Speculation: Acq./Rost. Bldg./Cap/Lines etc. Part LXXXIV -- The Doggiest Days (Woof!) 2017

[Stewie G]

If you expect in-depth refutations of methodologies every time someone disputes your assertions you're barking up the wrong tree, because nobody is going to do that and you're just as guilty as everyone else when it comes to making oversimplified, exaggerated, or unsupported statements. It seems like you want everyone to accept your opinions unconditionally and your preferred stat methods as a given while others need to support everything they say with hard data or else you reject it.

IMO "luck" is the "dark matter" of analytics. It conveniently fills in the gaps so the whole theory doesn't fall apart. And the only way to fit it into the the concept of "quantify everything" is to make various assumptions (like most stats do) and then assign the label "luck" to some numbers associated with those assumptions.

But I don't want to turn this into a neverending analytics debate. We have a thread for that.

In the science realm, that is exactly what must be done. Maybe not in-depth, but some sort of reasoning must be applied. You can't just reject results by saying "Nuh uh." Essentially, that is a complete rejection of the idea of analytics if you can wave a magic wand whenever something is presented that is in conflict with a position derived from observation only.

I rarely see twabby make the kinds of statements you claim, definitely not anywhere close to being "just as guilty as everyone else." That kind of claim seems like it would more appropriate for another local team.

 

[Langway]

Most analytics writers don't claim it's a roulette wheel, merely that luck is a big influence and can't simply be discounted. There is a middle ground between "everything is a coin flip" and "everything is under a team's control" and the idea is to find out exactly where the truth lies. It's probably never going to be pinned down exactly but there are ways to narrow it down.

Define big. Define hugely influenced. This is the root of the problem, not that luck is or isn't a factor. I doubt anyone disbelieves the presence of luck in sports. It's in part what makes it so unpredictable and entertaining. But analytics types often make claims in a way adversarial to skeptics serving little purpose beyond showing their zeal. I get that using exclamation points can perhaps shift the goal posts and the spectrum of the debate but it doesn't serve the merits of their findings much. I'm a fan of the intent behind the field and by no means made any sort of blanket statement if you'll read what I wrote again. If there's a particular study with results indicating an exact measurement of luck (beyond PDO) I'm all ears. Again, what I take issue with are some of the hasty conclusions drawn from one-dimensional metrics and cartoonish wording often used for effect.

The Ovechkin Era in the playoffs has to this point certainly been a failure. Full stop. Without question it has been on a team level given their regular season success and expectation levels. There are no mitigating circumstances the organization should believe that weaken their resolve in doing what it takes to improve. That was the root of this topic from the outset...how they continue to appear to have made very little sense out of what happened and, by extension, form a coherent way forward beyond showing up to do it again. Outside influences certainly do exist but it serves no purpose to give it a second thought if they have the mental toughness required to understand what's within their control and do their best in improving in every area within that category.

It's easy to say "winners make their own breaks" even if the truth is closer to "winners get more breaks through no doing of their own." Indeed, if you look at certain measures of luck like PDO you'll see Cup champs with above average PDOs almost every time.

But can you quantify that it is indeed closer to the truth? Aren't you essentially speculating just the same? Cup champs also tend to be able to do three things that pump their PDO: they manage to manufacture and convert high quality scoring opportunities 5-on-5 in order to fuel Sh%, they're better able to dictate shot quality 5-on-5 and get strong goaltending. So there's a sensible explanation for what you chalk up predominantly to luck, particularly over 24 games or so. Much of what makes a strong playoff team is the very ability to find and sustain a level of remarkably exceptional level of play and that's not just shown in the number of bounces that go their way but also in timing, cohesiveness and decision-making. It's all needed to win and, whether results-based or not, something these Washington Capitals have never gotten to. As I've said, it's not always the numbers per se but subtle conclusions drawn from them. Even PDO only accounts for 5-on-5 play so it's hard to point to that as the ultimate indicator of who is and isn't lucky.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Without a lot of things they don't win it all. But they all happened. That's the way it goes. Winners also tend to shrug off bad bounces when they happen against them and maintain discipline/resolve. It's not just the good that goes for them but how they handle the bad. The point is less that dynasty franchises don't have zero variance over their spans but that they're able to repeat it and counter randomness. Hockey may be more random than the other big team sports lately but it still doesn't make it anything close to the sort of roulette wheel some analytics writers tend to want to make it out to be.

