pjgj13 30 Report post Posted March 20, 2008 Last year, there were 4 EC and 7 WC teams over 100 points (104 the lowest). This year, there will be maybe 3 teams (Wings, Sharks, Devils) reaching 100 points. Even the 1st year after the lockout, there were 10 teams with 100+ points. Can this be explained? So far, only 2 teams have clinched a spot in the playoffs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedWingedKitten 9 Report post Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) Ummmm... parity? I don't like parity, it waters down us awesome teams... Parity exists because of many things. To start you got the salary cap, and thats just off the top of my head. Edited March 20, 2008 by RedWingedKitten Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pjgj13 30 Report post Posted March 20, 2008 Ummmm... parity? I don't like parity, it waters down us awesome teams... Parity exists because of many things. To start you got the salary cap, and thats just off the top of my head. I agree about the dislike for parity. Personally I liked the games where players padded their stats. I miss those 6-1 and 10-2 games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T-Ruff 47 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 Yeah I remember last year rooting for the team in 8th to get to 100 points so that every Western playoff team would be 100+..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kp-Wings 3 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 Ummmm... parity? I don't like parity, it waters down us awesome teams... Parity exists because of many things. To start you got the salary cap, and thats just off the top of my head. Parity exists because Bettman instituted the Salary Cap. The Salary Cap, and the CBA for that matter, exists because Bettman didn't want big market teams like Detroit, Philly, NY Rangers, Toronto, Boston, etc. to become league powerhouses by buying star players from the free agency market. He'd rather see failure markets like Nashville and Anaheim become successful, so that instead of 20 fans going out to watch the games, 30 would go instead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thedisappearer 291 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 He'd rather see failure markets like Nashville and Anaheim become successful, Explain to me when Nashville got successful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kp-Wings 3 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 Explain to me when Nashville got successful. I said Bettman would like to see Nashville become successful. I never said they were successful now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hatethedrake! Report post Posted March 21, 2008 I find it somewhat sickening how only 5 teams in a league of 30 have a losing record. I love parity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hatethedrake! Report post Posted March 21, 2008 Nashville got successful when Eklund saved them last summer. E5. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gsusluvshockey 0 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) I find it somewhat sickening how only 5 teams in a league of 30 have a losing record. I love parity. Don't forget OT Losses Edited March 21, 2008 by gsusluvshockey Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 I find it somewhat sickening how only 5 teams in a league of 30 have a losing record. I love parity. I find it somewhat sickening that you don't seem to understand what a losing record is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thedisappearer 291 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 I said Bettman would like to see Nashville become successful. I never said they were successful now. 'Tis true. My bad. I got all defensive right away *deep breath Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joshy207 156 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 Yeah... parity and the third point awarded in OT/SO games. You don't have the weak team(s) that only have 15 wins or 35 points right now for those two reasons. The lowest win total in the league right now is 28. There are no "easy" games anymore. Heck, look at the Wings, they're barely over .500 in their own division, which is made up entirely of teams that most likely won't be in the playoffs. Fortunately Detroit does well against the better teams!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hatethedrake! Report post Posted March 21, 2008 I find it somewhat sickening that you don't seem to understand what a losing record is. I find it somewhat sickening that I wasted 2 seconds of my life reading your dumb post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gsusluvshockey 0 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 I find it somewhat sickening that I wasted 2 seconds of my life reading your dumb post. I think that I should get bonus points for being polite. And these two people should be forced to appologize to eachother and shake hands. Seriously though, there was no need for either of those comments. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hatethedrake! Report post Posted March 21, 2008 I think that I should get bonus points for being polite. And these two people should be forced to appologize to eachother and shake hands. Seriously though, there was no need for either of those comments. Yes you were polite. Thank you. Not all Wings fans are complete morons. How is it a loss when you still get a point? It isn't. Hence why 5 teams have losing records. SO losses and OT losses are valued the same. I am against it but that's the way it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hatethedrake! Report post Posted March 21, 2008 Furthermore...If you're going to dish it out then be prepared to take it. I know I am. