[STANDINGS]Opponents record gives them MUCH more meaning...
Opponents record gives standings MUCH more meaning...
For the record, I want people to essentially, flame this post. (I can't believe im asking for it). I want to know what, if any, the problems with this. It could very well be an excellent method for tie-breaking procedures.
Alright, so every year is a fight for the top seed in a team’s respective conference. By the end of the year all we have is Wins, Loses and OTL. These points accumulated over the course of the season help us; the fans and the league determine their 'rank' among their respective division, conference, league. But like everything in life, there are flaws. The flaws for these standings are every team does not play the same teams the same number of times. There is no control group and because of this and thus one can not properly rank these teams accordingly. It just wouldn't be accurate for obvious reasons. There are, however, tools to help us structure these rankings to get as accurate as possible. Point %, PP and PK%'s, GF, GA you get the picture... But like the record of these teams, these stats too are inflated or deflated dependant on the other team's PK, PP etc etc.
I propose the league have a few tools to help us get a grasp of what these stats are truly telling us.
A)It's been brought up before from me and others on these forms. Combined Opponent Record(COR). This would truly help people come to terms with the standings.
Team A. 10 wins-5loses-2OTL-22 points.
Team B. 08 wins-7loses-2OTL-18 points.
-At first glance one would immediately tell you A is the better team. But what if I now gave you Combined opponent records.
Team A. 10 wins-5loses-2OTL-22 points.(C.O.R - 34wins-72loses-18OTL)
Team B. 08 wins-7loses-2OTL-18 points..(C.O.R - 69wins-47loses-8OTL)
I would rethink my previous statement. I would put a little more weight in team B being the better team. Team A did win more games but it's not the point. Hell, The Thrashers could get upwards of 40+wins playings the islanders and maple leafs of the league 20-30 times a year. (No offense to the maple leaf fans but lets face it, you guys suck right now.)
B)Combined Opponent PP and PK. This would help us understand how good/bad team A or B's PP/PK really is.
Like above,
Team A) PP is at 20%, PK is at 85%
Team B) PP is at 18%, PK is at 83%
Team A certainly has the better PP and PK. Right? Anyone who said otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.
Now, lets add in the Combined opponent's PP/PK and see where we are.
Team A) PP is at 20%, PK is at 85%.
Team A's combined opponents PP% was 16%, PK at 86%
Team B) PP is at 18%, PK is at 83%
Team B's combined opponents PP% was 22%, PK was at 80%.
One could make the case that Team A has a far superior PP%. Much closer than the stats would suggest. However, Like I said about the records, It puts more weight in the fact that Team B's PK could conceivably be better than Team A's. So, why not have that stat in the standings? It makes little to no sense why the league would chose to leave out such a vital stat. Yes, Vital. It could also be used to determain ties among teams with the same amounts of points and wins. Give the higher seed or whether or not a teams going home early or sticking around for the playoffs based on the harder schedule.
Anyways, It's just food for thought. Something worth wrapping your mind around.
Last edited by Garfinkel1: 11-05-2009 at 07:49 PM.
I'm sorry but doesn't the amount of losses by a team have an affect on their opponents records? This could almost be another case of rewarding points to losing team.
EDIT: Misread text. Somehow missed that these are just reference stats.
Last edited by Got Tocchet: 11-05-2009 at 05:28 PM.
You'll never find an objective measure through which to rank teams. Rankings will always be hindered by ambiguity, regardless of how many factors you take into account.
In the end, all that matters is that there is 1 Stanley Cup winner, and 29 Stanley Cup losers.
By the end of the season, these things will more or less even out. With strength of division being the main outlier.
But the fact is they don't. They should but they don't and I don't blame anyone for that. It would be next to impossible to have the schedule fit everyone so fairly.(unless everyone played every non-division team the same amount of times)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dions shoulder
I stopped reading when you claimed the Leafs had 'glory days'.
Touche.
Quote:
Originally Posted by embracedbias
You'll never find an objective measure through which to rank teams. Rankings will always be hindered by ambiguity, regardless of how many factors you take into account.
In the end, all that matters is the 1 Stanley Cup winner, and 29 Stanley Cup losers.
I see. So Detroit, the team that won the western confrence, forced a game 7. The sharks, who won the presidents trophy and the Islanders all had similiar seasons? Don't be so ignorant.
Dunno if you've noticed, but the Thrashers are actually having a fairly good season thus far. Just thought I'd point that out. Posted via Mobile Device
Dunno if you've noticed, but the Thrashers are actually having a fairly good season thus far. Just thought I'd point that out. Posted via Mobile Device
Yeah, not the point but I took notice. I just don't think they keep it up. thats all. A diffrent discussion for a diffrent thread however.
It would be a good reference stat. Something to look up on nhl.com somewhere just so you can get an idea of how someone is actually doing. I know when I grew up playing competitive chess (I know, I was a riot ) the first tie-breaker was the total points accumulated by the opponents you had faced. Not saying it should be used in the NHL, just saying it's out there.
Is the RPI stat combined oppenent point%? If so, you sir, are my hero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumsh
It would be a good reference stat. Something to look up on nhl.com somewhere just so you can get an idea of how someone is actually doing. I know when I grew up playing competitive chess (I know, I was a riot ) the first tie-breaker was the total points accumulated by the opponents you had faced. Not saying it should be used in the NHL, just saying it's out there.
