Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Attn NHL: 15-16-6 is not one game under .500

So, my beloved Kings, you're doing better than last year, but, ".500" is not the benchmark you seek.

It took 91 points to make the playoffs last year (Nashville). 91/82 is about 9 points from 8 games, or 4-3-1. Nashville had 42 wins in their 82 games, i.e., winning slightly more than half. A nominal .500 team is taking no more than 8 points from 8 games, and, as such, is never going to make the playoffs. This is an artifact of the absurdity of the current points system comprising both 2- and 3-point games, as a league of 30 teams in which 16 make the playoffs should mean that those last couple teams making it in are around .500, unless there is a significant outlier or two at the bottom driving the median points number up.

Simply put, .500 meaning "same number of W's and L's" is meaningless; if .500 meant "fraction of games won," it would be meaningful. Announcers across the league (and consequently, fans) are describing their teams as being some number of games above or below .500 as if .500 were a useful cutoff line corresponding to eventual playoff qualification.

If you need nine points from eight games, that's a little over 1.1 ppg. Taking one pity point for the OT/SO loss is leaving you behind the pace--not by much, but behind the pace. An 0-0-82 team would never make the playoffs. Nor would a team that's 41-41-0. In fact, none of the possible records involving a 1ppg average would ever qualify a team for the second season.

For .500 to mean something, it should be used properly: W/GP. Pity points will be amassed randomly (or consistently if you have Mathieu Garon), and will help...but not if you're not winning half your games in the first place.