Jump to content

Standings not correct


gtc4all

Recommended Posts

I have a problem with the rankings as published.  A team is in their position but can be with a game at hand or whatever.  I never really know who is ranked where.  Why is not a percentage calculation as often done in other sports. If we take number of points and divide them by the number of games played, we get a real feel for which teams are doing better per game then the others.  It often doesn't change a lot, but usually changes the order of a couple of teams per division.  Even if it didn't, it is still a much more realistic calculation of what the rankings should be.  CBJ has 19 games played and 24 points so 1.26 points per game, they have the most points per game in their division.  Phily, NJ, and Pittsburgh are all tied at the bottom of their Division at 1.0 point per game.  To me this makes much more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather see it presented as winning percentage. 

 

Number of points taken / number of points possible. 

 

So at 10 games played, 20 points were possible.  You're 5-4-1, you have 11 points.  11/20 =. 550 pct.  LIKE EVERY OTHER TEAM SPORT. 

 

I've advocated for this for years, but it's not the Canadian way or some crap. A country that's vastly more precise with measurements (metric vs American idiocy) and they refuse to use a more precise measurement for sports standings. Because "it's always been this way" or some other nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

I've advocated for this for years, but it's not the Canadian way or some crap. A country that's vastly more precise with measurements (metric vs American idiocy) and they refuse to use a more precise measurement for sports standings. Because "it's always been this way" or some other nonsense. 

 

From this Canadian: when I heard that ties were gotten rid of, and every game would have a winner, I hoped beyond all hope that we could finally move to using Winning Percentage (or Points Percentage), but no... They stayed with Points.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

 

From this Canadian: when I heard that ties were gotten rid of, and every game would have a winner, I hoped beyond all hope that we could finally move to using Winning Percentage (or Points Percentage), but no... They stayed with Points.

 

Lol

 

Sorry to throw Canadians under the bus. Clearly, it's not all. But when we had this discussion once before a large percentage (not all) of "stick with points" proponents happened to be Canadian. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

 

From this Canadian: when I heard that ties were gotten rid of, and every game would have a winner, I hoped beyond all hope that we could finally move to using Winning Percentage (or Points Percentage), but no... They stayed with Points.

 

And yeah, I have to imagine the loser point made them think they couldn't, because in other sports it's simply W/G.   The problem with my solution is you still have points and the loser point, so you're just adding a column. 

 

I'm okay with that because it's the standardizer that puts any standings snapshot in the right order. 

 

This becomes a whole different discussion, but if they got rid of the loser point and you win or you go home with nothing, then you can go back to w/G.  Or at least (W +. 5T)/G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...