Intresting. I never knew chess worked like that. You learn something new everyday. Any problems, disputes, issues with this method?
someone spent a lot of time on this because he is angry the Penguins are ranked 1st and not the rangers.
First and fore most, It took me roughly 5 minutes.
And as for your bullet-proof logic. Yeah, I knew if I could somehow convince other people that combined opponent record would make a good system for tie-breaking procedures I would once and for all prove the Rangers are the better hockey team. Alas you have caught me...
I hate to generalize. I really do. People all the time on this site talk about how crappy Penguins fans are. I, for the most part, ignore it because it's pretty much crap. Now I know where it comes from. I guess your the 5% of the fanbase that leaves the other 95% to get S** on.
Is the RPI stat combined oppenent point%? If so, you sir, are my hero.
It does.
+The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage, 50% opponents' average winning percentage, and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage. In figuring winning percentage, ties count as half a win and half a loss.
Notice how correlated it is to the actual conference standings. But yeah, a good bunch of differences anyway.
I see. So Detroit, the team that won the western confrence, forced a game 7. The sharks, who won the presidents trophy and the Islanders all had similiar seasons? Don't be so ignorant.
Similar seasons? No.
Similar outcomes, yes.
My point was that the outcome is what really matters.
Intresting. I never knew chess worked like that. You learn something new everyday. Any problems, disputes, issues with this method?
I used to run a chess league and this was not the method that I used, but I read enough about "real" (professional) tournaments between GMs and such and I think the official stat was like this:
(points earned vs. opponent)*(total score of opponent)
So a win vs. someone with 6.5 was worth 6.5. But a draw against them is worth 3.25...you do that for every game and pretend that those are the actual records, so the average of this in a 7-game tournament was like 24.50
Back to the OP:
I like the concepts that you have there, although it's clearly a Sabremetric analysis - I'm sure you can find something like it somewhere online...and I'm sure that there's some stat guru here that has the URL and will share it with you soon enough.
The ridiculous part is that, the way that you show it, these numbers are going to be so big that it's really not going to make a lot of sense...end of season OPP record is going to look like (3248-2451-837).
Is the RPI stat combined oppenent point%? If so, you sir, are my hero.
Intresting. I never knew chess worked like that. You learn something new everyday. Any problems, disputes, issues with this method?
Well... I played from when I was 5 until I was about 13. In the tournaments I played it, there might have been about 100 to 500 players and 6 to 12 games depending on the size of the tournament. So if two players ended up with the same number of points, that was the tie-breaker. I guess like any other scoring/tiebreaking system, it's just the way it is, you don't think a whole lot about it.
You'll never find an objective measure through which to rank teams. Rankings will always be hindered by ambiguity, regardless of how many factors you take into account.
Yet I pointed out...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfinkel
There is no control group and because of this and thus one can not properly rank these teams accordingly. It just wouldn't be accurate for obvious reasons. There are, however, tools to help us structure these rankings to get as accurate as possible
So, as you can see, your post was redundant because we are essantially saying the same thing so what exactly are you agruing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by embracedbias
Similar seasons? No.
Similar outcomes, yes. My point was that the outcome is what really matters.
Ok, and what does that have to do with what I said in the original post?
A corrilation between a possible additon of a stat that would..
A)Be used in an account of a tie after Points/Wins
B)Be usefull to help qualify a teams record
Where in there can you find me making an mention about success in the post season or regular season for that matter. Or the ultimate goal of the season?
Unless ofcourse your making the arguement ...which I hope not because well, it's as thought out as solar powered flashlight...Is that all stats are useless. We should just have a column with Games played and points. No goals, no goals against. Heck, lets stop tracking stats completly. Who cares what a goalies GAA or SV% is. The only thing that matters is the stat of how many rings he has.
I hate to generalize. I really do. People all the time on this site talk about how crappy Penguins fans are. I, for the most part, ignore it because it's pretty much crap. Now I know where it comes from. I guess your the 5% of the fanbase that leaves the other 95% to get S** on.
You might have wanted to spend 5 seconds to take a look and see that I have about zero posts on the Penguins board. It may have taken you five minutes at that point to discern I am not a fan of the penguins. I welcome you to the idiot 5% making the rest of your fanbase look bad. It's fun here.
You might have wanted to spend 5 seconds to take a look and see that I have about zero posts on the Penguins board. It may have taken you five minutes at that point to discern I am not a fan of the penguins. I welcome you to the idiot 5% making the rest of your fanbase look bad. It's fun here.
You're just making yourself look like a troll. If you can't contribute, don't post.
My point was that the outcome is what really matters.
I don't see how the outcome is similar if the seasons aren't. That doesn't make sense. Maybe, if you massively simplify every team's season to winning or not winning the Cup, then every outcome except one is the same, but that's just stupid.
Sharks ended up with a Presidents' Trophy, a playoff appearance, and high draft picks because of that. The Islanders ended up with the worst record in the league, no playoff appearance, and the number one overall pick which resulted in Tavares. I fail to see how those outcomes are similar in any way other then "neither won the Cup".
My point was that the outcome is what really matters.
I don't buy that for a second. The outcome of losing in the 3rd round of the playoffs is ALWAYS going to be more preferable to me than missing the playoffs. Of course winning the Cup is the ultimate goal, but not for a second to I buy this bravado that either you win it all, or your season is as much of a failure as a team that finished 25th in the league.
) the first tie-breaker was the total points accumulated by the opponents you had faced. Not saying it should be used in the NHL, just saying it's out there.
