Just for clarifications sake, when the NHL first instituted OT, the loser got zero pts, and there were still ties. All games were worth a max of 2 points. The problem began as soon as some games were worth 2 pts while some worth 3. Its a flawed system
- BiggE

It should go...

2 points for a regulation or OT win.
1 point for a shootout win.
0 points for any loss.

Anthony Davis most likely blocked it
- mcefalu

He is good at basketball.

The new Tukka Rask?

- jmatchett383

I love how the ref just gets the (frank) outta dodge

Micheal Del Zotto is the Flyers savior

Ghost is a bust
Coburn lost his job, no way he can get put into this stud defense
Mason Who , literally mason who where did this white cracker go

I think it's at a point where it's such a commonly held idea that reporters don't think twice. I think it probably originated from teams trying to sound better than they really were but now it's accepted lexicon.
- NickTheKid87

Well, you're thinking deeper thoughts than me. I just think they're either stupid or lazy. I wish it didn't bother me.

Well, you're thinking deeper thoughts than me. I just think they're either stupid or lazy. I wish it didn't bother me.
- mayorofangrytown

i wish this about a lot of things about people.

the internal struggle is real.

It should go...

2 points for a regulation or OT win.
1 point for a shootout win.
0 points for any loss.
- jak521

If you do that, then the math works to the degree where someone doesn't get a point. But the only way it makes perfect sense is uniform points for wins of any kind and 0 points for losses.

You can't be serious -- this is just math. Bill and the reporters are right, because a SO loss isn't really a loss, mathematically. It just isn't - you got one of two points available.

If you finish 0-0-82, how many points do you have? 82.

If you finish 82-0-0, how many points do you have? 164.

Ok. If another team beats you in the shootout 82 times, how many points do you have? 82. How points do they have? 164.

The math says it all: You are a .500 team. Because you split the points available.
- AllInForFlyers

I understand that. I guess what I disagree with is the point system in that losing is being rewarded just because it isn't regulation and losing in the shootout = losing in overtime when they're actually playing hockey.

If they used the 3 points for win, 2 points for SOW, 1 point for SOL, 0 points for regulation and OTL, going 82-0-0-0 (extra column for SOW) would give you 246 points. Going 0-0-82-0 (all SOW) would mean 164 points and going 0-0-0-82 would give you 82 points. So being ".500" would have to be a combo of these things to get to 123 points.

Basically, calling a team like the Flyers .500 is a misrepresentation because of the flawed point system because we all know winning or losing in the shootout is not nearly the same as winning in regulation/OT.

You can't be serious -- this is just math. Bill and the reporters are right, because a SO loss isn't really a loss, mathematically. It just isn't - you got one of two points available.

If you finish 0-0-82, how many points do you have? 82.

If you finish 82-0-0, how many points do you have? 164.

Ok. If another team beats you in the shootout 82 times, how many points do you have? 82. How points do they have? 164.

The math says it all: You are a .500 team. Because you split the points available.
- AllInForFlyers

Man your math is bad. If a team beats you in OT all 82 times and they have 164 pts and you have 82 you have a third of the pts available and that's not .500, that's .333 and your team is a loser every night

If you do that, then the math works to the degree where someone doesn't get a point. But the only way it makes perfect sense is uniform points for wins of any kind and 0 points for losses.
- AllInForFlyers

I wouldn't mind that but the shootout complicates things. No other leagues reward OTLs.

Micheal Del Zotto is the Flyers savior

Ghost is a bust
Coburn lost his job, no way he can get put into this stud defense
Mason Who , literally mason who where did this white cracker go
- Winning

Yes, I agree that scone was delicious!

Man your math is bad. If a team beats you in OT all 82 times and they have 164 pts and you have 82 you have a third of the pts available and that's not .500, that's .333 and your team is a loser every night
- mayorofangrytown

No, because you are conflating the points available in a game with the points available in the standings, which is all that matters -- because you can only get a maximum of two points for winning a game in the standings.

It's irrelevant that three points were awarded in the game. What is relevant is how many points were awarded in the standings.