Goons were a thing for maybe thirty years or so, mostly due to expansion diluting the talent pool but shouldn't be considered an influential factor in anything beyond the culture at the time. Slow defensemen (and players in general) were able to hook, slash and otherwise maim opposition players until 2006 so it wasn't so much coaching as the rule set. Goaltending and talent disparities don't account for much prior to expansion in 1967 and even during expansion should only account for greater variance in the regular season. During the last 25 years of the O6 era prior to expansion, three teams in MTL/TOR/DET took turns coming out on top. From '41-67, only Chicago in '61 broke that up.

I'd be inclined to believe the primacy of luck in hockey if there were random outcomes all over the place but this is clearly not so. It would be a lot less enjoyable if it were because it'd suggest there aren't demonstrable skills that influence the outcome.

The problem is the degree to which it's referenced. It's like people that believe in it do so with such fervor it collapses the very merits of their point. It's not not a factor but the game is also not a roulette wheel. It's not just going back-to-back but being able to repeat within a short time span that makes up dynasty level teams and three teams have done so lately. You can discount certain descriptive verbage but teams have consistently been able to beat randomness and repeat high level performance.

Dynasties were more prevalent in hockey from the 70s through 90s than in any other team sport and I don't believe it can be explained away by expansion (talent disparity), goaltending or coaching issues. There was expansion in every league throughout that time period. Some teams were just more effective and able than others, something which the luck angle taken to its extreme tends to disregard as possible. I'd admit to a certain degree of chaos but it's not as chance-laden competition that some statistical types make it out to be. It never has been.

Great post.

 

[g00n]

In the science realm, that is exactly what must be done. Maybe not in-depth, but some sort of reasoning must be applied. You can't just reject results by saying "Nuh uh." Essentially, that is a complete rejection of the idea of analytics if you can wave a magic wand whenever something is presented that is in conflict with a position derived from observation only.

I rarely see twabby make the kinds of statements you claim, definitely not anywhere close to being "just as guilty as everyone else." That kind of claim seems like it would more appropriate for another local team.

We'll have to just disagree, then. As I said I see plenty of reasoning in the counter-arguments and just as much assumption or rejection taking place from the "my science or nothing" side.

and add a +1 to Langway's post above

 

[Stewie G]

We'll have to just disagree, then. As I said I see plenty of reasoning in the counter-arguments and just as much assumption or rejection taking place from the "my science or nothing" side.

and add a +1 to Langway's post above

Fine. I'll agree to disagree, but I don't have to like it.

Langway's post(s) are closer to what I was referring to, but he still talks in circles at times, and it appears that he can only be convinced if analytics can produce "an exact measurement of luck," which I imagine is pretty much impossible.

 

[Ridley Simon]

I'm not sure what I am reading anymore. You guys have drive this discussion off a cliff.

For the most part, the Caps have not had puck luck the last 40 years. They just haven't. Oddly enough the 2 years they got it, was the 2 years they went farther than any of their other teams (Druce is loose in 90 and The 98 Cup run).

Druce's run and the 98 team's run were undeniably part of a puck luck moment for the franchise. Can't quantify it, it just happened.

And it hasn't happened to any Ovy lead team.

The Pens had some amazing puck luck in their last 2 Cup winners (no more so than against the Caps in 2016). Really good team w some really good fortune. Caps have never had that combo. They had a couple mediocre teams that had some really good fortune, and some really good teams that had no (or bad) fortune.

Is that all really debatable?

 

[Holtbyisms]

I'm not sure what I am reading anymore. You guys have drive this discussion off a cliff.

For the most part, the Caps have not had puck luck the last 40 years. They just haven't. Oddly enough the 2 years they got it, was the 2 years they went farther than any of their other teams (Druce is loose in 90 and The 98 Cup run).

