Assquatch Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 If you're calculating the percentage of finals that have had a 7th or 8th seeded team participate, it is 31.6. If you're calculating the chance odds, based upon history (since 1991 for some reason that I still don't understand), of a 7th or 8th seeded team making it in, it is 15.8. A random draw would have a 7th or 8th seeded team reach the finals 25% of the time. If 31.6% of the time, a 7th or 8th place team is in the finals, wouldn't it be 1/4 of that percentage for any given 7th or 8th place team, as there are four of them each year ((1) 7th and (1) 8th from each conference)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Guys, the real question here is how many times since the restructuring have the Capitals made the playoffs and not deserved it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 If 31.6% of the time, a 7th or 8th place team is in the finals, wouldn't it be 1/4 of that percentage for any given 7th or 8th place team, as there are four of them each year ((1) 7th and (1) 8th from each conference)? But that's a different question still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Playoffs are a war of attrition. That means there is a ton of chance. People will go down, and it is hard to guess who. Can coaching give you an edge? sure. Does it? not necessarily. If Timonen went down in Philly, for example...that could change a lot of dynamics. Boston losing Chara? You just never know. I think if you get in the playoffs, anything can happen. Hockey Gods is just one way of saying that there is tons of chance in play. I think this is a very good point. It's a two month all out war. The risk of injury increases with guys being sure to finish their checks etc. come playoff time. The best team doesn't always win. Maybe I'm biased but I truely believe we were the best team come playoff time in 06' but injuries killed us at the worst possible time. It's easy to say oh the top 2 teams in the conference have an x percent chance of winning it all. Well if one of their stars go down (which happens enough in the playoffs) all that goes out the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Here lets use two examples that are not NHL ones for fun. These are teams that overachieved. 1) Olympics last year. The US almost won gold and people said it would have been something to win a medal period. 2)This example says it all, Lake Placid, 1980. Yes any team has the same percentage chance to win a cup once the playoffs start. 1 out of 16. What their actual chance is based off of talent and such is unknown but if your all star teams fail because they rely on talent alone. If you work within a system that benefits a team sure you will get burned occasionally by talent but you will win because you are a team Like d4rksabre's info says: Hard work beats talent, when talent isn't working hard. We have been known as the hardest working team in the league at one point or another in history ('99?). I'd rather be a hard working team, like the 05-06 team, or this team, rather than a team that glides into the playoffs (SEE: 06-07, 09-10). This way the team knows they need to earn their standings, and even how (I'd hope)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 If you're calculating the percentage of finals that have had a 7th or 8th seeded team participate, it is 31.6. If you're calculating the chance odds, based upon history (since 1991 for some reason that I still don't understand), of a 7th or 8th seeded team making it in, it is 15.8. A random draw would have a 7th or 8th seeded team reach the finals 25% of the time. If 31.6% of the time, a 7th or 8th place team is in the finals, wouldn't it be 1/4 of that percentage for any given 7th or 8th place team, as there are four of them each year ((1) 7th and (1) 8th from each conference)? But that's a different question still. Oh I misunderstood your 15.8% point. I think I get what you're saying now. I was misled by the fact that 15.8 is exactly half of 31.6, and I thought you divided it by two instead of four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 And if I weaseled my way into a sorority party at UB, anything could happen. But wouldn't. Six, seven and eight seed guys don't get laid. :) well if you walking in to a sorority party with a 16:1 guy to girl ratio Your base odds are only 1/16 to begin with. So it's a 6.25% chance of PA gettting lucky. Devils in 95 ...5th seed Carolina in 2002.....won division, but with only 91 pts. Sabres in 1999 advanced to SCF as 7th seed. Edmonton in 2006 advanced to SCF as 8th seed. (lost game 7) Philly 2010 7th seed advanced to SCF (OT 6th game) Made playoffs last day of season. Actually the #1 seed has only won the cup 20% of the time, so there is an advantage better than chance. But you can also look at that as an 80% chance of not succeeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Devils in 95 ...5th seed Carolina in 2002.....won division, but with only 91 pts. Sabres in 1999 advanced to SCF as 7th seed. Edmonton in 2006 advanced to SCF as 8th seed. (lost game 7) Philly 2010 7th seed advanced to SCF (OT 6th game) Made playoffs last day of season. Actually the #1 seed has only won the cup 20% of the time, so there is an advantage better than chance. But you can also look at that as an 80% chance of not succeeding. I like those numbers! The odds are greater than I would have expected that a low-seeded team can make it to the SCF. Once you're there, then the odds are always 50/50 (regardless of the "real" odds). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 If you're calculating the percentage of finals that have had a 7th or 8th seeded team participate, it is 31.6. If you're calculating the chance odds, based upon history (since 1991 for some reason that I still don't understand), of a 7th or 8th seeded team making it in, it is 15.8. A random draw would have a 7th or 8th seeded team reach the finals 25% of the time. 1991 was the cutoff because that's how far back NHL.com has standings information available online. And the calculation was for a 7th or 8th seed to make the cup finals which is 6 occurrences in 19 instances, hence 31.6%. I wasn't looking for odds, I was looking for historical occurrence. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted March 29, 2011 Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 Like d4rksabre's info says: Hard work beats talent, when talent isn't working hard. We have been known as the hardest working team in the league at one point or another in history ('99?). I'd rather be a hard working team, like the 05-06 team, or this team, rather than a team that glides into the playoffs (SEE: 06-07, 09-10). This way the team knows they need to earn their standings, and even how (I'd hope)... The hardest working team in hockey was a load of crap. It was a marketing ploy to cover up for that first year with Nolan as coach where the team sucked (missed the playoffs by 15 points). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted March 29, 2011 Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 The hardest working team in hockey was a load of crap. It was a marketing ploy to cover up for that first year with Nolan as coach where the team sucked (missed the playoffs by 15 points). HA! I'll give you that...I was in middle school back then, a little slack haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 29, 2011 Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 The hardest working team in hockey was a load of crap. It was a marketing ploy to cover up for that first year with Nolan as coach where the team sucked (missed the playoffs by 15 points). And despite what we hear about how the fans beloved that team, that season was near the bottom of franchise history in attendance. A rare instance of a GM actually telling the fans the truth. Mucks said the Sabres were going to get younger, faster and cheaper and would struggle but be better for it down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted March 29, 2011 Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 And despite what we hear about how the fans beloved that team, that season was near the bottom of franchise history in attendance. A rare instance of a GM actually telling the fans the truth. Mucks said the Sabres were going to get younger, faster and cheaper and would struggle but be better for it down the road. I wonder how much worse the attendance would have been without that label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.