When the Coyotes hit the 20-game milepost with a 9-9-2 record on Nov. 21, I tweeted that they were a .500 team at the season’s approximate quarter mark. It was out of character for me. I usually term it “NHL .500,” and my editor called me on it, noting that, “No one has been able to give me an acceptable explanation to call this instance a .500 record.”
Advertisem*nt
It’s a fair point. The generally accepted definition of a .500 record is simple: equal wins and losses. If we were to go, instead by the NHL’s definition and look only at first two columns in the NHL standings while ignoring the OT column (as I did in my editor-scrutinized tweet) then just six of league’s 31 teams (Vancouver, Philadelphia, New Jersey, Chicago, St. Louis and Los Angeles) would have been below .500 heading into Monday’s slate of games. In this format, a team is rewarded with a win in the win column when it defeats an opponent in overtime or a shootout, but a loss in OT or a shootout goes in a separate column; not the loss column.
“The National Hockey League: Where all wins are wins, but not all losses are losses. There was a graphic during the Rangers-Senators game the other night that said coach Guy Boucher had lost 25 more games than he had won in Ottawa, but his winning percentage was .497. The new math.”
— Rick Carpiniello (@RickCarpiniello), The Athletic New York
The Coyotes had won nine games and lost 11 on Nov. 21. Entering a game in Los Angeles against the Kings on Tuesday, they had won 12 and lost 13 (12-11-2). If the simplest definition of .500 is equal wins and equal losses then the Coyotes were not and are not a .500 team.
The trouble is, it’s not that simple.
With the advent of overtime and shootouts, the measure of wins and losses is murky. Most coaches and players will tell you that the league’s 3-on-3 overtime format is little more than a crapshoot with so much open space in what amounts to a fan gimmick. Shootouts are even less reliable because they remove defensive play from the game in favor of a skills competition to determine the outcome. Both formats exist to end games quickly; to avoid playing multiple, exhausting overtimes in a regular-season game when teams might have to play the following night, or fly back home and play with only one day’s rest.
The entertainment value is a happy byproduct.
“I love 3-on-3 overtime. It’s exciting, it’s breathtaking, it’s often hilarious. What it isn’t, though, is hockey. It usually looks more like the pee-wee games that get played during intermissions. Hell, I even enjoy a good shootout from time to time. That’s not hockey, either. So to me, the only true way to determine a .500 record is in regulation. Hockey ends at the end of regulation. The bonus points might as well be decided by Pin The Tail on the Donkey or taking whacks at a piñata. Overtime and shootouts are not in any way a reflection of a team’s ability, so I don’t take them into account in that regard.
Advertisem*nt
“Unfortunately, regulation standings aren’t readily available, so we’re left with a system in which 25 of 31 teams are at .500 or better. Compounding things is that so many teams play for that loser’s point — shutting things down when there are 5-10 minutes to go in the third period of a tied game, especially against a team from the other conference. So we’ll never get a true idea of a team’s worth, in terms of standings points, until the NHL switches to a 3-2-1 system (three points for a regulation win, two points for an overtime/shootout win, one point for an overtime/shootout loss). That’ll never happen, though, because coaches love job security and GMs and owners love selling tickets, and the faux parity created by the loser’s point allows for both.”
— Mark Lazerus (@MarkLazerus), The Athletic Chicago
Lazerus’ suggestion of the 3-2-1 format has been bandied about for years. It’s a format I also support because it would make winning in regulation – real hockey – more meaningful. In order for it to clear up the debate about .500 records, we’d need columns for regulation wins, regulation losses, overtime/shootout wins and overtime/shootout losses.
Some analysts choose a different method when measuring .500 records, but the same problems arise.
“I base a team’s record on points percentage. You’re a .500 team if your points percentage is, well, .500. I can see the flaw in that logic. The Pittsburgh Penguins, for example, have won 10 games and lost 15, but they have a .500 points percentage. Based on wins and losses, they’re not a .500 team, but what do I know? Didn’t most of us become journalists to avoid math?”
— Adam Vingan (@AdamVingan), The Athletic Nashville
Given all the problems in defining a .500 record, maybe we should call it NHL .500, as I do, when a team is 9-9-2 or 10-10-5. Maybe we should avoid the term altogether and simply state a team’s record, allowing the reader to decide what that means. Maybe we should stop rewarding teams for losing.
“For me, a .500 record is a team that has the same number of overall wins and losses, even if the defeats come in overtime or a shootout. An NHL locker room where a team loses in a shootout or overtime feels like a regulation loss where they get no points. In some respects this is the only major pro sports league that rewards a team for losing – at least in the regular season. There’s a lot of nuance as to why this has to happen but in my opinion the mental feeling of not winning has a greater negative impact on a team than (the positive of) getting the one point.”
Advertisem*nt
— Josh Cooper (@JoshuaCooper), The Athletic Los Angeles
If none of this works, maybe we should go back to a simpler time when everyone wasn’t so worried about determining a winner and loser every night? Maybe we should bring back ties. I’ll stop typing and wait for your response on that one.
(Photo:Matt Kartozian / USA Today Sports)
