Lot's of action in the stands in AZ.

https://twitter.com/PeteBlackburn/status/1601613785596571648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1601613785596571648%7Ctwgr%5E8d6c41724056a5dd9e5bf8afb0d92ed8d70e2c31%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-13235654811376296318.ampproject.net%2F2211250451000%2Fframe.html

Lot's of action in the stands in AZ.

https://twitter.com/PeteBlackburn/status/1601613785596571648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1601613785596571648%7Ctwgr%5E8d6c41724056a5dd9e5bf8afb0d92ed8d70e2c31%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-13235654811376296318.ampproject.net%2F2211250451000%2Fframe.html

the cop treated it like a hockey fight.

He should open a scouting office next to the Caps' practice facility just as a hearty "f you" to spray-tan Ted.

50 goals for McDavid.

Connor McDavid is putting together quite the season. He's currently on a pace for 158 points. If he reaches 160 he'll join just Lemieux and Gretzky as accomplishing that feat.

Connor McDavid is putting together quite the season. He's currently on a pace for 158 points. If he reaches 160 he'll join just Lemieux and Gretzky as accomplishing that feat.

That is amazing as the goals are harder to come by in this era. Have watched soem of their games recently.  Fun. But the defense is just a sieve. West seems wide open though.

63 wins to set record. Brad Marchand's number? 63. Coincidence?

Shouldn’t there be an asterisk on this because they have some of the wins in OT or shootouts. Which they did not have back in the day.   

Shouldn’t there be an asterisk on this because they have some of the wins in OT or shootouts. Which they did not have back in the day.   

That could differentiate wins free and clear as opposed to new “wins”

Shouldn’t there be an asterisk on this because they have some of the wins in OT or shootouts. Which they did not have back in the day.   

They've had seven games go to shootouts (four wins, three losses). All of those would have been ties once upon a time. So you can strike a minimum of four wins and four standings points from their totals. They also have five overtime losses; three of those, as noted, came in the shootout and thus would have been ties before, but the other two would have been plain losses between 1982 and 1999,* so strike two more points and add two to the "loss" column. That would give a won/lost/tied record, going into today, of 59–14–7 and 125 points. Still extremely good, of course; just not as record-breaking as the league and the media want us to believe.

*From 1942 to 1983, there was no regular-season overtime and games simply ended in a tie. The Bruins have seven overtime wins this season, not including the shootout wins. (The full standings show regulation wins, regulation/overtime wins, and shootout wins, because those are relevant for standings tiebreakers.) So if you want to use the pre-1982 "no overtime" system, they'd be 52–14–14 for 118 points. Also still pretty darn good.

Thanks for posting that. They could just say the modern record.

They really just need to go to 3 points for a win and 2 for OT win and 1 for OT loss.

I agree completely with this. One of my biggest objections to the current system is that some games are worth more in the standings than others—an aggregate three points versus an aggregate two points—simply because they go to overtime, but there's no way to know what games they will be unless and until they go to overtime, and there is no way to know how many such games there will be in a season. Certainly we all understand that some games "matter" more than others, either for emotional reasons (rivalry games; games against opponents who injured one of your guys), momentum reasons (stopping a losing streak), or just plain because it's late in the season and you need every point you can get. But no game should ever "count" more statistically than any other unless it's announced in advance for a certain high-profile event (e.g., the Indy 500 used to be worth double points in the standings), and arguably then every team should have an equal number of such "premium" games so that every team is eligible to earn the same number of points in the standings.

The NHL owners say they're not interested in a three-point system because it would "distort" the standings and make them too hard to compare to old years' standings. But that's already happened between the OTL point and, especially, the elimination of ties through the use of the shootout. The Calgary Flames, for example, have 17 overtime losses this season (five via the shootout). That's 12 points they wouldn't have had at all in the past (counting the shootout losses as ties)—and it's also five points that the teams that beat them in the shootouts wouldn't have had.

As a pedantic matter, I find it annoying when the media misinterpret the "OTL" column. After losing to the Rangers last week, the Capitals were 34–34–9. Despite what we were told on TV, that's not a .500 record. It's a losing record: 34 wins and 43 losses. The "OTL" column denotes, as its name indicates, losses.

The NHL powers to be on this are so dumb. As Hoo noted the records are already not comparable to older years. You would still have wins and losses. And OT games. Makes too much sense to make the change so they won’t.

Anyways playoffs almost here so no ties starting next week. I would like to root against the Bruins in the East but not sure who to favor. Tampa has too many trips to the finals. No to the NY and NJ teams. Maybe Toronto.  But it’s fun to see them lose in early rounds. Maybe Carolina.  Have to decide soon whether I will buy Sling TV Orange as they have the ESPN networks and TNT/TBS. Or will I roll with free streams? 

I'm hoping to see McDavid get a cup. The Oilers are currently on a 9-0-1 run and could end up with the #1 overall seed in the West if they beat Colorado tonight. McDavid needs 2 goals to pass Ovi for the most goals in a season since 2000.