Around the NHL: Part XXI

[Irishguy42]

Haven’t really been keeping up - the idea is we’d play Carolina to get in? 1 and done, 3 game series or full 7?

Best of 5

 

[Tawnos]

Given this idea that the play-in round isn’t really the playoffs, but to determine who gets into the playoffs... I had a thought.

If Pittsburgh (top play-in seed in the East) loses in 5 to Montreal, that’s like getting 4 points out of a possible 10 in the regular season. If they got 40% of the points remaining to them in the normal regular season, they’d end up with 96 points. That’s not enough to make the playoffs in the Metro in almost any season. Using the same logic, in the West you’d have Edmonton with 91 points. Same deal for their playoff chances.

So essentially, I don’t feel bad for teams sitting in a regular playoff spot who can’t win 3/5 to close out the season. They’d probably miss the playoffs anyway if they can’t do that. Sure, the team that ends up making the playoffs wouldn’t have made it even if they won 3/5 (for example, Montreal wouldn’t have made it with 84 points). I just have no sympathy for someone like the Pens.

 

[SA16]

Getting 40% of the points in 5 games is nothing like getting 40% of the points in 13 games.

 

[Thirty One]

Haven’t really been keeping up - the idea is we’d play Carolina to get in? 1 and done, 3 game series or full 7?

You somehow listed all the options but the right one!

 

[Tawnos]

Getting 40% of the points in 5 games is nothing like getting 40% of the points in 13 games.

Well, technically it’s exactly like it! But thanks for condescending to point out that pro-rating isn’t the same in reality as the full amount.

The play in round is an interesting proxy for the end of the regular season. And like I said, no sympathy for a team that can’t get through it.

 

[Irishguy42]

That's....some interesting math you got there.

 

[Thirty One]

I would have sympathy for Pittsburgh and I never have before.

 

[Leetch3]

Carolina voting no is hilarious stuff

 

[RangersFan1994]

Say if the playoff format goes as it should due to the virus, any chance the NHL considers to change it where the top teams get a buy week and more teams can have a chance for the playoffs? Rangers vs Canes in a 5 game series for example.

 

[Leetch3]

Say if the playoff format goes as it should due to the virus, any chance the NHL considers to change it where the top teams get a buy week and more teams can have a chance for the playoffs? Rangers vs Canes in a 5 game series for example.

zero chance

 

[bobbop]

Say if the playoff format goes as it should due to the virus, any chance the NHL considers to change it where the top teams get a buy week and more teams can have a chance for the playoffs? Rangers vs Canes in a 5 game series for example.

It could. There’s been chatter about adding teams to the playoffs for the last few years,

 

[eco's bones]

Given this idea that the play-in round isn’t really the playoffs, but to determine who gets into the playoffs... I had a thought.

If Pittsburgh (top play-in seed in the East) loses in 5 to Montreal, that’s like getting 4 points out of a possible 10 in the regular season. If they got 40% of the points remaining to them in the normal regular season, they’d end up with 96 points. That’s not enough to make the playoffs in the Metro in almost any season. Using the same logic, in the West you’d have Edmonton with 91 points. Same deal for their playoff chances.

So essentially, I don’t feel bad for teams sitting in a regular playoff spot who can’t win 3/5 to close out the season. They’d probably miss the playoffs anyway if they can’t do that. Sure, the team that ends up making the playoffs wouldn’t have made it even if they won 3/5 (for example, Montreal wouldn’t have made it with 84 points). I just have no sympathy for someone like the Pens.

Personally I think Montreal has no business beating Pittsburgh. That said the Pens could use a good dose of adversity IMO--they've been riding high ever since the NHL gifted Sidney Crosby their way to keep Mario Lemieux from relocating his team. Personally when someone threatens me I'm like do what you got to do and then I'll figure out a response. The NHL knuckled under. The Pens are the original tankers--that's how they got Lemieux in the first place. They are why there is a lottery at all.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Well, technically it’s exactly like it! But thanks for condescending to point out that pro-rating isn’t the same in reality as the full amount.

The play in round is an interesting proxy for the end of the regular season. And like I said, no sympathy for a team that can’t get through it.

What he said is correct though. And easy little exercise is how much easier is it to have a 1.000 win % after 2 games than after 82 games? Same concept.

 

[ecemleafs]

It could. There’s been chatter about adding teams to the playoffs for the last few years,

hope not. teams are too even these days with the salary cap. you add more teams and u just devalue the 82 games that you play in the regular season. i dont want to see a .500 team make the playoffs and take out a great team because of a fluke short series.

