Comments on: Not counting losses is a pretty good racket, NHL

By: Dave MN

Dave MN — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 04:42:57 +0000

My Malibu Stacy sounds funny…

By: Barbie

Barbie — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:10:20 +0000

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades…and the NHL.

By: Ryan P.

Ryan P. — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:59:03 +0000

I think the “pity” point should only be given if the game goes to a shootout. I don’t understand why overtime games give a point to the loser. They don’t do that in any other sport.

By: jama

jama — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:32:24 +0000

By definition aren’t all hoc-key players losers even when they win?

By: AZGopherGirl

AZGopherGirl — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:28:31 +0000

A sphincter says what?

By: Stu

Stu — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:19:22 +0000

Um, can you repeat the part of the stuff where you said all about the…things?

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:10:19 +0000

It’s the method of tallying points, not the standings, that are flawed. Only five teams are averaging less than a point per game played, which makes them “better than .500.”

But if you take into account that the typical NHL game is now worth something like 2.23 total points, you understand why.

By: Dave MN

Dave MN — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:09:22 +0000

Roughkat/Barbie: +2

By: Barbie

Barbie — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:06:48 +0000

Math is hard. Let’s go shopping.

By: Dave MN

Dave MN — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:59:59 +0000

Reusse: Wrong and loud about it since the creation of “talkies”