Druce's run and the 98 team's run were undeniably part of a puck luck moment for the franchise. Can't quantify it, it just happened.

And it hasn't happened to any Ovy lead team.

The Pens had some amazing puck luck in their last 2 Cup winners (no more so than against the Caps in 2016). Really good team w some really good fortune. Caps have never had that combo. They had a couple mediocre teams that had some really good fortune, and some really good teams that had no (or bad) fortune.

Is that all really debatable?

Nope. Agree 100%.

 

[Kranix]

Is Dimitri Orlov untouchable?

 

[Holtbyisms]

Is Dimitri Orlov untouchable?

Yes x1000

 

[Jags]

I'm not sure what I am reading anymore. You guys have drive this discussion off a cliff.

For the most part, the Caps have not had puck luck the last 40 years. They just haven't. Oddly enough the 2 years they got it, was the 2 years they went farther than any of their other teams (Druce is loose in 90 and The 98 Cup run).

Druce's run and the 98 team's run were undeniably part of a puck luck moment for the franchise. Can't quantify it, it just happened.

And it hasn't happened to any Ovy lead team.

The Pens had some amazing puck luck in their last 2 Cup winners (no more so than against the Caps in 2016). Really good team w some really good fortune. Caps have never had that combo. They had a couple mediocre teams that had some really good fortune, and some really good teams that had no (or bad) fortune.

Is that all really debatable?

I generally agree, but I think there's an undercurrent of something more than luck. I don't want to get into more debates on whether the Pens core is just better or that the Caps are cursed and just don't have whatever the hell "it" is. All of that is subjective.

I think you have to put yourself in a position to have good luck. Crazy deflections, flukey bounces, pucks going in off someone's ass... All of that stuff starts with throwing pucks to the net and having guys in front. Playing "The Right Way" 24/7 limits those types of chances. To have bounces go your way, you have to create a bounce in the first place. That's where the Caps come up short, in my opinion.

If you're not prepared to throw everything you have and the kitchen sink at the opposition -- if you're determined to just color inside the lines, never take chances, and play not to lose -- you're not going to generate ANY luck, good or bad. You're just a slave to the bounces the other guys are generating, and the ones that don't go your way are their good luck, not your bad luck.

 

[g00n]

Your star player hitting the boards funny and being knocked out of a series is catastrophic bad luck. Things like puck bounces happen all game, every game, for both teams. It's a cheap excuse to blame luck all the time.

It's confirmation bias 99% of the time. Rarely do you ever have two completely evenly matched teams who have the exact same number and types of good and bad bounces and then ONE bounce determines the entire series. Over a 40 year span. It's just beyond the realm of possibility and if we as fans see it that way it's purely a matter of seeing what we want to see.

 

[Langway]

It's also hard to blame bounces when a team constantly finds themselves in one-goal games. Maybe be more ambitious than to expect a long, hard slog of a series from the outset. And yet that's been the dynamic at play in the second round for three years running under Trotz. That in itself is why he's not the answer. If they truly want to win, win on impact level skill and do it with a degree of magnitude and tenacity less likely to require fortune shining on them.

Maybe they've been unlucky but they've ultimately also not been that great either. They've run into some hot goalies but frequently they've created them based on shot selection and managing to collapse defensively just enough to lose.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

Your star player hitting the boards funny and being knocked out of a series is catastrophic bad luck. Things like puck bounces happen all game, every game, for both teams. It's a cheap excuse to blame luck all the time.

It's confirmation bias 99% of the time. Rarely do you ever have two completely evenly matched teams who have the exact same number and types of good and bad bounces and then ONE bounce determines the entire series. Over a 40 year span. It's just beyond the realm of possibility and if we as fans see it that way it's purely a matter of seeing what we want to see.

We can't catch a break, that's also the truth. When is the last time we were lucky in the playoffs? I don't mean to say that luck is the reason why we're unsuccessful in the playoffs but it almost never goes in our favour.

