ALL the playoff series where the higher seeded teams lost the first two games at home and eventually won the series

[torontoblood]

1942 Stanley Cup Finals
#2 seed toronto maple leafs vs #5 seed detroit red wings
(Maple Leafs won in 7)

1966 Stanley Cup Final
#1 seed montreal canadiens vs #4 detroit red wings
(Canadiens won in 7)


1977 NHL Quarterfinal
#2 seed philadelphia flyers vs #7 seed toronto maple leafs
(Flyers won in 6)

1987 Norris Division Final
#2 seed detroit red wings vs #4 seed toronto maple leafs
(Red Wings won in 7)

1987 Adams Division Final
#2 seed montreal canadiens vs #4 seed quebec nordiques
(Canadiens won in 7)

1992 Norris Division SemiFinal
#1 seed detroit red wings vs #4 seed minnesota north stars
(Red Wings won in 7)

1994 Eastern Second Round
#2 seed new jersey devils vs #4 seed boston bruins
(Devils won in 6)

1995 Western First Round
#4 seed chicago blackhawks vs #5 seed toronto maple leafs
(Blackhawks won in 7)

1996 Eastern First Round
#3 seed NY Rangers vs #6 seed montreal canadiens
(NY Rangers won in 6)

1996 Eastern First Round
#2 seed pittsburgh penguins vs #7 seed washington capitals
(Penguins won in 6)

1999 Western Second Round
#2 seed colorado avalanche vs #3 seed detroit red wings
(Avalanche won in 6)

2000 Eastern Second Round
#1 seed philadelphia flyers vs #7 seed pittsburgh penguins
(Flyers won in 6)

2002 Western First Round
#1 seed detroit red wings vs #8 seed vancouver canucks
(Red Wings won in 6)

2003 Eastern First Round
#3 seed tampa bay lightning vs #6 seed washington capitals
(Lightning won in 6)

2006 Eastern First Round
#2 seed carolina hurricanes vs #7 seed montreal canadiens
(Hurricanes won in 6)

2009 Eastern First Round
#2 seed washington capitals vs #7 seed new york rangers
(Capitals won in 7)

2011 Eastern First Round
#3 seed Boston Bruins vs #6 seed Montreal Canadiens
(Bruins won in 7)

2017 Western Second Round/Pacific Division Final
#1 seed Anaheim Ducks vs #2 seed Edmonton Oilers
(Ducks won in 7)

2018 Eastern First Round/Metropolitan Semi-Final
#1 seed Washington Capitals vs #1 wildcard seed Columbus Blue Jackets
(Capitals won in 6)

2023 Eastern First Round/Metropolitan Division Semifinal
#2 seed New Jersey Devils vs #3 seed NY Rangers
(Devils won in 7)

@Stephen
@Jimmy Firecracker

 

[daver]

 

[ichbinkanadier]

The total numbers of series is 13.8%, or roughly 7 out of 50 series.

This to me is an argument for making playoff series a best of 5 at most rather than 7.

 

[Michael Farkas]

...what?

 

[Hockeyholic]

No thanks to best of five. Less hockey action and gives baseball vibes.

Most of the teams down 2-0 headed on the road are better teams. The superior team sometimes has bad breaks go against them in the first two games before scoring and rolling the opponent. See Van-Det 2002 as an example.

I'm not so sure the Leafs are a better team than Florida. Maybe more talented. But Florida seems to have more physicality and better goaltending.

 

[Professor What]

I fail to see how comebacks are a rationale for shorter series. Why not just make it single elimination if you're going down that road?

 

[MadLuke]

I fail to see how comebacks are a rationale for shorter series. Why not just make it single elimination if you're going down that road?

Would they never have happened, the rationale would be obvious (the argument against as well), but looking at the list and the math they seem quite common. For example if teams never come back from a 3-0, the rules could be a best of 7 except for a 3-0 KO style, but again the rational against that would be also obvious, has it is some added complication, make one more ticket not certain in advance and so on.

a team that just lost 2 with a big on the road disadvantage, going 4-0 or 4-1 13.8% of the time would be I imagine around what you expect if the team that lost 2 does not show it to be a worst playoff team at all for the rest of the game and still having around 50% chance of winning each next games ?

