.600 is much closer to .500 than 1.00, so is .571...so I'll stick with my initial comment...they were basically playing .500 hockey....

Who in the F says "they're playing .600 hockey right now" or "they're playing close to .600 hockey now"?

Answer: no one

Thanks for being anal retentive though.
- MattStrat

.600 is also closer to 1 than it is to 0, so they are actually playing 1.000 hockey.

.600 is also closer to 1 than it is to 0, so they are actually playing 1.000 hockey.
- Guile

Nah

.600 is much closer to .500 than 1.00, so is .571...so I'll stick with my initial comment...they were basically playing .500 hockey....

Who in the F says "they're playing .600 hockey right now" or "they're playing close to .600 hockey now"?

Answer: no one

Thanks for being anal retentive though.
- MattStrat

So even when provided with new information you still prefer to be wrong in your analysis?

So even when provided with new information you still prefer to be wrong in your analysis?
- Feds91Stammer

hahaha new information? I'm wrong? a team playing .500 or close to .500 is a term used in almost all team sports. Thats all I'm going by. I could never argue that .573 isnt closer to .600 than .500...its a fact. I know that.

Playing .600 is never ever a term/figure of speech used. I know you know that but you insist on being anal.

I was using a figure of speech and have already spent too much time and energy defending it. Ridiculous. I'm ashamed of myself for continuing to feed you as I write this.

.600 is much closer to .500 than 1.00, so is .571...so I'll stick with my initial comment...they were basically playing .500 hockey....

Who in the F says "they're playing .600 hockey right now" or "they're playing close to .600 hockey now"?

Answer: no one

Thanks for being anal retentive though.
- MattStrat

I wouldn't say .600, but I wouldn't say .500 either, because they are winning. I would say they are winning hockey games despite some defensive shortcomings.

I wouldn't say .600, but I wouldn't say .500 either, because they are winning. I would say they are winning hockey games despite some defensive shortcomings.
- j.boyd919

Yeah technically they are not .500 but come on, .573 in that span is pretty damn close...not as close as .600 though, I know.

hahaha new information? I'm wrong? a team playing .500 or close to .500 is a term used in almost all team sports. Thats all I'm going by. I could never argue that .573 isnt closer to .600 than .500...its a fact. I know that.

Playing .600 is never ever a term/figure of speech used. I know you know that but you insist on being anal.

I was using a figure of speech and have already spent too much time and energy defending it. Ridiculous. I'm ashamed of myself for continuing to feed you as I write this.
- MattStrat

The point is 57% isn't basically 50%

.600 is much closer to .500 than 1.00, so is .571...so I'll stick with my initial comment...they were basically playing .500 hockey....

Who in the F says "they're playing .600 hockey right now" or "they're playing close to .600 hockey now"?

Answer: no one

Thanks for being anal retentive though.
- MattStrat

This is bad. You should feel bad.

I don't understand Wilson over Guentzel. I'd rather have Guenztel playing the fourth line in the NHL, getting more acclimated than being sent back to WBS.

Why would a different instance have to do with the current instance?


- j.boyd919

Typical. Your eyes remember all the little things that go wrong but they don't remember all the little things that go right.

This is bad. You should feel bad.
- BINGO!

I feel great, thanks for the concern though. Hope you feel good too, seriously do.

Well as silly as this argument was if you look at Wins-Loss and remove OTL from the equation they were 7-7.

The point is 57% isn't basically 50%
- Feds91Stammer

Maybe there are certain expressions used in sports - playing .600 hockey isn't 1 that I know of. Not that I know a lot about hockey though. Now if you were to produce some examples of that other than in today's comments it may strengthen your case.

Now if a team is playing inconsistent hockey & their win % starts with 5, good chance most wouldn't be saying they're playing .600 hockey, they would say .500 hockey even though the following numbers aren't 00 - that's just common sense or maybe it's not. Bad numbers usually get rounded down - good numbers rounded up. You should know that as its unwritten analytical law. Just like giving positive or negative data events to players having zero input in any on ice play!

I must congratulate you on again casting your net into the rolling waves of HB & catching the inattentive (some would say careless but that's another discussion for a different day), native from this thread. Does David Attenborough call you for advice?

Maybe there are certain expressions used in sports - playing .600 hockey isn't 1 that I know of. Not that I know a lot about hockey though. Now if you were to produce some examples of that other than in today's comments it may strengthen your case.

Now if a team is playing inconsistent hockey & their win % starts with 5, good chance most wouldn't be saying they're playing .600 hockey, they would say .500 hockey even though the following numbers aren't 00 - that's just common sense or maybe it's not. Bad numbers usually get rounded down - good numbers rounded up. You should know that as its unwritten analytical law. Just like giving positive or negative data events to players having zero input in any on ice play!

I must congratulate you on again casting your net into the rolling waves of HB & catching the inattentive (some would say careless but that's another discussion for a different day), native from this thread. Does David Attenborough call you for advice?
- Aussiepenguin

If you finished last season with a .573 point%, you would have been 8th in the East, if you finished with a .500 record, you would have been tied for 13th. It is pretty silly using such a generalization as was made in the original statement on this matter.

I would say that "playing close to .600 hockey" is a term that would be used a lot up here, if we had ever done it in the last decade.

Wah, Pouliot is frustrated. Poor thing, bless his heart.

He'll play if someone gets injured.

Shouldn't leave the press box until then, and the statement from Sullivan sounded like a throwaway statement, not some kind of promise of playing time soon.

Wah, Pouliot is frustrated. Poor thing, bless his heart.

He'll play if someone gets injured.

Shouldn't leave the press box until then, and the statement from Sullivan sounded like a throwaway statement, not some kind of promise of playing time soon.
- hardnosed

I wouldn't be opposed to Daley coming out of the lineup for a game. He hasn't exactly been stellar this year.

I wouldn't be opposed to Daley coming out of the lineup for a game. He hasn't exactly been stellar this year.
- Rinosaur

none of the defensemen except the 3rd pairing has been

This is all so boring I cant even make fun of any of it. I'm happy for Flower.

none of the defensemen except the 3rd pairing has been
- martox

Which is why I'm not opposed to Pouliot taking Daley's place for one game.

Ottawas top 6
Hoffman - Brassard - Stone
Dzingel - Turris - Pyatt

Vs

Sheary - Crosby - Hornqvist
Hags - Malkin - Kessel

Lol stacked, regardless 3-2 Ottawa

none of the defensemen except the 3rd pairing has been
- martox

It's been a long time since Schultz and consistency could be used in the same sentence.

Sure, Maatta and Daley could be better this year. But there's no one nipping at their heels that will come in and play better.

If you finished last season with a .573 point%, you would have been 8th in the East, if you finished with a .500 record, you would have been tied for 13th. It is pretty silly using such a generalization as was made in the original statement on this matter.

I would say that "playing close to .600 hockey" is a term that would be used a lot up here, if we had ever done it in the last decade.
- Beergu

It's Feds just having fun & being pedantic about exact figures even though he quotes advanced stats all the time (which is soooo ironic ).

Sure, Maatta and Daley could be better this year. But there's no one nipping at their heels that will come in and play better.
- hardnosed

Pouliot is coming..................

Pouliot is coming..................
- Aussiepenguin