12.13.2006

Western's Pacific Division rules the NHL

Every so often, for whatever reason, a sudden urge to run numbers strikes. Today's bout of hockey research, which takes a snapshot approach, focuses on the National Hockey League's best division.

The formula applied to today's exercise is multi-stepped, but relatively simple:

~ For each division, I added each team's goals for, through Tuesday's games, and assigned a sliding-scale point system, with six points awarded to the top-scoring division.

~ Then, for each division, I added each team's goals allowed, through Tuesday's games, and assigned a sliding-scale point system, with six points awarded to stingiest division.

~ Then, for each division, I found the plus/minus rating, through Tuesday's games, and assigned a sliding-scale point system, with six points awarded to the division with the best plus/minus rating.

~ Finally, total points were added to determine the final ranking among divisions.

Here are the divisional findings:

Eastern Conference
Atlantic: 420 goals for (3 pts.), 451 goals allowed (3 pts.), -31 (1 pt.).
Total score: 7
Northeast: 499 goals for (6 pts.), 472 goals allowed (2 pts.), +27 (5 pts.).
Total score: 13
Southeast: 483 goals for (5 pts.), 512 goals allowed (1 pt.), -29 (2 pts.).
Total score: 8

Western Conference
Central: 393 goals for (1 pt.), 415 goals allowed (5 pts.), -22 (3 pts.).
Total score: 9
Northwest: 417 goals for (2 pts.), 396 goals allowed (6 pts.), +21 (4 pts.).
Total score: 12
Pacific: 462 goals for (4 pts.), 433 goal allowed (4 pts.), +29 (6 pts.).
Total score: 14

Final rankings:
1.) Pacific
2.) Northeast
3.) Northwest
4.) Central
5.) Southeast
6.) Atlantic

Additional analysis: Because the Western Conference dominates the divisional rankings, it is, by far, the better conference in the National Hockey League.

Going forward, I'll use the phrase nasrohmetrics (North American statistical research of hockey) for this type of analysis, namely for the lack of a better term and to distance this discipline from baseball's sabermetrics.

Intelligent feedback is welcome.

Labels:

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a massive sabermetric geek, I'm drooling over the possibilities of what could come of this. And I think I finally have something to talk about in my E=MC^2 day of my blog over at SFN.

6:32 PM  
Blogger Puckhound said...

Hey, can you provide a link to your site? I'd like to check it out.

11:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure thing, it's http://www.sportsfansonline.net

12:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home