 

[Professor What]

Would they never have happened, the rationale would be obvious (the argument against as well), but looking at the list and the math they seem quite common. For example if teams never come back from a 3-0, the rules could be a best of 7 except for a 3-0 KO style, but again the rational against that would be also obvious, has it is some added complication, make one more ticket not certain in advance and so on.

a team that just lost 2 with a big on the road disadvantage, going 4-0 or 4-1 13.8% of the time would be I imagine around what you expect if the team that lost 2 does not show it to be a worst playoff team at all for the rest of the game and still having around 50% chance of winning each next games ?

Yeah, I agree. The fact that we see it happen should be an argument against shorter series, imo. Even comebacks from 3-0 down are more common in the NHL, compared to other sports. I don't want to do anything that results in any reduction of excitment for the playoffs.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's a better argument for a shorter season. Which is weird for me to say because I love the game more than anything (unless my future wife is reading this, then hockey is a distant 2nd...) - but man, 76, 72 games...I think we're good there. I'd even take some dopey play-in situation for the revenues.

Spoiler

I don't actually know if it is a good argument for a shorter season, I just want it at this point. And I don't want a shorter series, so it felt like something to say...

 

[Crosby2010]

I'll take a best of 7 anyday. Because there have been plenty of times when a team lost its first two home games and then got their sea legs. Like the OP said, 13% of the time. That's actually quite a bit of the time. Certainly not one of those moments where you feel safe to change the channel. These days there is a weird advantage for the road team in the playoffs. This season especially. The home teams have been hammered at home for whatever reason. There are reasons behind it I think, but either way maybe some road games can help the Leafs sort of isolate for the time being.

Either way, I can remember plenty of these series. It is funny how you don't see a lot of these comebacks in the O6. I know part of that is because there were less series being played, but either way, I think the reason being is that there was playoff money on the line (which was huge even well into the 1980s) and the teams knew each other well.

There are a lot of those series mentioned above where and overtime game - even in Game 3 - would have basically turned the lights out in the series.

 

[JianYang]

The total numbers of series is 13.8%, or roughly 7 out of 50 series.

This to me is an argument for making playoff series a best of 5 at most rather than 7.

For Montreal, I believe they are 1-3 in their last 4 series when they take the first two on the road.

The losses in 96, 06, and 11 have already been mentioned.... They broke the streak against the lightning in 14.

Bizarre stat.

 

[ichbinkanadier]

For Montreal, I believe they are 1-3 in their last 4 series when they take the first two on the road.

The losses in 96, 06, and 11 have already been mentioned.... The broke the streak against the lightning in 14.

Bizarre stat.

Note to self: bet on Montreal's opponent if they go up 2-0. Lol

 

[patnyrnyg]

Rangers beat Montreal in 6 in 96.

 

[ShelbyZ]

1999 Western Second Round
#2 seed detroit red wings vs #3 seed colorado avalanche
(Avalanche won in 6)

This should be #2 Colorado and #3 Detroit and should say Avalanche won 2 and Bill Ranford lost 2.

 

[Megahab]

1996 Eastern First Round
#3 seed NY Rangers vs #6 seed montreal canadiens
(NY Rangers won in 7)



@Stephen
@Jimmy Firecracker

Friendly correction: Rangers won that series in 6.

 

[The Panther]

I'd be fine with best of 5's all the way. (Obviously, a pipe dream at the NHL is all about money.)

Hockey just does not work with a one-game decision or a best of three because of the sport's nature: It's a game of endless errors, ambiguous officiating, bounces, luck, etc., and with the best players on either team not on the ice for maybe 50% of the game. It requires at least a best of five to give us any accurate conception of which team is better. Admittedly, a best of seven might give an even more accurate idea, but it's too damn long. I get damn bored of the playoffs before it ends. Anything to make it shorter would be fine.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

WE LANDED ON THE MOON

 

[Dingo]

I'd be fine with best of 5's all the way. (Obviously, a pipe dream at the NHL is all about money.)

Hockey just does not work with a one-game decision or a best of three because of the sport's nature: It's a game of endless errors, ambiguous officiating, bounces, luck, etc., and with the best players on either team not on the ice for maybe 50% of the game. It requires at least a best of five to give us any accurate conception of which team is better. Admittedly, a best of seven might give an even more accurate idea, but it's too damn long. I get damn bored of the playoffs before it ends. Anything to make it shorter would be fine.

For me, the weather is too nice. Summer is on. Hockey should end by May Long. Whether that means 70 game seasons, 5 game series, whatever.

But ya, money money money!

 

[JianYang]

Note to self: bet on Montreal's opponent if they go up 2-0. Lol

Lol yeah, but only if we are talking about winning the first two on the road.

I don't recall them blowing a series when winning the first two at home, at least in my lifetime.