Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Who are the top-5 worst NHL teams this year?

Jay Random · 03-20-2017, 04:22 PM

As Iain Fyffe has pointed out, the badness of a team can't be quantified by points or winning percentage alone, but by how much of an outlier it is from the rest of the league. In the 1970s there was very little parity in the league; the Original Six teams were still substantially better than most of the expansion clubs, and the later a franchise was formed, the worse it tended to be. In a league where Montreal was blowing away all records for winning percentage, we should expect to find teams with a high losing percentage as well.

The striking thing about this year's Avalanche is that they have managed to be this bad at a time of strong parity in the league. I took the trouble of calculating z-scores on each year's standings for the three ‘worst’ teams (10 wins or fewer in the post-expansion era) and for this season to date.

1974-75: NHL mean was 80 points by definition. (Ah, the days before three-point games!)
Standard deviation was 25.190 points – very little parity in the league.
Washington Capitals had 21 points.
Washington's z-score was –2.342.

1980-81: Mean 80 points.
Standard deviation 18.956 – increasing parity, despite the WHA merger.
Winnipeg Jets, 32 points.
Winnipeg's z-score was –2.532.
The Jets got more points than the '74-75 Caps, but they had to work harder at sucking, as they were almost 0.2 standard deviations further below average.

1992-93: Mean 84 points.
Standard deviation 23.869 – a spike upwards due to renewed expansion.
Ottawa Senators AND San Jose Sharks, 24 points. (Yes, San Jose won more than 10 games. They still stank, so we have a twofer this season.)
Ottawa and San Jose's z-score, –2.514.

2016-17 so far (ignoring games in hand): Mean 79.6 points.
Standard deviation 13.081 – exceptionally strong parity.
Colorado Avalanche, 43 points.
Colorado's z-score, –2.798.

In terms of standard deviations below average, thee winnah and new champeen, this year's Avs! They have actually outsucked all of the first- or second-year expansion teams that failed to top 10 wins in a season. But with three-point games inflating the numbers, and no true powerhouse teams to leech points away from them, they look like they've had better success than they have.

It is remarkable that a franchise could be this bad after 37 years in the NHL, and even more remarkable that it could do so with a salary floor to meet. It takes something like genius to pick a group of 23 players who will play that badly for that much money.

03-20-2017, 04:22 PM	#39
Jay Random Franchise Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Exp:	As Iain Fyffe has pointed out, the badness of a team can't be quantified by points or winning percentage alone, but by how much of an outlier it is from the rest of the league. In the 1970s there was very little parity in the league; the Original Six teams were still substantially better than most of the expansion clubs, and the later a franchise was formed, the worse it tended to be. In a league where Montreal was blowing away all records for winning percentage, we should expect to find teams with a high losing percentage as well. The striking thing about this year's Avalanche is that they have managed to be this bad at a time of strong parity in the league. I took the trouble of calculating z-scores on each year's standings for the three ‘worst’ teams (10 wins or fewer in the post-expansion era) and for this season to date. 1974-75: NHL mean was 80 points by definition. (Ah, the days before three-point games!) Standard deviation was 25.190 points – very little parity in the league. Washington Capitals had 21 points. Washington's z-score was –2.342. 1980-81: Mean 80 points. Standard deviation 18.956 – increasing parity, despite the WHA merger. Winnipeg Jets, 32 points. Winnipeg's z-score was –2.532. The Jets got more points than the '74-75 Caps, but they had to work harder at sucking, as they were almost 0.2 standard deviations further below average. 1992-93: Mean 84 points. Standard deviation 23.869 – a spike upwards due to renewed expansion. Ottawa Senators AND San Jose Sharks, 24 points. (Yes, San Jose won more than 10 games. They still stank, so we have a twofer this season.) Ottawa and San Jose's z-score, –2.514. 2016-17 so far (ignoring games in hand): Mean 79.6 points. Standard deviation 13.081 – exceptionally strong parity. Colorado Avalanche, 43 points. Colorado's z-score, –2.798. In terms of standard deviations below average, thee winnah and new champeen, this year's Avs! They have actually outsucked all of the first- or second-year expansion teams that failed to top 10 wins in a season. But with three-point games inflating the numbers, and no true powerhouse teams to leech points away from them, they look like they've had better success than they have. It is remarkable that a franchise could be this bad after 37 years in the NHL, and even more remarkable that it could do so with a salary floor to meet. It takes something like genius to pick a group of 23 players who will play that badly for that much money. __________________ WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility. Last edited by Jay Random; 03-20-2017 at 04:35 PM.