More Hockey Stats

8 hours ago, hf101 said:

 

I'd be cool with that but how are you drawing the lines of your divisions?

First of all, I think everyone is watching whether the Flames will be able to secure the deal for the new stadium. If not, then to Houston, or KC, or elsewhere in the Central they will go.

Second, the league may just swap Arizona out into Central.

Third, the league may relocate Arizona somewhere, too.

I can't believe Bettman will run a 9+7+8+8 league, even the MLB gave up on such a disbalance.

In a very long shot, however, I can see an NFL-like setup with 8 divisions:

* VAN, EDM, CGY, SEA

* SJS, ANA, LAK, VGK

* WPG, MIN, CHI, STL

* ARI, COL, DAL, NSH (crazy travel)

-----------------------------------

* BOS, MTL, OTT, TOR

* BUF, NJD, NYR, NYI

* PIT, PHI, DET, CBJ

* WSH, CAR, TBL, FLA

8 division winners and 2x4 best teams in each conference qualify.

Schedule:

In your own division: 4x3 = 12 games

Outside your division, select division, rotates: 4x4 = 16 games

Outside your division: 3x8 = 24 games

Outside conference: 2x16 = 32 games

Total: 84 games, too.

19 minutes ago, hf101 said:

 

Actually made a mistake in my above post.

 Other conference play  2 x 16 = 32 games

Same conference play 3 x 15  = 45 games

Total 77 game season.

 

The owners would make less money.   Or the players wouldn't be happy as their contracts would have to all be adjusted for the number of games played from 82 to 77.  Thus they would only get 93.90% of the current contracts.

It would rather be

Interconference: 2x16 = 32

Intraconference, Interdivision: 3x8 = 24

Intraconference, Intradivision: 4x7 = 28

For the total of 84, where they already had been some time ago.

Well, there are two graph/graph-like pages. One is the one referred in this post, another one is West vs. East (see next blog post )

I can't pay for the services, sorry. Thanks for the offer, though. Credit or data is the only compensation I can suggest.

27 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

What do you need help with from a web design standpoint? 

 

Hey, and thanks for the interest.

I'd like to have the graph more responsive, like showing the actual number on the bar when the mouse goes over. Also in the screens with composite stacked bars, I'd love to have the ability to have the components as checkboxes, and toggle them on/off on the graphs when necessary.

And, of course, any advice, and for overall design as well, is welcome.

Remind me when the regular season is over, I'll round the data up.

Thanks. That means, my translation wasn't so bad.

Sosonko is a terrific writer, his books full of remarkable quotes and great anecdotes.

Here's a book. It's not about chess itself, you don't have to play the game to enjoy it.

@hf101,

I must once again state that there is a confusion in terms.

For me, what the NHL calls the "skill", is just the part of what I call "skill" - the one that involves handling the puck.

I am pretty much ambivalent about the shootouts. They are a different game, just like the penalties at the end of a soccer match are a different game from the rest of the encounter. I am much more concerned about the inconsistency in point scoring, since it provides a wrong incentive.

Now, regarding measurement of speed and accuracy, I don't think we can measure it ourselves, however, I think if the yearly pre-draft scouting combine reports are public, they should be the ones that give an idea, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Other than that since the science of nutrition and the physiology and the pharmacology move ahead all the time, the physical limits of the players grow as well, and the sportsmen are simply more physically capable than before. Also since they constantly build upon the knowledge accumulated before that, the players and the teams should be mentally better too than their predecessors. In chess, practically nobody argues that even without the computer-assisted preparation today's top players understand and play chess better than the leading grandmasters did 50 or 100 years ago (with the exception of a couple of geniuses).

Talent is an inborn quality and should remain steady across generations in a skill so unrelated to mundane as hockey is, however - IMHO - the culture of effort, the level of commitment increased tremendously for all age groups of hockey players up from the preschoolers coming up for their first skating lesson.

22 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

You had me at "falsifiability"

Sorry.

Is there anything wrong with the term?

