The Real Crapshoot

[Lennys Tap]

It has been erroneously stated ad infinitum (tell a lie often enough...) here that the NCAA basketball tournament is "the biggest crapshoot in sports". This year's tournament, in which a 1,2,7 and 8 seed made the Final Four has been cited as proof. Add those numbers together and your total is 18, much higher than your normal final four number but much lower than the number expected (34 if you eliminate play in games) from a true "random" event - the definition of a crapshoot. By contrast, the "final 4" in this year's Stanley Cup represent the #7,9,10 and 12 best regular season teams from the 16 teams that qualified for the playoffs. That total comes to 38, or 4 MORE than one would expect from a purely random, pick a name out of a hat crapshoot and something never even approached in the history of the NCAA tournament. Anyone who tries to write this off this huge difference to minor things like scheduling is nothing more than mathematically dishonest. Until you see a final 4 comprised of seeds that add up to 38 this is case closed.

[GGGG]

There are two seasons on Scoop:  "Basketball Season" and "Trolling Chicos Season"

Apparently one must put up with the latter to enjoy the former.

[ChuckyChip]

I didn't see anyone offering $1 Billion for a perfect NHL bracket...

[keefe]

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/crap-shoot-documentary/

[GooooMarquette]

I thought the biggest crapshoot in sports was the cow pie throwing contest at the State Fair.

[keefe]

I thought the biggest crapshoot in sports was the cow pie throwing contest at the State Fair.

The only name in Cow Chip Throwing: Sidd Finch

[Lennys Tap]

There are two seasons on Scoop:  "Basketball Season" and "Trolling Chicos Season"

Apparently one must put up with the latter to enjoy the former.

I guess I should have searched for one of his many "biggest crapshoots in all of sports" posts and replied there rather than post a new topic. Sorry, but I thought the absolute randomness of the NHL playoffs this year was interesting and the fact that it so thoroughly debunked a position so firmly held here by some here was worth mentioning. Clearly you disagree.

[Lennys Tap]

The only name in Cow Chip Throwing: Sidd Finch

My favorite SI story ever.

[keefe]

My favorite SI story ever.

Hayden Siddhartha Finch

[mug644]

My favorite SI story ever.

+1

And my second favorite April Fools story ever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27ugSKW4-QQ

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

All playoffs are crapshoots. Especially ones with single elimination. There is no guarantee that the best teams wins the championship.

[muwarrior69]

If the Yankees don't win the World Series, then the best team in baseball did not win the championship.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It has been erroneously stated ad infinitum (tell a lie often enough...) here that the NCAA basketball tournament is "the biggest crapshoot in sports". This year's tournament, in which a 1,2,7 and 8 seed made the Final Four has been cited as proof. Add those numbers together and your total is 18, much higher than your normal final four number but much lower than the number expected (34 if you eliminate play in games) from a true "random" event - the definition of a crapshoot. By contrast, the "final 4" in this year's Stanley Cup represent the #7,9,10 and 12 best regular season teams from the 16 teams that qualified for the playoffs. That total comes to 38, or 4 MORE than one would expect from a purely random, pick a name out of a hat crapshoot and something never even approached in the history of the NCAA tournament. Anyone who tries to write this off this huge difference to minor things like scheduling is nothing more than mathematically dishonest. Until you see a final 4 comprised of seeds that add up to 38 this is case closed.

1) So you finally admit to crapshoots in sports....progress  
2) "best regular season teams" in hockey....you are incorrectly using records to determine this, which is erroneous.  If you play in a weak division, you can rack up wins and have a better record than teams that come from a very difficult division and get beat up.  

For example, the top two teams using the Score Adjusted Fenwick standings in the NHL?  LA Kings #1, Chicago Blackhawks #2.  Rangers #5.  There are puckheads that swear by Fenwick and this year it looks pretty good.

You're using straight up records to "seed" or put value on NHL teams, and that's just flat wrong.  That's not how the NCAA tournament does it.  Stephen F. Austin was 29-2, second best record in the NCAA...does that make them the 2nd best team?

3)  You still get a chance over the longhaul to survive when you don't play good games.  You have no such error in the NCAA tournament.  The LA Kings were 0-3 in their first series, but they got 4 more do-overs.  The NY Rangers were down 3-1, but they got 3 more do-overs.  You don't get that in the NCAA tournament.  One bad game, you are gone.