I love how the ref just gets the (frank) outta dodge
- Giroux_Is_God

he was really in a dangerous position if the stick blade broke and flew

Man your math is bad. If a team beats you in OT all 82 times and they have 164 pts and you have 82 you have a third of the pts available and that's not .500, that's .333 and your team is a loser every night
- mayorofangrytown

So if Team A goes 41-41-0 and the other Team B goes 41-41-0, both teams have 82 points out of a possible 164. But if Team A goes 40-40-2 and Team B goes 42-40-0, Team A has 82 points while Team B has 84, making the total points 166. In this case, Team A would have 49.4% of points.

The Flyers are 4-3-2 for 10 points. Their opponents are 5-2-2 for 12 points. Total points are 22 making the Flyers a .455 team.

That isn't correct.

The accurate way is to view through points gained vs points available.

They have played nine games. In the standings, those games are worth a maximum of two points to the victor.

Therefore, those games are worth 18 points.

The Flyers have 10 points, by virtue of winning four, losing three and splitting the points available in two.

They didn't lose. They only got one of the two points available.

They are one game over .500.
- AllInForFlyers

That's right, because the standings are based on points.

If you do that, then the math works to the degree where someone doesn't get a point. But the only way it makes perfect sense is uniform points for wins of any kind and 0 points for losses.
- AllInForFlyers

What do you mean someone doesnt get a point?

I have talked about the 3-2-1-0 before as well..

No, because you are conflating the points available in a game with the points available in the standings, which is all that matters -- because you can only get a maximum of two points for winning a game in the standings.

It's irrelevant that three points were awarded in the game. What is relevant is how many points were awarded in the standings.
- AllInForFlyers

I think you're both right. In terms of standings, the Flyers are .500 but in terms of actual wins and losses and weighing points, the Flyers are .455. The former is for standing purposes while the latter can be used as a more realistic representation of the Flyers record.

I understand that. I guess what I disagree with is the point system in that losing is being rewarded just because it isn't regulation and losing in the shootout = losing in overtime when they're actually playing hockey.

If they used the 3 points for win, 2 points for SOW, 1 point for SOL, 0 points for regulation and OTL, going 82-0-0-0 (extra column for SOW) would give you 246 points. Going 0-0-82-0 (all SOW) would mean 164 points and going 0-0-0-82 would give you 82 points. So being ".500" would have to be a combo of these things to get to 123 points.

Basically, calling a team like the Flyers .500 is a misrepresentation because of the flawed point system because we all know winning or losing in the shootout is not nearly the same as winning in regulation/OT.
- NickTheKid87

At the end of the day.. the Flyers have lost more times than they have won.

At the end of the day.. the Flyers have lost more times than they have won.
- jak521

Take out shootout losses and they are 4-3 which is another reason that the SO is grounds for a point system reform.

Man your math is bad. If a team beats you in OT all 82 times and they have 164 pts and you have 82 you have a third of the pts available and that's not .500, that's .333 and your team is a loser every night
- mayorofangrytown

Seriously? There are only 2 points available to a team in a game.

No, because you are conflating the points available in a game with the points available in the standings, which is all that matters -- because you can only get a maximum of two points for winning a game in the standings.

It's irrelevant that three points were awarded in the game. What is relevant is how many points were awarded in the standings.
- AllInForFlyers

To me, a loss is a loss. The NHL has spent a ton of time in the last 10 yrs talking about having a winner in every game. If you have a winner in every game guess what you also have? A Loser.

"Hey, did you guys win?"
"No."
"Oh, sorry you lost"
"We didn't lose."
"I thought you said you didn't win?"
"We didn't but we didn't lose either. It was OT."
"Wait. What was the final score?"
"4-3 for them."
"So you lost?"
"No. we got a point."
"But you lost."
"No! We're .500 man!!!!"
"But you only played one game."
"STFU!!!! I hate you!!!"
"Sorry you lost."

Seriously? There are only 2 points available to a team in a game.
- MJL

and one is a loser.

That's right, because the standings are based on points.
- MJL

He's talking about pts. I was talking about wins and losses and the .500 mark. As much as I hate SOs it's a loss.

Take out shootout losses and they are 4-3 which is another reason that the SO is grounds for a point system reform.
- NickTheKid87

I agree. The reform should be ditching the shootout.