How's this??
- burn

That post has nothing to do with why you so adamantly objected to me posting the standing, using only P%, and then also pointing out that some of those teams had games in hand on the leafs, and that the playoff race was far from over.

As it happens, a lot of those teams with games in hand, made the most of them.


You and others said that games in hand did not matter.


once again, this is the original post, the post that I've been defending for a while now.

January 31 @ 9:39 AM ET

I agree. The wildcard spots in the east are far from secured by the current holders of them. The "points" system kinda gives a false impression to low information fans.

You may not agree with my opinion, and that's your right, but the leafs and Habs are not as secure in their current seed either.

If you look strictly at each team's record to this point in the season, there is going to be a lot of playoff seed swapping right down to the last games of the season.

Montreal .583
toronto .571
Rangers .555
Carolina .538
Detroit .538
Columbus .537
Ottawa .537
Philadelphia .527
Washington .519
New Jersey .518

Detroit has 3 games in hand, on the leafs, Ottawa & Montreal have 2 games in hand (on the leafs) so I see at least three of those four teams still in the race to secure an Atlantic division playoff seed, with the others competing for a wild-card spot, along.
with the teams from the Metro. division who don't nail down a spot in their division.

So 10 teams in the race for 4 playoff spots.

I don't see the Saturday game between the leafs and Senators as interesting as you do............I see the Back to Back games between the Capitals and Red Wings as more interesting, as two wins for the Red Wings would move them closer to the top of the pack of the above ten teams and potentially knocking the Capitals out of the race in the short term.
- Doppleganger

You claim this (above post) is "mathematically false".

Please explain.

That post has nothing to do with why you so adamantly objected to me posting the standing, using only P%, and then also pointing out that some of those teams had games in hand on the leafs, and that the playoff race was far from over.

As it happens, a lot of those teams with games in hand, made the most of them.


You and others said that games in hand did not matter.


once again, this is the original post, the post that I've been defending for a while now.

January 31 @ 9:39 AM ET



You claim this (above post) is "mathematically false".

Please explain.
- Doppleganger

Are you for real???I never once posted that games in hand didn't matter. I said they didn't matter when talking about PTS%. You keep blatantly ignoring that fact. You've even posted where I said exactly that and only highlited "they don't matter" to try to prove your point. It helps to read the post entirely. It can;t be that hard, it was only one line and you chose to ignore half of it.

I post comments you made (and asked for) that prove what we're all saying and you ignore it and try to twist. No one is falling for it. Everyone can see through your stupidity.

That post has nothing to do with why you so adamantly objected to me posting the standing, using only P%, and then also pointing out that some of those teams had games in hand on the leafs, and that the playoff race was far from over.

As it happens, a lot of those teams with games in hand, made the most of them.


You and others said that games in hand did not matter.


once again, this is the original post, the post that I've been defending for a while now.

January 31 @ 9:39 AM ET



You claim this (above post) is "mathematically false".

Please explain.
- Doppleganger

Explain??? I have repeatedly as has others.... you just ignore the facts.

If you are talking about PTS% (You posted) then games in had are irrelevant as they have been accounted for in the %. Basic math.

Are you for real???I never once posted that games in hand didn't matter. I said they didn't matter when talking about PTS%. You keep blatantly ignoring that fact. You've even posted where I said exactly that and only highlited "they don't matter" to try to prove your point. It helps to read the post entirely. It can;t be that hard, it was only one line and you chose to ignore half of it.

I post comments you made (and asked for) that prove what we're all saying and you ignore it and try to twist. No one is falling for it. Everyone can see through your stupidity.
- burn

Did not think you could explain.


Let me ask you this.

When a P% for a team is listed at .556 on Jan 25th, can you tell how many games they've played, or how many they have remaining?

Did not think you could explain.


Let me ask you this.

When a P% for a team is listed at .556 on Jan 25th, can you tell how many games they've played, or how many they have remaining?
- Doppleganger

IT DOESN"T MATTER!!


Back to grade 2 with you.

Explain??? I have repeatedly as has others.... you just ignore the facts.

If you are talking about PTS% (You posted) then games in had are irrelevant as they have been accounted for in the %. Basic math.
- burn

P% is calculated by the number of points available in games played (2 per game) divided into the number of point gained.

Only games played are used in this calculation.............it does matter how many games are left to play.

IT DOESN"T MATTER!!


Back to grade 2 with you.
- burn

It did matter when I explained that in the context of the playoff race, that teams had games in hand.


So you agree, that P% alone, does not give you the whole playoff race picture, as I was trying to explain to you and others in my Original post on January 31 @ 9:39 AM ET, re-posted above.

P% is calculated by the number of points available in games played (2 per game) divided into the number of point gained.

Only games played are used in this calculation.............it does matter how many games are left to play.
- Doppleganger

It did matter when I explained that in the context of the playoff race, that teams had games in hand.


So you agree, that P% alone, does not give you the whole playoff race picture, as I was trying to explain to you and others in my Original post on January 31 @ 9:39 AM ET, re-posted above.
- Doppleganger

PTS%+GAMES in hand mathematically incorrect.

Looking at pts+ games in hand is correct. You chose PTS% to look at and you chose to add games in had to that. Figure it out.

PTS%+GAMES in hand mathematically incorrect.

Looking at pts+ games in hand is correct. You chose PTS% to look at and you chose to add games in had to that. Figure it out.
- burn

It is IMPOSSIBLE to include "games in hand" when calculating P%.

I thought I explained that to you.

Because it's IMPOSSIBLE, I've never done that.

A team's P% after 35 games and gaining 55 points, is EXACTLY the same in a 48 game season and an 82 game season.

It does not matter how long or short the season is, as P% is calculated with points gained in games played.

In my ORIGINAL POST, I listed the teams in the playoff race for the two wildcard spots, ranked on P%, that ONLY ACCOUNTS FOR GAMES PLAYED.

So, because I was commenting on the tenuous hold that the leafs had on their playoff spot, I pointed out that a number of teams had games in hand of the leafs, as these games gave these teams the opportunity to gain ground on the leafs (and they did)


For some weird reason, you've convinced yourself that I've included games remaining into a P% calculation, which is impossible.

Here, re-read my original post, and explain how I did the impossible.





January 31 @ 9:39 AM ET

I agree. The wildcard spots in the east are far from secured by the current holders of them. The "points" system kinda gives a false impression to low information fans.

You may not agree with my opinion, and that's your right, but the leafs and Habs are not as secure in their current seed either.

If you look strictly at each team's record to this point in the season, there is going to be a lot of playoff seed swapping right down to the last games of the season.

Montreal .583
toronto .571
Rangers .555
Carolina .538
Detroit .538
Columbus .537
Ottawa .537
Philadelphia .527
Washington .519
New Jersey .518

Detroit has 3 games in hand, on the leafs, Ottawa & Montreal have 2 games in hand (on the leafs) so I see at least three of those four teams still in the race to secure an Atlantic division playoff seed, with the others competing for a wild-card spot, along.
with the teams from the Metro. division who don't nail down a spot in their division.

So 10 teams in the race for 4 playoff spots.

I don't see the Saturday game between the leafs and Senators as interesting as you do............I see the Back to Back games between the Capitals and Red Wings as more interesting, as two wins for the Red Wings would move them closer to the top of the pack of the above ten teams and potentially knocking the Capitals out of the race in the short term.
- Doppleganger

.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to include "games in hand" when calculating P%.

I thought I explained that to you.

Because it's IMPOSSIBLE, I've never done that.

A team's P% after 35 games and gaining 55 points, is EXACTLY the same in a 48 game season and an 82 game season.

It does not matter how long or short the season is, as P% is calculated with points gained in games played.

In my ORIGINAL POST, I listed the teams in the playoff race for the two wildcard spots, ranked on P%, that ONLY ACCOUNTS FOR GAMES PLAYED.

So, because I was commenting on the tenuous hold that the leafs had on their playoff spot, I pointed out that a number of teams had games in hand of the leafs, as these games gave these teams the opportunity to gain ground on the leafs (and they did)


For some weird reason, you've convinced yourself that I've included games remaining into a P% calculation, which is impossible.

Here, re-read my original post, and explain how I did the impossible.





January 31 @ 9:39 AM ET

.
- Doppleganger

You post PTS% then talk about games in hand...... yet you didn't include them??? How (frank)ing dumb are you??? You say you didn't do something, then post things proving that you did exactly that then say see I didn't do it.


(frank)ing talking to morons.

