The Real Crapshoot

[MU82]

I am not here to rate crapshoots because, well, that seems silly to me.

I will say there are far more upsets in the NHL than in the NBA and NFL because of two things: the goalie factor and the luck factor.

A goaltender has at least as much say, and maybe more, in his team's outcome than a quarterback, pitcher or point guard does. It is almost impossible to overcome poor goaltending, while a hot goalie can carry even a mediocre team deep into the NHL playoffs. It has happened time and time again.

Then there is luck. I'm not sure I've ever seen a basketball game decided by a 70 foot shot that deflected off of one player's torso, another's elbow and a third player's head. In hockey, it happens regularly. For every beautiful goal in which Player A makes a great move and then passes to Player B, who makes a great shot to beat the goalie cleanly, there are multiple deflections, bank shots and otherwise ridiculously lucky bounces.

[brandx]

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

They televise these things down South - ratings are almost as big as when bright, shiny cars drive in circles.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

I don't know where Chico pulled those numbers from or whether they are the hockey equivalent of Ken Pom, but they smell very much like numbers updated to include playoff games, which would, of course render them meaningless for this discussion. This is about team's perceived strengths entering the playoffs, not their after the fact adjusted rankings.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

The point is that in baseball or hockey the outcome is dominated by one position. If that position gets "hot" for a brief period the lesser team will likely win. All positions are essentially equal in basketball, leaving a team less susceptible to being upset by one guy who got hot.

[wadesworld]

Call it whatever you want to, I don't care.  But does anybody else find it ironic that, with their recent tournament success, or lack thereof, the Indiana and Georgetown fans are arguing that the NCAA Tournament is a crapshoot?

[Lennys Tap]

Call it whatever you want to, I don't care.  But does anybody else find it ironic that, with their recent tournament success, or lack thereof, the Indiana and Georgetown fans are arguing that the NCAA Tournament is a crapshoot?

LOL

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

Of course.  No argument there.  The NHL is absolutely more of a crapshoot than the NBA.  MLB, well that's an entirely different animal because a different team plays each day...what I mean by that is you can't start Clayton Kershaw every game, even though it is the "Dodgers" performing in each playoff game.  The pitcher has that big of an impact.

And of course you are right that any time it is single elimination vs 7 game series, the crapshoot factor goes up.  No do overs.  Lenny would like to argue about how the Kings, the "supposed" 8th best team or however he has them rated, advanced as a result of a crapshoot. Actually, they would have been knocked out 3 times under the NCAA one game scenario before they even got their first playoff win.  In other words, his scenario doesn't even exist that he presented yesterday.  That being said, only a few years ago he said there was no such thing and actually believed the winner of the NCAA tournament was the "Best Team" in the country, so he has evolved and made some progress.

I can tell you went to G'Town...smart guy.  Thank you.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

You used points to determine who the best team is, you don't even recognize the flaw in that approach.  Weaker divisions, key injuries during the season, etc.  In a seeding system like the NCAA, they take those things into consideration.  Do you think a St. Louis team that lost their last 6 games and 7 of 9 coming into the playoffs would be seeded ahead or behind Chicago simply because they had 4 more points...despite the fact the Blackhawks had 2 fewer losses, but lost a bunch more more overtime losses?  Imagine a NCAA scenario in which team comes massively limping into the tournament, the committee penalizes them....not so in your evaluation.

Flaws galore, but that's just one of them. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

I don't think I've switched sides at all on this.  The purpose of the RPI, Sagarin, or any of those, is to try and give some credence to 351 DI teams, an almost impossible task.  They have a purpose...I've said often the RPI is flawed and that I prefer Sagarin to predict who is going to win.  But I'm also not ignoring RPI like so many people here do, simply because they don't like it.  That's the difference.  So no switching sides at all.

It is also much easier to gauge 30 teams rather than 350, but as you properly point out, simply using points, especially in light of how OTL's are handled, is filled with flaws (as is every other system, none are perfect).  The President's Cup winner often doesn't win the NHL Stanley Cup, but is the reason because it is a crapshoot or is it because they really aren't the best team, but rather picked up many points by avoiding OT games or played a weaker schedule?  The power rankings over the years suggest the latter, not the former.

