I was told to come post in here, so here's my legitimate question.

[Love Da Bears]

I've almost exclusively posted in the Bears Forum. But here goes.

Who is the 'Hawks biggest threat in the West this year. I don't follow during the regular season, so I don't even know who's in. Is it the Kings again?

I've heard the Capitals from the East are legit contenders.

Help me out, what should I be looking for? .

 

[DMelt36]

I've almost exclusively posted in the Bears Forum. But here goes.

Who is the 'Hawks biggest threat in the West this year. I don't follow during the regular season, so I don't even know who's in. Is it the Kings again?

I've heard the Capitals from the East are legit contenders.

Help me out, what should I be looking for? .

I think most people have the Kings advancing to the Western Conference Finals, so that likely makes them the biggest thread. LA has a relatively easy first-round matchup with the Preds while the Sharks and Ducks will beat the shit out of each other in what's probably going to be a 7-game series.

Dallas could also be an issue considering they score goals at an absurd rate. But their defense and goaltending is questionable at best and that's often a team's downfall in the playoffs.

 

[RacerX]

if we get to the SCF then ring up #4.

Really tough road to get there, any of the following teams could beat us in 7: LA, Anaheim, St. Louis, Dallas. That's it, zero fear for any other team.

 

[DMelt36]

if we get to the SCF then ring up #4.

Really tough road to get there, any of the following teams could beat us in 7: LA, Anaheim, St. Louis, Dallas. That's it, zero fear for any other team.

Ehh I'm not sure the East is as weak this year as it has been in the past.

 

[RacerX]

Ehh I'm not sure the East is as weak this year as it has been in the past.

I don't think it's weak as in the recent past, but I also don't think any of those teams from a match-up perspective can give the Hawks as much trouble as Blues/Stars/Ducks/Kings. Washington is obviously no joke.

 

[LordKOTL]

Ehh I'm not sure the East is as weak this year as it has been in the past.

Here's the way I hashed out division strength for this year [Last year in parenthesis]:
Central point mean: 94.57 [99.43]
Central point median: 96 [100]
Central Point spread: 31 [19]

Pacific point mean: 86.14 [86.14]
Pacific point median: 78 [95]
Pacific Point spread: 59 [33]

Atlantic point mean: 87.88 [90.75]
Atlantic point median: 89 [97.5]
Atlantic Point spread: 34 [56]

Metro point mean: 95.88 [91.88]
Metro point median: 98 [93.5]
Metro Point spread: 44 [42]

West mean: 90.36 [92.79]
West median: 91.50 [98.00]

East mean: 91.88 [91.31]
East median: 93.00 [97.00]

League mean: 91.17 [92.00]
League median: 93.00 [97.5]

(Note: I include the median to account for and compensate for a top-heavy or bottom-heavy division/conference/league. I include the spread for division "tightness")

Now Comparing the Division mean vs. League mean, and the Division median vs. the League median, and also the average of the two numbers:

Central vs League mean: 3.40 [7.43]
Central vs League median: 3.00 [2.50]
Average of the above numbers: 3.20 [4.96]

Pacific vs League mean: -5.02 [-5.86]
Pacific vs League median: -15.00 [-2.50]
Average of the above numbers: -10.01 [-4.18]

Atlantic vs League mean: -3.29 [-1.25]
Atlantic vs League median: -4.00 [0.00]
Average of the above numbers: -3.65 [-0.63]

Metro vs League mean: 4.71 [-0.13]
Metro vs League median: 5.00 [-4.00]
Average of the above numbers: 4.85 [-2.06]

So, here's what I took away in the comparison:
The Central got slightly weaker, but was still the tightest and was the 2nd strongest division.
The Metro got a lot stronger to become the toughest division as well as the most open division, and even in spite of Washington running away with it, the rest of the teams were still relatively respectable.
The Atlantic got a lot tighter, but also weaker.
The Pacific got tighter, but was still the weakest division overall.

