29 replies to this topic

[carpandean]

Here we go again ...

Sabres Historical:
 Points-20130422.jpg   120.2K   10 downloads

Northeast Division:
 Points-20130422-NE.jpg   76.77K   13 downloads

Eastern Conference:
 Points-20130422-EC.jpg   117.22K   16 downloads

Playoffs (axis is 8th place):
 Points-20130422-Playoffs.jpg   119.99K   14 downloads

Estimate chances:
 Points-20130422-EstChances.jpg   238.65K   10 downloads
(Note: division winner's not accounted for in places.)

Updated 4/23

Edited by carpandean, 23 April 2013 - 11:44 AM.

[IKnowPhysics]

In the first plot you may or may not want to normalize the points of seasons past to a 48 game season by dividing the previous seasons differential to the 93 point pace by the ratio 48/82.  Might give it more meaning.  I think we're shooting for at least 55 points this season instead of 93, but who the hell really knows with the compressed schedule.

Also, thanks for doing this.  Always worth a look.

Edited by IKnowPhysics, 29 January 2013 - 12:44 PM.

[MattPie]

IKnowPhysics, on 29 January 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

In the first plot you may or may not want to normalize the points of seasons past to a 48 game season by dividing the previous seasons differential to the 93 point pace by the ratio 48/82.  Might give it more meaning.  I think we're shooting for at least 55 points this season instead of 93, but who the hell really knows with the compressed schedule.

Also, thanks for doing this.  Always worth a look.

I think the first chart is using a 54-point pace as the axis. It's not labelled as on the other two, but the lines are the same.

[carpandean]

MattPie, on 29 January 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

I think the first chart is using a 54-point pace as the axis. It's not labelled as on the other two, but the lines are the same.

More or less.  The first chart uses 93/82 = 1.134 PPG as the axis.  I simply started the current season with a net (points - pace) of 0 through 34 games.  Basically, I spotted them 39 points.  Technically, it's biased high relative to the the 93 point pace, since it is net of a 1.25 PPG pace instead.)

The other two charts are net of 0 points through game 34 and then net of a 54 points in 48 games pace (approximately, 1.25 PPG) for the rest.

IKP, I know what you're saying, as it would more or less shrink the old chart to the scale of a 48-game, 1.25 PPG pace.  If I have time, I'll see what it will look like, but I suspect that scaling the x-axis would be problematic given the integrality of GP.

[IKnowPhysics]

carpandean, on 29 January 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

IKP, I know what you're saying, as it would more or less shrink the old chart to the scale of a 48-game, 1.25 PPG pace.  If I have time, I'll see what it will look like, but I suspect that scaling the x-axis would be problematic given the integrality of GP.

Not sure you have to rescale the x-axis if you don't want to (I actually like the x axis the way it is), maybe just rescale the y values of this season OR the other seasons so that they have similar meaning.  For example: multiply this season's points per game by 82/48, so that a +10 point pace this season really is equivalent to a +17ish point pace historically.

Maybe you've already done that by scaling to a 54 point pace or incorporated it into the points per game math- my eyes can't tell yet.

[sizzlemeister]

[carpandean]

A comparison with Ron Jeremy ... so many ways that can be a bad thing and only one way that can be good.

[Spndnchz]

Why not just have this years game one be game one?  Or shrink previous years to 48 games?

I'm expecting a reason but a bit foggy this morning.

[Robviously]

The charts with the little team logos are adorable.

[sizzlemeister]

Why are you people complaining about the carp's method with this season's chart(s)?  I think it's fine, myself, especially the historical where we can see this season relative to prior seasons.  There will be no perfect way of doing it, and I would the think the guy making the chart is in the best position to choose the method. Just sayin'...

[Spndnchz]

sizzlemeister, on 01 February 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Why are you people complaining about the carp's method with this season's chart(s)?  I think it's fine, myself, especially the historical where we can see this season relative to prior seasons.  There will be no perfect way of doing it, and I would the think the guy making the chart is in the best position to choose the method. Just sayin'...

Not complaining at all just a legitimate question.

[carpandean]

I like consistency in my charts from year-to-year.  Basically, by shortening the schedule, the league said that everyone is tied through 34GP.  So, that's what I did with my charts.  It will be a fun year to look back at in, say, 2016.

[Robviously]

carpandean, on 08 February 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

I like consistency in my charts from year-to-year.  Basically, by shortening the schedule, the league said that everyone is tied through 34GP.  So, that's what I did with my charts.  It will be a fun year to look back at in, say, 2016.

Jokes aside, these charts are pretty sweet.  Good work.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Big game.....you win this and the team may have bottomed out.....you lose, and you are on a trajectory to horrible, assuming you then lose to Boston.

You lose these next 2 and you just don't recover from that type of downward slope in time........

[carpandean]

How low can we go?  How low can we go?

[Billy Fuccillo]

carpandean, on 22 February 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

How low can we go?  How low can we go?

6-41-1 for 13 points.

[Spndnchz]

Hey!  We're not as bad as last year!  

