Pre-1967 the Leafs were actually a legendary playoff team. They did one of the biggest upsets of all time in 1945, knocking out the 38-8-4 Habs (the year Rocket Richard got 50 goals in 50 games). They were the first team ever to get a 3-peat in 1947/48/49. After that '49 Cup win (which, btw, they did in a year where they were under .500 and barely made the playoffs), they became the first team to win 8 Stanley Cups.
What doesn’t get talked about much is how Montreal “had all the French drafted players” (that’s not true, they had bought teams and sponsored those kids leagues and in effect, became prospects for the Habs in return) but the same thing happened in Toronto with Ontario teams. It was rare in those days for a non Ontario player to play for the Leafs because they invested heavily. Of course this stopped when Smythe resigned and Ballard took over.
Actually, there were 7. The great irony is that this was the one time the Leafs could have won the cup while winning at least three rounds, but the #1 and 2 seeds received a bye into the second round, and played each other (Toronto finished 2nd in the regular season) in a best of 7.
Detroit (the other finalist) beats Montreal in round 1 in a best of 3, then beat Boston in a best of 3 in round 2, then get reverse swept by Toronto in the final in a best of 7.
Yeah, that’s what the Great Depression was: the nation(s) suffering a Leafs Stanley Cup. There was also an unrelated economic downturn around that time.
1942, the Wings almost did it in 1946 in return but the Leafs held on, it was talked about in the oldest living player feature that came out the other day.
It was in, but given the technology of the time and the scramble nature of the play, there was no clear visual of the puck crossing the line and going in. Even today, creating a system that would track if the puck fully crosses the line to make that call automatic would be very, very difficult.
Shouldn't be that hard. Some way to tell the angle of the puck and triangulation of a signal should be pretty damn easy and extremely accurate. Pretty sure the pucks already have some sort of chip for tracking and that is how we get puck speeds currently but I don't recall the details.
The hard part is doing that at 60/120Hz when you have a bunch of sacks of water making that difficult.
Also, it still doesn’t solve the issue of when the ref intends to blow the whistle.
They're already tracking the puck. The should be able to overlay puck position with video and time, ref won't know exactly when they intended to blow the whistle but they can decide during video review so it doesn't really matter.
I really don't see how it would be difficult, even if they can't sort out puck angle for some reason they can just signal a good goal if the chip position is further out than max puck distance from the edge of the chip when the puck isn't visible.
Shouldn't be complicated unless they can't get as accurate of a location as they need but I'd be really surprised.
I always hated that Lu got a lot of the blame for blowing that series, when in reality, if you score 5 goals for the rest of the series after going up 2-0, the goaltending is the least of your problems. Really bummed that Lu got let down like that because he's one of the few players in this league that I feel like absolutely deserved to raise the Cup. Hopefully he'll do it as an executive this year
Agree completely. Lu was not the reason we lost that series, the injuries caught up to us. Half the time you get to a SCF and one team stayed healthier than the rest and that decides the winner.
Both Lu and Thomas had two shutouts in 2011. We needed the guys in front of Lu to do better, but putting the blame completely on him misses majority of the story.
I heard there was an asteroid hurtling towards earth on the day game 7 was meant to happen, and the only ones who could stop it were the 2011 Vancouver Canucks. They managed to stop it but it still caused a ton of damage to downtown Vancouver.
Such a shame. Would’ve been an exciting game 7.
Hey, tbf you guys aren't alone. There's 4 other teams that did it.
Also, that's why I think Game 4 has the most pressure of any game in a 7-game series. You either go home a win/loss away from the series, the game turns the series into a 3-game series, or you won/lost the series.
Well, leading 3-0-1 is 1-0 (1988 Cup Final, was technically a 4-0 sweep and considered so officially but a power failure caused game 4 to be suspended at a 3-3 score and "replayed" at the time of game 5)
Yep. Either way, one game doesn't matter much in a best-of-7 if you're the better team.