The result was that the East in 2016 was stronger than the West--mainly because the Pacific was weak and got a lot weaker.

The league overall got way less top-heavy (last year the metro and pacific iced a few real cupcakes--4 teams last year had less point totals than the worst this season).

Anyhow...I'll stop with my half-baked babbling.

 

[DMelt36]

That is some excellent stuff right there, KOTL. Well done.

It did seem like the league was a lot less top-heavy this year. Other than the Caps running away with it, the divisional races in the other 3 were tight all season long.

 

[Love Da Bears]

Thanks guys, on a different note. Is this forum as much a shit show as the Bears forum is?

 

[Ares]

Thanks guys, on a different note. Is this forum as much a shit show as the Bears forum is?

Das not possible.... so no

 

[Raskolnikov]

Thanks guys, on a different note. Is this forum as much a shit show as the Bears forum is?

Not at all. We used to have an angry parrot named Grimson and the good side of HeHateMe.

Imo, I'm not sure those match ups were even correct. Doesn't Anaheim have Nashville?

Anyway, the Preds are the 8 and gave us a scare last year. All teams are a threat in hockey behind a hot goaltender.

The Blues are our biggest rival, in hockey it's must win every game. Dallas and Anaheim are good enough to toe to toe.

The kings are our dynasty rival.

And Washington is the best team in hockey by metrics and the eye ball test.

Hold onto your butt and realize early this Cup run is about riding Crawford. It's his time.

 

[DMelt36]

Thanks guys, on a different note. Is this forum as much a shit show as the Bears forum is?

Definitely not. There are so many polarizing issues with the Bears but, when you have a team that's won three Cups in six years, it's hard to get too worked up about much in the regular season. Although if Q keeps playing shitty players like Mashinter in the playoffs I may burn this place down myself.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Definitely not. There are so many polarizing issues with the Bears but, when you have a team that's won three Cups in six years, it's hard to get too worked up about much in the regular season. Although if Q keeps playing shitty players like Mashinter in the playoffs I may burn this place down myself.

Just let Grimbutt back, he'll take care of that for you.

 

[Ares]

Definitely not. There are so many polarizing issues with the Bears but, when you have a team that's won three Cups in six years, it's hard to get too worked up about much in the regular season. Although if Q keeps playing shitty players like Mashinter in the playoffs I may burn this place down myself.

Dis should be a thread.... srs why the **** did we play Mashinter?

 

[clonetrooper264]

Dis should be a thread.... srs why the **** did we play Mashinter?

Only Q knows...but man put Panik back in or something.

 

[Ares]

Only Q knows...but man put Panik back in or something.

Panik.... Wiese... Jay Cutler.... sorry but Mashinter doesn't belong out there for playoff hockey unless we have like 3 major injuries.

He doesn't hit.... he is not fast or agile enough to shut down offensive opponents.... he doesn't block shots well.... he doesn't have a great shot.... I mean i guess Q put him in so he could fight Reaves if it came to that?

 

[ClydeLee]

And yet Mash pretty much gave the best set up pass the entire game..

 

[Ares]

And yet Mash pretty much gave the best set up pass the entire game..

He did? Did we score on it?

 

[LordKOTL]

That is some excellent stuff right there, KOTL. Well done.

It did seem like the league was a lot less top-heavy this year. Other than the Caps running away with it, the divisional races in the other 3 were tight all season long.

Thanks. It was a geek-out inspiration since the last lockout to track "strength" and "tightness" of the divisions since fans for all walks always argued about "what division is the strongest". So for 2014, 2015, and 2016 I've been tracking it. It still hasn't given a definitive answer as to whether or not "well-rested" or "battle-tested" is better in the playoffs, but it's interesting to see the trends. I can post the full data if people want but here's what I have extrapolated:

In 2014 the league was slightly bottom-heavy. It was very top-heavy in 2015, and rebounded to only slightly top-heavy. The mean so far is hovering around 92 points. Ideally it would be 82 in a balanced point system but the loser point skews this. The "mean" doesn't necessarily indicate the baseline for a playoff berth--the median is more indicative and will also indicate the "skew" (i.e. top-heavy if the mean is below the median--meaning more teams are higher than the average but those below are way below, vice-versa for bottom heavy). The median spiked in 2015 to 97.5 in 2015, but other than that seems to be +/- 2 points of the mean based on 2014 and 2016.