 

[Tawnos]

What he said is correct though. And easy little exercise is how much easier is it to have a 1.000 win % after 2 games than after 82 games? Same concept.

And I’ll also thank you for condescending to point that out.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

And I’ll also thank you for condescending to point that out.

It's not condescending when it's true. You said "technically it's exactly like that". Unless I missed something aren't you disagreeing?

 

[Tawnos]

It's not condescending when it's true. You said "technically it's exactly like that". Unless I missed something aren't you disagreeing?

40% of the points in 5 games is exactly the same points percentage as 40% of the points in 13 games. Technically they are the same thing. It’s the reality that just because you get one percentage of points over 5 games doesn’t mean you’d get the same thing over 13. That doesn’t dispute my point in the first place, which was that the play-in is intended as a stand-in for the balance of the regular season, and I have no sympathy for teams that can’t succeed in it.

Just because something is true doesn’t mean it can’t be condescending (there’s an irony in this sentence).

 

[SnowblindNYR]

40% of the points in 5 games is exactly the same points percentage as 40% of the points in 13 games. Technically they are the same thing. It’s the reality that just because you get one percentage of points over 5 games doesn’t mean you’d get the same thing over 13. That doesn’t dispute my point in the first place, which was that the play-in is intended as a stand-in for the balance of the regular season, and I have no sympathy for teams that can’t succeed in it.

Just because something is true doesn’t mean it can’t be condescending (there’s an irony in this sentence).

It's the same percentage but the odds of winning 40% in 5 games are much higher than 13 games.

 

[Tawnos]

It's the same percentage but the odds of winning 40% in 5 games are much higher than 13 games.

Which I'm not now, nor have I ever, disputed or disagreed with.

 

[SA16]

40% of the points in 5 games is exactly the same points percentage as 40% of the points in 13 games. Technically they are the same thing. It’s the reality that just because you get one percentage of points over 5 games doesn’t mean you’d get the same thing over 13. That doesn’t dispute my point in the first place, which was that the play-in is intended as a stand-in for the balance of the regular season, and I have no sympathy for teams that can’t succeed in it.

Just because something is true doesn’t mean it can’t be condescending (there’s an irony in this sentence).

This is what we call bad math. If it was a one game play in and they lost would you say they got 0% of the points if they got 0% of the remaining 13 they'd be out? Of course not. It makes no sense.

It's also not the same whatsoever because in this format an OT loss would count as 0% whereas in a regular season game it would be 50% in a given game. 2 wins, 3 OT losses in this case is 40%. If they did the EXACT same thing but the games were considered regular season suddenly it's 70% and now you'd think it's a travesty they got left out earning 70% of the points. And this has nothing to do with the sample size issue presented above as the league is going with a different scoring system so you cannot possibly compare one to the other.

 

[Tawnos]

This is what we call bad math. If it was a one game play in and they lost would you say they got 0% of the points if they got 0% of the remaining 13 they'd be out? Of course not. It makes no sense.

It's also not the same whatsoever because in this format an OT loss would count as 0% whereas in a regular season game it would be 50% in a given game. 2 wins, 3 OT losses in this case is 40%. If they ydid the EXACT same thing but the games were considered regular season suddenly it's 70%.

Except it's *not* a one game play in, so that hypothetical really doesn't apply to the point I was making. I used the actual situation, not some scenario that doesn't exist. If this round was best of 3 or best of 7, I would've looked at those realities instead. It's a best of 5, so I looked at that. I also didn't intend it to be a rigorous mathematical concept, and the way you know I didn't intend that is that I made it a point to mention that the same math doesn't work in the other direction. Montreal winning the series doesn't make them a playoff team. Rather, it was a demonstration of why Pittsburgh losing to Montreal (or Edmonton to Chicago, to use an example for a non-rival) is reason to doubt their bonafides as a playoff caliber team in the first place and show that their hold on a playoff spot wasn't necessarily as secure as the 68-73 game standings would have you believe.

Mostly, it was in response to the people who think the Pens are getting a raw deal here.

 

[SA16]

Looking at only unique sets of games the Penguins have already lost 3 of 5 3+ times his year:

Oct 19 to Oct 29.
Nov 7 to Nov 12
Feb 20 to Feb 29 (6 game losing streak)
*Mar 7 to Mar 10 (Lost 2 of 3 before on pause).

Not sure why it's so outrageous to think this would happen again and mean they don't deserve it. Every team loses 3 of 5 at some points.