[Lennys Tap]

You used points to determine who the best team is, you don't even recognize the flaw in that approach. 

Three teams play in the same division, play the same schedule. One team has 116 points at season's end. Another 111. A third 100. Apples to apples to apples. Anaheim and San Jose finish 8 and 5.5 games ahead of the Kings. Seeding couldn't be more clear cut. Much less flawed than the NCAA that gives #1s to essentially mid majors like Gonzaga and Wichita State. In spite of this, and in spite of the one and done format, the ACTUAL RESULTS show that the hockey playoffs are more random (definition of a crapshoot) than the NCAA tournament. Pick a nit here and there (yeah, Chicago's better than they were seeded - guess what, so was Kentucky) but when you get a 7, 9, 10 and 12 seed in the final four your argument will have merit and I'll consider it. Til then you're just wrong.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I don't know where Chico pulled those numbers from or whether they are the hockey equivalent of Ken Pom, but they smell very much like numbers updated to include playoff games, which would, of course render them meaningless for this discussion. This is about team's perceived strengths entering the playoffs, not their after the fact adjusted rankings.

They do not include playoff games

[The Equalizer]

Three teams play in the same division, play the same schedule. One team has 116 points at season's end. Another 111. A third 100. Apples to apples to apples. Anaheim and San Jose finish 8 and 5.5 games ahead of the Kings. Seeding couldn't be more clear cut. Much less flawed than the NCAA that gives #1s to essentially mid majors like Gonzaga and Wichita State. In spite of this, and in spite of the one and done format, the ACTUAL RESULTS show that the hockey playoffs are more random (definition of a crapshoot) than the NCAA tournament. Pick a nit here and there (yeah, Chicago's better than they were seeded - guess what, so was Kentucky) but when you get a 7, 9, 10 and 12 seed in the final four your argument will have merit and I'll consider it. Til then you're just wrong.

One other obvious flaw in your comparision is that hockey playoffs include the 8 best teams from each conference and the conferences are evenly matched, whereas the NCAA tournament includes conference champions that are widely acknowledged not to be among the best 64 teams, and the conferences themselves are not evenly matched. There is no hockey equivalent of a 1/16 or 2/15 matchup.  No Cal Polys or Mount St. Marys in the NHL.

My guess is that if excluded games including teams seeded 13 or higher, or did something like only consider the top 16 in the national rankings--the randomness would tip to the NCAA.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Call it whatever you want to, I don't care.  But does anybody else find it ironic that, with their recent tournament success, or lack thereof, the Indiana and Georgetown fans are arguing that the NCAA Tournament is a crapshoot?

I've been arguing it for decades....when Al McGuire says it (not in that exact word, but same concept), I listen.  When Jay Bilas says it, Coach K, Coach Izzo, etc.  When John Wooden says the best team doesn't always win the tournament, whom am I to argue with these people?


Whether winning or losing, it doesn't particularly matter as my view doesn't change at all on this topic.  1 seeds get knocked off in game 2s, 2 seeds in first games, etc.  Anything can happen and without do-overs, you don't get a chance to recover. 

[Lennys Tap]

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.

TAMU, I can't believe what I'm reading. Of course randomness is affected by the system, but it is the overall likelihood of outcomes (what end up being the results) that determine it. A team that's 99% to win game 1 and 90% to win the next 5 has better chance of winning 6 in a row than a coin flip team has of winning one game. In a truly random (crapshoot, pick teams out of a hat) tournament of 64 teams (not counting play in games) with teams given seeds 1-16 the expected total of the final four seeds would equal 34 (an average of 8.5). The least random result would be 4 #1s, a total of 4 and an average of 1. Last year's tourney was more random than usual, but still produced a final four with a 1,2,7 and 8 (18) miles from what you'd expect (34) in a true random crapshoot. This year's NHL final four (again with teams seeded 1-16) saw the 7,9,10 and 12 teams advance, totaling 38, or 4 MORE than you would expect from a completely random, 50/50, pick out of a hat method of advancing.