The west in general paralleled the league in terms of being top heavy or bottom heavy in a given year. It started out at significantly above the league's respective mean and median in 2014, to slightly above in 2015, to slightly below in 2016. Ergo it's been trending weaker. It was slightly bottom-heavy in 2014, significantly top-heavy in 2015, and slightly top-heavy in 2016.

The east in the 3 years was always been top-heavy. It spiked top-heavy in 2015 as well and returned to only slightly top heavy in 2016 like it was in 2014. It was slightly below the respective league mean and median in 2014 and 2015, and this year was slightly above. Ergo, it's been trending stronger.

The whys come out when looking at the divisions:

The central in 2014 was an über-powerhouse and slightly bottom-heavy. It was significantly above the league in all respects. It got slightly stronger (albeit slightly top-heavy in 2015), but this didn't bear out overall because the league's median spiked. It trended weaker in 2016 but was still significantly above the league in all respects.

The Pacific. Ho-boy. It was moderately bottom-heavy in 2014, and slightly below the league's mean and significantly below the league's median. In 2015 it became significantly top-heavy but the median paralleled the league's median. The Pacific's mean, though, bottomed out. In 2016 the mean stayed about the same (significantly below the league, but it became bottom-heavy again and the median took a nosedive. Ergo, the Pacific was weak and continues to get weaker--significantly weaker.

The Atlantic has been top-heavy. Slightly in 2014, significantly in 2015, and slightly in 2016. It basically followed the league curve. The mean went from significantly below, to slightly below, to significantly below. The median was slightly below in 2014, equal in 2015, and significantly below in 2016. The overall trend is very slightly up, but it spiked in 2015 and then fell back down--but not as far as 2014.

The Metro was pretty balanced in 2014 and has become more and more top-heavy. It was slightly below the league in both respects in 2014, it was about equal to the mean and significantly below the median in 2015, and went up to be significantly above the league in 2016. It's been trending up at the same pace as the central has been trending down.

My thoughts on "why":

The Atlantic has been stagnating with the Canadian teams dropping down and the Florida teams rising up. The usual suspects are staying stagnant--like Detroit.

The Metro is getting better as more of the teams stop becoming league bottom-feeders.

The Central is starting to drop off as the usual-suspect teams age. Even though it had a hyper-tight and hyper-strong 2015 year, it's starting to separate a bit (like the NW in the mid-to-late 2000s).

The Pacific is just bad and keeps getting worse. Canada falling off the map definitely didn't help. The odd thing is that for the Cali powerhouse teams, you'd expect them to completely run over the also-rans, but they're not. With a 20-point spread between 3rd and 4th you would think if the division en masse was that good they could rack up points against the cupcakes at the bottom, but it's not the case.

I think the East is going to continue to get stronger. The Central is still going to hang around because I think Minny and Dallas will continue to get stronger and you can't count out Chicago or St. Louis. The Pacific though needs fixing. If McJesus rights the Oilers it might be sooner rather than later. The trend has been Cali teams jobbing everyone else, but not really being dominant (not like WSH this year at least). The result is going to be the west getting weaker.

