spndnchz Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 In the top 8: Devils (4-3-1) Penguins(5-4-1) Rangers (6-5-1) Sabres (7-0-0) Bruins (5-4-1) Capitals (5-4-1) Out of the top 8: Thrashers (6-4-0) Panthers (5-3-2) Technically, the Sabres and Rangers are the only ones with winning records (more wins than losses); everyone else is .500 in W-L. Yup, hit the wrong key. Don't get the bolded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JujuFish Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Technically, the Sabres and Rangers are the only ones with winning records (more wins than losses); everyone else is .500 in W-L. The Rangers have won 6 of 12 for .500 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Only five teams above the 93 point line? That seems odd. I wonder if the how the top 8 have fared against the western conference, and if we might be wary of running into a buzz saw on the western swing... Fewer "loser points" this year, maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 The Rangers have won 6 of 12 for .500 as well. :oops: Meant the Thrashers at 6-4-0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Don't get the bolded. Add regulation and OT/SO losses for all but the Sabres and Thrashers, and you get the same number as their wins (also regulation and OT/SO.) Thus, from a pure win-loss perspective, the rest of the teams are 0.500. From a points perspective they are not, but that's because of the NHL stupid points system. Edit: just realized that you probably didn't get it because of the Rangers thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 Add regulation and OT/SO losses for all but the Sabres and Thrashers, and you get the same number as their wins (also regulation and OT/SO.) Thus, from a pure win-loss perspective, the rest of the teams are 0.500. From a points perspective they are not, but that's because of the NHL stupid points system. Edit: just realized that you probably didn't get it because of the Rangers thing. But since an OTL is not equal to a loss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 But since an OTL is not equal to a loss... In their point system? No, which is why I listed eight teams as having "winning records" against the West. Conceptually, however, if a win is a win (those wins are made up of RW and OTW/SOW), then a loss is a loss. So, from a true W-L standpoint, if total losses = total wins, then they are 0.500. If someone wants to count the OTW/SOW of each team, then I'd be happy to adjust my statement on a team-by-team bases, as necessary (i.e., OTW/SOW <> OTL/SOL.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 Or we could just say that winning percentage is completely meaningless in the NHL and leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 Getting up into an interesting level now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 Is it possible to get a chart with just the Northeast division teams updated after each game? It would be nice to keep track of the division lead. The conference charts are a little bit crowded for this purpose. Thanks! :worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Is it possible to get a chart with just the Northeast division teams updated after each game? It would be nice to keep track of the division lead. The conference charts are a little bit crowded for this purpose. Thanks! :worthy: LOL. Yeah, I actually have it already. I'll throw it up there (with the most recent updates of the others) shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Done Thanks. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 LOL. Yeah, I actually have it already. I'll throw it up there (with the most recent updates of the others) shortly. While you're taking suggestions, is there any possible way to put the team names next to their last data point in the conference figure? I'm guessing that screws with your automated process a bit though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Wow, the NE division is an absolute disaster right now except for us. No wonder we're having a good year! These guys blow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Wow, the NE division is an absolute disaster right now except for us. No wonder we're having a good year! These guys blow! Not sure if there is sarcasm there, but, as of right now, 3 of the other 4 NE teams are in a playoff spot. They are below the '93-point line', but still better than most divisions in the East. The SE, for instance, has Washington at #3 and the rest are #11-13 and #15. Carp, do you have a conferencen chart from last year? I'd be curious how much the bubble teams 'pour it on' at the end of the season to make the playoffs, and conversely, how much the leaders at the middle of the season tail off when their spot is locked in. I could definitely imagine some teams having a 'frown' curve (the leaders) and others a 'smile' curve (the middle teams winning 3 of every 4 towards the end as they push). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Carp, do you have a conferencen chart from last year? I'd be curious how much the bubble teams 'pour it on' at the end of the season to make the playoffs, and conversely, how much the leaders at the middle of the season tail off when their spot is locked in. I could definitely imagine some teams having a 'frown' curve (the leaders) and others a 'smile' curve (the middle teams winning 3 of every 4 towards the end as they push). I had the same thoughts and, yes, I do have last year's charts: Actual (net of 93 points): Playoffs (net of 9th place): You can definitely see on the "Playoffs" chart that the 93-point pace went up slowly to about 5 (around 56-58 games in) and then dropped back down. It's already gone up higher this year than it ever did last year. There were definite playoff pushes by the Penguins and Hurricanes, but the Rangers, Canadiens and (unfortunately) Sabres fell off a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Can you do a chart comparing the number of charts to the number of requests for charts? Kidding; you're a dedicated hobbyist and we love you for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted January 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 While you're taking suggestions, is there any possible way to put the team names next to their last data point in the conference figure? I'm guessing that screws with your automated process a bit though. Unfortunately, in Excel 2007, it will only put the label after the last point if all points have a value (for example, I can do it with the 2008-09 charts, because all 82 games have been played.) So, since the are games not yet played, I would have to change each team's data (x and y) range individually within the chart each time. Too much of a pain. Can you do a chart comparing the number of charts to the number of requests for charts? Kidding; you're a dedicated hobbyist and we love you for it. :blush: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Unfortunately, in Excel 2007, it will only put the label after the last point if all points have a value (for example, I can do it with the 2008-09 charts, because all 82 games have been played.) So, since the are games not yet played, I would have to change each team's data (x and y) range individually within the chart each time. Too much of a pain. Slacker. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Unfortunately, in Excel 2007, it will only put the label after the last point if all points have a value (for example, I can do it with the 2008-09 charts, because all 82 games have been played.) So, since the are games not yet played, I would have to change each team's data (x and y) range individually within the chart each time. Too much of a pain. :blush: How about instead of using dots for each data point, you use a tiny logo of each specific team. :D ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Wow, I just found this thread. Cool. Thx for doing the work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cereal Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 How about instead of using dots for each data point, you use a tiny logo of each specific team. :D ;) :w00t: Like the trail of slime a slug leaves behind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 Unfortunately, in Excel 2007, it will only put the label after the last point if all points have a value (for example, I can do it with the 2008-09 charts, because all 82 games have been played.) So, since the are games not yet played, I would have to change each team's data (x and y) range individually within the chart each time. Too much of a pain. :blush: I haven't played with Excel 2007 much, but it seems like the automatic color selection leaves something to be desired. There seem to be several blues and greens. Maybe you could manually alter the colors to be a little more clear? And put appropriate colors for some teams, like blue or gold for Buffalo, Orange for Philly, green for Toronto (Buffalo envy), etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cereal Posted January 13, 2010 Report Share Posted January 13, 2010 I haven't played with Excel 2007 much, but it seems like the automatic color selection leaves something to be desired. There seem to be several blues and greens. Maybe you could manually alter the colors to be a little more clear? And put appropriate colors for some teams, like blue or gold for Buffalo, Orange for Philly, green for Toronto (Buffalo envy), etc.? Excel: :thumbdown: Carp, I know you've got a nice system going (and I do appreciate it...thanks!), but gnuplot (if you have Linux) or MATLAB are both really smooth for customized plots like this. I guess this is more a general recommendation for anyone trying to do stuff similar to this. A little bit of programming savvyness required, but with a little experience working with either of these and you can do some really neat automated stuff. :thumbsup: Again, thanks for the charts... Being a math/stats nerdy guy, I always enjoy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.