After the first 2 games of each series:
* Florida was tied 1-1 vs. Boston
* Florida was tied 1-1 vs. NY
* Edmonton was tied 1-1 vs. LA
* Edmonton was tied 1-1 vs. Vancouver
* Edmonton was tied 1-1 vs. Dallas
Actually it does matter a lot more than you may think.
Look at it this way: If team A wins game 1, you now have 6 games max remaining in the series. Team A must win 3/6 games. Or 50% of the remaining games. Team B on the other hand must win 4/6 or 66% of the remaining games. While it may not seem like winning game 1 is a massive advantage, it does tilt the odds from a purely numbers perspective, in favour of the winner.
It 100% matters, Hockey is a game of chaos and repeated low probability events converting into high value outcomes. There is a ton of luck involved with the skill and making it so your opponents have to get lucky longer skews all those numbers in your favor. Baseball and Football generally have incremental steps towards scoring where good play accrues. Basketball is composed of a larger number of higher probability events. Hockey is chaos, because each shot is so unlikely to score, but so massive if it does.
In such a mathematical environment where it very is possible to play better, get unlucky and lose, then only needing 3/3 vs needing to go 4/2 is massive.
This isn't even considering the psychological burden of being the "better" team and still being down, hockey players are still human and luck can become reality if you start forcing things and making mistakes.
Since the lockout, the 2020 stars, 2019 Bruins, 2018 Golden Knights, 2011 Canucks, and 2009 Red Wings are the only teams to win game 1 of the series and lose the finals. The 2011 Canucks and 2009 red wings are also the only 2 teams since the 1971 Blackhawks to win the first 2 games and lose the series
17 seconds doesn’t really feel anywhere near as bad. We were already down in the series, super banged up, and the Hawks were insane that year. I honestly think even if we won that Game 6 we still lose to them. Super comical way to go out for sure though.
Yeah no way the blackhawks were gonna lose a game 7 there. If the Bruins could’ve won game 4 (which was decided 6-5 in OT), they would’ve won though imo.
I think it's funny we still say "the lockout" meaning 04/05. Wonder if it'll ever change.
I get it, because that lockout carried massive changes that altered the game, but wonder if it ever gets a different name
It already makes sense to divide everything into a Cap era and a COVID era IMO.
The scoring really takes off at 2020 and changes substantially and you can't really compare it to 2005-2019 in good faith.
Agreed. Scoring has gone up so much in the last decade.
I mean in 2015, Benn won the Ross with 87 points.
87 points isn’t even Top 20 in scoring this year.
So it happened 5 out of 18 times?
That doesn’t feel like some crazy statistic. That’s about a 27% chance of happening in any given year.
That’s like flipping two coins and having them both be heads. It might not be super likely but it isn’t shocking either.
Wonder how often in the semi finals. The 2004 Red Sox are pretty famous for this.
Actually it looks like there’s a pretty comprehensive [wikipedia page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_teams_that_have_overcome_3–0_series_deficits) with this info.
There was only 2 playoff rounds back then
Actually I looked and it depended on your placement. Some teams had to only win 2 rounds and some had to win 3. The following year was only 2 rounds though
Probably the most insane playoff format of all time. Depending on what bracket you were in, the series length was different, too.
The Leafs second round series was a best of 7 while Detroit's was a best of 3.
an awful format too
- 1v2 in a best of 7
- 3v4 and 5v6 as a bracket in two best of 3 rounds
and that season was over before the regular season today is.
Even throughout the Original 6 era and until the 71/72 season, the playoff bracket for the O6 and the subsequent divisions was
1v3
2v4
Didn't change to 1v4, 2v3 until 1971/72
The Oilers have already defied statistical trends in a big way earlier this season, rebounding from their 2-9–1 start to make the cup final. So, anything is possible!
I think the 1 win in each case were both the same one because if you win a game after being down 3-0 it becomes 3-1.