 

[MassHavoc]

Thanks. It was a geek-out inspiration since the last lockout to track "strength" and "tightness" of the divisions since fans for all walks always argued about "what division is the strongest". So for 2014, 2015, and 2016 I've been tracking it. It still hasn't given a definitive answer as to whether or not "well-rested" or "battle-tested" is better in the playoffs, but it's interesting to see the trends. I can post the full data if people want but here's what I have extrapolated:

In 2014 the league was slightly bottom-heavy. It was very top-heavy in 2015, and rebounded to only slightly top-heavy. The mean so far is hovering around 92 points. Ideally it would be 82 in a balanced point system but the loser point skews this. The "mean" doesn't necessarily indicate the baseline for a playoff berth--the median is more indicative and will also indicate the "skew" (i.e. top-heavy if the mean is below the median--meaning more teams are higher than the average but those below are way below, vice-versa for bottom heavy). The median spiked in 2015 to 97.5 in 2015, but other than that seems to be +/- 2 points of the mean based on 2014 and 2016.

The west in general paralleled the league in terms of being top heavy or bottom heavy in a given year. It started out at significantly above the league's respective mean and median in 2014, to slightly above in 2015, to slightly below in 2016. Ergo it's been trending weaker. It was slightly bottom-heavy in 2014, significantly top-heavy in 2015, and slightly top-heavy in 2016.

The east in the 3 years was always been top-heavy. It spiked top-heavy in 2015 as well and returned to only slightly top heavy in 2016 like it was in 2014. It was slightly below the respective league mean and median in 2014 and 2015, and this year was slightly above. Ergo, it's been trending stronger.

The whys come out when looking at the divisions:

The central in 2014 was an über-powerhouse and slightly bottom-heavy. It was significantly above the league in all respects. It got slightly stronger (albeit slightly top-heavy in 2015), but this didn't bear out overall because the league's median spiked. It trended weaker in 2016 but was still significantly above the league in all respects.

The Pacific. Ho-boy. It was moderately bottom-heavy in 2014, and slightly below the league's mean and significantly below the league's median. In 2015 it became significantly top-heavy but the median paralleled the league's median. The Pacific's mean, though, bottomed out. In 2016 the mean stayed about the same (significantly below the league, but it became bottom-heavy again and the median took a nosedive. Ergo, the Pacific was weak and continues to get weaker--significantly weaker.

The Atlantic has been top-heavy. Slightly in 2014, significantly in 2015, and slightly in 2016. It basically followed the league curve. The mean went from significantly below, to slightly below, to significantly below. The median was slightly below in 2014, equal in 2015, and significantly below in 2016. The overall trend is very slightly up, but it spiked in 2015 and then fell back down--but not as far as 2014.

The Metro was pretty balanced in 2014 and has become more and more top-heavy. It was slightly below the league in both respects in 2014, it was about equal to the mean and significantly below the median in 2015, and went up to be significantly above the league in 2016. It's been trending up at the same pace as the central has been trending down.

My thoughts on "why":

The Atlantic has been stagnating with the Canadian teams dropping down and the Florida teams rising up. The usual suspects are staying stagnant--like Detroit.

The Metro is getting better as more of the teams stop becoming league bottom-feeders.

The Central is starting to drop off as the usual-suspect teams age. Even though it had a hyper-tight and hyper-strong 2015 year, it's starting to separate a bit (like the NW in the mid-to-late 2000s).

The Pacific is just bad and keeps getting worse. Canada falling off the map definitely didn't help. The odd thing is that for the Cali powerhouse teams, you'd expect them to completely run over the also-rans, but they're not. With a 20-point spread between 3rd and 4th you would think if the division en masse was that good they could rack up points against the cupcakes at the bottom, but it's not the case.

I think the East is going to continue to get stronger. The Central is still going to hang around because I think Minny and Dallas will continue to get stronger and you can't count out Chicago or St. Louis. The Pacific though needs fixing. If McJesus rights the Oilers it might be sooner rather than later. The trend has been Cali teams jobbing everyone else, but not really being dominant (not like WSH this year at least). The result is going to be the west getting weaker.