All these systems have merits, except that 3-1-0 has been argued against in the way I mentioned in my article, and it indeed can create a deep standings disparity over a 82-game season, whereas European soccer leagues last up to 38 rounds only.

The other solutions with non-playoff OT scenario leave a perception problem that the win is achieved not in the game of pure hockey, but in some variant. Imagine a chess game (I always drift to examples from chess because I have a rich background there) that is played with 2hrs for each player, ends in a draw, and then the decider for a full point is played in a blitz game (5 min/player) that has completely different texture, and many top players are known to be much worse or better in blitz games than in full time ones. The difference from basketball and baseball is that the OT there is still the same full game, unlike hockey. I know that ties at the end of basketball regulation are very rare compared to hockey, and I don't know how baseball compares.

Just now, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

In leagues that have used a 3-1-0 point system (such as European soccer), a victory was worth 3 points, a tie was worth 1 point, and a loss was worth 0 points. Under such a system, wins and losses had a consistent value under all scenarios (regulation, OT, or whatever). This is a very different concept from what a 3-2-1-0 system offers. 

 

Although there may be 3 points available in each game, such a system creates an environment of "spoiled victories" and "good losses". You essentially create shades of grey. Some wins are good wins, others are bad wins, etc. Some losses are good losses to have, others become bad losses.

 

We've already seen a bit of what this looks like with the NHL's current loser point system, and most fans dislike it. It's also fundamentally flawed in a purely mathematically way: 0-0-82 = 82 points > 40-42-0 = 80 points. A team with 0 wins (and 82 losses in overtime) can be positioned ahead of a team with 40 wins. It's the most outrageous math fail in NHL history that the league adopted such a system. 

 

A 3-2-1-0 system carries the same idea forward and applies it to both wins and losses, further magnifying the problem. At first glance it may seem like the answer, but I liken it to the scene in Indiana Jones where the Nazis open the ark. 

 

Good discussion though.

 

My biggest objection to the 2-2-1-0 system is not that it creates the 0-0-82 paradox, but because it simply creates a mutual incentive to steer the game into the OT. A wrong incentive (Goodhart).

In a 3-2-1-0 system OTW is not the same as W (unlike 2-2-1-0), as soon as you let the linguistic similarity go, it's easier to treat these outcomes differently. Call them "Win, Overtime Advantage, Overtime Disadvantage, Loss".

12 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Although this topic is covered in other threads already, there is one fundamental problem with a 3-2-1-0 points system which is not solvable:

 

If you install a 3-2-1-0 points system, then you admit that some victories are worth more than others and also that some losses are worse than others.

 

To draw an analogy (and to shine a light on how big this flaw is), if the same system were applied to baseball it would mean that winning a game in the first 9 innings is worth 3 wins in the standings, a win in extra innings is only worth 2 wins, and if the game goes to a home run derby after 15 innings, the winner gets 1 win in the standings.

This "problem" is a matter of definition, actually.

The 3-2-1-0 point system states that any game is worth 3 points. After a tied regulation it is ruled that 2 out of the 3 are split, and the OT/SO is just a lesser hockey-like competition for a lesser prize of the remaining 3rd point.

If baseball's extra innings would be reduced to: one inning for each side without the outfielders, and then a "shootout" between the pitcher and the batter (one pitch, ball/hit/miss), then, yes, the analogy would be in place, however the baseball's current extra innings resemble playoff OT and not the regular season OT.

38 minutes ago, hf101 said:

 

Absolutely agree.  Developing talent is so key for the new NHL with the salary cap.  Organizations who fail to develop their youth will consistently be bottom feeders for years and years.

Here I tried to account for the talent available to the different teams - it's up to the reader to make the conclusions regarding talent development of this or that org.

3 minutes ago, Podein25 said:

I've always felt that hockey required wit, but until now thought I was alone in having that view.

Welcome, first comment!

Larionov (and others, I think, too) used to tell how Tarasov was encouraging his players to engage in chess. Although that was easier for him, since chess was almost as much a part of the Soviet culture as hockey was.