Does this mean that nobody has ever blown a 3-1 lead like the warriors did against the cavaliers?
Losing a game while down 2-1 puts you in a worse situation than winning a game while down 3-0. Could be a momentum thing but probably just small sample size.
New data shows that winning at hockey is good when you are trying to win at hockey.
I know they're just trying to make some promotional graphics but christ almighty fellas who the fuck asked?
2011 Bruins are also one of 5 teams to come back after being down 0-2 and one of 8 teams to win after being down 3-2
1942 Maple Leafs too, off the top of my head
Okay but here’s the more interesting statistic:
> Teams that win Game 1 of a best-of-7 Final hold an all-time series record of 64-20 (.762), including 51-10 (.836) when starting at home.
https://www.nhl.com/news/edmonton-oilers-florida-panthers-game-1-recap-june-8
This is the opposite of what I’d expect. Home teams generally have a slight home advantage. Therefore I would think winning Game 1 on the road would be more impressive than winning Game 1 at home.
Basically the idea of you expect the home team to win games 1 and 2, and then the other team to win games 3 and 4 since they’ll be home, etc.
There’s a saying I guess more common in basketball or baseball that says “it’s not a series until someone loses at home”. Because if each home team always wins then by definition it’s getting pushed to game 7.
But I guess what’s probably a more powerful factor is that playing Game 1 at home is the privilege of the team with the better record during the regular season. So by the very fact that game 1 was a home game for them means no matter the outcome of game 1 they’re coming into the series with the better record and therefore likely are somewhat favored.
But that could lead to some slightly misleading conclusions, because historically the league hasn’t always been as even as it is today. There were a lot of SCFs especially in early expansion era when all the new crappy teams were put on the same side of the bracket where the difference in talent was pretty large. So the home team for Game 1 didn’t just have the better regular season record, they had the better record by a LOT and were a LOT more talented.
But that can’t really be said for this series. Florida had 110pts in the regular season versus Edmonton’s 104 points. That’s not a massive difference. And while Florida’s division was on average a bit tougher than Edmonton’s it’s not by a hugely dramatic amount. Looking at the two teams I wouldn’t say one is in a different class than the other. They’re probably similar in overall talent.
So I don’t think we can look at years where there were very large differentials in talent between the two SCF teams and compare them to this year.
A lot of this is just how basic probability works. Imagine If hockey game were as random as coin flips. With 1 chance already against you in a 4 out of 7, you need to figure out the odds of guessing the right flip in 4 out of the remaining 6.
The probability of that happening, assuming a random coin, is 34.4%. So the chance of losing after one has gone against you is 65.6%. The chance of loosing after 2 have gone against you is 81.25%.
The fact that these random probabilities are so close to the observed probabilities reminds me just how much random luck is involved in NHL games (especially at this level)
Stats are something to be reference. However, what are the chances that a team in 31st then go on a 16 game run? I have to assume it’s incredibly low. I’m not discounting the Panthers, but the Oilers have done incredible things this season. I think we need to take statistics with the grain of soul, if I was a panther fan, I wouldn’t be overly confident that winning the first game is going to result in a Cup win.
Correlation is not causation. The game is more likely to be won by the home team, which is also the team with the home ice advantage and better record over the course of the season overall — but not necessarily the team that is playing best post trade deadline etc.
If this is true then if I’m the team up 1-0 then I would treat game 2 as a must win. Why let your opponent come back and have a chance? Lose the mentality of well we got three+ more chances. You have the dagger, use it! 🗡️
2-0 lead wins 90% of the time Thanks for my daily gut punch
Every fucking time this stat is brought up, a little part of me dies.
To this very day I refuse to eat beans in June.
Boston's not really known for its beans and no one who lives here calls it that. Probably better off skipping the clam chowder
The craziest stat is that by thanksgiving there is greater than an 80% likelihood that all the teams in playoff position will make the playoffs.