The best example would be game 5 against the Rangers in 2015. What if the ref had made the correct call on Ward's goal when Lundqvist came way out of the crease and faked goalie interference? The game would've been 2-0 after Glencross scored and Kreider's goal with 100 seconds left wouldn't have mattered. We came so damn close to breaking through and I'm sure reaching the ECF would've spurred a sense of confidence for future playoff runs. No more "2nd round exit curse".

 

[g00n]

We can't catch a break, that's also the truth. When is the last time we were lucky in the playoffs? I don't mean to say that luck is the reason why we're unsuccessful in the playoffs but it almost never goes in our favour.

The best example would be game 5 against the Rangers in 2015. What if the ref had made the correct call on Ward's goal when Lundqvist came way out of the crease and faked goalie interference? The game would've been 2-0 after Glencross scored and Kreider's goal with 100 seconds left wouldn't have mattered. We came so damn close to breaking through and I'm sure reaching the ECF would've spurred a sense of confidence for future playoff runs. No more "2nd round exit curse".

No, it's confirmation bias. We simply don't see the good breaks the same way we see the bad ones, if we see them AT ALL. It doesn't mean we don't have bad luck or have calls go against us.

Again, spend some time in other GDTs during these games. I have to do it because moderation calls for it. The perception is 180* opposite of what we see so frequently you wonder if everyone's watching the same game. A Pens fan sees the same play we call bad luck and attributes it to skill for the Pens, if they notice it at all.

If "luck" is determining this team's fate every year, and they're not "failures" despite loading up for Cups several years over the last decade, then why are we even paying attention? What value is there in a trophy so dependent on luck?

 

[Brian23]

I think the Boston series was the last time I'd call us "Lucky" in the playoffs. I'm not sure we've played a Goalie as hot, or as good, as Timmy Thomas was.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

No, it's confirmation bias. We simply don't see the good breaks the same way we see the bad ones, if we see them AT ALL. It doesn't mean we don't have bad luck or have calls go against us.

Again, spend some time in other GDTs during these games. I have to do it because moderation calls for it. The perception is 180* opposite of what we see so frequently you wonder if everyone's watching the same game. A Pens fan sees the same play we call bad luck and attributes it to skill for the Pens, if they notice it at all.

If "luck" is determining this team's fate every year, and they're not "failures" despite loading up for Cups several years over the last decade, then why are we even paying attention? What value is there in a trophy so dependent on luck?

I often ask myself this question. In a parity league like the NHL, the difference between winning and losing is almost nothing. You see it in the regular season, the majority of teams finish with more or less the same amount of points.

This is why it's very impressive when you have a team that finishes far ahead of the pack (2016 Capitals) or far behind the pack (2017 Avalanche).

It was just 5 years ago when a team made the playoffs on the very last day of the regular season as the 16th seed and went on to win the Stanley Cup that year.

To further illustrate my point, just look at how the Pens went from mediocre in 2015 to a dynasty in 2016 and 2017, and how the Kings went from winning the Cup to missing the playoffs the year after with almost the same rosters.

The entire thing is pretty random actually.

 

[twabby]

Define big. Define hugely influenced. This is the root of the problem, not that luck is or isn't a factor. I doubt anyone disbelieves the presence of luck in sports. It's in part what makes it so unpredictable and entertaining. But analytics types often make claims in a way adversarial to skeptics serving little purpose beyond showing their zeal. I get that using exclamation points can perhaps shift the goal posts and the spectrum of the debate but it doesn't serve the merits of their findings much. I'm a fan of the intent behind the field and by no means made any sort of blanket statement if you'll read what I wrote again. If there's a particular study with results indicating an exact measurement of luck (beyond PDO) I'm all ears. Again, what I take issue with are some of the hasty conclusions drawn from one-dimensional metrics and cartoonish wording often used for effect.

http://hockeyviz.com/txt/oscar
http://hockeyviz.com/txt/cordelia




Cordelia predicted that the favorites and overwhelming regular season champions only had a 14% chance of winning the Stanley Cup in 2016-17 and the older version (Oscar) predicted that the favorites would only have a 18% chance of winning in 2015-16.

