[PGT] Flames 4 : Kings 2 - Losing Streak’s Over

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Standard deviation is not the be-all and end-all. It doesn't work well when you get away from bell curves and into bimodal distributions, for which the central tendency actually goes negative. That's what we're seeing here.

I'd like to see some evidence that it's becoming more bimodal. Your baseline year of 2014-15 had 5 teams between -10 and 10. This year has 5 teams between -10 and 10.

You haven't addressed the increase in ENG (397, not prorated this year v. 284 total in the baseline year) where losing teams couldn't care less about allowing a marginal goal, and the fact that the standard deviation of winning percentage hasn't appreciably changed since 30 years ago.

[ReinhartonD]

As much as this win might eventually have a slight impact on draft order, I really don't want the Oilstains to have a cakewalk first round against the Kings--so it helps prevent that. First choice to face them is Vegas, with their 200 million dollar suddenly healthy lineup, and second is Nashville, who look most nights since the U2 concert party cancellation like they can beat anyone.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I'd like to see some evidence that it's becoming more bimodal. Your baseline year of 2014-15 had 5 teams between -10 and 10. This year has 5 teams between -10 and 10.

You haven't addressed the increase in ENG (397, not prorated this year v. 284 total in the baseline year) where losing teams couldn't care less about allowing a marginal goal, and the fact that the standard deviation of winning percentage hasn't appreciably changed since 30 years ago.

When you consider that winning a hockey game requires you to score more goals than you allow... a measurement of which teams score more goals than they allow should tie up pretty nicely with with which teams are winning more games.

Regardless, the point was that we're seeing teams being able to stack their rosters again. The fact those teams have a much higher goal differential than the rest of the league, and the fact we're seeing higher individal point-totals are just symptoms of that point.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

When you consider that winning a hockey game requires you to score more goals than you allow... a measurement of which teams score more goals than they allow should tie up pretty nicely with with which teams are winning more games.

Regardless, the point was that we're seeing teams being able to stack their rosters again. The fact those teams have a much higher goal differential than the rest of the league, and the fact we're seeing higher individal point-totals are just symptoms of that point.

Winning a hockey game requires scoring one more goal than what is allowed. Any marginal goals above that are superfluous. Hence the 40% increase in empty net goals in nine years as teams realize the stupidity of the past and try to, you know, tie the game. And that number is from March 31; it will only increase from now to the end of the season.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Winning a hockey game requires scoring one more goal than what is allowed. Any marginal goals above that are superfluous. Hence the 40% increase in empty net goals in nine years as teams realize the stupidity of the past and try to, you know, tie the game. And that number is from March 31; it will only increase from now to the end of the season.

Are you arguing that goal differential being inflated by ENGs is a reason to not use it? Who scores ENGs? Teams that are winning or teams that are losing?

I think you're going to have a hard time proving that teams with a 40+ goal differential aren't winning more games than teams in the negative.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by butterfly

You haven't addressed the increase in ENG (397, not prorated this year v. 284 total in the baseline year) where losing teams couldn't care less about allowing a marginal goal, and the fact that the standard deviation of winning percentage hasn't appreciably changed since 30 years ago.

I haven't addressed it because it's trivial compared to the overall change: a difference of four or five goals per team per year.

Thirty years ago, the league included several sad-sack expansion teams, and small-market teams were beginning to lose their ability to compete against big-market budgets. If you're comparing the present league to that situation, I'm not sure that helps your case.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I haven't addressed it because it's trivial compared to the overall change: a difference of four or five goals per team per year.

Thirty years ago, the league included several sad-sack expansion teams, and small-market teams were beginning to lose their ability to compete against big-market budgets. If you're comparing the present league to that situation, I'm not sure that helps your case.

So, no evidence. Simply platitudes again.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by butterfly

So, no evidence. Simply platitudes again.

I'm saying that you have no evidence for your position. Empty-net goals are not the difference-maker here. And if the competitive balance in the league is as bad now as it was 30 years ago, then it has indeed deteriorated compared to the average for the salary-cap years.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Are you arguing that goal differential being inflated by ENGs is a reason to not use it? Who scores ENGs? Teams that are winning or teams that are losing?

I think you're going to have a hard time proving that teams with a 40+ goal differential aren't winning more games than teams in the negative.

I’d like to see an analysis prove that there is increasing bimodality of goal differential with respect to non-empty net goals. I’m open minded. Can you provide one?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I’d like to see an analysis prove that there is increasing bimodality of goal differential with respect to non-empty net goals. I’m open minded. Can you provide one?

No, because the stipulation about non-empty-net goals is ridiculous. I would have to manually go through a decade of game scores to get that information, and you are not that important.

Why don't you go back to your other hobby, and find all those top goalies that are languishing undetected in the ECHL? I recall you also tried to defend that position by citing statistics that you would have known to be irrelevant if you had understood them.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm saying that you have no evidence for your position. Empty-net goals are not the difference-maker here. And if the competitive balance in the league is as bad now as it was 30 years ago, then it has indeed deteriorated compared to the average for the salary-cap years.