How do you take into account the unbalanced schedules? Did you work in east vs. west head to head? I am all for everything you did and it's great I'm not trying to take anything away I think you are spot on but I feel their are more variables. If the Pacific is really as bad as they were this year, their unbalanced schedules of playing themselves more often is going to to lower the bar because they are either not getting quality wins, or they are being beat by really bad teams. The same can be said for the Metro the other way, a really good team or two in a division is going to raise the whole division because it gives them more chances at above the mean and what not. Just curious if we're seeing the whole picture by the scenario you ran, but I admit I didn't give it as much thought as I could because I'm swamped at work right now and avoiding it by reading what I can here.

 

[LordKOTL]

Because of the variables it's not meant to be perfect, but as a general capture.

Here's my reasoning on why I did the breakdown the way I did:

In a perfectly balanced point system, the league average (mean) would be invariably 82 points. There's always a winner, there's always a loser, or it's tied. There are 2460 games in a season with a winner and a loser, meaning that, in a balanced point system, there are 4920 points to be had total, which no matter how they're split out amongst all 30 teams, will *always* regress to the mean of 82 points average.

It's not balanced though; we have the loser & skills competition winner points, so the mean of the season will always regress to be a number somewhat greater than 82. The 3 years indicate that it's somewhat in the vicinity of 92.

Now, in general, the same applies to the division breakdown. Each team plays intradivision more than not. So, based on that fact (even if the actual amount slightly varies from the norm), the same general rule applies--intradivisional play looked as a microcosm will be based off of a number slightly positive with respect to the amount of intradivisional games played--because of the loser point. The only 2 things that vary significantly is the spread and top-or-bottom heaviness--and I'll get to those in a minute. But by my count, there are 30 intradivisional games/team in the east, and 31 in the west. That means (under the balanced schedule assumption), that the minimum intradivision mean is 31 points in the west and 30 in the east, and once the "loser point variable" (which only moves the mean up) is taken into consideration, each division will have a mean somewhere above 30 points--probably mid-30's.

Now, dealing with spread--based on the intradivision mean, if teams are closely balanced and split wins and losses fairly evenly, the point totals will be closer to that mean. If not, in general better teams will get a lot of points, while shittier teams get few, and a looser spread indicates a wide-open division with a chance of a runaway. With that respect, in a balanced, tight division, al of the teams should be close to the mean and the point totals should be low. If a division is wide open, the good teams should take points for the bad teams with impunity, so the better teams should get a lot more points. When plotted with respect to the other divisions intradivisional play, again, the numbers may vary but they should average out to somewhere in the mid-30's give or take because of the loser point.

Once you factor in extradivisional play, that divisional mean number can only go up or stagnate. If teams lose outside of the division the average remains low even though the games go up. If they win outside of the division it raises the division mean number. Thus, if a division mean is greater than the league mean it means they're winning extradivisionally. If they are less they're not.

But wait, there's more!

Mean is not perfect for determining strength--especially if you have a hyperstrong or a hyperweak team. This year the cellar team had 69 points. Last year 4 teams had less--meaning those extra points had to go up the standings. Thus, the shitty teams drag the division/league down--or (and this happened *slightly* in 2014) a few really good teams artificially inflate the numbers. It's why I take median into consideration.

2 cases in point: 2015 and 2016 Pacific. The Pacific mean was 86.14 in both years. The median in 2015 was 95. The median in 2016 was 78. Even thought The Pacific cellar was much lower in 2015, there were more bad teams and in a perfect system, that should drive the top point-getters up, but it didn't. Instead the Pacific top fell from 109 to 103. Thus, I take both Mean and Median into consideration to account for how the division is top or bottom heavy. In contrast, the 2015 Central cellar was 90 points, and the top was 109. The mean was 99.43 and the median was 100. With how tight that division was you'd think the number would be closer to the 90 average unless they were tearing through the league. Unlike the Pacific leader, who had 62 and 50-point teams to beat up on, The Central juggernauts did the same against 90 point teams, mostly.

Anyhow, again, it's not a perfect synopsis, but just a general one and IMHO gives a good view of how a division looks within the league. I'm sure someone can pick it apart piece-by piece.