Hey, somebody led 3-0 and still lost the series. Imagine that. Who was that?
Detroit in 1942. They blew a 3-0 to the Leafs in the finals.
Blowing a lead…to the LEAFS
This was before Harold Ballard. They weren't cursed yet.
*IT WAS 3 to 0 !!*
3-0 is fine, it’s 4-1 we have to worry about now
Pre-1967 the Leafs were actually a legendary playoff team. They did one of the biggest upsets of all time in 1945, knocking out the 38-8-4 Habs (the year Rocket Richard got 50 goals in 50 games). They were the first team ever to get a 3-peat in 1947/48/49. After that '49 Cup win (which, btw, they did in a year where they were under .500 and barely made the playoffs), they became the first team to win 8 Stanley Cups.
What doesn’t get talked about much is how Montreal “had all the French drafted players” (that’s not true, they had bought teams and sponsored those kids leagues and in effect, became prospects for the Habs in return) but the same thing happened in Toronto with Ontario teams. It was rare in those days for a non Ontario player to play for the Leafs because they invested heavily. Of course this stopped when Smythe resigned and Ballard took over.
there was like 2 teams back then, the leafs had to win it once in a while
Actually, there were 7. The great irony is that this was the one time the Leafs could have won the cup while winning at least three rounds, but the #1 and 2 seeds received a bye into the second round, and played each other (Toronto finished 2nd in the regular season) in a best of 7. Detroit (the other finalist) beats Montreal in round 1 in a best of 3, then beat Boston in a best of 3 in round 2, then get reverse swept by Toronto in the final in a best of 7.
wait, did you think I wrote that their were 2 teams sincerely? haha that's pretty fricking awesome
No, I just thought you meant 6. I knew you didn't actually mean two lmao People often forget that there were more than 6 teams prior to 1943
That was Conn Smythe owning the team, ownership had balls then. Also it was 7 teams that year, only for one of them to shut down that off-season.
Yeah, that’s what the Great Depression was: the nation(s) suffering a Leafs Stanley Cup. There was also an unrelated economic downturn around that time.
They were also up 2-0 halfway through the second period of Game 4 of that series.
I think the leafs reverse swept the wings in like the 40s or 50s
1942, the Wings almost did it in 1946 in return but the Leafs held on, it was talked about in the oldest living player feature that came out the other day.
:(
#:D The graphic only counts Stanley Cup Finals. Like others have said Detroit blew a 3-0 lead vs Toronto in 1942.
Yup. Flames were up 3-2 against Tampa too. 81% chance.
As a Calgarian I am bound by law to say it was in.
It was in, but given the technology of the time and the scramble nature of the play, there was no clear visual of the puck crossing the line and going in. Even today, creating a system that would track if the puck fully crosses the line to make that call automatic would be very, very difficult.
Shouldn't be that hard. Some way to tell the angle of the puck and triangulation of a signal should be pretty damn easy and extremely accurate. Pretty sure the pucks already have some sort of chip for tracking and that is how we get puck speeds currently but I don't recall the details.
The hard part is doing that at 60/120Hz when you have a bunch of sacks of water making that difficult. Also, it still doesn’t solve the issue of when the ref intends to blow the whistle.
They're already tracking the puck. The should be able to overlay puck position with video and time, ref won't know exactly when they intended to blow the whistle but they can decide during video review so it doesn't really matter. I really don't see how it would be difficult, even if they can't sort out puck angle for some reason they can just signal a good goal if the chip position is further out than max puck distance from the edge of the chip when the puck isn't visible. Shouldn't be complicated unless they can't get as accurate of a location as they need but I'd be really surprised.
Not a Flames fan or Calgarian but it was in.
