NHL Magic Numbers 2010
Last update: Through all games 12/11
EASTERN CONFERENCE
| Team | Curr Pts | Max Poss Pts | Magic Number | Which Does What? | Clinch | Eliminate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NJD | 43 | 147 | +79 CAR -101 WSH |
+Clinch 14E -Elim PT -Elim 1E |
||
| WSH | 46 | 146 | +76 CAR |
+Clinch 14E +Clinch 4SE |
||
| BUF | 38 | 144 | +84 CAR -98 WSH |
+Clinch 14E -Elim PT -Elim 1E |
||
| PIT | 43 | 143 | +79 CAR -97 WSH |
+Clinch 14E -Elim PT -Elim 1E |
||
| BOS | 37 | 141 | +85 CAR -95 WSH |
+Clinch 14E -Elim PT -Elim 1E |
||
| ATL | 33 | 139 | +89 CAR -93 WSH |
+Clinch 14E +Clinch 4SE -Elim PT -Elim 1SE -Elim 3E |
||
| OTT | 34 | 138 | +88 CAR -92 WSH |
+Clinch 14E -Elim PT -Elim 1E |
||
| PHI | 29 | 135 | +93 CAR -89 WSH |
+Clinch 14E -Elim PT -Elim 1E |
||
| NYR | 30 | 134 | +92 CAR -88 WSH |
+Clinch 14E -Elim PT -Elim 1E |
||
| TBL | 31 | 133 | +91 CAR -87 WSH |
+Clinch 14E +Clinch 4SE -Elim PT -Elim 1SE -Elim 3E |
||
| MTL | 32 | 132 | +90 CAR -86 WSH |
+Clinch 14E -Elim PT -Elim 1E |
||
| NYI | 29 | 131 | +93 CAR -85 WSH |
+Clinch 14E -Elim PT -Elim 1E |
||
| FLA | 30 | 130 | +92 CAR -84 WSH |
+Clinch 14E +Clinch 4SE -Elim PT -Elim 1SE -Elim 3E |
||
| TOR | 27 | 129 | +95 CAR -83 WSH |
+Clinch 14E -Elim PT -Elim 1E |
||
| CAR | 20 | 122 | -76 WSH |
-Elim PT -Elim 1SE -Elim 3E |
WESTERN CONFERENCE
| Team | Curr Pts | Max Poss Pts | Magic Number | Which Does What? | Clinch | Eliminate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | 41 | 145 | +91 ANA -99 WSH |
+Clinch 14W -Elim PT |
||
| SJS | 45 | 143 | +88 ANA -97 WSH |
+Clinch 14W Clinch 4PA -Elim PT |
||
| CGY | 41 | 143 | +91 ANA -97 WSH |
+Clinch 14W -Elim PT |
||
| LAK | 43 | 141 | +89 ANA -95 WSH |
+Clinch 14W +Clinch 4PA -Elim PT |
||
| PHX | 38 | 140 | +94 ANA -94 WSH |
+Clinch 14W +Clinch 4PA -Elim PT |
||
| NSH | 38 | 140 | +94 ANA -94 WSH |
+Clinch 14W -Elim PT |
||
| DAL | 37 | 139 | +95 ANA -93 WSH |
+Clinch 14W +Clinch 4PA -Elim PT |
||
| COL | 42 | 138 | +90 ANA -92 WSH |
+Clinch 14W -Elim PT |
||
| DET | 35 | 137 | +97 ANA -91 WSH |
+Clinch 14W -Elim PT |
||
| VAN | 34 | 136 | +98 ANA -90 WSH |
+Clinch 14W -Elim PT |
||
| CBJ | 34 | 136 | +98 ANA -90 WSH |
+Clinch 14W -Elim PT |
||
| MIN | 33 | 135 | +99 ANA -89 WSH |
+Clinch 14W -Elim PT |
||
| STL | 31 | 135 | +101 ANA -89 WSH |
+Clinch 14W -Elim PT |
||
| EDM | 34 | 134 | +98 ANA -88 WSH |
+Clinch 14W -Elim PT |
||
| ANA | 29 | 131 | -85 WSH |
-Elim PT |
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS:
E: Eastern Conference
W: Western Conference
NE: Northeast Division
AT: Atlantic Division
SE: Southeast Division
CE: Central Division
NW: Northwest Division
PA: Pacific Division
PT: President’s Trophy (best record in NHL)
PO: Playoffs
1P: Top 5 Draft Position, and a chance at the first overall pick
Teams ranked in order by Max Possible Points, then by Current Points. If still tied, official NHL.com standings shall prevail between the tied teams. Intra-season division leads may be ignored if standard tie breaks so warrant.
