Are the NHL Playoffs Too Random & Determined By Luck?

[Panthaz89]

It's amazing how a team can go 8-1 in round 2 and 3 and people will still call it pure luck. They also played with a lead for most of the 2 series so one should expect the other team to get more shots on net trying to comeback if a team really deserves to win, they will dominate the Panthers and we would see multiple unstoppable opportunities that Bob can't do anything about.

It's also funny seeing the Panthers pay Bob all that money and the Leafs throwing in the next journeyman goalie they can find and have people whining that the Panthers had a goaltending advantage when it was clear before it started as one would hope they would be considering how much cap space Bob is taking. Canes missing a lot of their top forwards and wondering why they are having a problem scoring when they are stuck with guys playing above their head when their defense isn't dominating.

 

[Chet Manley]

It's probably more that regular season results aren't as meaningful as commonly thought. A team that is consistently good though 82 games against a variety of competition isn't guaranteed to be better head-to-head against another quality team. Or a team that struggles all year to find ways to win can figure it out in the end.

Something like that. Nobody luck's their way through 4 rounds of playoff hockey. Maybe a few games or a series but not 16 games against excellent teams.

 

[Panteras]

The point being made in this thread is that luck seems to make a bigger impact in hockey than many other sports and more than people would like. You on the other hand accept that there is some luck involved but refuse to be open to the possibility that in a parity league that is fast paced and low scoring, luck will inherently be a large factor. The fact that you think luck barely impacts goalies is crazy when you just think of the physics of a 100mph little object bouncing irregularly all over the place and the fact that goalie stats are so unpredictable year to year is a good indicator of this. That does not mean goalie performances are totally random as talent and skill will of course play a part in the equation.

Listen its fine if you think luck plays such a small part. You can have your opinion and i can have mine. No need though to make up a bunch of lies about what i have stated very clearly already and pretend that i am bashing your team when i am simply using florida as a recent example of what this topic is about. This topic is about hockey in general so quit being so myopic and defensive.

That luck seems to have a bigger impact in hockey is an argument I can agree with. Sure, it’s a slippery surface with a small object and sticks and boards that things bounce off of. You can argue that theoretically it’s not humanly possible to have as much control as in basketball or baseball because of the physics behind the sports. But even then, as I mentioned, what this logic doesn’t take into account is what led to such “lucky” bounces. Dude shooting from his own zone and puck taking a crazy bounce because of bad ice in front of Toskala to go in…okay, yeah crazy lucky bounce. But guy going hard on the forecheck which leads to a bounce off the boards as an unintentional pass for a forward to pick it up and score. I mean sure i can see how again the physics of hockey lead to that bounce but you still had to have a player make that effort to get that lucky bounce. Good teams that do the little things right and have heart and work their butts off are rewarded…

So again, that’s totally fine and I agree with the dynamics of hockey lending itself to having crazy bounces. But for the most part you still have to work to get them. And so that’s why I don’t agree that a team can benefit solely from these physics to “luck” their way to a Stanley cup finals let alone win one.

 

[Sinistril]

If Boston had done better against Florida in the regular season, Florida wouldn't have made the playoffs. But they didn't, which makes the Florida result in rd1 not hat surprising

 

[Deep Blue Metallic]

The randomness of hot goalies and lucky bounces make hockey unique.

Embrace it or stick to other sports.

 

[bossram]

Then what metric are you proposing to solve this problem? Yes, hockey could involve a lot more luck to win a game but that is why a team needs to win 4 out of 7. In soccer world cup, there is also luck that is involved in winning a game and reason why Saudi Arabia won a game against Argentina. But they aren't going to have teams play 100 games against each other to see who the absolute best is, similar to olympics its one and done. Its funny to hear on this forum that playoffs still is based just on luck when they play best of 7 series and have no penalty shots.

I’m not making any claim to change how series winners are determined. Best of 7 playoffs are the best part of the NHL. Luck is part of the game. Sometimes a team that plays better loses. They can get injured, get goalied, get bad bounces, whatever. It’s part of the game.

Your claim is that in a best of 7, luck is irrelevant and the winning team could not possibly have had their result determined by luck. This is just objectively false.

 

[WolvesAndWings]

Yes. But I don't feel the compulsive need to change anyone's mind on this. If it were up to me, I'd like for the league to be a bit more merit based. We play way too many regular season games for half the league to make the playoffs IMO. I'd rather an 8 team format.

Again, I know this is a minority opinion not many people share.

 

[rumrokh]

Yes. But I don't feel the compulsive need to change anyone's mind on this. If it were up to me, I'd like for the league to be a bit more merit based. We play way too many regular season games for half the league to make the playoffs IMO. I'd rather an 8 team format.

Again, I know this is a minority opinion not many people share.

