jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (12/07/84)
Have you ever looked at hockey standings and said, "sure team X has a
great record, but they haven't beaten anybody good. If they had played
the same teams that team Y has played, they'd have a lot more losses," or
something like that? Well, I've written a program that attempts to show
the true meaning of a team's record by taking into consideration how good
its opponents have been.
Those of you who read net.sport.football have already seen what this program
can do. For those who don't, the program gives good points for each win and
bad points for each loss (a tie counts as half a win and half a loss).
The number of good or bad points given depends on the opponent: more
good points are given for a win against a good team, and more bad points
for a loss against a bad team. Then, a rating is calculated from the
difference between the team's good and bad points and the number of games
they have played. This rating is used because if a team has played average
competition, their rating will be the same as their win percentage.
Mail me if you want more details on the algorithm.
This is what it comes up for the NHL, after games of Dec. 5. Unless somebody
objects, I'll post the ratings about once a month.
RANK TEAM (Div.) GP W L T PCT GOOD BAD RATING
1 EDMONTON (Sm.) 25 19 3 3 0.820 19.8 3.5 0.826
2 PHILADELPHIA (Pat.) 24 16 4 4 0.750 17.3 6.0 0.737
3 MONTREAL (Ad.) 25 15 6 4 0.680 16.7 9.3 0.648
4 NY ISLANDERS (Pat.) 25 15 9 1 0.620 14.0 8.4 0.612
5 CALGARY (Sm.) 26 15 9 2 0.615 14.3 8.6 0.611
6 WASHINGTON (Pat.) 25 12 8 5 0.580 13.6 8.8 0.596
7 WINNIPEG (Sm.) 24 12 9 3 0.563 11.7 8.1 0.576
8 ST. LOUIS (Nor.) 24 12 10 2 0.542 11.1 8.5 0.554
9 BOSTON (Ad.) 25 11 11 3 0.500 12.0 9.5 0.550
10 LOS ANGELES (Sm.) 26 12 9 5 0.558 11.8 10.1 0.533
11 QUEBEC (Ad.) 25 12 11 2 0.520 11.5 10.6 0.517
12 CHICAGO (Nor.) 26 12 11 3 0.519 12.1 11.8 0.506
13 BUFFALO (Ad.) 25 9 11 5 0.460 11.7 12.6 0.481
14 NY RANGERS (Pat.) 24 9 12 3 0.438 9.9 13.1 0.433
15 HARTFORD (Ad.) 25 9 13 3 0.420 9.2 12.8 0.427
16 MINNESOTA (Nor.) 25 8 11 6 0.440 7.4 13.2 0.385
17 PITTSBURGH (Pat.) 24 7 14 3 0.354 8.8 14.5 0.381
18 NEW JERSEY (Pat.) 23 7 14 2 0.348 7.2 13.6 0.361
19 DETROIT (Nor.) 25 8 14 3 0.380 7.6 15.6 0.341
20 VANCOUVER (Sm.) 27 4 21 2 0.185 4.1 18.7 0.230
21 TORONTO (Nor.) 26 4 18 4 0.231 5.4 21.3 0.194
--
Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsrgv!dciem!jeff
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff