This is Definitely a Real Advanced Stats Discussion Thread

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

No, the name FLQ doesn't stand for anything in this context.

Having a name that means nothing is a requirement of any advanced hockey stat.

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I'm curious to see if a companion individual stat exists. Otherwise, I feel this data may be inconclusive.

I should point out that this sentence should read "...these data...", not "this data".

[Finger Cookin]

I'd just like to say that while this thread started as a silly attempt to re-rail the speculation thread, people should feel free to talk about actual stats analysis in this thread.

And no, I wasn't attempting legitimate analysis or genuine ranking via FLQ. Just in case that wasn't 100% transparent.

Carry on!

[Northendzone]

One stat I really like is regulation time wins added with overtime and shootout wins.

I have found that the team with the most of these in on top of the standings 100% of the time.

[Ashasx]

nm

[smiggy77]

Since Edmonton has not made the playoffs for 10 years in a row, you should multiply their number by -0.1 per year (-0.1 x 10). They should also have the zero taken out of them because it's annoying. That would have made the results far more accurate.

[Iggy3x]

Got me. Well done! I need to lurk more to pick up the subtleties.

[FanIn80]

I can tell these are stats are really advanced, because the results are sorted from worst to best instead of best to worst. Organizing your findings inverse to how most people would expect to read them is a very important method of ensuring a "wow, these are really advanced" reaction.