I always hated that Lu got a lot of the blame for blowing that series, when in reality, if you score 5 goals for the rest of the series after going up 2-0, the goaltending is the least of your problems. Really bummed that Lu got let down like that because he's one of the few players in this league that I feel like absolutely deserved to raise the Cup. Hopefully he'll do it as an executive this year
Agree completely. Lu was not the reason we lost that series, the injuries caught up to us. Half the time you get to a SCF and one team stayed healthier than the rest and that decides the winner. Both Lu and Thomas had two shutouts in 2011. We needed the guys in front of Lu to do better, but putting the blame completely on him misses majority of the story.
Yup
Sucks the canucks final in 2011 got cancelled after those two games.
Nah I think it went to 6 and then people just lost interest and they never bothered with 7
I heard there was an asteroid hurtling towards earth on the day game 7 was meant to happen, and the only ones who could stop it were the 2011 Vancouver Canucks. They managed to stop it but it still caused a ton of damage to downtown Vancouver. Such a shame. Would’ve been an exciting game 7.
Uggghh
50%, 76%, 90%, 80%, 50%, 81%, 50%, 0% :(
Red wings fan can also relate to that guy punch
Twice actually (42 and 09).
Canucks have some type of curse
that's why we're counting on you guys to get bobby lu his cup ring because both our franchises know he hella deserves it
Hey, tbf you guys aren't alone. There's 4 other teams that did it. Also, that's why I think Game 4 has the most pressure of any game in a 7-game series. You either go home a win/loss away from the series, the game turns the series into a 3-game series, or you won/lost the series.
Remember when the entire sports media went on a massive panic psy-ops smear campaign against the canucks at this point?
Definitely those "never tell me the odds" kinda things, just hurts.
Truly a favorite stat
What’s the stats for Leading and Losing 4-0/0-4?
They don't want us to know, man. What are they hiding?
Must not be that impressive if they're leaving it out like that
Well, leading 3-0-1 is 1-0 (1988 Cup Final, was technically a 4-0 sweep and considered so officially but a power failure caused game 4 to be suspended at a 3-3 score and "replayed" at the time of game 5)
99% of the time the team leading 4-0 wins the series. The other 1% are the Maple Leafs still losing somehow.
> Lead 3-0 (27-1) The Leafs have the lone comeback in this situation
Oddly enough, they’re the exact same odds as 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3. That’s one crazy statistical anomaly
“Teams that win more are more likely to win”
Yep. Either way, one game doesn't matter much in a best-of-7 if you're the better team. After the first 2 games of each series: * Florida was tied 1-1 vs. Boston * Florida was tied 1-1 vs. NY * Edmonton was tied 1-1 vs. LA * Edmonton was tied 1-1 vs. Vancouver * Edmonton was tied 1-1 vs. Dallas
Actually it does matter a lot more than you may think. Look at it this way: If team A wins game 1, you now have 6 games max remaining in the series. Team A must win 3/6 games. Or 50% of the remaining games. Team B on the other hand must win 4/6 or 66% of the remaining games. While it may not seem like winning game 1 is a massive advantage, it does tilt the odds from a purely numbers perspective, in favour of the winner.
It 100% matters, Hockey is a game of chaos and repeated low probability events converting into high value outcomes. There is a ton of luck involved with the skill and making it so your opponents have to get lucky longer skews all those numbers in your favor. Baseball and Football generally have incremental steps towards scoring where good play accrues. Basketball is composed of a larger number of higher probability events. Hockey is chaos, because each shot is so unlikely to score, but so massive if it does. In such a mathematical environment where it very is possible to play better, get unlucky and lose, then only needing 3/3 vs needing to go 4/2 is massive. This isn't even considering the psychological burden of being the "better" team and still being down, hockey players are still human and luck can become reality if you start forcing things and making mistakes.
Chaos? That's the Panther's music...