Positive magic numbers indicate magic numbers for CLINCHING.
Negative magic numbers indicate magic numbers for ELIMINATION.
If a team has two significant magic numbers, both shall be listed, along with the teams those numbers are compared against. If a team has two magic numbers listed, a plus sign under “Which Does What?” is the next “positive” event for the CLINCHING number; a minus sign shows the next “negative” event for the ELIMINATION number.
Teams in green have qualified for the playoffs; teams struck in red have been mathematically eliminated from playoff contention. A green underline indicates a division champion, and a guaranteed Top 3 seeding in the playoffs. Clinches underlined in red, with no corresponding elimination, represent final positions for non-winning teams within a division or conference.
Just thought I would let you know, as it is described on NHL.com
When two teams are tied during the regular season the team who has won the most games between the two will have the tie breaker unless those teams have not both played a game at home. Then it goes to the Greater goal differential
Maybe I’m dense, but I thought they only did the odd-game-out business if teams were tied head-to-head and hadn’t played an equal number of home games. If one team leads the season series outright, they get the standing. Yes, no? I’m confused.
Here is the exact verbiage, copy-and-paste, with emphasis added:
“The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any “odd” games, shall be used to determine the standing.”
Now, a plain reading of that would say, if a team has earned more points head to head, it gets the standing–period, full stop, no need to go further. Teams are obviously tied for this to even be part of the discussion–by the time this even kicks in, teams already have to have equal points, games played, and games won. So “if two clubs are tied,” as I’m reading it here, seems to apply only when teams are tied head-to-head–which Atlanta and Buffalo were not, going into last night’s games. Atlanta had won the teams’ only meeting (so far) back on Saturday. Teams are obviously tied if we’re discussing tie break #3 procedures. So that “if two clubs are tied” would be completely redundant unless it meant that the tie it’s referring to in this rule is head-to-head. And again, Atlanta won the only meeting so far, so the two teams were not tied head to head. Ergo, it’s not an odd game out, because the series wasn’t tied: Atlanta was in the lead outright.
This is admittedly a very moot point over meaningless October standings, but I need to have this down pat by January. I’ve offered my explanation for my confusion, so please correct me. I evidently don’t understand this rule as well as I should. No sarcasm, seriously–that third tie break rule makes about as much sense as a printed map of a hedge maze. Or maybe I’m just extremely dense. But I’d like to know what the nuts and bolts are on that rule, so I’m not getting this project wrong next spring. A follow-up would be welcome, Chris.–CS
The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. [b]If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other,[/b] points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any “odd” games, shall be used to determine the standing.
This is where you are misreading the rules.
This is stating that if two teams are tied but have not played enough games that each team has had a home game apiece against each other than the first game will be held out of the standings and those points will not be counted one way or the other. As earlier in the season when Pittsburgh and the Rangers were tied in the standings but there had only been a home game in New York the points that Pittsburgh earned in that game were not counted
But the question is, why the “if two clubs are tied” business if we’re already talking about the third tie break to begin with? If the tie it’s talking about isn’t in the head to head series, but in the standings, isn’t that part redundant? And what about when there’s only one game played?
