Based on the expected offense from the tables presented in the other posts, this would be the expected standings. There seems to be a lot of volatility in the east, but the west appears to be business as usual (changes smaller than 10 are not really that significant)
Western Standings
| N | Team | 2007 | 2008 | D | | 1 | Detroit Red Wings | 115 | 113 | -2 | | 2 | Anaheim Ducks | 102 | 101 | -1 | | 3 | San Jose Sharks | 107 | 98 | -9 | | 4 | Vancouver Canucks | 88 | 94 | 6 | | 5 | Dallas Stars | 97 | 94 | -3 | | 6 | Colorado Avalanche | 95 | 93 | -2 | | 7 | Calgary Flames | 94 | 90 | -4 | | 8 | Minnesota Wild | 98 | 89 | -9 | | 9 | Chicago Blackhawks | 88 | 89 | 1 | | 10 | Edmonton Oilers | 88 | 88 | 0 | | 11 | Nashville Predators | 91 | 85 | -6 | | 12 | St. Louis Blues | 79 | 79 | 0 | | 13 | Phoenix Coyotes | 83 | 79 | -4 | | 14 | Columbus Blue Jackets | 80 | 78 | -2 | | 15 | Los Angeles Kings | 71 | 72 | 1 |
|
Eastern Standings
| N | Team | 2007 | 2008 | D | | 1 | Washington Capitals | 94 | 116 | 22 | | 2 | Pittsburgh Penguins | 102 | 108 | 6 | | 3 | Montreal Canadiens | 104 | 104 | 0 | | 4 | New Jersey Devils | 99 | 101 | 2 | | 5 | New York Rangers | 97 | 98 | 1 | | 6 | Buffalo Sabres | 90 | 97 | 7 | | 7 | Tampa Bay Lightning | 71 | 94 | 23 | | 8 | Ottawa Senators | 94 | 93 | -1 | | 9 | Florida Panthers | 85 | 89 | 4 | | 10 | Philadelphia Flyers | 95 | 88 | -7 | | 11 | Carolina Hurricanes | 92 | 88 | -4 | | 12 | Boston Bruins | 94 | 80 | -14 | | 13 | Toronto Maple Leafs | 83 | 80 | -3 | | 14 | Atlanta Thrashers | 76 | 77 | 1 | | 15 | New York Islanders | 79 | 76 | -3 |
|
I think it's worth saying I'm not very satisfied with the results, but I like the method. There are a few things I still need to work out, especially in terms of Crosby and Ovechkin's offense. I also need to look at Tampa a little bit closer ( they are expected to score 300 GF - a little bit unrealistic).
13 comments:
In general the standings are likely to be a whole lot tighter than your predictions indicate.
The total number of standings points goes way up relative to 2007-08. Are you suggesting that there will be a LOT more overtime games next year? (Or maybe your model needs some tweaking, eh? :-) )
Devils and Avalanche out of the playoffs.
It felt strange typing that.
Any way to weight the individual player stats more heavily in the past 5 years vs. other years?
0.4*(last year) + 0.3*(two years ago) + 0.2 * (three years ago) + ...
Using average points for a player who is on the decline (37+) isn't going to be meaningful.
The system adjusts for age:
37+ are assumed to get 72% of their average points/game
34+ are assumed to get 90% of their average points/game
Eg: A. Kovalev has average 0.80 points per game, however my system is only giving him 0.71 due to his age.
Well some players decline at different rates (Sundin + Sakic are keeping pacing with their career averages) - whereas Bertuzzi has severely dropped off.
How am I supposed to understand some of your results like Jason LaBarbera being for more valuable than Roberto Luongo, Henrik Lundqvist, Marty Turco etc?
Or am I reading it wrong? His -29 appears to befar better than any of the other goalies I named.
Washington will end up with around 95 points... No way will they ever see 116, not a chance
RE: LaBarbera...
I don't disagree, however I need a systemic way to calculate these numbers and since it's easiest to use last season's data. Since LaBarbera had a better shot quality neutral save percentage than Luongo (and the others) his results goal prevention is higher.
Also a small factor of the difference is a result of the fact that LaBarbera is expected to see more rubber/game than some of the other options (you cannot prevent goals if there are no shots).
RE: Washington.
Bodog has Washington #3 in terms of odds of winning the cup in 2009.
Keep in mind that Washington is such a young team (top 3 under 24) and those players often get better every year (peak @ 24).
100-110 is probably a more reasonable estimate, but it's hard to be sure.
Washington will be better than last season, the question is by how much...
Lol, Vancouver that high? I will give you my first born if Vancouver does that well this season. Hell I'll give you my fridge if Vancouver even makes the playoffs this year. I think the method is seriously flawed...
Thanks for doing all of this work Javageek. I think that we all really appreciate it.
One suggestion with the model might be to incorporate a similar system that you have for points for games played to account for players that are frequently injured. Then replace any "injury games" with whatever you've been using for a replacement level credit and see if the results come out closer to what you'd expect. It may also help to drive the overall point totals down, which would probably be good. For the most part the ordering looks plausible and the point totals aren't too bad.
Great Job!
Sorry. I just added it up and realized that the overall point totals are the same and that the system is actually just transferring 34 points from the Western Conference to the Eastern Conference. I'm not sure I believe that the East can rack up the sixteen extra wins, but I guess we'll see.
Any comments on why Boston falls so hard in your East projections?
Post a Comment