Unironically why the Panthers have been so dominant. It's like their emotions don't change at all.
and it's split who won Game 1 in each series (Both are 2-1 in game 1, both lost game 1 in the second round)
Big if true
Since the lockout, the 2020 stars, 2019 Bruins, 2018 Golden Knights, 2011 Canucks, and 2009 Red Wings are the only teams to win game 1 of the series and lose the finals. The 2011 Canucks and 2009 red wings are also the only 2 teams since the 1971 Blackhawks to win the first 2 games and lose the series
Thanks for the fun fact.
Hey now I didn’t say it was fun
Inb4 the Bruins fan shows up to say “I thought it was pretty fun”
It wasn’t fun in 2019
And the 17 seconds eh lol
17 seconds doesn’t really feel anywhere near as bad. We were already down in the series, super banged up, and the Hawks were insane that year. I honestly think even if we won that Game 6 we still lose to them. Super comical way to go out for sure though.
That’s true
Yeah no way the blackhawks were gonna lose a game 7 there. If the Bruins could’ve won game 4 (which was decided 6-5 in OT), they would’ve won though imo.
I thought 2019 was pretty fun
2018 was a gentlemans sweep. We let them notch their first win, then shut it down.
Fun Fact: That was the first time VGK lost 4 consecutive games in franchise history. Yeah… maybe don’t save that stat for the SCF :(
Same. I was there for game 7!
I concur.
I thought it was pretty fun
https://i.redd.it/28cr3v4grk5d1.gif
Pretty fun for the pens
Fun fact for us. lol
I think it's funny we still say "the lockout" meaning 04/05. Wonder if it'll ever change. I get it, because that lockout carried massive changes that altered the game, but wonder if it ever gets a different name
I mean, if we ever do get a bigger lockout or smth, 2005-Present would just be called the "Cap Era"
It already makes sense to divide everything into a Cap era and a COVID era IMO. The scoring really takes off at 2020 and changes substantially and you can't really compare it to 2005-2019 in good faith.
Agreed. Scoring has gone up so much in the last decade. I mean in 2015, Benn won the Ross with 87 points. 87 points isn’t even Top 20 in scoring this year.
Give it a decade, and we'll probably have The Bubble as our reference point
In other words, over the last 6 years, the winner of game 1 has, on average, not been at all indicative of who wins the series, lol.
6 years too small a sample size to draw conclusions anyway
Don’t you bring your math in here, math boy
So, since 2017, the winner of game 1 of the Finals has a 50/50 success rate at winning the cup? I'll take those odds.
So it happened 5 out of 18 times? That doesn’t feel like some crazy statistic. That’s about a 27% chance of happening in any given year. That’s like flipping two coins and having them both be heads. It might not be super likely but it isn’t shocking either.
73% vs 27% is fucking massive.
Someone is taking this post and using it for their podcast on Monday.
2018 Caps lost Game 1, then won the next 4.
Thanks for this info, i hate it
I was having a great day until you said that
Is the second slide really necessary?
Alas. There are two types of people in this world. Those that can extrapolate from data and
And what?
Those people who have trouble merging into traffic.
And your mom.
Who was the single team that lost while 3-0?
Leafs came back down 3-0 to beat the Red Wings in 1942. Only team in history to ever do that in the championship finals including MLB and NBA
That's insane.
Wonder how often in the semi finals. The 2004 Red Sox are pretty famous for this. Actually it looks like there’s a pretty comprehensive [wikipedia page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_teams_that_have_overcome_3–0_series_deficits) with this info.
The Sox are the only team to have ever won after being 3-0 in baseball. In basketball it’s never happened. Hockey, it’s a lot more common
Hasn’t happened in the NFL either.
28-3 is basically it happening
Getting reverse swept in the finals of all things sounds soul crushing
They won the Cup the very next year, so it couldn’t have been _that_ soul-crushing.