Other models and their probabilities (I'm on mobile so I can't go through them right now):



When the best team in the NHL has an ~83% chance of not winning the Cup according to an average of a variety of different models it's tough to deny the existence of a significant luck component. Contrast that with the NBA where most models gave the Warriors a > 50% chance of winning the championship (one example: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2017-nba-predictions/) and it gets really hard to consider hockey the same as every other sport. Betting lines similarly reflect the uncertainty in outcomes. These models aren't perfect but I would guess that they are closer to reality than most people believe.

Luck isn't just "bad bounces", it's things that happen that aren't really intentional or under one's control. It's nice to say that "more traffic = more goals", but that's only true in probabilistic terms. You still have to rely on the shot getting through and getting a favorable bounce, or finding a hole in the goalie rather than bouncing harmlessly off his pad, etc. Those individual things aren't reasonably under one's control, even if the general "make traffic" idea is.

The Ovechkin Era in the playoffs has to this point certainly been a failure. Full stop. Without question it has been on a team level given their regular season success and expectation levels. There are no mitigating circumstances the organization should believe that weaken their resolve in doing what it takes to improve. That was the root of this topic from the outset...how they continue to appear to have made very little sense out of what happened and, by extension, form a coherent way forward beyond showing up to do it again. Outside influences certainly do exist but it serves no purpose to give it a second thought if they have the mental toughness required to understand what's within their control and do their best in improving in every area within that category.

From a championships point of view absolutely they have been a failure. This offseason has been a failure and why I am in favor of at the very least a new head coach (for reasons you have pointed out well), and why I wouldn't be opposed to a complete house-cleaning given that they don't really seem to know what they are doing in terms of re-tooling or re-building.

But the fact that they even built those expectations to begin with and been a regular season powerhouse is a resounding success IMO. It feels like more of an emotional letdown when they don't follow through with postseason success but it makes for a better and more entertaining ride. How many teams can legitimately make the claim that they have built a consistently entertaining ride for close to a decade? Honestly I feel bad for fans who think that the only measure of success is a championship. Kings fans right now aren't having a very good time right now, for instance. Having a championship is nice to look back on but ultimately doesn't mean much soon after it's won IMO. I couldn't deal with 10 years of Hunter hockey even if somehow they won a Cup during that time-period. Perhaps it's just that I am entertained in different ways by sport and I define success differently.

Again, this doesn't mean that I think changes shouldn't be made this offseason because moreso than any time since the Oates era it seems like no one has any idea what they are doing and the team appears to be heading in a significantly worse direction than they have to.

But can you quantify that it is indeed closer to the truth? Aren't you essentially speculating just the same? Cup champs also tend to be able to do three things that pump their PDO: they manage to manufacture and convert high quality scoring opportunities 5-on-5 in order to fuel Sh%, they're better able to dictate shot quality 5-on-5 and get strong goaltending. So there's a sensible explanation for what you chalk up predominantly to luck, particularly over 24 games or so. Much of what makes a strong playoff team is the very ability to find and sustain a level of remarkably exceptional level of play and that's not just shown in the number of bounces that go their way but also in timing, cohesiveness and decision-making. It's all needed to win and, whether results-based or not, something these Washington Capitals have never gotten to. As I've said, it's not always the numbers per se but subtle conclusions drawn from them. Even PDO only accounts for 5-on-5 play so it's hard to point to that as the ultimate indicator of who is and isn't lucky.

Peaks and valleys in PDOs aren't repeatable in the slightest. Corsica has a stat called xPDO (expected PDO) which IIRC incorporates shot/shooter-quality and goaltending quality rather than just assuming all shots are the same (unfortunately Corsica is down right now). I'll double-check when the site is back up but I am almost certain that every Cup champ since 2008 (when the database starts) has exceeded their xPDO.

