View Single Post
Old
04-30-2012, 07:21 AM
  #68
plusandminus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
...(Scheduled adjusted scoring)...
I think I now have managed to redo my study. I have to say it's a bit tricky, and not quite as easy as I explained it some day ago. The results I got cannot be taken as they were, but have to be compared to standings where all games of a certain team has been removed.
During seasons with a balanced schedule, like in 1970-71, all teams get 1.0, which is the way I think it should be. 1980-81 is another balanced season.
During other seasons, the differences between team's factual GF and their adjusted one is up to 6 %.
Examples:
The lockout shortened 1994-95 season was divided into two halfs, where the teams of each half never met a team from the other half. Some of the Eastern teams seem "unfavoured". But I think this case is hard, as the halfs were separated. Maybe the Western half simply had better goalscorers, or maybe the Eastern half had better goaltenders. (Looking at 1993-94 and 1995-96 for comparison may of course cast some light over that.)
The 2006-07 season, where some of the Western half teams had low GA per game, is another case. Teams having to play a lot against them had a harder time than other teams.
During the 1980s, Eastern team would generally benefit by schedule adjusting. Edmonton was "favoured" by 0 to 2.3 %.

I think we have a problem here in that my method does not consider the factual strength of scorers. If the Western teams scored more in the 1980s, it may have been because they simply were better at scoring, rather than having to face better defence/goaltending. I think I would need to focus more on the two halfs and how Western teams scored vs Western teams compared to how they scored vs Eastern teams. And vice versa.

I haven't iterated.

plusandminus is offline   Reply With Quote