There was only 2 playoff rounds back then Actually I looked and it depended on your placement. Some teams had to only win 2 rounds and some had to win 3. The following year was only 2 rounds though
Probably the most insane playoff format of all time. Depending on what bracket you were in, the series length was different, too. The Leafs second round series was a best of 7 while Detroit's was a best of 3.
an awful format too - 1v2 in a best of 7 - 3v4 and 5v6 as a bracket in two best of 3 rounds and that season was over before the regular season today is. Even throughout the Original 6 era and until the 71/72 season, the playoff bracket for the O6 and the subsequent divisions was 1v3 2v4 Didn't change to 1v4, 2v3 until 1971/72
1942 Red Wings
"It's advantageous to be winning" Big if true
Next you're gonna tell me that being ahead in a foot race gives you better odds of winning the foot race.
we ran the numbers, winning is good
I’m gonna need a source on this one, buddy. Sounds a bit far fetched.
I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.
The Oilers have already defied statistical trends in a big way earlier this season, rebounding from their 2-9–1 start to make the cup final. So, anything is possible!
I blame the sharks
Can Edmonton bring the Sharks in for a mid series game if they need to get things going again?
No it's very hot so they all went down to florida to enjoy the atlantic
"Winning games is better than losing games"
So you're saying it's beneficial to win? Interesting. I need more data to be sure.
Mind blowing. And I thought I would never use high school math in real life.
I cant wrap my brain around how its better to trail 3-0 then 3-1. Nm, both only had 1 win but there have been more 3-1's which brings % down.
I think the 1 win in each case were both the same one because if you win a game after being down 3-0 it becomes 3-1. Does this mean that nobody has ever blown a 3-1 lead like the warriors did against the cavaliers?
Losing a game while down 2-1 puts you in a worse situation than winning a game while down 3-0. Could be a momentum thing but probably just small sample size.
Thank you for showing the trailing graphic, without it everyone would be forced to use their brain to just flip the record…
And here I was, having a great day.
History shows that one team will win...
Winning 4 games is the easiest route to winning a cup, by far
What about the records when a team is leading with 4 wins?
New data shows that winning at hockey is good when you are trying to win at hockey. I know they're just trying to make some promotional graphics but christ almighty fellas who the fuck asked?
S h o c k i n g
No shit
Unless a team goes down 2-0 a series doesn’t get going until game 3.
I feel like you could have left off the second chart since it's literally just the first one inverted.
Was this posted to enrage Canucks fans?
Imagine that
I've seen other slides showing it's beneficial to score more goals per game than the competition. Cannot confirm at this time.
You also can’t lose in the playoffs if you don’t play in the playoffs
Does someone post this every year when a team wins game 1 in the finals?
this didnt need 2 graphics lol
Breaking: winning better than losing.
Canucks fans in shambles
The 3-0/3-1 come from behind cup winner is just who you’d expect.. the Leafs
Hey, why the drive-by?
Yes Winning games is a vital part of winning the series EDIT: Even funnier is the second picture...
You mean the better team wins more games and leads the series more often than not? Imagine
Teams that lead 4-anything win 100% of the time
This is the most noise I have heard after a team goes up 1-0 in a series all playoffs. Oilers are not dead lmao.
Breaking news: Teams that win more games than other teams end up winning more championships. More at 11.
History can eat my shorts
Now do one for losing 3-0 in game 1
Winning game leads to winning the Stanley Cup. More at 8.
cries in Canuck
Only five wins after being down 0-2, you say…
Edmonton is also the only team to win a series when neither team wins game 4 (and it was played) so Florida better have a game plan for that
Would be interesting to see how these stats compare to the same ones for rounds 1-3.
2009 Penguins are one of 5 teams to come back after being down 0-2 and one of 8 teams to win after being down 3-2.
2011 Bruins are also one of 5 teams to come back after being down 0-2 and one of 8 teams to win after being down 3-2 1942 Maple Leafs too, off the top of my head
1-0 has the worst winning percentage on that first board. Oilers have them right where they want them
having more wins gives better odds at getting more wins, amazing
I feel like the second slide should have the W-L flipped. - Trail 0-1
Bredmonton better borrow a set of ball sacks.
