What's all the talk about weak schedule?

[nfotiu]

I keep reading about how the Flames haven't played anyone yet, have had a weak schedule so far, etc.

In fact, we've had one of the toughest schedules in the NHL so far.

ESPN's calculations have us as the 4th toughest:
http://espn.go.com/nhl/stats/rpi

USA Today(Sagrin) has us as 5h:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nhl/sagarin/

We've played 2 more road games than home games. In just 20 games, we've played 2 games each against Montreal, Tampa and Nashville (1,2 and 5 in overall league standings). Games against St louis, and Anaheim. The only top 7 team we haven't played (besides ourselves) is Pittsburgh.

It is still too early to say the wheels won't still fall off, but we are definitely not doing it due to an easy schedule.

[Azhouse]

I didn't have any numbers to back it up but I was thinking the same thing.

[Poe969]

This team just makes it look like we haven't played anyone good yet. I guess the oilers must have the hardest schedule so far because they're doing so bad...

[EldrickOnIce]

Not sure what you are listening to and watching. No one saying Flames have had easy schedule.
Now if you are talking around here, everyone knows the litmus test for a Flames hockey team is the west cost teams. Traditionally, when the Flames were not strong, these teams buried them.
So that part is being talked about here - I have not heard a peep elsewhere.

[saillias]

Because 1. fans don't just take regular season standings into account when judging our opponents.
2. There is a major "don't get too positive" aspect of being a Flames fan. Our franchise history is one of much suffering and disappointment with a few nice blips here and there.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by saillias

Because 1. fans don't just take regular season standings into account when judging our opponents.
2. There is a major "don't get too positive" aspect of being a Flames fan. Our franchise history is one of much suffering and disappointment with a few nice blips here and there.

I disagree. Eff yeah, be positive. About right here, right now.
If the wheels fall off later - who cares.
This moment is perfect to be a Flames fan.
Who really cares about regression to the mean - it's not fun.
Winning is. Whenever, however.

[DJones]

I've got a couple buddies that have been parroting that same thing. Not sure where they are getting it from. They all looked at this week as being a good litmus test.

Going to tomorrows game with an unbeliever so hopefully we win.

[troutman]

You could say the schedule is weakish if you go by the standings from last year. There are some surprise teams at the top of the standings in the early going this year, who will probably come back down to earth?

Calgary has played a lot of road games, but also a lot of Eastern teams. Not many games so far vs the California teams. Lost to Van, Stl etc.

Let's see where we sit after 40 games.

But, CGY is 5-4-2 vs East. 7-2-0 vs West.

[united]

The only argument I've seen is the rankings don't account for back-to-back and three-in-four situations, which obviously have a large impact on any game.

I can't say one way or another if the Flames, with 2 back-to-backs and 2 three-in-fours, are higher or lower than other teams league wide in that regard so far as I don't know if it's tracked anywhere.

A quick glance at the best, average, and worst teams according to ESPN's strength of schedule (SOS column in the OP's link):
Nashville: 1 b2b, 0 3in4
Winnipeg: 3 b2b, 5 3in4

Edmonton: 2 b2b, 3 3in4
Arizona: 3 b2b, 4 3in4

Columbus: 5 b2b, 1 3in4
San Jose: 4 b2b, 8 3in4 (at one point 7 games in 11 days!)

Nashville has faced tough teams but has been well-rested, while San Jose has faced easy teams but with brutal timing.

I know over the course of the season back-to-backs are tracked, but I don't know if anywhere has three-in-four situations counted.
Calgary ranks third easiest in back-to-back situations over this season with 10. Easiest has 9, hardest 19.
http://hockeygearhq.com/nhl-super-sc...iles-team-4989

Just another piece for consideration. How much value all the pieces hold comes down to each person's belief.

*Note, I counted four-in-six situations as two three-in-fours for this purpose. Could be a poor method?