Boston who has the best record in the league has done it even MORE.
Oct 10 to Oct 19 - lost 3 of 5
Nov 5 to Nov 12 - lost 4 in a row
Dec 3 to Dec 12 - Lost 5 in a row
Dec 17 to Dec 21 - Lost 3 in a row
Dec 31-Jan 4 - lost 3 in a row
Jan 13 to Jan 19 - lost 3 of 4

This happens to everyone. Anyone can easily lose in a best of five and it would tell you very little about them. And Boston, with the best record, would still have a strong hold on a playoff spot if it happened again.

Last year Tampa, who lost 20 games all year, lost 3 out of 5 on 7 separate occasions in the regular season. This is a common occurence.

 

[Tawnos]

Looking at only unique sets of games the Penguins have already lost 3 of 5 3+ times his year:

Oct 19 to Oct 29.
Nov 7 to Nov 12
Feb 20 to Feb 29 (6 game losing streak)
*Mar 7 to Mar 10 (Lost 2 of 3 before on pause).

Not sure why it's so outrageous to think this would happen again and mean they don't deserve it. Every team loses 3 of 5 at some points.

Boston who has the best record in the league has done it even MORE.
Oct 10 to Oct 19 - lost 3 of 5
Nov 5 to Nov 12 - lost 4 in a row
Dec 3 to Dec 12 - Lost 5 in a row
Dec 17 to Dec 21 - Lost 3 in a row
Dec 31-Jan 4 - lost 3 in a row
Jan 13 to Jan 19 - lost 3 of 4

This happens to everyone. Anyone can easily lose in a best of five and it would tell you very little about them. And Boston, with the best record, would still have a strong hold on a playoff spot if it happened again.

Last year Tampa, who lost 20 games all year, lost 3 out of 5 on 7 separate occasions in the regular season. This is a common occurence.

Sure, what you're saying is absolutely correct. It only works as a response to my point if you removed all context from what I said. I'm not sure what losing 3 of 5 in any random stretch of the season has to do with losing 3 out of every 5 in the final stretch of the season with a starting point of 86 points in 69 games, though. I also said that *if* they did that, they'd most likely miss the playoffs.

The idea is that this series is a proxy for the final stretch of the season. I'm not claiming it's an exact replacement. I'm not saying that them losing 3 of 5 to Montreal means they would've definitely done the same thing in their last 13 games. I'm saying *if* they did the same thing in their last 13 games, this would be the result. Hell, we've seen that kind of thing happen before. You apply the proxy to what would've otherwise been the reality.

 

[SA16]

Sure, what you're saying is absolutely correct. It only works as a response to my point if you removed all context from what I said. I'm not sure what losing 3 of 5 in any random stretch of the season has to do with losing 3 out of every 5 in the final stretch of the season with a starting point of 86 points in 69 games, though. I also said that *if* they did that, they'd most likely miss the playoffs.

The idea is that this series is a proxy for the final stretch of the season. I'm not claiming it's an exact replacement. I'm not saying that them losing 3 of 5 to Montreal means they would've definitely done the same thing in their last 13 games. I'm saying *if* they did the same thing in their last 13 games, this would be the result. Hell, we've seen that kind of thing happen before. You apply the proxy to what would've otherwise been the reality.

But it's a terrible proxy because of the lack of OT points. Losing 3 out of 5 to MTL can be anywhere between a bad 40% points percentage and a very good 70% points percentage. 250 out of 1,082 losses this year occurred in OT. That would bump their 40% points percentage to 47%. In actuality it would be higher than that because it's been shown that OT rates go up later in the season when teams play more conservative in the third to try and lock in points. That would equate to another two points. Now you 96 points goes up to 98 points and as far as I can tell no 98 points team has ever missed the playoffs.

 

[Tawnos]

But it's a terrible proxy because of the lack of OT points. Losing 3 out of 5 to MTL can be anywhere between a bad 40% points percentage and a very good 70% points percentage. 250 out of 1,082 losses this year occurred in OT. That would bump their 40% points percentage to 47%. In actuality it would be higher than that because it's been shown that OT rates go up later in the season when teams play more conservative in the third to try and lock in points. That would equate to another two points. Now you 96 points goes up to 98 points and as far as I can tell no 98 points team has ever missed the playoffs.

The OT point you're making is well-taken, but I'm really not looking at whether it's a good proxy or bad proxy, just like I wasn't looking at if they did this in a 1 game, 3 game or 7 game play-in instead. This is the proxy that we've got, so it's the one I'm using.