Meaning Of .500 Play In This System

[DA_Champion]

I noticed a lot of people in the Washington game thread were debating whether or not 8-7-4 counts as a .500 record. I think the discussion is worth its own thread, and also I think I have the answer. .500 means average or better. If the NHL followed a more rational system, where there was 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win, 1 for an OT loss, and zero otherwise; or the system it had until a few years ago, .500 would be obvious. It would be 1.5 points per game in the first case, or 1 point per game in the second case.

DEFINING .500 PERFORMANCE:

In the current system, .500 means approximately ~1.2-1.3 points per game, as more than 2 points are given out but less than 3. .500 means getting at least half the points given out.

ESTIMATING .500 PERFORMANCE:

Looking at the eastern conference standings, the teams have played 444 games and there are 62 overtime losses. Assuming western conference play doesn't affect the statistics, and not double counting games, that means about 62/222 = 28% of games in the eastern conference go to overtime. So being a .500 team in the EC means averaging 1*0.72+1.5*0.28 = 1.14 points per game.

Evaluating the Habs

8-7-4 then means 20 points in 17 games, or 1.18 points per game, which means the Habs are slightly above .500 since their 8-1-1 start, by eastern conference standards. The Habs right now have 37 points in 29 games, which in my system gives them a .560 record since the start of the season.

A positive note

Since half the NHL teams make the playoffs, .500 should mean the record to make the playoffs, in theory. (In practice wins are not distributed in a smooth manner). Last year, 94 points over 82 games made the playoffs in the EC, but 92 points in 82 games did not. 93/82 = 1.13 points per game, close to what I estimated above.

I conclude that ~1.14 points per game played is a good approximation for "playing .500". That number would change if the number of OT games. If every game in the NHL went to OT, .500 would be 1.5 points per game, if none did it would be 1 point per game.

[SteenIsThaFuture]

When I'm taking into account a teams record, I discount points and look at wins.

While it may seem stupid, its hard to factor in losses, because you can't account or predict OT losses.

I think it should be

Reg or OT Win= 3 points

Reg or OT Loss= 0 points

Shootout win= 2 points

Shootout loss=1 point

I don't understand why a team is credited for getting to overtime, basketball, baseball and football don't do this, yet hockey seems to be the rare exception. I would give a point for shootout for obvious reasons.

If you look at the last 3 seasons, 92-94 points is around what it takes to get that 8th seed, that may vary with the new scheduling, but I'll use that as a boundary.

The problem when taking into account a teams record with the extra point is we're awarding teams at times for losing, so its hard to evaluate a team in that fashion.

What I did was take an average of the amount of Overtime Losses over the last 3 years, for teams that made the playoffs or were in the race (within 3 points of the 92 points).

What I got was a flat average of 9 OTL/season for playoff teams since the post-lockout.

Under that assumption that no teams losses more in OT than others for any reason other than chance (unless you can prove me wrong on that), the Habs have played 35% of the season (29/82) and already have 56% overtime losses as compared to a projectable total at the end of the year. Which means they are getting lucky standings wise with the extra points.

[RicochetII]

Using a determination of points to determine whether a club is playing .500 hockey is a false application of data.

To calculate a club's winning percentage, you solve for x:

x = Number of wins / Number of games played

The number of other results is not a factor in the equation, so any attempt to include them in the formula, creates a new formula.

In order to account for a partial credit given in the case of a game lost outside of regulation, you would have to create a new formula and therefore a new statistic. This statistic is called Points Per Game Percentage or PPG%, in which you solve for x:

x = Number of points / Number of games played

There is no determination of a median in this formula as the number of points available is not a consistent factor. In order to acquire a median, you would have to tally the number of points distributed in total across the league and calculate the median value using those numbers. This could be called Average PPG% and you can produce a valid result either by using the total number of games played across the league by the number of points distributed, or by adding the PPG% of each team and dividing it by the number of teams.

x = Total league points / Total league games

OR

x = (PPG% of team A + PPG% of team B + .... PPG% of team Y + PPG% of team Z) / Total number of teams

Currently, the mean PPG% is :

988 points / 880 games

Which is 1.227

In order to determine if a team is performing above the median in terms of point acquisition, simply compare that team's PPG% from the Avg PPG%.