People can quibble about schedules (actually, though, the NHL schedules are closer to one another's than the NCAAs) and other incidentals, but here's what's clear: the lower seeds in the NHL have a better chance of beating the top seeds over a 7 game, odd game on the road series than the lower seeds have of beating the top seeds in a one game neutral court game in the NCAAs. By definition, that makes it a bigger crapshoot, random event, coin flip, 50/50 event.

[Lennys Tap]

I've been arguing it for decades....when Al McGuire says it (not in that exact word, but same concept), I listen.  When Jay Bilas says it, Coach K, Coach Izzo, etc.  When John Wooden says the best team doesn't always win the tournament, whom am I to argue with these people?


Whether winning or losing, it doesn't particularly matter as my view doesn't change at all on this topic.  1 seeds get knocked off in game 2s, 2 seeds in first games, etc.  Anything can happen and without do-overs, you don't get a chance to recover.  

Every time two unequal teams compete in a game where someone keeps score there's a chance that the best team won't win. That's no revelation.

Want to stick to your contention that the NCAA tournament is "the biggest crapshoot in all of sport" when the math says differently - fine, always room for a flat earthers in the discussion.

[wadesworld]

I've been arguing it for decades....when Al McGuire says it (not in that exact word, but same concept), I listen.  When Jay Bilas says it, Coach K, Coach Izzo, etc.  When John Wooden says the best team doesn't always win the tournament, whom am I to argue with these people?


Whether winning or losing, it doesn't particularly matter as my view doesn't change at all on this topic.  1 seeds get knocked off in game 2s, 2 seeds in first games, etc.  Anything can happen and without do-overs, you don't get a chance to recover. 

Relax, I'm just poking fun at the results that Indiana and Georgetown have recently had in the NCAA Tournament. I have, and will continue to, stood by the thought that the hottest team wins tournaments. Does that make them the best over a 30-some game season? Maybe not. But it makes them the best over a 6 game span when it matters the most, and they were good enough for the first 30ish games to get to where the 6 game span matters.

[Lennys Tap]

One other obvious flaw in your comparision is that hockey playoffs include the 8 best teams from each conference and the conferences are evenly matched, whereas the NCAA tournament includes conference champions that are widely acknowledged not to be among the best 64 teams, and the conferences themselves are not evenly matched. There is no hockey equivalent of a 1/16 or 2/15 matchup.  No Cal Polys or Mount St. Marys in the NHL.

My guess is that if excluded games including teams seeded 13 or higher, or did something like only consider the top 16 in the national rankings--the randomness would tip to the NCAA.

Thank you for helping to make my argument. One of the reasons, of course, that their is more randomness (crapshoot) to the NHL playoffs than the NCAA tournament is as you say, the 16 seed is much more competitive with the #1 seed and so on. The series are, on average, much more of a coin flip than the NCAA games which produces a more random result.

[The Equalizer]

Thank you for helping to make my argument. One of the reasons, of course, that their is more randomness (crapshoot) to the NHL playoffs than the NCAA tournament is as you say, the 16 seed is much more competitive with the #1 seed and so on. The series are, on average, much more of a coin flip than the NCAA games which produces a more random result.

Except I don't believe Chico's comment was ever intented to be used to suggest absolutely that a 1/16 game is as much a coin flip as an 8/9.

In context, it was used to refute those who claim any NCAA tournament win or loss demonstrates absolute superiortiy or inferiority of the coaches involved.

In other words, just because Mercer beat Duke doesn't mean Bob Hoffman is a better coach than Mike Krzyzewski.  Mercer won a game owing to the the crapshoot nature of the NCAA. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Except I don't believe Chico's comment was ever intented to be used to suggest absolutely that a 1/16 game is as much a coin flip as an 8/9.

In context, it was used to refute those who claim any NCAA tournament win or loss demonstrates absolute superiortiy or inferiority of the coaches involved.

In other words, just because Mercer beat Duke doesn't mean Bob Hoffman is a better coach than Mike Krzyzewski.  Mercer won a game owing to the the crapshoot nature of the NCAA. 

