Quote:
Originally Posted by AltaGuy
Wait, just so I understand: are all of you saying - statistically speaking, of course - that if the Flames had done better in the opening 6 games, they would've had a better shot of making the playoffs?
Crazy!
|
I am just trying to add some numbers to a conversation that seems to be centered around "Geez, it looks better to me and it is only 6 games". To me the Flames look like a team that played 2 good games (Chicago, Edmonton) two average games (Vancouver and Colorado) and two bad games (Anaheim and San Jose). I find such a subjective analysis to be more than a little lacking as such I personally find the numbers to be of more value than how one feels when watching the games. I feel the subjective viewpoint does not take into account a number of objective and hybrid objective/subjective facts such as:
1) The Flames had the easiest schedule of any team in the NHL to start the season, 5 out of 6 at home, 3 games against teams who are playing the second half of back to backs, only 1 game where they were playing the second half of back to backs;
2) The Flames now are playing on the road where the median team went .500 last year, where the 6th best road team in the league played.585 hockey. The Flames will pretty much have to throw up a top 10 in the league road record and a top 5 home record the rest of the way to make the playoffs.
3) The Flames historically have not had a record that would compete for a top 10 road record, so they will have to do something they historically have not been able to accomplish;
4) They will also have to punch above their weight at home vis-a-vis their historical records in order to make the playoffs
This is all required to get 7th or 8th place.