NHL Playoffs -- the true crapshoot

[Its DJOver]

Interesting topic.  As far as "crapshootiness" goes, I would still favor NCAA just because of the single elimination format, but I certainly see the case for hockey.  A lot of which just comes from "puck luck", getting advantages from weird bounces off the board/refs skate etc. just throwing it in a dangerous area and having it bounce in.  Throughout a season, it usually balances out, but in a 7 game series it often times doesn't.

As for riding a hot goalie, I'd agree to an extent.  Binnington was great in game 7, but very mediocre in 6 (not to mention 3).  Raask was a wall in game 6, but the first two goals last night were pretty soft IMO.  Other than a closer in baseball, I can't think of another position in all of sports where you need to have a shorter memory.   

[MU82]

That was my point. Playoffs where teams play at home, will give an advantage to the highest ranked team, proportionate to the league home advantage.

Oh ... further strengthens my argument that the NHL playoffs is the biggest crapshoot.

Some years, it is about nothing but a hot goalie.

This also supports my opinion. When one person on one team -- even an inferior team, sometimes a vastly inferior team -- can carry a team through an entire postseason ...

Crapshoot!

[MU82]

Interesting topic.  As far as "crapshootiness" goes, I would still favor NCAA just because of the single elimination format, but I certainly see the case for hockey.  A lot of which just comes from "puck luck", getting advantages from weird bounces off the board/refs skate etc. just throwing it in a dangerous area and having it bounce in.  Throughout a season, it usually balances out, but in a 7 game series it often times doesn't.

Not really. Basic math will tell you a best of seven series is the least crapshooty format of any playoff scenario. The difference between the best professional playoff team and the worst professional playoff team is minuscule while the difference between the best at large bid in the NCAA tournament and the worst at large bid in the NCAA tournament is massive. Parity is what leads to the "crapshootiness" of the NHL playoffs, not the tournament itself.

The worst team has a reasonable chance to win big in the NHL "tournament." That simply is not the case in the NCAA tournament.

If that's because the difference in talent is less in the NHL compared to the NCAA, I won't argue that ... but it makes it no less of a crapshoot IMHO.

Here's where I'm willing to go ...

The first round of the NCAA tournament is the biggest crapshoot in major pro/college sports. Maybe, just maybe, the second round is up there. But the NHL playoffs, as an overall tournament, is a bigger crapshoot IMHO.

The equivalent of the Blues -- as far as league standings, seed, etc -- simply cannot win the NCAA tournament and just about never even advances to the Final Four. In the NHL, it happens fairly often.

Merriam Webster's definition of crapshoot is "something that has an unpredictable outcome."

The NCAA tournament outcome is pretty darn predictable. A top seed wins just about every year. The NHL tournament is truly unpredictable historically. It's the true crapshoot.

[Coleman]

Some years, it is about nothing but a hot goalie.

Yup. The goalie can impact an NHL game in a way that pretty much no other position can in any other sport, except maybe an ace pitcher in baseball, but they only get to play once every 4 or 5 games.

An otherwise mediocre team (not saying that was the Blues, they are definitely talented) with a shutdown, brick wall goalie performance can and will win.

[Pakuni]

The worst team has a reasonable chance to win big in the NHL "tournament." That simply is not the case in the NCAA tournament.

If that's because the difference in talent is less in the NHL compared to the NCAA, I won't argue that ... but it makes it no less of a crapshoot IMHO.

Here's where I'm willing to go ...

The first round of the NCAA tournament is the biggest crapshoot in major pro/college sports. Maybe, just maybe, the second round is up there. But the NHL playoffs, as an overall tournament, is a bigger crapshoot IMHO.

The equivalent of the Blues -- as far as league standings, seed, etc -- simply cannot not win the NCAA tournament and just about never even advances to the Final Four. In the NHL, it happens fairly often.

Merriam Webster's definition of crapshoot is "something that has an unpredictable outcome."

The NCAA tournament outcome is pretty darn predictable. A top seed wins just about every year. The NHL tournament is truly unpredictable historically. It's the true crapshoot.

But it's really not an apples to apples comparison.
The talent gap between an 1 seed and 8 seed in the NHL is significantly narrower than that between a 1 seed and 8 seed in the NCAA tournament.

And the fact that lower-seeded teams succeed so often in the NHL playoffs proves you can't call it a crapshoot. By the definition you provide, a crapshoot is something with an "unpredictable outcome." Lower seeds winning in the Stanley Cup playoffs is hardly unpredictable.

[MU82]

But it's really not an apples to apples comparison.
The talent gap between an 1 seed and 8 seed in the NHL is significantly narrower than that between a 1 seed and 8 seed in the NCAA tournament.

And the fact that lower-seeded teams succeed so often in the NHL playoffs proves you can't call it a crapshoot. By the definition you provide, a crapshoot is something with an "unpredictable outcome." Lower seeds winning in the Stanley Cup playoffs is hardly unpredictable.

Well, I read the definition as ...

In the NCAA tournament, I can predict that Duke, Kentucky, UNC or another top seed is going to win ... and that almost surely will happen because it does year after year after year after year.