In the Canadiens' case, our PPG% is 1.276~. (37 points over 29 games)

That means we are performing just over the median in terms of points acquisition.

[357908_1475251331]

my problem is this: even if the entire teams scores in the shoot out it is recorded as 1 goal, but the 1 goal is the intellectual property of the team, not the nhl. so kovalev can sell his dvd's even in a shootout loss if it comes down to goalie versus goalie as the everyone else is perfect.

there must be a thousand ways to break a tie at the end of the season, based on hockey culture, but since the game of 5-5 hockey is what brings in the fans, i would be satisfied to see the shootout NOT be appled to breaking ties at the end of the season, so the meaning of .500 play to me would never be specific.

[Innis_Mor]

Yeah, that's why NHL.com uses Points% instead of Winning%.

I've always maintained the league should have gone to 3 points per game (total) allocation. Makes more sense to my math mind, anyways -- and teams would work harder then to win games in regulation, rather than simply working to preserve the tie and guarantee 1 point, with a shot at a second point.

[DA_Champion]

Yeah, that's why NHL.com uses Points% instead of Winning%.

I've always maintained the league should have gone to 3 points per game (total) allocation. Makes more sense to my math mind, anyways -- and teams would work harder then to win games in regulation, rather than simply working to preserve the tie and guarantee 1 point, with a shot at a second point.

Why DON'T they do things that way... it seems so obvious that they must have discussed it.

[franck5890]

I think it is fundamentally simpler than what is being discussed; ".500" means you've acquired exactly half the points possible in the games you've played, meaning .500 hockey would imply taking exactly a point-per-game. I believe the methods being previously discussed in this thread are referring to statistics against the records of the other teams rather than simply having a .500 record. Ricochet is right in his/her first formula

For example, 10-10-0 is the same as 9-9-2 and the same as 6-6-8.

A problem that would arise when valuing .500 hockey against the league average is that if you believe 1.2 PPG is the .500 mark, that means 2.4 PPG would be 1.000; a team with a record of 5-0-0 thus couldn't be valued as playing at 1.000 even though it is impossible for them to have scored more points.

So .500 hockey is very simple; taking half of the maximum points. Being better than or worse than the league average is a different story.

Yeah, that's why NHL.com uses Points% instead of Winning%.

I've always maintained the league should have gone to 3 points per game (total) allocation. Makes more sense to my math mind, anyways -- and teams would work harder then to win games in regulation, rather than simply working to preserve the tie and guarantee 1 point, with a shot at a second point.

IMO, it wouldn't make any sense to penalize a team for going to a shootout or overtime, which is precisely what a method such as this does. The only thing they could do would be to eliminate ties altogether; you can't change the value of a win simply based on the circumstances -- a win is a win.

[cbarker78]

When I'm taking into account a teams record, I discount points and look at wins.

While it may seem stupid, its hard to factor in losses, because you can't account or predict OT losses.

I think it should be

Reg or OT Win= 3 points

Reg or OT Loss= 0 points

Shootout win= 2 points

Shootout loss=1 point

I don't understand why a team is credited for getting to overtime, basketball, baseball and football don't do this, yet hockey seems to be the rare exception. I would give a point for shootout for obvious reasons.

If you look at the last 3 seasons, 92-94 points is around what it takes to get that 8th seed, that may vary with the new scheduling, but I'll use that as a boundary.

The problem when taking into account a teams record with the extra point is we're awarding teams at times for losing, so its hard to evaluate a team in that fashion.

What I did was take an average of the amount of Overtime Losses over the last 3 years, for teams that made the playoffs or were in the race (within 3 points of the 92 points).

What I got was a flat average of 9 OTL/season for playoff teams since the post-lockout.

Under that assumption that no teams losses more in OT than others for any reason other than chance (unless you can prove me wrong on that), the Habs have played 35% of the season (29/82) and already have 56% overtime losses as compared to a projectable total at the end of the year. Which means they are getting lucky standings wise with the extra points.

Ha I agree with you on something.

[Kubby31]

When I'm taking into account a teams record, I discount points and look at wins.

While it may seem stupid, its hard to factor in losses, because you can't account or predict OT losses.

