Good point but no other division seem able to beat the bottom dwellers like the central. That said there is no way that the central is +100 compared to then next best division at -7 is because they are only beat bad teams badly. If the fact that the central is so successful against bad teams why aren't the Metro, Atlantic, and the Pacific good teams doing the same?
If they're +100, but those 6 teams account for 90 of those goals, that's a significant portion of why the Central is at +100.
Ottawa, which hasn't been a good team this year, is 2-3 against the Central, which isn't bad, but they're -11 in GD, because in 2 of the games they were blown out by 11 combined goals. How do you read that? They won 2 of 5, were close in 3 of 5, but weren't in the same building in 2 of 5. Their 2 wins didn't even come on this continent.
Chicago is a +16 in GD for the year, including 10-1 and 8-2 wins. Those are abnormal scores, which has the Hawks at a +15. In the other 41 games they've played, they're at +1. How do you read that? 41 is larger than 2. Are they more the 41 game team, or the 2 game team? The 10-1 win came in the home and season opener for the Hawks, coming off an embarrassing sweep in the playoffs, Niemi started that game, and Pittsburgh had to travel and played on back to back nights.
Stats are what they are. You can pick and choose whatever you want to make whatever argument you want. Arizona and Buffalo aren't good against any group of teams. Out of 10 games against the Central, Pittsburgh has 2 especially bad ones with 10-1 and 7-1 losses, which at -15, accounts for almost their entire -17 total against the division. Any way you cut it, the Central is the best overall division in the league. If they're beating up on 6 specific non-Central teams, but everyone beats up on 2 of those 6 anyway, it's probably better than any other division from top to bottom, but maybe not get too crazy about it.
Appreciate the Edmonton thing though. Makes the Kings life a little easier.