In the NHL tournament, I can predict that one of the top-2 seeds in each conference will win ... but if I do I will be wrong a whole lot of times because lower seeds win big very often.

I will concede that it is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. However ...

Using the very definition of "crapshoot," I simply do not believe the NCAA tournament -- in its entirety, not just the first round or two -- is as big a crapshoot as some claim.

"Something that has an unpredictable outcome"? Nope. NCAA tournament has a pretty darn predictable outcome.

[Pakuni]

Well, I read the definition as ...

In the NCAA tournament, I can predict that Duke, Kentucky, UNC or another top seed is going to win ... and that almost surely will happen because it does year after year after year after year.

But it doesn't.
Since 1985, 22 #1 seeds have won the championship, so one of every three champs has been a non #1 seed.
In that same time frame. 57 #1 seeds have made the Final Four, so a #1 seed is less likely to make the Final Four than make it.

But again, if we know from history that lower seeds often succeed in the NHL playoffs, then we can't call it "unpredictable" when that happens. It's the very opposite of unpredictable.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Can’t stand the Blues, respect them the least of any Big 4 sports organization.

[Pakuni]

Can’t stand the Blues, respect them the least of any Big 4 sports organization.

As a non-hater of the Blues, can I ask why?
I can't think of many (or any) egregious sins by the franchise, i.e. regularly signing criminals, cheating, etc. And the only time I went to a Blues home game, as a fan of the visiting team, people were decent enough to me.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

As a non-hater of the Blues, can I ask why?
I can't think of many (or any) egregious sins by the franchise, i.e. regularly signing criminals, cheating, etc. And the only time I went to a Blues home game, as a fan of the visiting team, people were decent enough to me.

In my lifetime they’ve kinda had the reputation of being a dirty team. Especially under Hitchcock, they played on an edge that was borderline dangerous.

That and from my experience, Blues fans seemed pretty entitled for a franchise that hadn’t won anything.

Obviously not the case anymore.

[JWags85]

In my lifetime they’ve kinda had the reputation of being a dirty team. Especially under Hitchcock, they played on an edge that was borderline dangerous.

That and from my experience, Blues fans seemed pretty entitled for a franchise that hadn’t won anything.

Obviously not the case anymore.

Agreed. They were a team of douchebags and Hitchcock was the ringleader.   They also had an incessantly whiny fanbase during some of those great Blues-Blackhawk series.

 I think a combination of Hitchcock leaving, guys like Backes leaving (lol, still no cups for you), kind of softened it for me.  I was kind of absent the hatred I normally have for them, and I definitely was rooting for them against the Bruins which felt weird.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Yea, David Backes was the absolute worst.

[MU82]

But it doesn't.
Since 1985, 22 #1 seeds have won the championship, so one of every three champs has been a non #1 seed.
In that same time frame. 57 #1 seeds have made the Final Four, so a #1 seed is less likely to make the Final Four than make it.

But again, if we know from history that lower seeds often succeed in the NHL playoffs, then we can't call it "unpredictable" when that happens. It's the very opposite of unpredictable.

By "top seed" I was thinking top-2 or top-3 seed -- in other words, one of the best teams in the tournament. But I guess any of us can use any terms to make a definition work for his/her own theory.

Like the fact that the NHL playoffs are unpredictable every year actually means they are predictable. Nicely done, Pak.

[withoutbias]

cubs fans calling other organizations’ entitled for fans who have never won anything is...well, something.

[JWags85]

cubs fans calling other organizations’ entitled for fans who have never won anything is...well, something.

My god, do you ever stop?

[Pakuni]

Like the fact that the NHL playoffs are unpredictable every year actually means they are predictable. Nicely done, Pak.

I take a bow.

[jesmu84]

Can’t stand the Blues, respect them the least of any Big 4 sports organization.

They aren't even the worst organization in their own city

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The equivalent of the Blues -- as far as league standings, seed, etc -- simply cannot win the NCAA tournament and just about never even advances to the Final Four. In the NHL, it happens fairly often.

This is the thing though, the NCAA tournament equivalent of the Blues is like Texas Tech, or Michigan State, or Auburn. They absolutely can win the NCAA tournament and have. The difference between the two is that NHL playoffs are between 16 teams that are pretty close together in talent and the NCAA tournament is between 68 teams that are hugely different in talent.

[MU82]

This is the thing though, the NCAA tournament equivalent of the Blues is like Texas Tech, or Michigan State, or Auburn. They absolutely can win the NCAA tournament and have. The difference between the two is that NHL playoffs are between 16 teams that are pretty close together in talent and the NCAA tournament is between 68 teams that are hugely different in talent.

Within their own environments -- which is the only thing we can judge, because an NHL team is never going to play for the NCAA basketball title -- low seeds win in the NHL but simply do not in the NCAA tourney.

But I do like your argument. We just respectfully disagree.

[Its DJOver]

Yea, David Backes was the absolute worst.

Not to go full "Bias Cage Match" with you and the entire city of Chicago but do you not like Backes because you think he's dirty, or do you not like Backes because he captained the Blackhawks biggest rival for half a decade?

What are your thoughts on Andrew Shaw?