I'm not arguing against your taste, I'm honestly just curious: would you find that to be more entertaining? I'm not going to try to snap a logic trap, because I recognize that it's valid to want something for the league that doesn't necessarily produce more spectator entertainment. I, for example, think it's probably in the league's best interest to ban fighting, but I also recognize it's a big entertainment draw for a lot of fans. So, league health/merit/etc. aside, would an 8 team playoff be more entertaining to you?

 

[Martin Skoula]

I'm not arguing against your taste, I'm honestly just curious: would you find that to be more entertaining? I'm not going to try to snap a logic trap, because I recognize that it's valid to want something for the league that doesn't necessarily produce more spectator entertainment. I, for example, think it's probably in the league's best interest to ban fighting, but I also recognize it's a big entertainment draw for a lot of fans. So, league health/merit/etc. aside, would an 8 team playoff be more entertaining to you?

I could see how it would make the games more intense and introduce more of a chess game element to it. Trade deadlines where teams shop for counters to their opponents rather than just plugging holes because you could be facing anyone.

I think a lot of the East geared up around playing Boston at some point, them getting knocked out early changed the math for a lot of teams. If Florida had another President’s season this year I wouldn’t be surprised if they had a harder time in the playoffs if everyone went shopping for someone who could get Tkachuk focused on them instead of the game.

 

[jackjohnson]

I’m not making any claim to change how series winners are determined. Best of 7 playoffs are the best part of the NHL. Luck is part of the game. Sometimes a team that plays better loses. They can get injured, get goalied, get bad bounces, whatever. It’s part of the game.

Your claim is that in a best of 7, luck is irrelevant and the winning team could not possibly have had their result determined by luck. This is just objectively false.

Well you are also wrong if you think that it's all based on luck and no skills is involved. When did I say absolutely there is no luck involved? I said it's ridiculous to think it's just based on luck.

 

[wetcoast]

NHL is more luck based than the NBA sure. That's just part of the nature of the sport I guess (or more specifically how it is played today).

Came here to say this and in a word to the OP the answer is yes.

 

[DFF]

No it’s not random or luck

It requires you to have a hot goalie and some players at the top of their game at the right time

 

[rumrokh]

I could see how it would make the games more intense and introduce more of a chess game element to it. Trade deadlines where teams shop for counters to their opponents rather than just plugging holes because you could be facing anyone.

I think a lot of the East geared up around playing Boston at some point, them getting knocked out early changed the math for a lot of teams. If Florida had another President’s season this year I wouldn’t be surprised if they had a harder time in the playoffs if everyone went shopping for someone who could get Tkachuk focused on them instead of the game.

I think it's possible a different format would change how deadlines go down, but this sounds a little far-fetched to me. If anything, if you're facing strictly better opposition (the entire assumption of an 8 team format), it'll be even more important to, as you say, plug holes. Can you seriously think of a concrete situation in which, as far out as the trade deadline, you'd leave holes on your team in order to acquire players you believe are somehow a counter to a likely playoff match-up?

 

[WolvesAndWings]

I'm not arguing against your taste, I'm honestly just curious: would you find that to be more entertaining? I'm not going to try to snap a logic trap, because I recognize that it's valid to want something for the league that doesn't necessarily produce more spectator entertainment. I, for example, think it's probably in the league's best interest to ban fighting, but I also recognize it's a big entertainment draw for a lot of fans. So, league health/merit/etc. aside, would an 8 team playoff be more entertaining to you?

Yes, for 2 reasons

1. because I find too much parity and randomness to be a bit unengaging

2. I find the regular season to be mostly meaningless with how many teams make it. If we're gonna play 82-84 games, I don't want anyone to be able to coast. It should be high intensity for the playoff teams all the way through and I want the best teams over those 82-84 games to be the teams fighting in the later stages of the Stanley Cup playoffs.

With half the teams making it, I'd prefer the season to be more like 60-66 games.

I get this is all hypothetical and that business/money make these things impossible.

 

[Guinnes66]

Yes, for 2 reasons

1. because I find too much parity and randomness to be a bit unengaging

2. I find the regular season to be mostly meaningless with how many teams make it. If we're gonna play 82-84 games, I don't want anyone to be able to coast. It should be high intensity for the playoff teams all the way through and I want the best teams over those 82-84 games to be the teams fighting in the later stages of the Stanley Cup playoffs.

With half the teams making it, I'd prefer the season to be more like 60-66 games.

I get this is all hypothetical and that business/money make these things impossible.

Introducing a soft cap is the best solution IMO. It would provide a bit more separation between good teams and bad teams and allow for some truly great teams to stay together longer. Too much parity is a problem for a sport that has this much randomness built in already. Reducing some of this parity is the only solution.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Rolling back around, Mike Tyson in his prime was KO'd by Buster Douglas. The odds makers have bad nights in every sport.