But good try, you are making progress, now just work on the actual strength of the teams and you might get somewhere.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

All playoffs are crapshoots. Especially ones with single elimination. There is no guarantee that the best teams wins the championship.

Lenny denied this for years, looks like he is finally coming around...maybe.

[hoyasincebirth]

1) So you finally admit to crapshoots in sports....progress  
2) "best regular season teams" in hockey....you are incorrectly using records to determine this, which is erroneous.  If you play in a weak division, you can rack up wins and have a better record than teams that come from a very difficult division and get beat up.  

For example, the top two teams using the Score Adjusted Fenwick standings in the NHL?  LA Kings #1, Chicago Blackhawks #2.  Rangers #5.  There are puckheads that swear by Fenwick and this year it looks pretty good.

You're using straight up records to "seed" or put value on NHL teams, and that's just flat wrong.  That's not how the NCAA tournament does it.  Stephen F. Austin was 29-2, second best record in the NCAA...does that make them the 2nd best team?

3)  You still get a chance over the longhaul to survive when you don't play good games.  You have no such error in the NCAA tournament.  The LA Kings were 0-3 in their first series, but they got 4 more do-overs.  The NY Rangers were down 3-1, but they got 3 more do-overs.  You don't get that in the NCAA tournament.  One bad game, you are gone.


But good try, you are making progress, now just work on the actual strength of the teams and you might get somewhere.  

This.

[GGGG]

I guess I should have searched for one of his many "biggest crapshoots in all of sports" posts and replied there rather than post a new topic. Sorry, but I thought the absolute randomness of the NHL playoffs this year was interesting and the fact that it so thoroughly debunked a position so firmly held here by some here was worth mentioning. Clearly you disagree.

What you should have done is put it in the NHL thread in the Superbar if you were interested in discussing the randomness of the playoffs.

But that really wasn't what you were interested in.

[hoyasincebirth]

I will say NHL is more of a crap shoot compared to MLB and NBA in terms of play off results, but any playoff that has 7 game series will be less of a crapshoot than a single elimination tournament and it's also silly to only look at the final 4 of Hockey and NCAA to see which is more of a crap shoot, the biggest crap shoot part of the NCAA is the first weekend which doesn't exist in NHL or other professional sports play offs because they don't let those teams in they only let the top 16 teams into their play offs and most.

[slingkong]

Nope. Everyone knows the biggest crapshoot in sports is literally a crap shoot.

[avid1010]

it's not a crapshoot when teams/coaches consistently perform well or poorly in a tournament setting over many years, especially when taking their seeding into account.  there are numerous coaches/programs that put their team in a good position to make a deep run in the tournament on a regular basis, and the consistency in which they do so is impressive.  there are others that often falter despite having solid regular season success and a favorable seed.  i wouldn't call it a crapshoot, but i don't think anyone argues that the best team always wins either.  that said, the same argument can be made in nearly every sporting event.  i remember thinking the heat were toast in two of their championships with wade.  a ridiculous mvp performance from wade in his first championship, and amazing comeback and 3 from ray allen, etc...    

[Lennys Tap]

1) So you finally admit to crapshoots in sports....progress  

Please show me where I've said there are no crapshoots in sports. My problem with you is that (in spite of hard mathematical evidence to the contrary) you insist the NCAA Men's basketball tournament is the "biggest crapshoot in sports". A crapshoot by definition is a gamble, a coin flip, something that produces random results. The facts are that historically the NHL playoffs produce more random results than the NCAA basketball tournament. Haven't bothered to look at it, but I suspect that the MLB playoffs do also. The reasons are obvious - low scoring games that can be dominated by goaltending and pitching. And, of course a lucky goal or run is much more significant in a 2-1 game than is one basket is in a game in which 140 points are scored.

[Lennys Tap]

2) "best regular season teams" in hockey....you are incorrectly using records to determine this, which is erroneous.  If you play in a weak division, you can rack up wins and have a better record than teams that come from a very difficult division and get beat up.  

You're using straight up records to "seed" or put value on NHL teams, and that's just flat wrong.  That's not how the NCAA tournament does it.  Stephen F. Austin was 29-2, second best record in the NCAA...does that make them the 2nd best team?

