[News] Oilers Worst Team in the NHL

[moon]

No but it is an argument to say that I actually watched the Leafs enough to see that they weren't a 29th place team and didn't win with a lot of luck or flukes.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by blankall

You need to remove the "news" tag. This is not news. News implies some sort of new information. This is just a statement of a fact everyone already knows.

There was no affirmation tag option.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

WARNING: 'moon' -ing in progress

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by moon

No but it is an argument to say that I actually watched the Leafs enough to see that they weren't a 29th place team and didn't win with a lot of luck or flukes.

Whenever I saw them on TV, they were getting outshot, out skated and it felt like their game plan was to chase the puck around the ice. I couldn't believe that this team was winning games. You could tell by the end of the season that they couldn't keep up to any teams really in the east. Yes, they played a few good games in the playoffs but that is such a small sample size to say that they actually deserved to be close to the playoffs. The other 48 games showed that they more often than not couldn't compete with teams in the east.

[kyuss275]

If posters really feel that Toronto could be a bottom 3 team, then put your money where your mouth is. I don't normaly bet, but i will take that action any day of the week and twice on Sunday. We can donate your loses to charity.

[trublmaker]

Don't really think a poll is needed to affirm that the coilers suck, they do anyway no matter how many polls are conducted.

[4oh3]

for the picks they got over the last couple years they suck theyre to soft

[Stupid]

This part says it all to me:

"Should a new study come out that disputes the use of three quarters, the newer figures can be used instead to calculate the luck-neutral shooting percentage."

They know they're not exactly spot on with their approach.

Which is too bad, lol :P

[GGG]

I would bet that the Leafs will be bottom 10 in the league next year maybe worse although they were a young team so they should get better just by improvement of players so that may keep them out of the bottom five.

There fenwick close (roughly a puck posession stat that correlates well with making the playoffs) was the worst in the league. Edmonton was second worst.
http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/4/22/pdo-...-team-april-22


I think its going to be ugly in Toronto next year. Regression to the mean is the most bettable principle in sports. For example take the under in wins on the colts next season as they were 9-1 in games decided by a touchdown or less. Just like shooting % high numbers are not sustainable.

[socktape]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

I play hockey with Rob's brother and met Rob once at a Christmas party. He's very passionate about hockey and has some very neat insights. Here is a link to his website with "Player Usage Charts", they are very interesting to play around with.

http://www.hockeyabstract.com/playerusagecharts

I play and have played hockey with Rob for a number of years now. It is always fun talking hockey with him and hearing a completely different perspective. He is quite insightful and knowledgeable. He can bring out the statistics with the best of them but also understands their limitations.

[#-3]

I don't mind the methodology of trying to say in general team X did better then they should of, and team Y did worse than they should have. As a predictor it does not take into account player movement, development, or regression.

Trying to put his methodology to the test, I found.

the 15 luckiest teams 08/09, had a net change of -55 point in 09/10. 10 did worse
the 15 unluckiest teams 08/09, had a net change of 74 point in 09/10. 9 did better

the 15 luckiest teams 09/10, had a net change of -43 point in 10/11. 9 did worse
the 15 unluckiest teams 09/10, had a net change of 39 point in 10/11. 10 did better

the 15 luckiest teams 10/11, had a net change of -60 point in 11/12. 11 did worse
the 15 unluckiest teams 10/11, had a net change of 63 point in 11/12. 8 did better

the 15 luckiest teams 11/12, had a net change of -75 point in 12/13. 9 did worse
the 15 unluckiest teams 11/12, had a net change of 136 point in 12/13. 9 did better
* pro-rated the points to an 82 game season.

So historically about 66% of time he successfully predicts if a team will improve or regress. Not bad, but I think most of us could go about 60% just on gut feeling.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by troutman

Leafs were only a playoff team because the East was weak, and NJ and PHI decided to take a year off. Now they have to deal with DET too.

