Are the Flames Stanley Cup Contenders?

[Bingo]

And I think you’re just talking the standings

What’s the point and regurgitating the standings in a similar list?

It’s no secret the Toronto gives up way too many scoring chances

They score their way out of it and have goaltending


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bingo]

However I will give you Carolina. Read something this year where someone watching the details of their games suggested there passing up dangerous scoring opportunities to ensure they get shots on goal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

And I think you’re just talking the standings

What’s the point and regurgitating the standings in a similar list?

It’s no secret the Toronto gives up way too many scoring chances

They score their way out of it and have goaltending


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not at all. I want stats that can give me more, or better, or different information than the standings do, to better illustrate who has been good (in this case).

But those stats do not correlate with who has been good. THey don't tell us anything.

[Enoch Root]

Regarding Toronto, there have been times that goaltending has covered up bad D to be sure. Lots of times in fact.

But the Leafs have been good nonetheless. If you can score more goals than you give up every night, you're doing something right. and it hasn't been ALL goaltending.

[Bingo]

First off I’m certainly not arguing for 100% correlation of anything

Every year there’s always teams that have terrible underlying numbers but win And the complete opposite

The Canucks were winning constantly with terrible underlying numbers and it caught up with him as expected. Toronto has so much skill they probably don’t need to worry about that. But I would suggest Buffalo might.

Overall I see six or seven teams in the top 10 for stats that are actually very good hockey teams

So we can certainly argue about teen A versus team B etc. But I think the overall list is fine as it is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Enoch Root]

Come on, no one is arguing for 100% correlation.

But that isn't a list of 7 or 8 solid teams with a couple outliers. It is completely random with respect to which have been the best teams so far this year.

[Enoch Root]

I'll give you a stat that tells me who's been playing well... goal differential.

Top 4 (+22 - +28):
TOR
TB
COL
NAS

Next 3 (+13 - + 14):
CAL
WAS
WPG

Next 4 (+7 - +9):
CBJ
BUF
BOS
MIN

To me, that list pretty much nails the top 11 teams so far.

[Bingo]

I’d argue that goal differential generally meet standings as a result so it wouldn’t tell you anything new


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I'll give you a stat that tells me who's been playing well... goal differential.

Top 4 (+22 - +28):
TOR
TB
COL
NAS

Next 3 (+13 - + 14):
CAL
WAS
WPG

Next 4 (+7 - +9):
CBJ
BUF
BOS
MIN

To me, that list pretty much nails the top 11 teams so far.

100% agreed. Goal differential almost always tells an accurate story.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I’d argue that goal differential generally meet standings as a result so it wouldn’t tell you anything new


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It correlates strongly, because they are both good indicators. But when they disagree, that's when you get more information (which is precisely the point of the exercise IMO).

I'll take the top 10 by goal differential, and bet against your top 10 from that stats list - total points for the rest of the season for $100

[Bingo]

But here's the thing .. it's not my top ten. Never suggested it was the best list or a better list than the standings.

It's a simple mathematical average of two averages; one for things they create, two for things they give up.

The whole point of the list was to provide what underlying numbers would say is the top teams in the league vs the teams that are there for how they've done in the standings. The idea is to have them different or what's the point? The differences are either telling of teams that have been somewhat fortunate, teams that have been somewhat unfortunate, or telling of nothing at all in some cases.

When I first posted this ... this is all I said ...

Teams in the standings vs their underlying numbers ...

[Enoch Root]

Of course it's not your top 10. But you presented it as 'their underlying numbers', and used it as a data set that suggests who is better or worse than their record.

But it's a really weak data set (for that purpose).

[FlamesAddiction]

Yeah, way too early. A few teams have separated themselves from the pack, but there are still a lot that "could" contend - the Flames being one of those many.

Like others mentioned, if goaltending can come together, that will be the difference between being a bubble team/first round fodder, or being a team that can catch lightning in the playoffs.

The Flames are a mystery box at this point IMO.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think Buffalo is at least in the second grouping.

At least? They had a 10 game winning streak with three regulation wins.

[dino7c]

I don't think many were picking the Caps at this time last season...they were also a crossbar away from going down 3-0 in the first round.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I don't think many were picking the Caps at this time last season...they were also a crossbar away from going down 3-0 in the first round.

The margin between winning and losing in this league is really small.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Of course it's not your top 10. But you presented it as 'their underlying numbers', and used it as a data set that suggests who is better or worse than their record.

But it's a really weak data set (for that purpose).

I'd be a lot more comfortable if you used "in my opinion" a little more often.

If you're looking at goal differentials you won't be happy with many lists that don't mirror the standings to a large degree.

I think the Devils and Flyers are interesting teams. I think the Wild have been great this season. I like the Flames (watch them closely), and think the Bolts and Vegas have been solid.

Carolina is the team at the bottom for me in this group because they may just be the team playing for underlying stats and therefore somewhat of an odd case.

The Flames had a good record before those ugly three games but I didn't like the way they were playing. Their CF% was great, but they were bleeding chances and because of that my focus was on the team tightening up. They've done that and the results we've seen are not a surprise.

[Enoch Root]

I bet I use IMO more than any other poster on this site.

I don't know why you're getting defensive. I - and most people, I am sure - very much appreciate you digging up stats and presenting them.

But once they are up, they are grounds for discussion (which is, I believe, the point).

And IMO, these ones didn't do a good job of what they were trying to do. Or should I say were presented to do? But even if I am right, that's okay, because you still accomplished the goal of discussion.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I bet I use IMO more than any other poster on this site.

I don't know why you're getting defensive. I - and most people, I am sure - very much appreciate you digging up stats and presenting them.

But once they are up, they are grounds for discussion (which is, I believe, the point).

And IMO, these ones didn't do a good job of what they were trying to do. Or should I say were presented to do? But even if I am right, that's okay, because you still accomplished the goal of discussion.

Dude I had a giant smiley face after the in my opinion comment ... not trying to be defensive at all.

I think it's a good list because it's a lot more detailed then just rating teams by CF%, which is what most sites do.

I think it's a good list because it averages the generation stats into one number (eliminating an over emphasis on one number), and the prevention stats into one number (avoiding over emphasis again).

Add in the fact that it's all brought together and the numbers are counted by independent sources it is exactly what is was reported to be ... a list of who's playing well based on underlying numbers.

That vs the standings is interesting.

[Jay Random]

The difficulty about averaging stats is that not all stats deserve to be weighted equally. So how do you weight them, and for that matter, how do you get rid of redundant information due to dependent variables?

At that point you're into hocus-pocus modelling, in which sheer opinion is hidden under a veneer of applied math. It's been said that with seven variables, you can make any data set fit any curve you choose if you fiddle enough with the coefficients.