Competitiveness Index

[jcwla]

From the meaningless statistics department:

Going into tonight’s action (Sun 12/14), here for each team are their number of non-competitive games (defined by me arbitrarily as any game in which they were not within one goal at any time past the midpoint of the third period), largest loss, and most goals allowed, as well as a combined “competitiveness” index (lower better).

ANA (32gp)
Non-competitive games: 7
Largest loss: 7
Most goals allowed: 7
Index: 21

VGK (31gp)
NCG: 3
LL: 4
MGA: 6
Index: 13

LAK (31gp)
NCG: 3
LL: 3
MGA: 5
Index: 11

EDM (32gp)
NCG: 4
LL: 8
MGA: 9
Index: 21

SJS (33gp)
NCG: 7
LL: 6
MGA: 7
Index: 20

SEA (29gp)
NCG: 5
LL: 5
MGA: 9
Index: 19

CGY (33gp)
NCG: 5
LL: 5
MGA: 6
Index: 16

VAN (31gp)
NCG: 8
LL: 4
MGA: 8
Index: 20

COL (32gp)
NCG: 1
LL: 3
MGA: 6
Index: 10

DAL (33gp)
NCG: 2
LL: 4
MGA: 7
Index: 13

MIN (32gp)
NCG: 6
LL: 4
MGA: 7
Index: 17

CHI (33gp)
NCG: 5
LL: 6
MGA: 9
Index: 20

UTA (32gp)
NCG: 4
LL: 4
MGA: 6
Index: 14

WPG (31gp)
NCG: 4
LL: 4
MGA: 6
Index: 14

STL (33gp)
NCG: 9
LL: 5
MGA: 8
Index: 22

NAS (31gp)
NCG: 9
LL: 5
MGA: 8
Index: 22

DET (33gp)
NCG: 8
LL: 5
MGA: 7
Index: 20

TBL (32gp)
NCG: 3
LL: 4
MGA: 7
Index: 14

BOS (32gp)
NCG: 4
LL: 5
MGA: 7
Index: 16

MTL (31gp)
NCG: 5
LL: 7
MGA: 8
Index: 20

FLA (31gp)
NCG: 2
LL: 4
MGA: 7
Index: 13

TOR (31gp)
NCG: 5
LL: 3
MGA: 6
Index: 14

OTT (31gp)
NCG: 4
LL: 5
MGA: 8
Index: 17

BUF (31gp)
NCG: 6
LL: 5
MGA: 7
Index: 18

WAS (32gp)
NCG: 3
LL: 6
MGA: 7
Index: 16

CAR (31gp)
NCG: 4
LL: 4
MGA: 6
Index: 14

NYI (33gp)
NCG: 5
LL: 4
MGA: 6
Index: 15

PIT (30gp)
NCG: 5
LL: 5
MGA: 7
Index: 17

PHL (30gp)
NCG: 5
LL: 4
MGA: 5
Index: 14

NJD (32gp)
NCG: 7
LL: 4
MGA: 8
Index: 19

NYR (33gp)
NCG: 5
LL: 5
MGA: 6
Index: 16

CBJ (32gp)
NCG: 6
LL: 4
MGA: 7
Index: 17

 

[symbology]

Help me out here, if this was based on meaningless statistics,..... What does this mean?

 

[jammer06]

Can you explain the index number? That's the one that's throwing me, I can't tell whats good or bad there.

 

[symbology]

Can you explain the index number? That's the one that's throwing me, I can't tell whats good or bad there.

It is pretty clear to me. You simply add up the numbers, multiply then divide. Subtract the remaining digits and that is the index number.

In all seriousness though, The index is the sum of competitive games played, plus the largest loss goal differential, plus the most goals given up. So, the higher the number the poorer a team performs, based on these metrics.

