I don’t follow the NHL closely, but I keep an eye on it. One thing I’ve always noticed is the teams considered bad always still manage to have respectable records. The Senators are the worst team in the east at 9 games under .500, Ducks in the west only 5 games under .500.
Looking at the NBA, the Knicks & Suns will be lucky to win 5 more games & are both over 30 games under .500.
I notice this based on the narrative of the Rangers this year - it is widely considered as a throw away/rebuilding year, yet they are .500 at 24-24.
Is there a factor I’m missing here? OT losses maybe? Because I find that to be pretty impressive for a rebuilding year.
If they did, they would have traded Henrick by now.
If they did, they would have traded Henrick by now.
He has a NTC and has said on record that he wants to stay here.
The funny thing is Georgiev is probably better right now and could've won them more games than Henrik did.
Despite Zibanejad being on fire, they really need another top 6 player or two and a good shut down defenseman.
Hockey most often turns on only a few outcomes per game. Puck deflects off of a guy's skate into a goal? Your team's chances of winning the game just changed by 25-33%. Just by the nature of the sport, a bad team has a much better chance of winning a hockey team versus a good than in basketball.
Personally, I think it makes for a more exciting product to watch.
Suffice it to say, their record is a mirage.
Suffice it to say, their record is a mirage.
This was what I was going to post. The Rangers have won 32% of their hockey games in either regulation or the 5 minute OT. The other 68% have either been losses or wins in the skills competition (not hockey) that is the shootout. So when judging the Rangers, it's fair to say despite the mirage of a 500 record, they clearly are a hockey team that is rebuilding.
For comparison sake, the Orioles had one of the worst years in baseball history by winning 29% of their games. The second worst team in baseball won 36% of their games.
So that's what your missing, IMO. When judging a hockey team, the most effective way is to take their ROWs (Regulation or Overtime wins) and use that as their winning percentage. You'll get standings that logically make more sense. Generally speaking, teams with low totals there don't often make the playoffs, so at least that part works.
Hockey most often turns on only a few outcomes per game. Puck deflects off of a guy's skate into a goal? Your team's chances of winning the game just changed by 25-33%. Just by the nature of the sport, a bad team has a much better chance of winning a hockey team versus a good than in basketball.
Personally, I think it makes for a more exciting product to watch.
In hockey, esp in a good game, the most exciting/important thing can happen at any point in the 60 minutes.
In BB, exciting/important thing typically happen in the last 2.
If they did, they would have traded Henrick by now.
I see your point but disagree - didn't seem like Henrik wanted to go, and I don't see many takers for him and his contract. He's got two more years after this, so maybe someone will bite. But combined with his age and risk of decline at his age (he's not what he was at his peak, already), it's tough.
And the Rangers are awful. Their record understates how bad they are. It's going to be brutal if they pick 8th-12th this year.
I still think NYR made the right move in 2013 with the Lundqvist contract. It's just crushing we (seemingly) couldn't get him a Cup.
If Zucc didn't get that injury in 2015, I think we beat TB.
the concept of .500 means nothing when the average or median "win percentage" is 60% in the sport... and no team makes the playoffs with just 82 points.
It'd be like MLB giving 'half wins' to teams that take games into extra innings or the NFL giving extra credit for getting to overtime. Absurd.
There should be nothing wrong with a tie, or better yet, awarding 3 points for a regulation win and 2 points for an OT win.
Really -- Ottawa and Anaheim are both 21-35. As mentioned above, the Rangers are in reality one of the worst teams in the league with just 18 ROW.. but this stupid system has them about 11th in the draft currently because they get a lot of games to OT.
One sport relies on 19 guys working together a night, with even the iron men (ex goalie) logging ~40% of gametime... the other depends on just 7-8 man rotations with superstars logging 80% of game time.
You can win 60 games in the NBA with one HoF player and two terrific all-star teammates.
In the NHL, for sustained success (due to salary cap) you do need 1-2 franchise players... but you also need at least 12 really good, economic value players on the team as well.
the concept of .500 means nothing when the average or median "win percentage" is 60% in the sport... and no team makes the playoffs with just 82 points.
It'd be like MLB giving 'half wins' to teams that take games into extra innings or the NFL giving extra credit for getting to overtime. Absurd.
It isn't the loser's point that inflates point totals, it's the winner's point for winning during a gimmicky 3-on-3 game or, even worse, the stupid shootout.
Back when the game ended in a tie, both teams got a point and they still do. It's determining a winner by artificial means that inflates the points.
Bottom line is ".500" is an irrelevant metric in hockey. The league as a whole has a .550-.600 "win percentage" and it usually takes 90+ points to make the postseason (which invites half the league's teams in annually)