You post PTS% then talk about games in hand...... yet you didn't include them??? How fucking dumb are you??? You say you didn't do something, then post things proving that you did exactly that then say see I didn't do it.


Fucking talking to morons.
- burn

Yes I did "talk about games in hand" because looking at the P% alone does not give the whole picture, when talking about the playoff races.




Sorry, But it is IMPOSSIBLE to include a teams remaining games in a P% calculation.


Therefore I never did it.

If you truly believe it can be done please show us.


Example

On the morning of the 14th of December, the St. Louis Blues had 47 points after 31 games.

Therefore 47 divided by 62 = .758 P%


Games remaining does not come into the equation. Neither do games in hand they may have when compared to another team. It's impossible.




The P% of a team stands alone, when comparing it to another team.

But when comparing the two teams in the context of a playoff race, like I did, I pointed out that some teams had games is hand on the leafs.

Games in hand are included in my original post, but NOT in the P% calculation, as it is impossible mathematically




You truly have a hard head, don't you?

Sorry, But it is IMPOSSIBLE to include a teams remaining games in a P% calculation.


Therefore I never did it.

If you truly believe it can be done please show us.


Example

On the morning of the 14th of December, the St. Louis Blues had 47 points after 31 games.

Therefore 47 divided by 62 = .758 P%


Games remaining does not come into the equation. Neither do games in hand they may have when compared to another team. It's impossible.




The P% of a team stands alone, when comparing it to another team.

But when comparing the two teams in the context of a playoff race, like I did, I pointed out that some teams had games is hand on the leafs.

Games in hand are included in my original post, but NOT in the P% calculation, as it is impossible mathematically




You truly have a hard head, don't you?
- Doppleganger

You listed PTS%, then listed games remaining...... but you never did it.


EDIT:

quote the post you're talking about.
- Doppleganger

How's this??

If team "A" has a .500 P%, and team "B" has a .591 P%................it does not tell you the whole story.

One of these teams may have game(s) in hand, and you also don't know the points difference, if any.
- Doppleganger

You didn't do it though. Right there in black and white. Deny deny deny.

You listed PTS%, then listed games remaining...... but you never did it.
- burn

P% is calculated by using points gained in games played.

Pointing out games in hand, does not somehow magically include them in the P% calculation, as you've been claiming I did for page and pages.

P% is calculated by using points gained in games played.

Pointing out games in hand, does not somehow magically include them in the P% calculation, as you've been claiming I did for page and pages.




- Doppleganger

No. None one did.... more proof you don't understand.

Talking about PTS% and then bringing up games in hand is incorrect.

No. None one did.... more proof you don't understand.

Talking about PTS% and then bringing up games in hand is incorrect.
- burn

So back on January 31 @ 9:39 AM ET when I posted the the contentious opinion that "The wildcard spots in the east are far from secured by the current holders of them. " because " The "points" system kinda gives a false impression to low information fans." I listed all teams in my opinion, that were in the hunt for the two wild card spots.

Montreal .583
toronto .571
Rangers .555
Carolina .538
Detroit .538Columbus .537
Ottawa .537
Philadelphia .527
Washington .519
New Jersey .518


So JUST looking at these teams records, only showed how they compared to each other on their records to that date.


So the point I was making about how "far from secured by the current holders of them." (wildcard spots) needed context.

Why did I think the "current holders" were not as secure as the "points" system (not P%) would lead low information fans to think their team had a solid hold on a wild card spot.


Well I pointed out that most of these team had games in hand on both the leafs and the Habs.




I don't think I can explain it any more simply.


The point I made was that teams with games in hand could conceivably win those games, and gain ground on the teams in wildcard spots.'

In the leafs case they did.


If you still don't understand now, that I was talking about the impending playoff race (for the wild card spots) by pointing out that despite teams with fewer points than the leafs (not P%) had games in hand on both the leafs and Habs (which was 100% correct) and could move up the standing and catch them.

So back on January 31 @ 9:39 AM ET when I posted the the contentious opinion that "The wildcard spots in the east are far from secured by the current holders of them. " because " The "points" system kinda gives a false impression to low information fans." I listed all teams in my opinion, that were in the hunt for the two wild card spots.

Montreal .583
toronto .571
Rangers .555
Carolina .538
Detroit .538Columbus .537
Ottawa .537
Philadelphia .527
Washington .519
New Jersey .518


So JUST looking at these teams records, only showed how they compared to each other on their records to that date.