Obviously, if it’s an inter-conference single (ICS), the game is the series. That part even I can get.
But what about the three two-game sets each team plays against the other conference? Obviously, there aren’t conference standings to worry about. However, at some point in the season, I may have to know how to break a two-game series tie for President’s Trophy purposes. So, for a two-game season series, does that mean the entire series is essentially out of play for tie breaking purposes until it’s over?
As for four game series, let me see if I have it correct. Obviously, on Game 4, the series is over, so I won’t type that out.
Scenario A: X-Y-X-Y. Game 1: Doesn’t play. Game 2: Both games play. Game 3: Games 2 and 3 play.
Scenario B: X-Y-Y-X. Game 1: Doesn’t play. Game 2: Both games play. Game 3: Games 1 and 3 play.
Scenario C: X-X-Y-Y. Game 1: Doesn’t play. Game 2: Doesn’t play. Game 3: Games 2 and 3 play.
Is that correct?
Please keep me posted on this, because after you de-densify me on those, I’m going to run the division series past you and see if I can FINALLY get this rule through my thick skull. The education is most welcome.
If someone had told me four years ago that I’d be on my own Capitals blog discussing the details of the third tie break, I’d have looked at them like they were nuts, but here I am.–CS
Ok lets slim this down to the one sentence that we are having the issue with. What this is saying is that it there are only two teams that are tied (because a deeper formula is needed for more than two tied teams like at the beginning of the season when most teams are tied in one way or another), and those two teams have played an un even number of home games against each other, then the first game is thrown out. This reads to me like this.
Over the season Team A plays Team B 6 times. (Capital = Home)
1 A v b — not counted after Games 1 – 5 for the third tie
2 A v b — Counted after Games 2 – 6 for the third tie
3 a v B — Always counted
4 A v b — Always counted
5 a v B — Always counted
6 a v B — Always counted
on the other hand should the games go like so
1 — A v b — Not Counted after games 1, 3, or 5
2 — a v B — Always counted
3 — A v b — Always counted
4 — a v B — Always counted
5 — A v b — Always counted
6 — a v B — Always counted
Where as with three team tiebreakers it get a ton deeper where you have to look at the number of games won between the teams against each other and I assume ((Haven’t went searching for a rule book recently)) say team A is ahead in the series against team B and team C is leading the season series against team A but teams B and C have only played 1 game versus each other then team C will be ahead of both teams A and C since it is leading the series against A. — And this I believe is why the two teams is put into the rule to say only if only two teams are tied in the standings should TB 3 apply…
Did I do a sufficient job of confusing you further or does this help clear things up
-CB
hmmm my bold didnt’ seem to work…
in anycase love the blog keep up the good work
Anyway to get an RSS on just this thread?
oh and btw, I suggest talking to the guys at pensblog. Getting a link exchange thing going on you’ll prolly get a few hits, especially come playoff time…
OK so have you decided to go the most amount of possible points instead of the actual standings then?
and of course here I am not reading your own “tie breaker” list
You have it right–teams on this chart are ranked by maximum top-end score. These are not official standings, they are Magic Number standings, and there is a difference. To get a magic number, you have to have the top-end score, because that determines how much wiggle room a team has. If a team has a high top end, but not a lot of standings points, they have more playoff potential than a team that’s lost games and can no longer earn those potential points. Late in the season, it is possible for a team to have a high current official standing, but be very low on this chart, because they may have given away so many top-end points on losses. I think I had a situation last spring where there was a major difference between where some teams stood officially, and where they stood relative to the playoffs. Some teams were very low, but because they had more points available, they were ranked a lot higher up on here.
Anyway, enough on that–I have several days’ worth of scores I need to update on both charts, and I’d like to get that done before the Caps and Thrash drop the biscuit. It’s 5:30 now. I’m not optimistic.
