I think the easiest read out for "close games" is probably goal differential, with the logic that even if a team were winning a lot of games, if they were close ones (ie one goal games) their GD wouldn't be very high. If you sort the teams this way (again, current 11/20) you get:
1. STL 2. SJS 3. COL 4. BOS 5. LAK 6. TOR 7. CHI 8. ANA 9. TBL 10. PIT 11. MON 12. WAS 13. PHX 14. MIN 15. DAL 16. VAN 17. WIN 18. OTT 19. NJD 20. DET 21. NYR 22. NYI 23. PHI 24. COL 25. NSH 26. CAR 27. CAL 28. FLA 29. EDM 30. BUF
so, naturally that roughtly echoes the standings, but I think the teams that moved are interesting. For example, it suggests Chicago has been winning a lot of close games, and that Boston and Toronto have been significantly outscoring opponents.
It's also fun to look at in light of what the "accepted narrative" is re a lot of teams (ie Chicago's phenom defense and LAK's lack of goalscoring)
Then again, standard disclaimer: small sample size, etc, etc.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-11-21 03:34 am (UTC)1. STL
2. SJS
3. COL
4. BOS
5. LAK
6. TOR
7. CHI
8. ANA
9. TBL
10. PIT
11. MON
12. WAS
13. PHX
14. MIN
15. DAL
16. VAN
17. WIN
18. OTT
19. NJD
20. DET
21. NYR
22. NYI
23. PHI
24. COL
25. NSH
26. CAR
27. CAL
28. FLA
29. EDM
30. BUF
so, naturally that roughtly echoes the standings, but I think the teams that moved are interesting. For example, it suggests Chicago has been winning a lot of close games, and that Boston and Toronto have been significantly outscoring opponents.
It's also fun to look at in light of what the "accepted narrative" is re a lot of teams (ie Chicago's phenom defense and LAK's lack of goalscoring)
Then again, standard disclaimer: small sample size, etc, etc.