Pick your golden era of competitive hockey and prove that now is any different than then. Really! You know I’m here to be proven wrong.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No, because the stipulation about non-empty-net goals is ridiculous. I would have to manually go through a decade of game scores to get that information, and you are not that important.

Why don't you go back to your other hobby, and find all those top goalies that are languishing undetected in the ECHL? I recall you also tried to defend that position by citing statistics that you would have known to be irrelevant if you had understood them.

Oh boo hoo. Actually you don’t if you just Google it.

“My point is valid because you’re too unimportant to prove what I claim.”

https://morehockeystats.com/teams/en

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Oh boo hoo. Actually you don’t if you just Google it.

All right, now I just have to manually subtract those out of the stats and do all the rest of the work.

“My point is valid because you’re too unimportant to prove what I claim.”

You're the one making claims here, and you haven't supported them with anything except a triviality about empty-net goals.

You have not shown how empty-net goals increase goal differential between teams, and you cannot show how they cause the number of teams above +40 to more than double from one year to the next, and then remain stable at that level – because there are not enough empty-net goals to do that.

Show even the most basic willingness to back your claims, and maybe I will bother to back mine.

But I won't subtract out empty-net goals, because those cannot account for the magnitude of the effect we're seeing.

You have an extremely bad habit of latching onto isolated statistics and claiming them as proof of large and controversial hypotheses. I've seen it before, and I don't care to play with someone who refuses to recognize any rules.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Pick your golden era of competitive hockey and prove that now is any different than then. Really! You know I’m here to be proven wrong.

You're not here to be proven wrong. You're here to make outrageous claims, place the entire burden of proof on those who disagree, and provide no proof yourself. It's your schtick.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You're not here to be proven wrong. You're here to make outrageous claims, place the entire burden of proof on those who disagree, and provide no proof yourself. It's your schtick.

I was literally going to post this. I still have nfc wtf his/her point even is.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

All right, now I just have to manually subtract those out of the stats and do all the rest of the work.



You're the one making claims here, and you haven't supported them with anything except a triviality about empty-net goals.

You have not shown how empty-net goals increase goal differential between teams, and you cannot show how they cause the number of teams above +40 to more than double from one year to the next, and then remain stable at that level – because there are not enough empty-net goals to do that.

Show even the most basic willingness to back your claims, and maybe I will bother to back mine.

But I won't subtract out empty-net goals, because those cannot account for the magnitude of the effect we're seeing.

You have an extremely bad habit of latching onto isolated statistics and claiming them as proof of large and controversial hypotheses. I've seen it before, and I don't care to play with someone who refuses to recognize any rules.

Yeah, do it manually. That’s the smartest and most efficient way to go about it.

Keep claiming what you want and complain that it’s too difficult to provide evidence. By the way, there are now more teams at -10<=x<=10 this year than your baseline year. Lol.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I was literally going to post this. I still have nfc wtf his/her point even is.

It’s her, and there are two points.

1. Goal differential is increasingly useless as a measure of team effectiveness with the number of ENGs skyrocketing as teams realize it doesn’t matter whether you lose by 1 or 10.

2. The “outrageous” claim is that “increasing” bimodality in goal differential (which we shall see if Jay Random can prove using manual techniques) has proven that there is less competitive balance in hockey today than in some undefined golden era. Ostensibly 2014-15 since that’s what they chose as their baseline year.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by butterfly

1. Goal differential is increasingly useless as a measure of team effectiveness with the number of ENGs skyrocketing as teams realize it doesn’t matter whether you lose by 1 or 10.

Oh ok. So what you're saying is that NHL teams don't have to score more goals than they allow in order to be effective.

Do you have evidence of this? Can you show me multiple seasons where teams at the top of the standings didn't have a positive goal differential? What about Stanley Cup winners... what's the percentage of champions who had a negative goal differential in the playoffs vs a positive one?

I mean, you might be able to show a slight uptick in ENGs, depending on your selected range, but calling goal differential 'useless' is a stretch, unless of course you can prove that it's useless.

[GioforPM]

The uptick in ENG goals happened a few years ago. It’s relatively stable now.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Oh ok. So what you're saying is that NHL teams don't have to score more goals than they allow in order to be effective.

Do you have evidence of this? Can you show me multiple seasons where teams at the top of the standings didn't have a positive goal differential? What about Stanley Cup winners... what's the percentage of champions who had a negative goal differential in the playoffs vs a positive one?

I mean, you might be able to show a slight uptick in ENGs, depending on your selected range, but calling goal differential 'useless' is a stretch, unless of course you can prove that it's useless.

No. Where did you get that from? They have to score exactly one more goal than their opposition to win. Three, four, ten goals, doesn't matter. It's the same result. You win exactly one game. It isn't baseball where there are individual and independent trials; they can change strategies (pulling the goaltender) to increase the likelihood of scoring for both teams.

A 40%, and counting, increase of empty net goals in nine years shows that teams are becoming more familiar with this.

I did not call goal differential useless, what I said was:

Goal differential is increasingly useless as a measure of team effectiveness with the number of ENGs skyrocketing(...)

I think goal differential can be a proxy for evaluation of a team when ENGs are stripped out, since teams who are pulling their goalie don't much care about allowing an ENG.