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."
- mayorofangrytown

This conversation is way too charismatic to have taken place between two NHL players

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."
- mayorofangrytown

Actually it usually plays out like this

"Hey, did you guys win?"
"No."
"Aw that sucks. Sorry you lost."
"Yeah, but it was in OT, so at least we got a point out of it."
"Well that's something, isn't it?! At least you got the point!"
"True, but it still stings a little bit."

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.
- mayorofangrytown

I know he's talking about points. NHL standings are determined by points.

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."
- mayorofangrytown

"We lost in a shootout."
"So you lost?"
"No, we lost the shootout."
"What was the score?"
"4-3."
"So they scored more goals than you?"
"No, it was a tie."

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

My problem is the shoot out. Its BS. Why should a shootout win be rewarded the same as a regulation or OT win?

It was a good win, they executed well, got confident and did a good job of keeping the intensity up. Even in the second, when the Kings piled up a ton of shots, the Flyers did a good job of keeping the bulk of them to the outside.

Emery was called on a few times to make big stops and he was great, yet again. The Flyers did a very good job overall and deserved to get two points tonight

Given the schedule and the injuries, you have to be impressed with a 4-3-2 start.
- Jsaquella

No lets pick them apart with what we don't like and want changed

My problem is the shoot out. Its BS. Why should a shootout win be rewarded the same as a regulation or OT win?
- jak521

I....I.....I don't know....

Actually it usually plays out like this

"Hey, did you guys win?"
"No."
"Aw that sucks. Sorry you lost."
"Yeah, but it was in OT, so at least we got a point out of it."
"Well that's something, isn't it?! At least you got the point!"
"True, but it still stings a little bit."
- Giroux_Is_God

Still too verbose:

"Hey, you all win last night?"
"Nah, Quicker backed into the (frank)ing net in OT."
"At least you got a point."
"Whatever."
"Wanna go out and wheel for some tail?"
"Sounds like a plan"

Still too verbose:

"Hey, you all win last night?"
"Nah, Quicker backed into the (frank)ing net in OT."
"At least you got a point."
"Whatever."
"Wanna go out and wheel for some tail?"
"Sounds like a plan"
- Tomahawk

Yes, that's more like it.

My problem is the shoot out. Its BS. Why should a shootout win be rewarded the same as a regulation or OT win?
- jak521

It shouldn't.

Still too verbose:

"Hey, you all win last night?"
"Nah, Quicker backed into the (frank)ing net in OT."
"At least you got a point."
"Whatever."
"Wanna go out and wheel for some tail?"
"Sounds like a plan"
- Tomahawk

I know he's talking about points. NHL standings are determined by points.
- MJL

Thanks for the edumacation. Had no idea. My enjoyment of hockey is enriched so much by this. I'll have a skip in my step for the rest of the day.

- PLindbergh31

They just...they both look like the biggest d-bags. Loved them as Flyers, but if I saw them at a party and didn't know who they were I would immediately leave that party.

I might immediately leave that party even if I did know who they were, actually

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

It may be .500 in the standings, but as far as winning games goes it's not .500. Wins vs. Losses (L+OTL) is a better indicator of how competitive a team is, imo.

When it matters most, teams get no credit for losing a longer game.

It may be .500 in the standings, but as far as winning games goes it's not .500. Wins vs. Losses (L+OTL) is a better indicator of how competitive a team is, imo.

When it matters most, teams get no credit for losing a longer game.
- BulliesPhan87

Anyone can choose to look at it whatever way they please. But with the NHL standings based on points, if you have half of the points available, then that puts you at .500.

They just...they both look like the biggest d-bags. Loved them as Flyers, but if I saw them at a party and didn't know who they were I would immediately leave that party.

I might immediately leave that party even if I did know who they were, actually
- mcefalu

Don't you ever talk about Beer Can and Mikey Pills like that.

Still too verbose:

"Hey, you all win last night?"
"Nah, Quicker backed into the (frank)ing net in OT."
"At least you got a point."
"Whatever."
"Wanna go out and wheel for some tail?"
"Sounds like a plan"
- Tomahawk

I endorse this because it's way funnier and more topical than mine.

Anyone can choose to look at it whatever way they please. But with the NHL standings based on points, if you have half of the points available, then that puts you at .500.
- MJL

Is there a rule defining exactly what qualifies as a .500 team? If not, then it's purely opinion. There's no factual high ground in going by points.

Thanks for the edumacation. Had no idea. My enjoyment of hockey is enriched so much by this. I'll have a skip in my step for the rest of the day.
- mayorofangrytown

Is there a rule defining exactly what qualifies as a .500 team? If not, then it's purely opinion. There's no factual high ground in going by points.
- BulliesPhan87

500
(also known as .500) 50% or even. Refers to points earned. It is a percentage of points earned in relation to the number of points available. Thus, with a record of 1-1-1 (wins-losses-ties/extra time losses) a team is 500, even though they have 1 win and two losses. They have earned 3 of a possible 6 points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ssary_of_ice_hockey_terms

Irrefutable source.

500
(also known as .500) 50% or even. Refers to points earned. It is a percentage of points earned in relation to the number of points available. Thus, with a record of 1-1-1 (wins-losses-ties/extra time losses) a team is 500, even though they have 1 win and two losses. They have earned 3 of a possible 6 points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ssary_of_ice_hockey_terms

Irrefutable source.
- jmatchett383

Wikipedia is made by people. People are flawed.

FACT.

500
(also known as .500) 50% or even. Refers to points earned. It is a percentage of points earned in relation to the number of points available. Thus, with a record of 1-1-1 (wins-losses-ties/extra time losses) a team is 500, even though they have 1 win and two losses. They have earned 3 of a possible 6 points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ssary_of_ice_hockey_terms

Irrefutable source.
- jmatchett383

So in theory, if a team went 0-0-82 they would be .500? They would have 82 out of a possible 164 points.

.500 without winning a game.

So... when are people going to realize that the "T" in OTL doesn't stand for Tie and the "L" actually stands for Loss?

"The Flyers now find themselves one game over .500."

no.

"Somehow, some way, the Flyers (4-3-2) will crawl out of a once-horrifying October riddled with land mines and injuries guaranteed at least a .500 record. They can be as many as two games over even with a victory in Tampa Bay tomorrow night."

no.

Even if you go by pts. they have 10 and have given up 12.

I'm stunned that they're getting out of October with at least 10 pts but accuracy folks, accuracy.
- mayorofangrytown

You are the one who is inaccurate, and we went thru all this last year.

.500 in the NHL refers to Points Percentage.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/te...ointPctg&viewName=summary

It shouldn't.
- MJL

Exactly...

So say in a 2-1-0 scenario (Reg. or Ot win- SO win- loss)

Team A wins 42 games, 40 of which are in regulation or OT.
That would be 82 points. 40 x 2 =80 +2=82

Team B wins 45 games, 35 of which are regulation or OT.
That would be 70 points +10 from shootout wins +80 points..

So despite "winning" 3 more games, they would have 2 fewer points.

It would put an emphasis on winning the game during regulation and OT.

0 points for any loss.

Is there a rule defining exactly what qualifies as a .500 team? If not, then it's purely opinion. There's no factual high ground in going by points.
- BulliesPhan87

I would disagree with that. NHL standings are based on points. So it only makes sense to look at a team in terms of points. And that's using the same system that the League uses.