Not sure how to set up RSS on just this particular page. I’ll continue doing my best to update it as often as I can. It’s less work if I do it more often–the longer it goes, the more tedious it gets when I finally get around to it. I can’t update on nights where the Caps are at home, for obvious reasons. But I will do my best to be all caught up by the end of the docket Saturday night, even if that means watching scoreboards on nightcaps until late.
Bear in mind, however, that this site is essentially a spare-time project–it’s not what pays the bills. So I’m not sure I can compete with either the professionals, or the multitude of better hockey blogs out there.
That said, Chris, I appreciate the continuing interest, and thanks for the discussion. I hope Toronto and Minnesota start winning games sooner than later, or I could have actual numbers to crunch before Veterans’ Day gets here.–CS
it sure is looking that way, I mean really we are looking at numbers closing in on the 120’s. I don’t know if it would help at all, but there is this site that you can use as reference for those days when you have missed a number, they keep it updated pretty good
http://zorak.best.vwh.net/nhl/
I’m only going to start counting the numbers once teams get below 100, so I have a bit of time for the moment. The site you referenced is a bit more thorough than this. My purpose here, however, is to show what the current status of the race is–not to crunch every number against every team all season long. Every team eventually will “face” each other in the playoff hunt, and I’m only going to concern myself with the active match-ups. Having every number for every team is nice, but I personally think it’s a little much to have a 13-versus-5 number when 13 hasn’t even been mathematically eliminated by 2.
As for tonight, meh. I just got back from watching the Caps play down to the Islanders, and leave a point on the table as a result. Updates to follow tomorrow at some point, after I sleep off a bad night at the rink.
Just a thought, maybe you should have a current games number in there to explain why certain teams can earn more points than other teams but have a lower number of points.
There’s not enough room for that. Believe me, if I’d had the charts I wanted, these would run all the way across the screen and be an even bigger nightmare to maintain. As is, they barely fit in the column, and any extra columns to the right get cut off by the sidebar.
I might see if this theme has a two-column option and play with the layout a bit. But overhauling the look of the entire site is a bit of a drastic step to add one column to a chart that doesn’t (yet) get much traffic. And Games Played is readily available on the Standings page of NHL.com. I’ll give it some thought, though. Thanks for your continued support.–CS
very true… what about using iframes or does this site not support it?
No idea. I don’t even know what iframes is, never MIND whether or not it’s supported. The nice thing about WordPress.com is that it takes care of most of the internet nuts and bolts for me. That lets me focus on my content, not my code. The downside is that there are some things I’m not allowed to do on here, pretty much all of which are way over my internet know-how anyway. I’m not going for bells and whistles here–just my own little corner of the web to write about the Caps.
well just to give you an idea, an Iframe is basically a site within a site, it’s called an inline frame. This would allow you to use wordpress as your blogging program of choice but you could drop in an iframe and have a chart that would give you all the room you wanted.
As an update Carolina is now officially 100 pts away from being elimmed from an Eastern Playoff slot
Okay…but remember, I only focus this chart on the NEXT event. In Carolina’s case, they have to be eliminated from President’s Trophy consideration, 1 East, 2 East, and on down the line, before I’m going to be focusing on 8 East and an April tee time.
That said, the Hurricanes are a mess this year. George McPhee ought to be sweating bullets about that right now, today, as he formulates a long-term strategy. The Caps may well rule the Southeast roost this year, but look south and look out–Eric Staal + Cam Ward + possible #1 pick = improved Carolina squad next year.
ahh alright.. didn’t know what you were looking for but was noting that my calculations were saying 100 didn’t know you were doing one at a time which would mean PT first other rankings later
And I’m also going to be trying something brand new this year, which I probably should have done last year in hindsight.
Teams in the middle of the pack gave me fits when I ran this last season, because I was having to calculate two numbers to display only one. Now I’m going to display both numbers, with the team they’re up against. So this is a new feature this year–please let me know what you think.