I think it should be

Reg or OT Win= 3 points

Reg or OT Loss= 0 points

Shootout win= 2 points

Shootout loss=1 point

I don't understand why a team is credited for getting to overtime, basketball, baseball and football don't do this, yet hockey seems to be the rare exception. I would give a point for shootout for obvious reasons.

If you look at the last 3 seasons, 92-94 points is around what it takes to get that 8th seed, that may vary with the new scheduling, but I'll use that as a boundary.

The problem when taking into account a teams record with the extra point is we're awarding teams at times for losing, so its hard to evaluate a team in that fashion.

What I did was take an average of the amount of Overtime Losses over the last 3 years, for teams that made the playoffs or were in the race (within 3 points of the 92 points).

What I got was a flat average of 9 OTL/season for playoff teams since the post-lockout.

Under that assumption that no teams losses more in OT than others for any reason other than chance (unless you can prove me wrong on that), the Habs have played 35% of the season (29/82) and already have 56% overtime losses as compared to a projectable total at the end of the year. Which means they are getting lucky standings wise with the extra points.

Just wanted to add that i also agree with you 100%,i have always been peed off to the fact that how does any team ( in any sport ) walk away with a point or 2,for losing.

You win,you get the points,you lose,you should get 0 .

Just my opioion,

[tony1234]

My preference is still 2 pts for a win

1 for a tie

0 for loss, no OT, no shootout, no problems !!!!

[Innis_Mor]

IMO, it wouldn't make any sense to penalize a team for going to a shootout or overtime, which is precisely what a method such as this does. The only thing they could do would be to eliminate ties altogether; you can't change the value of a win simply based on the circumstances -- a win is a win.

And yet a loss is no longer a loss ( ? ):

• Yeah, we won, even though it was in OT/SO, but we earned our two points so that is good
• Bummer, we lost again, but this time it was in OT/SO, so we still got a "kissing your sister" point, unlike last time.

Someday this will all come home to roost, on the final day of a regular season with two teams playing, and one watching from the sidelines (on TV), having completed their season already. If either of the two teams in the game wins in regulation, that team and the team watching will make the play-offs (7, 8). If the teams tie in regulation, those two teams will make it to the play-offs, and the team watching will raise hell on the "fix".

Why DON'T they do things that way... it seems so obvious that they must have discussed it.

I have no idea. It's clearly the way to go. I can only surmise they think what they did is "simpler"

[SteenIsThaFuture]

Just wanted to add that i also agree with you 100%,i have always been peed off to the fact that how does any team ( in any sport ) walk away with a point or 2,for losing.

You win,you get the points,you lose,you should get 0 .

Just my opioion,

Its just a move by the NHL to create parity and bunch the standings closer, its very bush league IMO.

[Innis_Mor]

Its just a move by the NHL to create parity and bunch the standings closer, its very bush league IMO.

Ahhh, yes. I think that is the head hitting the nail, there. Thanks, SF. It certainly accomplishes that.

Marketing once again trumps logic.

[SteenIsThaFuture]

Ha I agree with you on something.

Why have we disagreed a lot before?

[SteenIsThaFuture]

Also a problem with points% is being .500 points % wise often doesn't mean that you are a .500 team.

The league average this year is a .563 points %, that extra point screws all basic sports winning percentages and probabilitis up so much.

[CharlottetownHabbies]

I just use .500 based on wins vs. losses, OT or otherwise. Right now in my mind the habs are 3 games over .500 in my mind. I think of ganes based on whether or not we were good enough to win in 60 minutes, anything less means we weren't good enough on that night. It drives me nuts when marginal teams who are 10-10-8 or something have commentators who can validly say they are playing .500 hockey, when in 18 of there 28 games they weren't good enough to win.

[SteenIsThaFuture]

I've been doing some work into this lately, firstly the ".500" in terms of points at the end of most seasons is around the 90-91 mark, which comes out to 1.11 points per game throughout the NHL.

The Habs have been playing at a pace of 1.27 PPG, that comes out to a 104 point season. The pace I calculated our predicted PPG at (you can PM me for the formulas if you want) is 1.235 PPG, which is a 101 point season.

Ya we suck this year.