What do you think about the random factor in hockey?

[Machinehead]

Hawks fan here. They lost that series because the Kings WERE the better team. They had better roster depth and the Hawks played like crap in games 2, 3, and 4. If they didn't want to be victims of a lucky bounce then they should have played better and not put themselves in a situation to lose the series like that or at all.

Which is really the crux of my entire argument so I'll leave it there for you and @Machinehead

You could say that, and there's always criticism to be had when you lose. The Kings were a deserving winner.

That being said, is it not true that the Hawks were a hop and skip from winning game 7? I don't think it diminishes the Kings to say that.

The beauty of winning it all is that you probably had to walk the tightrope at some point.

 

[nturn06]

I'm a NBA-guy and I'm interested in your opinion. Does the random factor reduce the enjoyment of watching NHL for you? It often happens that the best team does not win the championship beacuse of the high randomness in this sport.

I don't get the idea of the thread: does watching a series and knowing who is going to win before the series starts makes it more enjoyable for you?

 

[Hippasus]

There seems to be somewhat of a consensus that randomness and chaos is a significant factor in the NHL. There is a plethora of variables given the rules and the way the game is played. Although I agree, I wonder if in the aggregate whether the multitude of microevents don't somehow offset each other across competing teams, and even within a given team. Off course, there are momentum swings within a game, streaks, and trends for a given team, could one not say that with all the variables, all the noise significantly sort of dampens itself? I'm not well-versed in statistics, probability, or analytics, if that matters.

 

[DumbManHockey]

I think the randomness factor gives credence to long seasons. Law of big numbers suggests that the randomness will be smoothed out to a more accurate mean. If they wanted to lose some pre-season and gain some regular season, I'd see no reason not to.

It's IMO one of best parts of baseball - obscene sample sizes that lets the stat geeks chat and back up arguments.

 

[dgibb10]

im not pretending luck isnt a factor.

it is.

but where do you draw the line?

if you beat a team in a seven game series, you certainly proved that they arent unequivacably better than you, no?

like, how often does Canada lose a single game to a lesser country? Not often.

So, if a team takes 4/7 games on you, you can still feel you are better, but, it cant be a big gap, and they earned it.

If you are CLEARLY better than someone, you will not be beaten 4/7.

I thought the Wings were better than the Pens in 2009, but, how can i disagree with who won the Cup? Maybe my ability to rate a team isnt as good as reality.

Wdym where do I draw the line?

4/7 is not a definitive sample size to me. (also, winning a head to head series no matter how large the sample size does not mean you are necessarily better, it may just mean you have a great stylistic matchup).

Stylistic matchups is also where a lot of luck involved. There are good and bad matchups for each team stylistically, you may match up poorly against a team that would lose to most other teams.

A team may get unlucky and face that matchup. A different team may get lucky and get to face up against only good matchups for them.

When I am talking about "the best team not always winning" it's not necessarily a team that the cup winner beat.


A great example is 2014 and the kings, who are viewed in my opinion far too highly. They went 7 games in each of the first 3 rounds, and then won 3 overtime games in the finals. A bounce or two in ANY of these series flips it on their head. Raanta doesn't shit the bed in game 4 and we look back at a team that was the number 6 team in the conference who got swept in round 1.

On the other side of the bracket was Boston. They dominated the regular season, then they dominated round 1, and in round 2 they ran into a red hot carey price at the peak of his career who posted a ridiculous 0.936 to send them home in 7 games. Price then immediately gets hurt in game 1 of the next series.

Do I believe that playoffs proves the kings were the best team that year? No, that would be ridiculous. But luck gets renamed "clutch" when it comes to sports.



The best of 7, 4 series system isn't MEANT to find the unequivocal best team. The statistics behind it show it makes it REALLY hard to win even if you are really good. What the NHL playoff system is meant to do is root out the bad teams, and ensure you have a winner who is very good. Not one that is the best.

You need to be a great team to win the cup.
You do not need to be the best team to win the cup.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Randomness and luck in hockey bothers me a lot less than inconsistent refereeing and application of rules. I think that has a MUCH bigger impact on outcomes, and it preventable and infuriating to watch.

 

[Golden_Jet]

You need to be a great team to win the cup.
You do not need to be the best team to win the cup.

Yep, that applies to all sports, hockey is not unique in that regard.

First you eliminate half the teams, then playoffs start. Then you need to win 4 rounds of best of 7.
That’s why it’s referred to the hardest trophy in sports to win.

 

[dgibb10]

Randomness and luck in hockey bothers me a lot less than inconsistent refereeing and application of rules. I think that has a MUCH bigger impact on outcomes, and it preventable and infuriating to watch.

Wait till you realize this is a form of randomness and luck.

If sometimes you commit a penalty and get punished, and sometimes you don't get punished, that is literally luck and randomness at play.

 

[dgibb10]

You could say that, and there's always criticism to be had when you lose. The Kings were a deserving winner.

That being said, is it not true that the Hawks were a hop and skip from winning game 7? I don't think it diminishes the Kings to say that.

The beauty of winning it all is that you probably had to walk the tightrope at some point.