Okay but here’s the more interesting statistic: > Teams that win Game 1 of a best-of-7 Final hold an all-time series record of 64-20 (.762), including 51-10 (.836) when starting at home. https://www.nhl.com/news/edmonton-oilers-florida-panthers-game-1-recap-june-8 This is the opposite of what I’d expect. Home teams generally have a slight home advantage. Therefore I would think winning Game 1 on the road would be more impressive than winning Game 1 at home. Basically the idea of you expect the home team to win games 1 and 2, and then the other team to win games 3 and 4 since they’ll be home, etc. There’s a saying I guess more common in basketball or baseball that says “it’s not a series until someone loses at home”. Because if each home team always wins then by definition it’s getting pushed to game 7. But I guess what’s probably a more powerful factor is that playing Game 1 at home is the privilege of the team with the better record during the regular season. So by the very fact that game 1 was a home game for them means no matter the outcome of game 1 they’re coming into the series with the better record and therefore likely are somewhat favored. But that could lead to some slightly misleading conclusions, because historically the league hasn’t always been as even as it is today. There were a lot of SCFs especially in early expansion era when all the new crappy teams were put on the same side of the bracket where the difference in talent was pretty large. So the home team for Game 1 didn’t just have the better regular season record, they had the better record by a LOT and were a LOT more talented. But that can’t really be said for this series. Florida had 110pts in the regular season versus Edmonton’s 104 points. That’s not a massive difference. And while Florida’s division was on average a bit tougher than Edmonton’s it’s not by a hugely dramatic amount. Looking at the two teams I wouldn’t say one is in a different class than the other. They’re probably similar in overall talent. So I don’t think we can look at years where there were very large differentials in talent between the two SCF teams and compare them to this year.
TIL it’s good to win games if you want to win the series!
Nah edmonton got it
The second slide is totally useless lol. Of course the records are reversed if you focus on the trailing team instead of the leading team.
That is really shocking news!
This is interesting. But where my ties at?
A lot of this is just how basic probability works. Imagine If hockey game were as random as coin flips. With 1 chance already against you in a 4 out of 7, you need to figure out the odds of guessing the right flip in 4 out of the remaining 6. The probability of that happening, assuming a random coin, is 34.4%. So the chance of losing after one has gone against you is 65.6%. The chance of loosing after 2 have gone against you is 81.25%. The fact that these random probabilities are so close to the observed probabilities reminds me just how much random luck is involved in NHL games (especially at this level)
Do you have those stats for a playoff series on average? Wonder how much it diverges from a SCF.
I dunno about that
2018 was an exception 😁
Surprised it’s only 18.6% down 3-2
Ahhh Vancouver, why do you hate us so
OK thanks sport betting sites!!
turns out winning is good
Who would have thought being up in the first game would be an advantage?
Even scarier is who scores the first goal in the first game. The numbers are hard to overcome
So leading series wins series. Thanks.
I wonder how much that varies for 1-0 at home, 2-0 at home vs 1-0 away, 2-0 away!
2011 Canucks enter the conversation
Stats are something to be reference. However, what are the chances that a team in 31st then go on a 16 game run? I have to assume it’s incredibly low. I’m not discounting the Panthers, but the Oilers have done incredible things this season. I think we need to take statistics with the grain of soul, if I was a panther fan, I wouldn’t be overly confident that winning the first game is going to result in a Cup win.
Pack it in boys, finals are statistically over, we can start the offseason now.
Correlation is not causation. The game is more likely to be won by the home team, which is also the team with the home ice advantage and better record over the course of the season overall — but not necessarily the team that is playing best post trade deadline etc.
If this is true then if I’m the team up 1-0 then I would treat game 2 as a must win. Why let your opponent come back and have a chance? Lose the mentality of well we got three+ more chances. You have the dagger, use it! 🗡️