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gsusluvshockey 0 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 Yes you were polite. Thank you. Not all Wings fans are complete morons. How is it a loss when you still get a point? It isn't. Hence why 5 teams have losing records. SO losses and OT losses are valued the same. I am against it but that's the way it is. I think the question should really be, Why do you get a point when you loose? But points or no points, a loss is a loss. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hatethedrake! Report post Posted March 21, 2008 I think the question should really be, Why do you get a point when you loose? But points or no points, a loss is a loss. Not in the new NHL it isn't. When you get a point for a loss it isn't a loss. Otherwise there would not be a separate category for it. Since there is, however, a SO loss and an OT loss is the same as a tie in the old NHL. If a team went 0-0-41-41 then that would be 82 points. 82 points in 82 games is a .500 record. What you are saying is that this team would be at .000 because they lost every game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wings_Dynasty 267 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 Not in the new NHL it isn't. When you get a point for a loss it isn't a loss. Otherwise there would not be a separate category for it. Since there is, however, a SO loss and an OT loss is the same as a tie in the old NHL. If a team went 0-0-41-41 then that would be 82 points. 82 points in 82 games is a .500 record. What you are saying is that this team would be at .000 because they lost every game. I think you mean 0-0-82. Wins-Losses-OT losses. The SO is part of the OT. And OT losses are still losses, they just get a point because they were not beaten in regulation. Ties are dumb, there should be a winner in every NHL game. There is a winner at the end of every other major sport. Football ties are so rare I consider them eliminated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
imisssergei 0 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) EDIT: double post Edited March 21, 2008 by imisssergei Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
imisssergei 0 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) I find it somewhat sickening that I wasted 2 seconds of my life reading your dumb post. Just a quick lesson, Eva correct me if I'm wrong. In order to have a 'winning record' a team must have a winning percentage greater than .500%. Example. (stats per TSN) Detroit 75 GP 49W 20L 6T 49/75= .653 Philly 74 GP 36W 28L 10T 36/74= .486 Detroit is well above the .500 mark, while Philly is just below. To put it bluntly, unless a team wins 42+ games, it cannot finish a season with a winning record. Currently 7 teams are mathmatically eliminated from have a winning season. Edited March 21, 2008 by imisssergei Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gsusluvshockey 0 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 Not in the new NHL it isn't. When you get a point for a loss it isn't a loss. Otherwise there would not be a separate category for it. Since there is, however, a SO loss and an OT loss is the same as a tie in the old NHL. If a team went 0-0-41-41 then that would be 82 points. 82 points in 82 games is a .500 record. What you are saying is that this team would be at .000 because they lost every game. Points have no place in the traditional way someone calculates a teams win percentage. Just because the NHL decided to reward a team for working hard for 60 minutes, doesn't mean that they didn't lose when the other team won. How points are awarded has nothing to do with a teams win percentage. The Wings have won 65% of their games. The Lions won 43% of their games. No points required. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gsusluvshockey 0 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) Just a quick lesson, Eva correct me if I'm wrong. In order to have a 'winning record' a team must have a winning percentage greater than .500%. Example. (stats per TSN) Detroit 75 GP 49W 20L 6T 49/75= .653 Philly 74 GP 36W 28L 10T 36/74= .486 Detroit is well above the .500 mark, while Philly is just below. To put it bluntly, unless a team wins 42+ games, it cannot finish a season with a winning record. Currently 7 teams are mathmatically eliminated from have a winning season. But no teams have played 82 games. Your winning record is based on games you have already played. Games won/games played. Not Games won/games will have played. If that were the case, Detroit would be at 0.598 and philly would be at 0.439. Edited March 21, 2008 by gsusluvshockey Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doggy 130 Report post Posted March 21, 2008 Just a quick lesson, Eva correct me if I'm wrong. In order to have a 'winning record' a team must have a winning percentage greater than .500%. Example. (stats per TSN) Detroit 75 GP 49W 20L 6T 49/75= .653 Philly 74 GP 36W 28L 10T 36/74= .486 Detroit is well above the .500 mark, while Philly is just below. To put it bluntly, unless a team wins 42+ games, it cannot finish a season with a winning record. Currently 7 teams are mathmatically eliminated from have a winning season. That's completely incorrect. Very few teams win 42 games in a season. You need to simply have more wins than reg. losses in a season to have a winning record. Eg. 37-35-10 is a winning record. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