The Leafs will make the playoffs. New Jersey may have taken a year off, but they will be terrible next season. Throw in the fact that the Habs are easily the worst team in the league to have made the playoffs last year and I don't think they will have any issues. Full years of Bernier and Lupul could actually see them get better next season.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by #-3

I don't mind the methodology of trying to say in general team X did better then they should of, and team Y did worse than they should have. As a predictor it does not take into account player movement, development, or regression.

Trying to put his methodology to the test, I found.

the 15 luckiest teams 08/09, had a net change of -55 point in 09/10. 10 did worse
the 15 unluckiest teams 08/09, had a net change of 74 point in 09/10. 9 did better

the 15 luckiest teams 09/10, had a net change of -43 point in 10/11. 9 did worse
the 15 unluckiest teams 09/10, had a net change of 39 point in 10/11. 10 did better

the 15 luckiest teams 10/11, had a net change of -60 point in 11/12. 11 did worse
the 15 unluckiest teams 10/11, had a net change of 63 point in 11/12. 8 did better

the 15 luckiest teams 11/12, had a net change of -75 point in 12/13. 9 did worse
the 15 unluckiest teams 11/12, had a net change of 136 point in 12/13. 9 did better
* pro-rated the points to an 82 game season.

So historically about 66% of time he successfully predicts if a team will improve or regress. Not bad, but I think most of us could go about 60% just on gut feeling.

Any insight to how this works with the top 10 luckiest and 10 unluckiest. Guess is that the middle teams would tend to stay the same.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Any insight to how this works with the top 10 luckiest and 10 unluckiest. Guess is that the middle teams would tend to stay the same.

I made a spreadsheet at home, so I could tell you tonight. or post the spread sheet if someone knows how?

But at a glance I think that the 2/3 rule will hold for the top/bottom ten. I think it would go closer to 80% for the top/bottom 5.

http://www.hockeyabstract.com/luck I got my number from here.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by moon

I haven't read the book but having the Sens as the favourite for the Presidents trophy and Leafs as 2nd worst with luck removed would indicate to me it isn't very worthwhile.

I think you're taking the results too personally. As in you're taking your own personal opinion into the matter too seriously. All this guy did was did some number crunching to try to normalize the luck factor and came up with some results. You make some valid points, and are more than welcome to disagree with the results. But you can't argue that how he did the math where his numbers lie makes for some interesting conversation.

[UKflames]

Voted accordingly, of course they were horse s£$%.

[Loyal and True]

voted but we are about 500 votes behind

[GGG]

Originally Posted by #-3

I don't mind the methodology of trying to say in general team X did better then they should of, and team Y did worse than they should have. As a predictor it does not take into account player movement, development, or regression.

Trying to put his methodology to the test, I found.

the 15 luckiest teams 08/09, had a net change of -55 point in 09/10. 10 did worse
the 15 unluckiest teams 08/09, had a net change of 74 point in 09/10. 9 did better

the 15 luckiest teams 09/10, had a net change of -43 point in 10/11. 9 did worse
the 15 unluckiest teams 09/10, had a net change of 39 point in 10/11. 10 did better

the 15 luckiest teams 10/11, had a net change of -60 point in 11/12. 11 did worse
the 15 unluckiest teams 10/11, had a net change of 63 point in 11/12. 8 did better

the 15 luckiest teams 11/12, had a net change of -75 point in 12/13. 9 did worse
the 15 unluckiest teams 11/12, had a net change of 136 point in 12/13. 9 did better
* pro-rated the points to an 82 game season.

So historically about 66% of time he successfully predicts if a team will improve or regress. Not bad, but I think most of us could go about 60% just on gut feeling.

Which stat are you using for luck. If it is straight PDO then this fits what the article was saying where he was taking 3 parts league average shooting and 1 part team shooting and 2 parts league SV% and 1 part team SV%.

[hurtin_albertan]

Voted from work computer, home computer, ipad, cell phone, and gf's cell phone. JIHAD MOFUGGAS!

[Psytic]

I expect both the Leafs and Oil to be bubble teams next year. The Flames fate will be decided by if we have an NHL starter or if Ramo and Bera are the next Karlsson's.