Yeah you can catch fire and have hot and cold streaks but no team or even player has been able to show a reasonable level of being able to "turn it on" beyond what can be explained by simple variation. Pittsburgh is a nice example of a team able to create high quality chances but so is Chicago and how did that turn out for them this postseason? They hit a dry spell despite icing one of their most talented teams ever. It's hard to make the claim that Chicago suddenly didn't have the ability to turn it on given that they have shown that ability in 3 prior postseasons (and another deep run) in recent memory. It's more likely that these streaks of hot and cold play are simply things that happen and that are unreasonable to expect any team to control (even if they are theoretically possible). Fleury is a perfect example of this. He's not nearly as bad of a goaltender as his prior postseasons indicate but he's also not nearly as good as he showed this postseason. Did he suddenly just willfully turn it on? I find that hard to believe.

 

[Hivemind]

Don't have the energy to fully read thru this discussion, but I will do a fly by with a quick point here.


The more that single events can impact the outcome of a match, the more "random"/"lucky" a sport appears. That's why lower scoring sports like hockey and soccer have higher variance. A fluke play in basketball results in 2 or 3 points out of a total score of somewhere in the 80-120 point ballpark. A fluke play in hockey resulting in a goal is often 33% or 50% of a team's entire scoring for the whole game.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

"Washington Capitals, unlucky for 43 years and counting"....lol.

Bad calls is an interesting point. I don't equate bad judgement calls or blatant no calls as bad luck. That's me though...

 

[Ridley Simon]

Your star player hitting the boards funny and being knocked out of a series is catastrophic bad luck. Things like puck bounces happen all game, every game, for both teams. It's a cheap excuse to blame luck all the time.

It's confirmation bias 99% of the time. Rarely do you ever have two completely evenly matched teams who have the exact same number and types of good and bad bounces and then ONE bounce determines the entire series. Over a 40 year span. It's just beyond the realm of possibility and if we as fans see it that way it's purely a matter of seeing what we want to see.

Or you are seeing what you want to see.

What about Bartman and the Cubs? These things happen in sports. And it can beget itself. Cubs were "bad luck" until the werent. They had arguably the best team that MLB has seen in a long while...and they still almost didnt win it.

Look, I dont think *anyone* is saying the Caps havent won a Cup simply due to bad luck. That would be asinine. But I think its easily as asinine to say that luck doesnt play a role in all of this, and furthering that.....Ovy lead teams havent had any in their favour. I'm trying to remember some puck luck they had. I'm sure they did....but nowhere near as much as their opponent.

And yes, it was same for Caps teams of the 80's and 90's. (Martin Straka scoring on Gonchar on that breakaway when the puck bounced over Gonch's stick....that wasnt bad luck?)

 

[Ridley Simon]

No, it's confirmation bias. We simply don't see the good breaks the same way we see the bad ones, if we see them AT ALL. It doesn't mean we don't have bad luck or have calls go against us.

Again, spend some time in other GDTs during these games. I have to do it because moderation calls for it. The perception is 180* opposite of what we see so frequently you wonder if everyone's watching the same game. A Pens fan sees the same play we call bad luck and attributes it to skill for the Pens, if they notice it at all.

If "luck" is determining this team's fate every year, and they're not "failures" despite loading up for Cups several years over the last decade, then why are we even paying attention? What value is there in a trophy so dependent on luck?

Well, of course they do. No fan ever wants to admit that their team won because of luck. It's akin to saying "well, we didnt deserve it".

 

[Calicaps]

Folks, just a reminder to please use collapse tags and/or our Fancy Stats thread when things start to get too data heavy. Thanks.

 

[Langway]

When the best team in the NHL has an ~83% chance of not winning the Cup according to an average of a variety of different models it's tough to deny the existence of a significant luck component. Contrast that with the NBA where most models gave the Warriors a > 50% chance of winning the championship (one example: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2017-nba-predictions/) and it gets really hard to consider hockey the same as every other sport.

Best teams aren't created equal, though, and I've never made the claim that any sport is equal to another. The Warriors are an extreme example of a team that had won the most regular season games ever the prior season and then, oh, went out and added Durant. They're a team that has a higher than 80% regular season winning percentage in each of the past three seasons. Suffice it to say that's never happened in the NHL. The closest would be the late 70's Canadiens I believe, who just happened to win four Cups in a row along the way. So you're talking about a historically strong team in the Warriors and not just the best in a given year. Of course odds should heavily favor them. The odds likely heavily favored them the year before to an even greater extent...and they blew it.

