Competitiveness Index

jcwla

jcwla

Super Star
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
 
Last edited:
Can you explain the index number? That's the one that's throwing me, I can't tell whats good or bad there.
 
jammer06 said:
Can you explain the index number? That's the one that's throwing me, I can't tell whats good or bad there.
Click to expand...

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?
 
symbology said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
jammer06 said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
symbology said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
I am confused, lol. ;)

nerd observing GIF
 
jammer06 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Hi! Back with updated competitiveness data.

I now have five categories:
(1) uncompetitive losses (UCL), defined as any game in which the team is behind by two or more goals for the entire second half of the third period;
(2) largest loss (LL);
(3) most goals allowed (MGA);
(4) competitiveness index (CI) (the lower the better), which is the sum of (1), (2), and (3); and
(5) weighted competitiveness index (WCI) (the lower the better), which is CI + (1), double counting UCL since some consider (2) and (3) to be vulnerable to "one awful game" (although there is something to be said for not allowing "one awful game" over 50+ games).

Tampa Bay
UCL: 5
LL: 4 (nine teams tie for best in league with a largest loss of only four goals)
MGA: 8
CI: 17
WCI: 22

Detroit
UCL: 9
LL: 5
MGA: 7
CI: 21
WCI: 30

Buffalo
UCL: 7
LL: 5
MGA: 7
CI: 19
WCI: 26

Montreal
UCL: 8
LL: 7
MGA: 8
CI: 23
WCI: 31

Boston
UCL: 11
LL: 5
MGA: 7
CI: 23
WCI: 34

Florida
UCL: 7
LL: 8
MGA: 9
CI: 24
WCI: 31

Toronto
UCL: 10
LL: 5
MGA: 7
CI: 22
WCI: 32

Ottawa
UCL: 8
LL: 6
MGA: 8
CI: 22
WCI: 30

Carolina
UCL: 7
LL: 4
MGA: 7
CI: 18
WCI: 25

Pittsburgh
UCL: 8
LL: 5
MGA: 7
CI: 20
WCI: 28

NY Islanders
UCL: 10
LL: 5
MGA: 7
CI: 22
WCI: 32

Philadelphia
UCL: 13
LL: 5
MGA: 7
CI: 25
WCI: 38

Washington
UCL: 7
LL: 6
MGA: 7
CI: 20
WCI: 27

New Jersey
UCL: 11
LL: 9
MGA: 9
CI: 29
WCI: 40

Columbus
UCL: 8
LL: 4
MGA: 7
CI: 19
WCI: 27

NY Rangers
UCL: 10
LL: 8
MGA: 10
CI: 28
WCI: 38

Colorado
UCL: 2* (best in league)
LL: 4
MGA: 7
CI: 13** (tied for best in league)
WCI: 15* (best in league)

Minnesota
UCL: 9
LL: 4
MGA: 7
CI: 20
WCI: 29

Dallas
UCL: 5
LL: 4
MGA: 7
CI: 16
WCI: 21

Utah
UCL: 5
LL: 4
MGA: 6
CI: 15
WCI: 20

Nashville
UCL: 14
LL: 5
MGA: 8
CI: 27
WCI: 41

Chicago
UCL: 10
LL: 6
MGA: 9
CI: 25
WCI: 35

Winnipeg
UCL: 5
LL: 4
MGA: 6
CI: 15
WCI: 20

St. Louis
UCL: 15
LL: 5
MGA: 8
CI: 28
WCI: 43

Vegas
UCL: 7
LL: 6
MGA: 7
CI: 20
WCI: 27

Edmonton
UCL: 8
LL: 8
MGA: 9
CI: 25
WCI: 33

Anaheim
UCL: 11
LL: 7
MGA: 8
CI: 26
WCI: 37

San Jose
UCL: 11
LL: 6
MGA: 7
CI: 24
WCI: 35

Los Angeles
UCL: 4
LL: 4
MGA: 5* (best in league)
CI: 13** (tied for best in league)
WCI: 17

Seattle
UCL: 5
LL: 5
MGA: 9
CI: 19
WCI: 24

Calgary
UCL: 11
LL: 5
MGA: 6
CI: 22
WCI: 33

Vancouver
UCL: 16
LL: 6
MGA: 8
CI: 30
WCI: 46

So, when it comes to which teams are "in every game"...

Best (Competitiveness Index)
1.) Colorado 13
1.) Los Angeles 13
3.) Utah 15
3.) Winnipeg 15
5.) Dallas 16

Worst (Competitiveness Index)
32.) Vancouver 30
31.) New Jersey 29
29.) NY Rangers 28
29.) St. Louis 28
28.) Nashville 27

Best (Weighted Competitiveness Index)
1.) Colorado 15
2.) Los Angeles 17
3.) Utah 20
3.) Winnipeg 20
5.) Dallas 21

Worst (Weighted Competitiveness Index)
32.) Vancouver 46
31.) St. Louis 43
30.) Nashville 41
29.) New Jersey 40
27.) Philadelphia 38
27.) NY Rangers 38
 
Moog said:
So this is "you tried real hard" stat?

Well....ok.

Meanwhile the scoreboard will tell you if you are a good time more times than not.
Click to expand...
Totally. The Kings can claim to be the most competitive non playoff team. Up there with Winnipeg.

Not to be overly harsh, but the poor correlation between the index in the standings would indicate it needs more tweaking. IMO, It overweights the penalty for a single blowout loss.
 
hokiecat said:
Totally. The Kings can claim to be the most competitive non playoff team. Up there with Winnipeg.

Not to be overly harsh, but the poor correlation between the index in the standings would indicate it needs more tweaking. IMO, It overweights the penalty for a single blowout loss.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time understanding how a team that is currently out of the playoffs and that can only muster a regulation win 27.5% of the time...... can be considered one of the more competitive teams.
 
hokiecat said:
Totally. The Kings can claim to be the most competitive non playoff team. Up there with Winnipeg.

Not to be overly harsh, but the poor correlation between the index in the standings would indicate it needs more tweaking. IMO, It overweights the penalty for a single blowout loss.
Click to expand...
Well then look at uncompetitive losses:

1) Colorado 2
2) Los Angeles 4
3) Tampa Bay 5
3) Dallas 5
3) Utah 5
3) Winnipeg 5
3) Seattle 5

Yes, we lack finish and it's cost us. But a half dozen timely goals, and a few late leads preserved, and we have home ice in the playoffs. And only once in 13 games are we "out of it" in the late stages. And this is with a number of injuries. The team may not have a high upside, but the way it's being talked about as one of the grave disappointments is outer lunar.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Now Chirping

Share this page

Back
Top