 

[Martin Skoula]

I think it's possible a different format would change how deadlines go down, but this sounds a little far-fetched to me. If anything, if you're facing strictly better opposition (the entire assumption of an 8 team format), it'll be even more important to, as you say, plug holes. Can you seriously think of a concrete situation in which, as far out as the trade deadline, you'd leave holes on your team in order to acquire players you believe are somehow a counter to a likely playoff match-up?

Not that it would make huge changes, but maybe Boston reverses the Orlov/Bertuzzi valuations and goes for Wilson and McCabe.

Orlov is a safe upgrade for pretty well any matchup but he doesn’t change games single-handedly in the right matchup. Tampa tends to make more surgical adds outside of McDonagh as well.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Not that it would make huge changes, but maybe Boston reverses the Orlov/Bertuzzi valuations and goes for Wilson and McCabe.

Orlov is a safe upgrade for pretty well any matchup but he doesn’t change games single-handedly in the right matchup. Tampa tends to make more surgical adds outside of McDonagh as well.

I don't think Washington was trading a beat up Wilson. Maybe next year. And Bert was one of the Bruins best forwards in the series.

 

[x Tame Impala]

This has always been a loser-mentality. Of course there's luck embedded in the game but talent and focused team effort is far more impactful. To say games/series are determined by luck is reductionist. Goalies can be hot or cold and not every team's star players perform to their necessary ability but that's not luck-based. Roster construction, coaching mistakes, and some players not elevating their games when they need to will influence who wins more than luck.

Everyone mocked intangibles 10 years ago but we're getting constant refreshers over the years that some players hate to lose and play better when it matters, some don't. Plenty of examples of goalies not recovering from bad games either. The difference in skill + the difference in a team/player's ability to win playoff hockey accounts for far more weight.

Lots of of 50-50 moments in the game but the better team/players will win out more over the course of a playoff series where you're playing the same opponent. I hate this luck argument because it puts the game down as if guys are just flinging shots on net and hoping for the best. That some clown Panthers team only beats a juggernaut Bruins team is because hockey is lucky. Nonsense. The Panthers are a buzzsaw right now and the Bruins didn't show up ready to finish. Lots of Bruins players had a terrible series. Those things are why that happened, not the lucky Panthers chanced their way through.

 

[rumrokh]

Yes, for 2 reasons

1. because I find too much parity and randomness to be a bit unengaging

2. I find the regular season to be mostly meaningless with how many teams make it. If we're gonna play 82-84 games, I don't want anyone to be able to coast. It should be high intensity for the playoff teams all the way through and I want the best teams over those 82-84 games to be the teams fighting in the later stages of the Stanley Cup playoffs.

With half the teams making it, I'd prefer the season to be more like 60-66 games.

I get this is all hypothetical and that business/money make these things impossible.

Okay, so your idea hinges on speculation that regular season hockey would be more entertaining and then that the 8 team playoff, itself, would be decided less by luck. And that would result in more fun games. Alright. I don't think I'm on board with that premise, but it's at least plausible, so I get where you're coming from.

 

[WolvesAndWings]

Introducing a soft cap is the best solution IMO. It would provide a bit more separation between good teams and bad teams and allow for some truly great teams to stay together longer. Too much parity is a problem for a sport that has this much randomness built in already. Reducing some of this parity is the only solution.

I'm also very much in favour of a soft cap. At the very least, the cap is currently way too low.

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaa]

Luck isn't the right word. It has more to do with getting on a roll, having a hot goalie and some guys being determined beyond what any normal person can understand.

Tkachuk wants to win so bad I can feel it. It's actually amazing to watch one guy be almost possessed like that.

 

[Shaman464]

McDavid led the entire playoffs in ES points last year despite not even playing in the Final..Draisaitl was 3rd

so nah, that's not it

That doesn’t negate my point at all. It makes it even sharper. McDraisatl leading the playoffs couldn’t overcome how bad the rest of Edmonton is. And there’s been a ton of caterwauling on here that Edmonton should have had more power plays this postseason.

 

[bossram]

Well you are also wrong if you think that it's all based on luck and no skills is involved. When did I say absolutely there is no luck involved? I said it's ridiculous to think it's just based on luck.

Please, show me where I said it's 100% luck and no skill is involved. I'll wait. Because you won't.

And yes, you did in fact say the better team always wins in a best-of-7. That means you think luck cannot possibly influence the final outcome - better team always wins.

 

[TheUnusedCrayon]

It isn't too random or based on luck, but you do need luck to win. The most important thing you need luck for is to stay away from significant injuries. Some great teams haven't won because they got dismantled by injuries and should have won the cup easily. Others, you have weird bounces dictating close games. Sometimes it's the reffing.

Overall though it makes winning all the more special and repeating even more significant.