I still don't get how luck is inferred as determinative based on probabilistic playoff odds. It can also be a sign of great parity--not an inherent feature in any PT winner from year-to-year--and that the underlying numbers simply don't support a runaway favorite based on relative strength. Razor thin margins make luck more influential but it seems a bit much to suggest it's the major factor at play.

You still have to rely on the shot getting through and getting a favorable bounce, or finding a hole in the goalie rather than bouncing harmlessly off his pad, etc. Those individual things aren't reasonably under one's control, even if the general "make traffic" idea is.

Do you believe deflections by attacking screeners also aren't under one's control as an intentional play? Is it more or less intentional than "finding a hole in the goalie"? There are many plays that at full speed may seem unintentional but once slowed down sure seem to have been intentionally targeted. It's partially why composure and skill do still tend to carry the day because teams that are able to compress intentionality into ever tighter time periods execute more fluidly, tend to create breakdowns and convert. It's that applied pace question and slowing the game when attacking more quickly that the Caps tend to fall short on. That shared sense of timing and across the board engagement hasn't been where it needs to be. They've often gotten it right from a territorial standpoint but it's only the beginning in breaking teams down. (It need not even be nearly as territorially dominant as they've had games turn into either...)

Honestly I feel bad for fans who think that the only measure of success is a championship. Kings fans right now aren't having a very good time right now, for instance. Having a championship is nice to look back on but ultimately doesn't mean much soon after it's won IMO. I couldn't deal with 10 years of Hunter hockey even if somehow they won a Cup during that time-period. Perhaps it's just that I am entertained in different ways by sport and I define success differently.

I think this is for the hot take thread. Do you believe the Presidents' Trophy is equally or more important than the Stanley Cup due to sample size, etc.?

Yeah you can catch fire and have hot and cold streaks but no team or even player has been able to show a reasonable level of being able to "turn it on" beyond what can be explained by simple variation. Pittsburgh is a nice example of a team able to create high quality chances but so is Chicago and how did that turn out for them this postseason? They hit a dry spell despite icing one of their most talented teams ever. It's hard to make the claim that Chicago suddenly didn't have the ability to turn it on given that they have shown that ability in 3 prior postseasons (and another deep run) in recent memory. It's more likely that these streaks of hot and cold play are simply things that happen and that are unreasonable to expect any team to control (even if they are theoretically possible).

Where we differ--and I suppose are destined to--is that these things "just happen" and aren't based on anything in particular, like what Chicago and Nashville did tactically or individually. I'm not of the belief that teams have total control in outcomes but some more than others are better able to replicate higher level play. There are fluctuations and match-ups that may go against strengths and players may simply slump at inopportune times but at some point a really strong team on paper should manage to put it all together. To not do so shouldn't set off alarm bells re: lack of luck so much as either the mix, mindset and/or tactics not being good enough.

 

[Stewie G]

It's hard to take such a post seriously when you keep falling back to the same absolute line that luck is "the major factor at play." I don't think anyone has ever said that. Significant is not the same as most important. It just dilutes the entirety of the post if that continues to be the starting and ending point of your argument.

Just to contribute something, when margins are razor thin like you suggest, even minor factors can influence the outcome. The effect is even more dramatic when scoring events are so infrequent compared to any other league. Two evenly matched teams in a short series with few scoring events is inherently more likely to be influenced by relatively minor factors.

None of this excuses the way the Trotz constructed the lines, or was slow to react both in game and between games, or any other organizational failing. I think the Caps managed to reduce their chances through a number of decisions, which allowed the series with Toronto to be closer than it should have been and was a factor in the loss to the Pens.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Nor has anyone said that luck doesn't have at least some effect over the long haul. One side appears to believe itsimpact is minimal, the other appear to believe it's a strong reason why they haven't won a Cup.