HawthorneVillager.com

Hawthorne Village (Milton) Discussion Board
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:03 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 156 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:42 pm
Posts: 3336
Location: Milton
Heard two fans were charged for throwing their jerseys on the ice.

Nope it wasn't littering. Something like Public Mischief.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:22 am
Posts: 3430
martin prince wrote:
Bad enough to lose... yet we're ".500"

Maybe that's the problem? Since the NHL gives out points for losing games the Leafs are happy cause they get a participant trophy after they lose? Alls well as far as they can tell!


22 wins in 47 games is not .500 (unless you are a Leafs fan)
To the rest of the world that is .468


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:26 am
Posts: 126
shawnrk1 wrote:
martin prince wrote:
Bad enough to lose... yet we're ".500"

Maybe that's the problem? Since the NHL gives out points for losing games the Leafs are happy cause they get a participant trophy after they lose? Alls well as far as they can tell!


22 wins in 47 games is not .500 (unless you are a Leafs fan)
To the rest of the world that is .468

If you are going to use that type of math, then they've also only lost 22 of 47 games, so their losing percentage is also only .468. Does that mean they are they a .532 team? Definitely not.

But realistically, you can't use either of these examples to calculate the winning percentage, because OTL ("ties" from the old NHL) have been removed from the equation in both cases. If you aren't going to count them as the "half win" that they are, then you can't use them in your divisor.

So you either leave them out entirely, and the Leafs have won 22 of 44 for a .500 winning percentage, or you count them as "half wins" and they have won 23.5 of 47 games for a .500 winning percentage.

Need another example of the math? Look at the NFL standings, where they actually post winning percentages. Carolina was 7-8-1 this year. That's technically 7.5 wins in 16 games, for a winning percentage of .469.

Or, to make the math even easier, they have earned 47 of a possible 94 points. That's .500 in most people's books.

But don't let solid math get in the way of your argument.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:39 pm
Posts: 3309
Location: phase 11
I agree with you guys! That's why I put .500 in "quotations." I'm in the camp that thinks its ridiculous to get points for losing a game and having 2 loss columns in the standings. Commit to the shootout or get rid of it.

Also I'm dying laughing at this narrative that someone was going to get hurt from a jersey being tossed on the ice. These guys lie down in front of 90 mph frozen rubber pucks and bare knuckle box with each other. Oh but a jersey on the ice - someone is gunna get hurt!!!! Haaaa

I'm looking forward to the response from the players this time. Last time they gave the entire city the finger with the stick salute thing. I wonder what the response will be this time?

This season has been awesome as far as side show story lines go. I want more!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:46 am
Posts: 4498
Location: Tothburg, Winter Cres.
Sandeep wrote:
What happened to the other thread? I don't recall seeing anything offensive there!
the thread wasn't deleted but the person who created it asked me to take it offline

May have to change that rule... In the past if someone creates a new thread, but then asks for it to be removed later I have been taking it offline. But when a thread is so many pages long maybe that's not a good rule to follow anymore. Sorry. I try to be consistent.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:22 am
Posts: 3430
dog3737 wrote:
If you are going to use that type of math, then they've also only lost 22 of 47 games, so their losing percentage is also only .468. Does that mean they are they a .532 team? Definitely not.
Or, to make the math even easier, they have earned 47 of a possible 94 points. That's .500 in most people's books.

But don't let solid math get in the way of your argument.


lol
The term "winning percentage" is wins divided by games
Are Leaf fans really this dense?

Having a points percentage of 47 points in 47 games is half, but it does not equate to a .500 team
You are confusing yourself

Prickles either is the most forgetful poster in the history of this board or the ultimate troll
But to repeat myself (again)
Statistically a shootout loss is EQUIVALENT to a tie
Statistically a shootout win is a bonus point (which is a tie + a free point)

And (again) in grand scheme of things you can see it really has made NO difference overall (only 2 teams in NHL history have been screwed by 3 point games; the Dallas Stars twice & New Jersey Devils once)

The PROBLEM with 3 point games is when a bad team gets them (eg the 2014 Leafs) it inflates point totals making them look better than they really were
But still funny to see them lose


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:12 am
Posts: 4609
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:26 am
Posts: 126
shawnrk1 wrote:
lol
The term "winning percentage" is wins divided by games
Are Leaf fans really this dense?

Having a points percentage of 47 points in 47 games is half, but it does not equate to a .500 team
You are confusing yourself

I'm not confused at all.

Yes, the true definition of a winning percentage is wins over games played. But that true definition of winning percentage can only really apply when there are no ties in the mix, or when they are accounted for as "half wins". This is why you only see winning percentages listed in the standings for the business casual leagues.

All I was pointing out was that your math doesn’t tell the whole story. If you want to say they only have a .468 winning percentage, you should also say they only have a .468 losing percentage. But with equal winning and losing percentages, they would appear to be a .500 team and that wouldn’t support your agenda.

In the NHL's ridiculous bonus point scheme, 22-22-3 can be, and often is, accepted as .500 for the sake of conversation, even though we all know they are worse than that. I don't think anyone disputes that. Even the original reference to .500 in this thread had quotation marks around it.

But hey, if the NHL wants to give out a bonus point for an overtime or shootout win, and count it as a W, Leafs fans will gladly take it. We’re not dense.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:42 pm
Posts: 3336
Location: Milton
Gotta say, (even though it pains me to agree with Shawn) I agree with Shawn's interpretation of the math. Makes sense, no matter what team it applies to.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:22 am
Posts: 3430
dog3737 wrote:
I'm not confused at all.

Yes, the true definition of a winning percentage is wins over games played. But that true definition of winning percentage can only really apply when there are no ties in the mix, or when they are accounted for as "half wins".


Um... you do realize there have been no ties in the NHL for past couple seasons right?
Games are decided in a shootout which is what many fans (incl myself) have issue with

dog3737 wrote:
This is why you only see winning percentages listed in the standings for the business casual leagues.


No that is what confused Leaf fans point to trying desperately to inflate the success of the team lol
I have yet to see a website where they confuse winning percentage & point percentage
They are completely different animals


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:22 am
Posts: 3430
prickly_pete wrote:
It would, if it didn't contradict his previous ways of calculating things.

It changes however is necessary to show us that the Leafs suck.


Ok troll, link where I ever calculated wins differently?
I know you have enough free time


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:01 pm 
Prickly troll Pete was trolling me earlier.

Stupid trollers.

Go leafs Go!


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:26 am
Posts: 126
shawnrk1 wrote:
Um... you do realize there have been no ties in the NHL for past couple seasons right?

Um ... yes, I am aware of that. One point is the same as a good old-fashioned tie. Saves me keystrokes to just type tie in my example.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:39 pm
Posts: 3309
Location: phase 11
This season is beyond amazing. Im watching this game and can't help but find myself routing for more of a collapse, just to see how bad it can get.

I bet ratings are through the roof right now despite everyone saying they are done with the team.

#FREE SHAWN KASS!!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:22 am
Posts: 3430
martin prince wrote:
This season is beyond amazing. Im watching this game and can't help but find myself routing for more of a collapse, just to see how bad it can get.


History has shown they will make a late season rally to finish just a few points out of the playoffs
Just to convince them the core needs no changes and to ensure they get no draft picks


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 156 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.011s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]