|
Post by soccer24 on Mar 19, 2018 14:27:09 GMT
The Hawks terrible slide continues to start manifesting itself in these rankings, dropping from 14th to 15th. For a couple of months the Kings were mostly just floating by themelves, but the Hawks have sunk low enough to catch them finally.
Boston remains all alone at the top. Although Nashville has finally climbed to the #2 spot. Looking at the chart, when I started tracking this (after adjusting the formula slightly) they were initially 21st and have been on the rise ever since. Tampa Bay has also started to climb back up after a brief lull.
Upcoming schedule: vs Colorado - 24th vs Vancouver - 27th @ NY Islanders - 31st
Full list: 1 Boston 2 Nashville 3 Pittsburgh 4 Columbus 5 St. Louis 6 San Jose 7 Tampa Bay 8 Carolina 9 Calgary 10 Dallas 11 Winnipeg 12 Vegas 13 Edmonton 14 Los Angeles 15 Chicago 16 Philadelphia 17 Florida 18 Toronto 19 Montreal 20 Anaheim 21 New Jersey 22 Minnesota 23 Detroit 24 Colorado 25 Washington 26 Arizona 27 Vancouver 28 Ottawa 29 Buffalo 30 NY Rangers 31 NY Islanders
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Mar 19, 2018 15:48:16 GMT
well, I call a Nas/Bos final, so there we agree
|
|
|
Post by soccer24 on Mar 22, 2018 17:52:59 GMT
As you can observe in the chart below, the correlation between this power ranking score and your position in the regualr season standings is starting to become more strongly linked.
|
|
|
Post by garyu on Mar 22, 2018 18:28:39 GMT
As you can observe in the chart below, the correlation between this power ranking score and your position in the regualr season standings is starting to become more strongly linked.
Clear as mud.
|
|
|
Post by Hawksfan10 on Mar 22, 2018 19:04:43 GMT
I see your R-Squared ratio is .35?? In the financial world anything less than 70 indicates there isn't much correlation with the fixed value set.
|
|
|
Post by lari on Mar 22, 2018 19:18:47 GMT
I think it's noteworthy that Washington seems to be the greatest pretender. High in the standings, but they aren't going to win anything. Just like the graph says.
Also, the Penguins are a dangerous team despite their relatively low regular season standing. An elite contender.
I think those are two things we can all agree upon. I'll give soccer credit for identifying these known facts with (some sort of) quantifiable measure.
|
|
|
Post by Hawksfan10 on Mar 22, 2018 19:30:09 GMT
LOL - fair enough!
|
|
|
Post by soccer24 on Mar 22, 2018 19:30:23 GMT
I see your R-Squared ratio is .35?? In the financial world anything less than 70 indicates there isn't much correlation with the fixed value set.
Right, mathematically it's not really the strongest correlation out there. And in a financial field, I wouldn't expect anyone to put money down on anything that is .35
But it's important to remember I didn't set this up to anticipate regular season success. If I wanted that, I would put a ton of stock in shooting %. Right now I don't put anything into that.
The only reason I'm calling out the correlation here is because if this holds, it will be in the same ball park as the last 10 seasons, which has seen 2 out of 3 playoff match-ups selected correctly.
|
|
|
Post by soccer24 on Mar 22, 2018 19:39:43 GMT
Tryign to use regular season stats to predict the regular season is dull. If I wanted a perfect formula, I would use standings points.
If I decided to give myself a stupid handicap and not use that, then here are two models I just quickly whipped up. First one looks at goal differential, shot % and save %. Second one is shot %, save %, and special teams. But these are junk to me if we're looking for playoff success. The first got 88 playoff matchups right and 62 wrong. The second one gets 76 playoff matchups right and 74 wrong.
The one I have been promoting all season long is 100 matchups right, 50 wrong.
|
|
|
Post by gadi on Mar 22, 2018 20:57:44 GMT
OK so your model is not a regular season indicator in anyway, as you keep saying. So why do you keep posting weekly updates? If the model is constructed to give you a strong idea of who will win in individual playoff match ups, you are literally wasting your time running the numbers every week, paying attention to who's moving up and down, etc. It is, by your own admission, completely pointless.
So, congratulations?
|
|
|
Post by soccer24 on Mar 22, 2018 21:02:45 GMT
Or.
It is an indicator to see who is setting up better for playoff success as the season moves along.
|
|
|
Post by soccer24 on Mar 22, 2018 21:07:27 GMT
Oh yeah, also, this is the first time I was ready to start tracking it as the year moves along. All I've really had previously is just the static number every team ended with. I'll be interested to see if there is anything to read into teams who scored relatively low, but were on an upswing as the year closed out. Are some teams better or worse than they appear? Did the trade deadline have any noticable impact?
|
|
|
Post by gadi on Mar 22, 2018 21:49:49 GMT
It's not an indicator for anything, since the standings are variable. And, as you said, it's about playoff match ups. You'd be better off just showing how teams matchup based on your formula in the playoffs were to start today. Because saying Team X is better than Team Y means jack shit to the entire premise of your rankings, if they aren't meeting in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by soccer24 on Mar 22, 2018 23:29:08 GMT
I'm not going to re-speculate playoff match-ups every week. That sounds extra pointless.
I'm just more interested in seeing the trends as the season progresses.
If I cut out the full ranking and instead reduced it to "This playoff team beats that playoff team" I'm just cutting out a ton of information for no reason. The way I'm doing it right now leaves me open to being flexible at different looks. For instance.... If I DID decide to take your approach, I could just do that right now. Heck, you could do that right now, because I gave you the full ranking. Or if you wonder what happens if Teams X & Y flip spots in the standings, what that means for teams A & B. Because you'd have the full list. Flexibility is always nice.
|
|
|
Post by gadi on Mar 23, 2018 19:20:32 GMT
You say it's good for one thing & then ignore that one thing. Makes sense to me.
|
|