Correct

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU, I can't believe what I'm reading. Of course randomness is affected by the system, but it is the overall likelihood of outcomes (what end up being the results) that determine it. A team that's 99% to win game 1 and 90% to win the next 5 has better chance of winning 6 in a row than a coin flip team has of winning one game. In a truly random (crapshoot, pick teams out of a hat) tournament of 64 teams (not counting play in games) with teams given seeds 1-16 the expected total of the final four seeds would equal 34 (an average of 8.5). The least random result would be 4 #1s, a total of 4 and an average of 1. Last year's tourney was more random than usual, but still produced a final four with a 1,2,7 and 8 (18) miles from what you'd expect (34) in a true random crapshoot. This year's NHL final four (again with teams seeded 1-16) saw the 7,9,10 and 12 teams advance, totaling 38, or 4 MORE than you would expect from a completely random, 50/50, pick out of a hat method of advancing.

People can quibble about schedules (actually, though, the NHL schedules are closer to one another's than the NCAAs) and other incidentals, but here's what's clear: the lower seeds in the NHL have a better chance of beating the top seeds over a 7 game, odd game on the road series than the lower seeds have of beating the top seeds in a one game neutral court game in the NCAAs. By definition, that makes it a bigger crapshoot, random event, coin flip, 50/50 event.

I have never seen a 1 seed that was favored by 90% to win all of it's games.

If we are arguing over the definition of crapshoot, I am out. I just use it because it seems to be the preferred lingo around here. No playoff is a true crapshoot (like a I said before). But I do agree that the NCAA tournament is the playoff that is closer to a crapshoot that any other.

You keeping comparing it to the NHL. This year the NHL has a very random result but is it always that true? I honestly don't know, I'm not a hockey fan. Even if it is, it doesn't matter. You have to take out everything that happens in the games. If a lower seed beats a higher seed in the NHL playoffs because their goaltender is better, than I argue that the lower seed was the superior team.  It doesn't affect the randomness level of the NHL playoffs.

What matters, the only thing that matters, when determining which playoff is less random (meaning the best team, not the highest seed, has the best chance of winning) is the format. 68 teams, seven rounds, and single elimination is the closest that any of the major playoffs gets to a crapshoot.

Honestly, I don't care about any of this. The main things are 1. Advancing in the NCAAT is a terrible way to evaluate that quality of a program. But it is what we seem to make our decisions on. 2. Teams being evaluated by a system like KenPom is a much clearer way to determine who is the best team. But that is no fun. 3. You started a topic with a weak premise just to take a shot at Chicos. Your obsession with him is starting near Willie/Sultan or Ners/Derrick levels.

[Lennys Tap]

TAMU - you demonstrate a total lack of understanding on the topic and get called on it and the best you can come up with is a personal attack? You're usually one of my favorite posters, but that is some weak sauce.

[MU82]

TAMU - you demonstrate a total lack of understanding on the topic and get called on it and the best you can come up with is a personal attack? You're usually one of my favorite posters, but that is some weak sauce.

Yeah, I wouldn't have bet he'd have resorted to that.

Then again, Scoop is such a crapshoot.

[Lennys Tap]

Yeah, I wouldn't have bet he'd have resorted to that.

Then again, Scoop is such a crapshoot.

Now, that's funny.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yeah, I wouldn't have bet he'd have resorted to that.

Then again, Scoop is such a crapshoot.

That was pretty funny.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU - you demonstrate a total lack of understanding on the topic and get called on it and the best you can come up with is a personal attack? You're usually one of my favorite posters, but that is some weak sauce.

Lenny, I apologize. I didn't mean for it to come off as an attack. Rereading, it does sound a bit harsh.

I get frustrated when posters automatically jump onto one side of an argument or another simply because of who is saying it. It is well documented that I don't see eye to eye with several posters, chicos being one of them, but I try to treat each thread as a new discussion. I try to let disagreement on one topic change my perception in another.

I think it is fair to say that it is well known that you and Mr. Bailbonds don't get along. When you started a thread entitled "The Real Crapshoot," a direct reference to something CBB is known for saying, and also equated it to "telling a lie enough..." I perceived it as an attempt to attack one poster. But that is an assumption on my part, I apologize as it was not the case.

This of course begs the question of, "why do I care?" Meh, I've always been bad about putting my nose where it doesn't belong.

As for my understanding of the subject, I understand it quite well. I just don't agree with your analysis.