[carpandean]

Spndnchz, on 22 February 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

Hey!  We're not as bad as last year!  

For the whole season, no.  However, last year in games 35-52 last year, they went 6-9-3.

[carpandean]

I added the Playoffs chart, but as usual, the difference in games played limits its usefulness.  The Rangers and Devils will determine the 8th-place points through at least 23GP and likely through more (it would take the Rangers losing 3 in-a-row and the Jets winning 2 in-a-row for the Jets to affect 8th-place through 24GP; no other team can.)  Through 20GP, the Sabres were still 7 points behind 8th-place.  Through 21GP, they will be either 5 or 6 behind (depending on the Rangers' next game), and through 22GP, they will be 4 or 5 behind (depending on the Rangers' next 2 games.)  The game against the Devils will be huge for distance from the playoffs, as they will likely be the 8th-best team through 22GP (unless the Rangers lose both of their next two.)

On another note, I wrote my own Monte Carlo simulator to add onto my charts spreadsheet.  I downloaded the schedule, including the date/time, home team and away team.  It simulates only remaining games and adds the results to the current points.  To keep it simple (for now), I used a 50/50 split with a 20% chance (overall) of an OT/SO game.  I did a quick 60,000 seasons and noticed a few things:

1) I estimated a 12% chance of making the playoffs, which is just slightly above what SportClubStats 50/50 shows (10.3%).
2) The average 8th place finish was just under 53 points.
3) They had a 22.5% chance of finishing dead last (in EC) and a 0.029% chance of finishing first (and that's biased high by the 50/50 split.)

Edited by carpandean, 06 March 2013 - 02:04 PM.

[Spndnchz]

Better than last year! hum.

Looks like if you made this season start on day one it would look much like 2010-2011 start.

PS:  U da boss

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

They finish with 45 points.......

[carpandean]

Spndnchz, on 06 March 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

PS:  U da boss

Aw, shucks.

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 06 March 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

They finish with 45 points.......

Probably about right.  They averaged 47 in the simulation and, again, that's biased high if you believe that they have a less than 50% chance of winning any game.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

carpandean, on 06 March 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

Aw, shucks.



Probably about right.  They averaged 47 in the simulation and, again, that's biased high if you believe that they have a less than 50% chance of winning any game.

Or it's biased low if...

[carpandean]

Added some output from my simulator.  Basically, gives the estimate chance of finishing in each spot for each team, the average points earned by each team, their chances of making the playoffs and the average points for the 8th place team.  Again, for now, I'm assuming 50/50 (well, 40/10/10/40.)  I want to test to see what affects the win probability.  I'm thinking season PPG, last 10 PPG, home/away (though, that seems to be team specific, too) and a few other things.  Then, I can change the way it determines the probabilities in the simulator.

[carpandean]

Their 3-game win streak netted them 2 points against 8th place, which offsets the two points that they lost against 8th place in the previous two games.

Going 6-2-2 netted them 4 points against 8th place.  Now, they have fewer games to make up more points (assuming that they'll lose the ROW tie-breaker.)

[shrader]

carpandean, on 12 March 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Added some output from my simulator.  Basically, gives the estimate chance of finishing in each spot for each team, the average points earned by each team, their chances of making the playoffs and the average points for the 8th place team.  Again, for now, I'm assuming 50/50 (well, 40/10/10/40.)  I want to test to see what affects the win probability.  I'm thinking season PPG, last 10 PPG, home/away (though, that seems to be team specific, too) and a few other things.  Then, I can change the way it determines the probabilities in the simulator.

I take it that you can't come up with anything relatively easily that will account for division winners.  Upon quick glance, it looks like your simulation allows for the possibility of a team winning the southeast but still missing the playoffs.

[carpandean]

A couple of interesting notes as we wind down the season:

1) Though the Sabres have never finished a season as far off of the playoff pace than they will this year, they were actually worse last year through the first 48GP.

2) It does, indeed, look like the 54-point pace will be right on.

3) Pittsburgh and Florida's symmetry, while visually appealing, really 'd with my scale.

4) I found it really hard to stay motivated on this thread for some reason

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Thanks as always......I like the Bruins chart heading into the playoffs, assuming they are a good team. There is a 30% chance they get creamed early in a shocking 4 or 5 games....but a 70% chance they go on a real nice run, even if it is 6 and 7 game series. The Rangers have gone sideways forever as well and something needs to give. Similar to the Bruins, but their direction is closer to 55/45.

Good news Sabres fans........the Sabres have gone sideways in a gap so long this year, they look to have a big move the first part of next year. Which way? No clue. But I can see a 15-5 or 5-15 start to the season.

[IKnowPhysics]

Jesus, the Panthers really want the best shot at the #1 pick.

[X. Benedict]

IKnowPhysics, on 23 April 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

Jesus, the Panthers really want the best shot at the #1 pick.

I wonder if Florida really wanta Seth Jones though.

It is a pretty tepid market to begin with. I wonder if a defense-man can really energize a fan-base down there.