Consistent Inconsitency

So I noticed one or two weird things creep into my spreadsheet when calculating rankings this round, and it's because of the way the formula does the fading averaging over five games when five games have not yet been played. In this sense, Houston, having only won one game, cruises a little unfairly on that, while on the other end Seattle's single loss has then unfairly punished as they're behind even Colorado, who have lost two. I won't get into details, but rest assured, this should be sorted out once every team is at five games. Well, maybe a little detail. Basically, the normal rating formula is calculated using 1A + 0.4B + 0.3C + 0.2D + 0.1E. With only one game played, Seattle has 1 loss/1 game played = 1. With two games played, Colorado has 1 + 0.4 = 1.4 losses / 2 games played = 0.7. So Seattles one loss looks bigger than Colorado's 2 losses. It's not presented here, but Seattles calculated rating is -0.333 while Colorado's is 0.231, which is -0.333 * 0.7. Note that it works out like this only because all the losses have been by one goal...

At any rate, here's how the tables look this iteration

LA still at the top, Candian teams climbing, with Seattle and Chicago in the basement. Too early to tell anything, obviously, but it's shaping up to be a wild March I think.