Thread: Question about the NHL standings

Originally Posted by Pucker25

You are comparing teams that haven't played the same amount of games, so in the MLB system, that brings the 1/2 game calculation into play.

In the NHL's points system, a regulation loss is equivalent to not playing. In MLB and the NBA, a loss has precisely the same detriment as a win has benefit.

To me, this is way more complicated than the points system in the NHL. So in the MLB, the standing would be:

Team A: 15-14
Team B: 16-17

Can you quickly tell me how many games back Team B is in the standings? Its not 1...

They are 1 game behind.

If team A is 10-13-3 and team B is 11-10-3, how many points is team A behind team B?
You would answer 2.
But if they win and become 11-13-3 while team B is still 11-10-3, are they equal in record? Or do you ignore the loss column?

Originally Posted by RSV

In the NHL's points system, a regulation loss is equivalent to not playing. In MLB and the NBA, a loss has precisely the same detriment as a win has benefit.


They are 1 game behind.

If team A is 10-13-3 and team B is 11-10-3, how many points is team A behind team B?
You would answer 2.
But if they win and become 11-13-3 while team B is still 11-10-3, are they equal in record? Or do you ignore the loss column?

I ignore it until the end of the season when it matters.

Originally Posted by RSV

In the NHL's points system, a regulation loss is equivalent to not playing. In MLB and the NBA, a loss has precisely the same detriment as a win has benefit.


They are 1 game behind.

If team A is 10-13-3 and team B is 11-10-3, how many points is team A behind team B?
You would answer 2.
But if they win and become 11-13-3 while team B is still 11-10-3, are they equal in record? Or do you ignore the loss column?

I don't ignore the loss column, but I also don't ignore the Games Played column. The baseball and basketball "games back" system assumes a .500 record to make up for a differential in games played. Whereas in hockey, the "points back" is an actual number. In hockey, the detriment to losing a game, is one less game to get points in. The systems are adequate for the sports that use them, but you can't discount games played in either one.

Originally Posted by Pucker25

I don't ignore the loss column, but I also don't ignore the Games Played column. The baseball and basketball "games back" system assumes a .500 record to make up for a differential in games played. Whereas in hockey, the "points back" is an actual number. In hockey, the detriment to losing a game, is one less game to get points in. The systems are adequate for the sports that use them, but you can't discount games played in either one.

That detriment of one less game remaining to get points in is not counted in the standings. Why is it advantageous to have regulation losses be equivalent to not playing?

Games back doesn't assume a .500 record to make up for a differential in games played. Games back is based on the number of games one team must lose and the number the other team must win for the teams to get to the same games above/below .500. Take 11-7-0 vs. 10-5-0. 11-7-0 is 1/2 game behind 10-5-0. If 11-7-0 wins one or 10-5-0 loses one, then they are tied relative to .500.

Because it's Can AAA diun.

all that matters is the points at the end of the season.

Originally Posted by RSV

What do you not like about it?

It's stupid and wrong.

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

I know you're just trolling here, but what advantage did Toronto gain by being 1st in the NHL after 8 games?

They actually affected their waiver pick up order adversely as of Nov 1 and screwed themselves out of a better draft pick.

That's why I say screw tradition and make every game worth 3 points.
You want tradition? Bring back the two-line pass.