baseball, why would the NHL want to follow how baseball presents their standings?

If you look at the year end standings, regardless of how you arrange the teams, winning percentage, points, etc., they will always be in the same order.....who cares what the order is throughout the year?

The points system allows for discussions about games in hand. Yes, we're 4 points down, but we have 3 games in hand. If you don't win those 3 games, you are still 4 points down, if you do, you move ahead. Putting the standings together assuming you are going to win future games based on previous games you have won doesn't necessarily make sense either.

That's part of the advantage of a games behind or percentage sorted system. No need to use games in hand.

I'll never forget the thread during the lockout that consisted of several pages of increasingly-irritated people trying to explain the concept of a game-winning goal to him. Truly a LGW classic. Edit: Oh that's what the link is...nicely done

I did enjoy those little games he used to post about trying to guess the player by listing the teams he played for.

Sounds like a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point system that the NHL uses to sort teams causes a loss to have the same effect as not playing. Perhaps that's what I should have asked at the onset, as that's what I really want to know. Why does the NHL use a method for sorting the teams in the standings in which a loss is precisely the same as not playing - when a much more viable alternative, like that used in baseball, is available and has been used with success in many sports?

I feel I made a very good example with the 21-10 team losing three straight and falling to 21-13. In one sport, they lose a position to the 20-10 team, while in the other sport they don't.

This is along the lines of what I suspect to be true. That the NHL had a lot of ties in the old days and was quite removed from the mainstream sports such as MLB. Perhaps in the early days of the NHL, all teams played on the same days, meaning there was never a discrepancy in games played. When there is never a discrepancy in games played, points earned works well. It's when you get discrepancies that is gets misleading. Take 20-10-0 vs. 21-13-0 for example.

While the NHL is very tradition based, I can't imagine that's the sole reason the NHL hasn't switched over to the baseball model for sorting teams. Tradition was violated when the NHL adopted the point for an overtime loss, when the league expanded from six teams and when they started having the home team wear the colored jerseys.

That's part of the advantage of a games behind or percentage sorted system. No need to use games in hand.

Sounds like a good idea.

Why is water wet? And why does my 2 year old constantly say "no" to me no matter what the hell i'm saying.

sit down: "no"

eat: "no"

stop hitting your sister: "no"

do you want ice cream: "no"

do you not want ice cream: "no"

you hate the Predators, right?: "no"

can you explain the points system to wingfan2007: "hell no, that guy is an *******"

oh well :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tradition was violated when the NHL adopted the point for an overtime loss, when the league expanded from six teams and when they started having the home team wear the colored jerseys.

Actually if I'm not mistaken , dating back to the O6 teams, the home team always wore dark jerseys, I don't know if that changed in the 60's , 70's or 80's but was just recently changed BACK a few years ago....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's part of the advantage of a games behind or percentage sorted system. No need to use games in hand.

Sounds like a good idea.

You completely missed my point.

If my team is 23-30 and your team is 10-0, in my opinion, there is no reason your team should be ahead of mine in the standings. There is no guarantee you will win anymore games, while my team is already guaranteed of having at least 23 wins. It comes down to pretty much being as simple as that.

If baseball wants to assume you will continue winning at the same rate, that is their prerogative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tradition was violated when the NHL adopted the point for an overtime loss, when the league expanded from six teams and when they started having the home team wear the colored jerseys.

Actually if I'm not mistaken , dating back to the O6 teams, the home team always wore dark jerseys, I don't know if that changed in the 60's , 70's or 80's but was just recently changed BACK a few years ago....

I could be wrong. I don't know much about the history of uniforms going back before the '60s. But throughout the 60's & '70s & '80s, the home team always wore white (except for the Kings - yellow and the Golden Seals - also yellow).

You completely missed my point.

If my team is 23-30 and your team is 10-0, in my opinion, there is no reason your team should be ahead of mine in the standings. There is no guarantee you will win anymore games, while my team is already guaranteed of having at least 23 wins. It comes down to pretty much being as simple as that.

If baseball wants to assume you will continue winning at the same rate, that is their prerogative.

But your team is also guaranteed of having at least 30 losses. Your guarantee of losses is seven greater than your guarantee of wins, while my guarantee of losses is ten less than my guarantee of wins. Thus, I am 10 games above .500, while you're 7 games below .500.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You completely missed my point.

If my team is 23-30 and your team is 10-0, in my opinion, there is no reason your team should be ahead of mine in the standings. There is no guarantee you will win anymore games, while my team is already guaranteed of having at least 23 wins. It comes down to pretty much being as simple as that.

If baseball wants to assume you will continue winning at the same rate, that is their prerogative.

I think you are right on with this.

But also: standings provide absolutely nothing to a team until all games have been played. So whether a 23-30 team is higher or lower in the standings than a 10-0 is completely irrelevant until both teams have played all there games. My point: no matter what system is in use... WHO CARES?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong. I don't know much about the history of uniforms going back before the '60s. But throughout the 60's & '70s & '80s, the home team always wore white (except for the Kings - yellow and the Golden Seals - also yellow).

Yeah, I'm not THAT old, :lol: but I seem to remember when the changed to dark at home, Mickey Redmond saying during one the broadcasts that it was just like how it used to be....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are right on with this.

But also: standings provide absolutely nothing to a team until all games have been played. So whether a 23-30 team is higher or lower in the standings than a 10-0 is completely irrelevant until both teams have played all there games. My point: no matter what system is in use... WHO CARES?

I agree, I do not care, but I already tried that argument and it didn't get across effectively.

Your guarantee of losses is seven greater than your guarantee of wins, while my guarantee of losses is ten less than my guarantee of wins. Thus, I am 10 games above .500, while you're 7 games below .500.

Are you that intellectually challenged?

You simply dismissed my reasoning and went back and said..."but my winning percentage is higher", which I already explained to be meaningless since there is no guarantee you will maintain the same winning percentage in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You simply dismissed my reasoning and went back and said..."but my winning percentage is higher", which I already explained to be meaningless since there is no guarantee you will maintain the same winning percentage in the future.

By that logic, points earned is meaningless, as there is no guarantee you will maintain the same number of points in the future. :hehe:

Winning percentage or points percentage have nothing to do with the future and aren't meant to suggest that you'll continue at that pace in the future. They're meant to show what you've done to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that logic, points earned is meaningless, as there is no guarantee you will maintain the same number of points in the future. :hehe:

Winning percentage or points percentage have nothing to do with the future and aren't meant to suggest that you'll continue at that pace in the future. They're meant to show what you've done to date.

riiiiiigggghhht.... :rolleyes:

I'm done....give up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

riiiiiigggghhht.... :rolleyes:

I'm done....give up

I gather you disagree with me.

Let's say the Wings have a 7-3-5 record in January. That's a .633 points percentage. In what way is it meant to show anything above and beyond what they've done during that 15 game stretch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0