So the LA Kings scored only 100 points because they played in a difficult division while the Anaheim Ducks scored 116 and the San Jose Sharks scored 111 because they played in an easy division? Really? Except they played in the same division. And Montreal, NY and Chicago all advanced over teams who had better records in their same divisions. Perfect apples to apples - unlike your Stephen F. Austin, low major to high major example.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Please show me where I've said there are no crapshoots in sports. My problem with you is that (in spite of hard mathematical evidence to the contrary) you insist the NCAA Men's basketball tournament is the "biggest crapshoot in sports". A crapshoot by definition is a gamble, a coin flip, something that produces random results. The facts are that historically the NHL playoffs produce more random results than the NCAA basketball tournament. Haven't bothered to look at it, but I suspect that the MLB playoffs do also. The reasons are obvious - low scoring games that can be dominated by goaltending and pitching. And, of course a lucky goal or run is much more significant in a 2-1 game than is one basket is in a game in which 140 points are scored.

This is a good point that I hadn't considered before.

However, the first part is mostly wrong. When judging whether or not something is random, you don't analyze the results. You analyze the system. I don't have the exact math (any statisticians out there?) but the more rounds a tournament has, the more likely the result is to be "random," random meaning a lesser team defeating a superior team. The less games during a round there are, the more likely the result is to be random.

Unless you can find another playoff that has more than 68 teams in a single elimination format, then there is no bigger crapshoot in sports. It's a mathematical fact.

Your example with the NHL and MLB is flawed. You quote dominate goaltending and pitching as a reason that these playoffs are more random. But dominate goaltending and pitching are part of the teams skill. If they win the series because of this, than that means the superior team won. All the proves infers is that goaltending and pitching are more important their respective sports than offense is.

Of course, no playoff is a true crapshoot. A team's skill obviously plays a role. It takes a good team to win the national championship. But it also takes a lot of luck...especially in the NCAAT

[Lennys Tap]

3)  You still get a chance over the longhaul to survive when you don't play good games.  You have no such error in the NCAA tournament.  The LA Kings were 0-3 in their first series, but they got 4 more do-overs.  The NY Rangers were down 3-1, but they got 3 more do-overs.  You don't get that in the NCAA tournament.  One bad game, you are gone.

The "one and done" nature does make the NCAAs more of a crapshoot than it would be if the tournament played best of 3, 5 or 7 games series. But in spite of that the chalks do better versus the dogs in the NCAAs than they do in the NHL or MLB playoffs. Again, the value of one goal or one run versus one point in basketball, the impact of a lucky goal or run and the opportunity for a goalie or pitcher to dominate not just a game but a series makes hockey and baseball results more random - the very definition of a crapshoot.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So the LA Kings scored only 100 points because they played in a difficult division while the Anaheim Ducks scored 116 and the San Jose Sharks scored 111 because they played in an easy division? Really? Except they played in the same division. And Montreal, NY and Chicago all advanced over teams who had better records in their same divisions. Perfect apples to apples - unlike your Stephen F. Austin, low major to high major example.

This is similar to the RPI vs. KP/Sanagarin/whatever bball ranking argument. Just because a team has a higher RPI, it doesn't mean they are a better team. KenPom is a much better indicator of a team's skill but the committee uses RPI. It's funny because Lenny and Chicos have switched sides on the argument.

Lenny, you are smart enough to know that the team with the higher record is not necessarily the best team, even if they are in the same division. The record will get you the higher seed (just like RPI) but it doesn't mean that you are superior to your lower seeded opponent.

CBB gave you the rankings according to NHL's version of KenPom. According to those 3 of the 5 best teams are in the final four with one rando.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The "one and done" nature does make the NCAAs more of a crapshoot than it would be if the tournament played best of 3, 5 or 7 games series. But in spite of that the chalks do better versus the dogs in the NCAAs than they do in the NHL or MLB playoffs. Again, the value of one goal or one run versus one point in basketball, the impact of a lucky goal or run and the opportunity for a goalie or pitcher to dominate not just a game but a series makes hockey and baseball results more random - the very definition of a crapshoot.

The value of the goal doesn't make it more random at all. All teams are affected equally by that.

The luck factor makes some sense. Sometimes goals or runs happen by pure luck, so in theory, luck plays a larger role in individual games. But as you acknowledged, when you have bad luck, the mlb/nhl gives you 3 do overs.

This is part of the game. If their pitching/goaltending is enough to dominate the series, than they are the better team. Not random at all.