When a .500 team is not .500

.500 is a big deal in hockey and basketball and perhaps mostly in baseball. You’ll often hear “We should be a .500 team” or “We need to play above-.500 ball from here on in.” And when considering the NHL, you understand why it’s a big deal.

If you define .500 the way I do, since 2005-06, 82 per cent of the teams finishing at that level or better make the playoffs. Only 18 per cent miss out (as the Jets did in 2012-13). No team below .500 has made the post-season.

The problem I have is that I think people mislabel .500 when talking about the NHL. I was talking with Jim Toth of the CJOB Sports Show about how he uses it.

“I talk about .500 when the Jets are 19-19-5, and I think it’s because anything can happen in overtime because it’s 4-on-4. The overtime wins and losses are considered different. ” 

Essentially Jim would argue that the Jets had 43 points through 43 games — that is .500 hockey. There’s a numerical symmetry to it that is nice. I get what he’s saying, but I disagree. 

On Friday when I saw the Jets at 19-19-5, I thought, “They have won 19 games and lost 24.” They’re a losing team. The NHL gives a point to teams that lose in an arbitrary time period. And the Jets have earned five of them this season. To me it obscures the reality of a team’s quality.

Taken to a ridiculous extreme, a team could lose every single game in overtime or a shootout and claim a .500 season. After all, they would have earned 82 points in 82 games.

The NHL wants to reward a single point for losing to help make the games more exciting. And that’s fine. To me, .500 is earning 50 per cent of the available points for all your games. Since three points are available in an overtime/shootout game, the .500 point has to be higher. 1.5 points is half of three.

Get breaking National news

Get breaking Canada news delivered to your inbox as it happens so you won't miss a trending story.

Sign up for breaking National newsletter Get Started

By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

By Toth’s definition of .500, the Eastern Conference ranks after Jan. 6 would look like this (note: the NHL ranks teams by points, not percentage):

Mine would have the following changes:

Detroit takes a big drop in the way I would rank them. To Jan. 6, they had a 19-14-10 record. The Red Wings’ league-best skill in dragging out their losses (thus earning that extra point) has them in fifth place. Should we really consider a 19-win, 24-loss team better than a 21-win, 21-loss team (like Philadelphia)?

It was argued to me that while three points are available in overtime games, one team can’t earn all three. True. But I don’t think you can discount the existence of the other point. If you’re going to take credit for not losing a game until overtime, you have to take blame for waiting until overtime to win. And in a conference or division game, the other team getting a point makes a difference.

Coaches will say just about anything to inspire their players. As Toth points out, there is significant psychological value in claiming .500-ness.

“That feeling of ‘We had a winning season and we didn’t make the playoffs’ versus ‘We had a losing season and we’re nowhere near good enough.’

“It’s always the stigma of having a losing record.”

If the Jets beat Tampa Bay Tuesday and Columbus on Saturday and Claude Noel wants to tell his team, “Woo hoo … we’re a .500 club,” that’s fine. He probably won’t use the words “woo hoo,” but that’s between Noel and his players. For me to say it on the news … that just seems wrong.