1. ## Question about the NHL standings

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?

2. More GWG for the team in first. Serious.

3. Originally Posted by RSV
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?
It's all about the point column. Notice that the NBA and MLB don't have points - they just base everything on win percentage (The PCT column), which is okay when you can't anything but a win or a loss in a game.

Winning percentage is a better gauge of a team compared to other teams as a season goes on.

4. Originally Posted by dgrycan
It's all about the point column. Notice that the NBA and MLB don't have points - they just base everything on win percentage (The PCT column), which is okay when you can't anything but a win or a loss in a game.

Winning percentage is a better gauge of a team compared to other teams as a season goes on.
Agreed winning percentage is a better gauge. That being said, why does the NHL use points when more viable options such as winning percentage & games behind (or above/below .500) are available?

5. Because for years and years there WERE ties. And you got 2 points for a win and 1 point for a tie. So "winning percentage" didn't mean jack.

Then the crybabies took over and started awarded 1 point to both teams if it went to overtime. Then when the lockout happened the crybabies made their big push and got rid of ties all together and put in the shootout.

Don't be one of those idiots who ignores the SOL column in the standings and thinks that a 10-10-15 team is a team that's "15 games below .500"

The actual value of being .500 may have depreciated thanks to the noisy idiotic mob of tie haters but a SOL still doesn't count as a proper loss, nor should it.

I want ties back.

6. Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay
Because for years and years there WERE ties. And you got 2 points for a win and 1 point for a tie. So "winning percentage" didn't mean jack.

Then the crybabies took over and started awarded 1 point to both teams if it went to overtime. Then when the lockout happened the crybabies made their big push and got rid of ties all together and put in the shootout.

Don't be one of those idiots who ignores the SOL column in the standings and thinks that a 10-10-15 team is a team that's "15 games below .500"

The actual value of being .500 may have depreciated thanks to the noisy idiotic mob of tie haters but a SOL still doesn't count as a proper loss, nor should it.

I want ties back.
The change from ties to a point for an overtime loss doesn't impact the issue of why they use points instead of percentage or games above/below .500. Since an OTL is the net equivalent of half a win and half a regulation loss, the presence of OTLs (or previously ties) wouldn't preclude the NHL from using percentage or games above/below .500. So it still leaves us with the question of why they use points?

7. Originally Posted by RSV
The change from ties to a point for an overtime loss doesn't impact the issue of why they use points instead of percentage or games above/below .500. Since an OTL is the net equivalent of half a win and half a regulation loss, the presence of OTLs (or previously ties) wouldn't preclude the NHL from using percentage or games above/below .500. So it still leaves us with the question of why they use points?

8. Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay
The NHL in general is very similar to this guy:

9. Well let's break it down shall we?

If you track points then a team won't change places in the standings when they lose. I like that. It's simple and easy and it reminds you that in order for the teams behind them to pass them they actually have to win some more games.

When I look at the baseball standings with their "games behind" column it's just too much ****ing math to be bothered with and basketball with their winning percentage is fine and dandy but why should a team with fewer wins be ahead in the standings just because they've played fewer games?

I WANT TIES BACK!!!!

If you really want to know the standings based on point percentage then check out NHL.com and look at the team stats page.

10. Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay
Well let's break it down shall we?

If you track points then a team won't change places in the standings when they lose. I like that. It's simple and easy and it reminds you that in order for the teams behind them to pass them they actually have to win some more games.

When I look at the baseball standings with their "games behind" column it's just too much ****ing math to be bothered with and basketball with their winning percentage is fine and dandy but why should a team with fewer wins be ahead in the standings just because they've played fewer games?

I WANT TIES BACK!!!!

If you really want to know the standings based on point percentage then check out NHL.com and look at the team stats page.
Why is it advantageous for teams to move forward when they win but not move backward when they lose? That seems a little imbalanced to me. By doing it this way, a 15-14 team would be behind a 16-17 team, despite it having the better record.

If team A at 15-14 has fewer wins than team B at 16-17, team A should be listed ahead because team B has 3 more losses than team A, while team A has only one less win than team B. In order for it to be appropriate for team B at 16-17 to be listed ahead of team A at 15-14, the one extra win (16 vs. 15) would have to more than offset the three extra losses (17 vs. 14).

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•