So the point I was making about how "far from secured by the current holders of them." (wildcard spots) needed context.

Why did I think the "current holders" were not as secure as the "points" system (not P%) would lead low information fans to think their team had a solid hold on a wild card spot.


Well I pointed out that most of these team had games in hand on both the leafs and the Habs.




I don't think I can explain it any more simply.


The point I made was that teams with games in hand could conceivably win those games, and gain ground on the teams in wildcard spots.'

In the leafs case they did.


If you still don't understand now, that I was talking about the impending playoff race (for the wild card spots) by pointing out that despite teams with fewer points than the leafs (not P%) had games in hand on both the leafs and Habs (which was 100% correct) and could move up the standing and catch them.
- Doppleganger

You're never going to get it. willfully blind..... blatantly ignoring the fact and then twisting your argument/downright changing what you said/outright denying you said it despite the facts put right in front of you.

You're never going to get it. willfully blind..... blatantly ignoring the fact and then twisting your argument/downright changing what you said/outright denying you said it despite the facts put right in front of you.
- burn

I get it, when I talk about more than one thing in a single post, you get confused and have comprehension problems.




I talked about the playoff race for the wildcard spots.


I posted the teams involved, ranked by P%


Then also listed a couple of teams that had games in hand on the leafs.






This apparently confused the heck out of you, and like a pinball ball you've tilted.

Everyone else seems to have understood that I did not combine two things, that cannot be combined, into one thing. You and you alone are arguing this point.


Watch, I'll do it again, but updated since the last time I did it at the end of January.

PHILADELPHIA..... .572
DETROIT........... .566
COLUMBUS........ .559

toronto............ .538
WASHINGTON.... .533
NEW JERSEY... .526


The race for the two wild card spots are not yet determined. You can see how close the teams are based on their seasons record to date.

Oh, and by the way, all the teams from the Metro Division listed above, and the Red Wings have two games in hand on the leafs.


And now burn, wait for it..............................

I dont know if the sens are in a better spot..but Toronto from Lewike down to Carlyle are going to mess this team up again for years if they all stay in place

I dont know if the sens are in a better spot..but Toronto from Lewike down to Carlyle are going to mess this team up again for years if they all stay in place
- senstroll

And now Carlyle has to depend on the goaltender he threw under the bus.

I wonder if the media stirs up that pot again?

Looking ahead, if the leafs can win their next three games, they will play Ottawa, in Ottawa in their last game of the season.

Reimer, to the best of my knowledge, has never lost a game in Ottawa.

So, if by then, with some help from other teams losing, he may be in a position to save Carlyle's ass.

No, to show you, and others here, that what was said earlier, no longer carries any water.

January 31 @ 10:17 AM ET


I'll bet the leafs wished they had some games in hand over the Blue Jackets right about now.

January 31 @ 10:19 AM ET



Well the the leafs did not earn many points in March, so "more games played" did not end up being the advantage you assumed.



January 31 @ 4:31 PM ET


Well the leafs had the higher P% on March 14th, so how much of a "benefit of the doubt" did you give the leafs now that they have " fewer games remaining, as they have less time to regress" ?
.
- Doppleganger

No sir, I don't want the leafs to have games in hand on the blue jackets. I'd like them to have a higher pts%. That's all thanks.

Senators. A step ahead in the rebuild...

can i please get a useless playoff percentage update?
- the_cause2000

toronto maple leafs Playoff Chances


2.6%












leafs last game is on the 12th, meaning they can be on the golf course on the 13th.

Senators last game is on the 13th, but by looking at the 2 1/2 feet of snow on my lawn, I doubt there will be a golf course open before the end of the month.

You say the Leafs aren't as good as I think? Maybe. I don't think the Sens are as good as you think, if you think they're in the same tier as the Leafs. The Sens are in the same tier as the Marlies. Good for an AHL team. Absolute horsecrap, terrible, junk, for an NHL team.
- prock

4 points back, game in hand.

A lot closer than you seem to think.

4 points back, game in hand.

A lot closer than you seem to think.
- Doppleganger

He is critical of other teams but doesn't seem to say the leafs are junk or crap. Point totals for the leafs and sens are close. Considering the fact the leafs miss the playoffs every year and the sens typically make it one would think the leafs should be much better than the sens, especially with the cheap owner of the sens.