{"id":97569,"date":"2012-12-27T15:25:52","date_gmt":"2012-12-27T21:25:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.uscho.com\/ecac-blog\/?p=1214"},"modified":"2012-12-27T15:25:52","modified_gmt":"2012-12-27T21:25:52","slug":"ecac-hockeys-strength-of-schedule-at-the-break","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.uscho.com\/2012\/12\/27\/ecac-hockeys-strength-of-schedule-at-the-break\/","title":{"rendered":"ECAC Hockey’s strength-of-schedule at the break"},"content":{"rendered":"
Inspired in part by years of curiosity, and more recently by the Cornell hockey blog “WAFT” (Where Angels Fear to Tread)<\/a>, I gathered a novella of league standings and schedules and went to work on breaking down exactly how tough ECAC Hockey’s teams have had it in the first half.<\/p>\n Not being a diploma-holding statistician, I did not do backflips through standardized deviations to arrive at deeper truths. I simply compiled the overall records for each ECAC team’s respective opponents so far, and used that to calculate a winning percentage. The higher the percentage, the tougher the schedule, presumably.<\/p>\n However, since most teams enjoy streaks and suffer skids, I thought it would be equally fascinating to find out how well opponents had fared at the time of the game. Boston College opened the season with a loss to Northeastern: Chances are good that the Eagles’ second opponent (Massachusetts) was facing a team in a much different mindset on October 19 than it did on November 4, after BC had reeled off five straight wins. Early-season games are a crapshoot, and I’m not sure that Northeastern’s win over the Eagles on opening night is worth as much as it would be now. Therefore, along with total opponents’ win percentage, I also tabulated opponents’ records entering each respective game against ECAC programs. Let’s see what shakes out.<\/p>\n First, here are the current ECAC Hockey standings, by win percentage:<\/p>\n .765 – Quinnipiac …and here are the cumulative opposition winning percentages for each of those respective teams:<\/p>\n .582 – Rensselaer Depending on your affiliations, some glances look understandable, some are a bit more baffling. QU and Union have each faced a relatively<\/em> light schedule, and are succeeding for it. RPI took on the toughest gauntlet in the league, by these numbers, and has the bruises to show for it. Ditto Clarkson.<\/p>\n Then there are the outliers. St. Lawrence started hot, but cooled with the temperature this fall: One of the softer (again, in an admittedly simplistic assessment) schedules has not translated into victories of late for the struggling Saints. On the other end of the spectrum, Dartmouth has played some of the best teams in the nation (BC, plus two games against Yale and one each versus Union and Cornell) but remains one of the nation’s top teams, performance-wise.<\/p>\n Would this be easier to follow with a visual representation? Well have I<\/i> got the chart for you!<\/i><\/p>\nThe method<\/h4>\n
By the numbers<\/h4>\n
\n.727 – Dartmouth
\n.667 – Union
\n.667 – Yale
\n.636 – Cornell
\n.556 – Colgate
\n.500 – Harvard
\n.471 – St. Lawrence
\n.429 – Rensselaer
\n.417 – Brown
\n.382 – Clarkson
\n.375 – Princeton<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n.550 – Dartmouth
\n.544 – Clarkson
\n.540 – Brown
\n.533 – Colgate
\n.524 – Harvard
\n.522 – Princeton
\n.509 – Cornell
\n.500 – Yale
\n.482 – Quinnipiac
\n.464 – Union
\n.454 – St. Lawrence<\/p><\/blockquote>\n