Jump to content

  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Why Do Weird Things Happen in the NHL Playoffs? Simple: Luck

Sod16

By Sod16
in Hockey Around the Globe

Recommended Posts

Pete BSBH Legend

Pete

Posted
Posted

Kinda flies in the face of the "analytics" community when they numbers say it's really a coin flip.

 

Let me explain more. It's not a knock on analytics, it's simply to say for a group of people heavily invested in numbers, what's to be made when the numbers say there's not enough games for regression to the mean?

 

Maybe just sit back, relax, and enjoy the games without the soreadsheet.

fletch BSBH Hall-of-Famer

fletch

Posted
Posted

In the playoffs, there are a lot of OT, tie games, one goal games. Puck hits the post and goes in or stays out. Pucks lies flat, goes on side, or hops over stick.

 

A heavy favorite might (on average) win a series 7 or 8 or 9 times out of ten... a slight favorite six times out of ten. Favorites on paper aren't always the best team on the ice (see Tampa, Calgary, Nashville).

 

In a seven game series, think of flipping a biased coin 7 times... only the amount of bias is determined by home ice, travel, and a whole bunch of intangibles that can't be measured.

 

Or just enjoy the games.

Dunny BSBH Hall-of-Famer

Dunny

Posted
Posted

I've been saying this my whole life.

 

These teams are all largely equal. Adding a Kevin Hayes at the deadline is far less important than just getting a couple bounces.

 

These goals are ugly. It's all a matter or hitting a stick shaft or a shin pad at a fortuitous angle.

Dunny BSBH Hall-of-Famer

Dunny

Posted
Posted
Kinda flies in the face of the "analytics" community when they numbers say it's really a coin flip.

 

Let me explain more. It's not a knock on analytics, it's simply to say for a group of people heavily invested in numbers, what's to be made when the numbers say there's not enough games for regression to the mean?

 

Maybe just sit back, relax, and enjoy the games without the soreadsheet.

 

Exactly.

 

They're desperate to employ this stuff that they've largely pilfered from baseball. A static game where even luck (babip) is easily measured.

 

Hockey is chaos.

Phil BSBH Legend

Phil

Posted
Posted

Except it isn't chaos. Because some luck you make, and at the end of the day, the whole purpose of embracing analytics is to own the puck for the longest possible stretches of time given the direct link between that and scoring.

 

The inability to chalk up a small sample size to long-term projection doesn't equate to "throw out the spreadsheet." That data is still relevant for the long-term. If you're evaluating a rookie, for example, who puts in say 50 regular season games and 8 playoff contests in year one, then 71 games and 2 playoff games in year two, etc. etc. you can develop a better and better long-term projection of what you think he might actually be going into years three, four, five, and on. Why on earth would you say "well, the playoffs are just chaos, so let's just not even account for them." By that stretch, why was anything made of Miller having one goal in 40-odd games as a Ranger? "It's just chaos," should have been the only adequate response. Not his fault. Chaos. Throw out the boxcars right along with the spreadsheet.

Phil BSBH Legend

Phil

Posted
Posted
I've been saying this my whole life.

 

These teams are all largely equal. Adding a Kevin Hayes at the deadline is far less important than just getting a couple bounces.

 

These goals are ugly. It's all a matter or hitting a stick shaft or a shin pad at a fortuitous angle.

 

Except they're not. That's why the Rangers, skating with a shortened bench, and dressing Stu Bickel in the playoffs, couldn't beat the Devils. If they were equal, teams would win every year at complete random. The idea of back-to-back championships, consistent leading scorers, starting goaltenders, etc. would all go out the window.

Pete BSBH Legend

Pete

Posted
Posted
Except it isn't chaos. Because some luck you make, and at the end of the day, the whole purpose of embracing analytics is to own the puck for the longest possible stretches of time given the direct link between that and scoring.

 

The inability to chalk up a small sample size to long-term projection doesn't equate to "throw out the spreadsheet." That data is still relevant for the long-term. If you're evaluating a rookie, for example, who puts in say 50 regular season games and 8 playoff contests in year one, then 71 games and 2 playoff games in year two, etc. etc. you can develop a better and better long-term projection of what you think he might actually be going into years three, four, five, and on. Why on earth would you say "well, the playoffs are just chaos, so let's just not even account for them." By that stretch, why was anything made of Miller having one goal in 40-odd games as a Ranger? "It's just chaos," should have been the only adequate response. Not his fault. Chaos. Throw out the boxcars right along with the spreadsheet.

Well, no... Then you go and look at his linemates and ice time ... And maybe of there's time left over... Watch him play.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...