Not a bad way to try look at things. Though, this seems heavily weighted towards goals against. Also, the index can be heavily skewed by 1 bad game. Take the Ducks for example. They lost to Utah 7-0 a little while ago. So, that one single game makes up 74% of their index score. 2 games later they beat the Blackhawks 7-1, and that game is not factored into this at all, other than it was a NCG. Maybe looking at the average goal differential in a loss would be a better way to do it?

 

[jammer06]

It is pretty clear to me. You simply add up the numbers, multiply then divide. Subtract the remaining digits and that is the index number.

In all seriousness though, The index is the sum of competitive games played, plus the largest loss goal differential, plus the most goals given up. So, the higher the number the poorer a team performs, based on these metrics.

Not a bad way to try look at things. Though, this seems heavily weighted towards goals against. Also, the index can be heavily skewed by 1 bad game. Take the Ducks for example. They lost to Utah 7-0 a little while ago. So, that one single game makes up 74% of their index score. 2 games later they beat the Blackhawks 7-1, and that game is not factored into this at all, other than it was a NCG. Maybe looking at the average goal differential in a loss would be a better way to do it?

Maybe change ncg to ncl (non competitive loss) to capture just how many games the team is actually out of? But I refuse to believe Dallas and Colorado have only had one game each that they weren't ahead or behind by 1 goal midway through the third

 

[symbology]

Maybe change ncg to ncl (non competitive loss) to capture just how many games the team is actually out of? But I refuse to believe Dallas and Colorado have only had one game each that they weren't ahead or behind by 1 goal midway through the third

The numbers may be off.

Also, I am not sure that I would call a game a "CG" where a team is down 2-0 through 58 minutes of play, only to pull their goalie with 2 minutes left and score a single goal. So, they get within 1 goal within the last 10 minutes of the 3rd. That makes it a GG. However, 20 seconds later they give up an empty netter and lose 3-1. So, they were competitive for 20 out of the last 600 seconds of the game. Should that be a CG, or NCG?

 

[jammer06]

The numbers may be off.

Also, I am not sure that I would call a game a "CG" where a team is down 2-0 through 58 minutes of play, only to pull their goalie with 2 minutes left and score a single goal. So, they get within 1 goal within the last 10 minutes of the 3rd. That makes it a GG. However, 20 seconds later they give up an empty netter and lose 3-1. So, they were competitive for 20 out of the last 600 seconds of the game. Should that be a CG, or NCG?

That's the beautiful thing about a defined system, no narrative, it either is or isn't and you hope that one special case is noise and not the rule. In any case I'll have some booze and ponder this.

 

[orpheus]

I am confused, lol.

 

[Sevenhole]

I am confused, lol.

Math!!! No thanks

 

[jcwla]

Maybe change ncg to ncl (non competitive loss) to capture just how many games the team is actually out of? But I refuse to believe Dallas and Colorado have only had one game each that they weren't ahead or behind by 1 goal midway through the third

NCG means non-competitive loss in the numbers above. I wouldn’t call a team non-competitive in a game it led by two or more throughout the second half of the third period.

 

[SirJW]

Being last in Power Plays and 22 in PK is all the competitive index I need. We are going no where this season.

 

[Nyssa42]

You like math a lot more than I do, jcwla.
That is my only conclusion from looking at these numbers, lol.

Would be interesting to see how your numbers work out by the end of the season, though.

 

[symbology]

It is currently 1-1 Kings vs Flames with 7:34 left in the 3rd. Based on your criteria, the Kings have been playing a competitive game. Kings have been outplayed badly. Darcy is keeping them in the game. This is not the first time this has happened.

I think in general this stat can show how a team has been playing overall. I think that with the way the Kings play, this makes them look better than they are. Much like Darcy's play between the pipes.

I for sure applaud the effort, maybe this just needs some tweaks to better align with the reality of teams like the Kings. Maybe this is why all those advanced metrics were created and are used so much. The score of games, or a game often does not closely represent what happened on the ice.

 

[Pevsfreedom]

Is this like one of those 67% of the time you miss every shot you don't take 100% of the time type of things?