People seemed to be confused with the concept of "deserving winner" vs "best team"

The NHL playoffs ensures there is a deserving winner who is an excellent hockey team.

You cannot be a bad team and luck your way through 4 rounds.
Based on some math, if you have a 40% chance to win each playoff game (so this would be about a league average team against normal competition), you have a 29% chance to win each round. Put that to the power of 4 (4 playoff series) and you're left with about a 0.7% chance of winning the cup. Go to a 35% chance and that number drops to 0.16%, or 1/625.

So yes, every winner is deserving. They earned their cup. They are an excellent hockey team.

What you cannot definitively say is they are the best team. Because on the other hand you could be a 75% chance of winning each game (or probably an 80% team against normal competition (eg the best regular season team ever), and you'd have just a 92.9% chance of winning each series. Power of 4 and you have a 74.4% chance of winning the cup. You could be the most dominant team of all time and you would not win the cup a quarter of the time.

 

[dgibb10]

Your definition of "Best team" doesn't match any realistic standards.

Is it the team with the most regular-season points? No. If it was, the President Trophy winner would win the Cup almost every year. They almost never do. Since winning the Cup is the goal, the President Trophy winner is obviously NOT the best team, since they fail to reach that goal.

That leaves the playoffs. As I mentioned, of course there's some randomness in a series. But not nearly enough randomness to call the winner 'lucky'. Unless four wins happen by pucks bouncing off stanchions and being deflected off the ref's head, calling the winner lucky is inaccurate and, frankly, disrespectful to that team's focus, skill, and energy. Both teams square off with equal rules for both, with everything at stake, and with up to seven games to prove it. The winner has every right to be considered the best team.

Why do worse regular season teams regularly beat better regular season teams? Because playoff hockey is a different style of game that isn't reflected in the standings. Yes, there's also the variability of human performance – injuries, state of mind, reactions to higher-pressure games. You can call those factors 'random', I guess. I prefer to call them invisible. More important, they're generated entirely from within the players themselves, which makes the end result entirely earned.

Saying a team was 'lucky' sounds like they were helped along by external forces. That's simply not true, not for an entire series.

This shows a shocking lack of understanding of statistics and parity.

The rangers won 67% of their hockey games in the regular season for example. There were 5 other teams above 60%.

They matched up against carolina and florida who both had 63% winning %s. They were seperated by 3 games. I'd peg both of those series as around 50/50 coin flips.


Every single winner of the cup had some luck involved. Every single winner of the cup was deserving and a great team. Not every single winner of the cup was the best team.

Why do worse regular season teams beat better regular season teams in the playoffs? Because the sample size is 7 f***ing games and the gaps are rarely that big.


If you had an 75% chance to win each game against playoff teams (so realistically about 80% against the whole league which would be a 66 win team) you would have a 75% chance to win the cup. Considering most presidents trophy winners win about 70% of their games in the regular season, which probably translates to about 60-65% of their games against playoff teams. (and frankly it gets lesser as you go later as you are generally on average playing better teams) That team winning 60% of playoff games has a 71% chance of winning each series. to the power of 4 for 4 series is 25%. Presidents trophy winners win about 21%.

Let's go to the rangers. They went 22-17 vs playoff teams. That's a 56% win rate against the average playoff team.

Statistically, a 56% win rate gives you a 63% chance of winning a best of 7 series. Multiply that to the power of 4 and that's a 15.7% chance of winning the cup. Why would I be surprised when a field of 15 beats a field of 1 in a league with so much parity?

Now, I won't go too deep and compicated into specific playoff series and odds of playing each seed, average win %, home ice, etc, you could do a lot of math to get to the specifics but a baseline view is good enough

 

[Golden_Jet]

This shows a shocking lack of understanding of statistics and parity.

The rangers won 67% of their hockey games in the regular season for example. There were 5 other teams above 60%.

They matched up against carolina and florida who both had 63% winning %s. They were seperated by 3 games. I'd peg both of those series as around 50/50 coin flips.


Every single winner of the cup had some luck involved. Every single winner of the cup was deserving and a great team. Not every single winner of the cup was the best team.

Why do worse regular season teams beat better regular season teams in the playoffs? Because the sample size is 7 f***ing games and the gaps are rarely that big.


If you had an 75% chance to win each game against playoff teams (so realistically about 80% against the whole league which would be a 66 win team) you would have a 75% chance to win the cup. Considering most presidents trophy winners win about 70% of their games in the regular season, which probably translates to about 60-65% of their games against playoff teams. (and frankly it gets lesser as you go later as you are generally on average playing better teams) That team winning 60% of playoff games has a 71% chance of winning each series. to the power of 4 for 4 series is 25%. Presidents trophy winners win about 21%.

Let's go to the rangers. They went 22-17 vs playoff teams. That's a 56% win rate against the average playoff team.

Statistically, a 56% win rate gives you a 63% chance of winning a best of 7 series. Multiply that to the power of 4 and that's a 15.7% chance of winning the cup. Why would I be surprised when a field of 15 beats a field of 1 in a league with so much parity?



View attachment 977280
Now, I won't go too deep and compicated into specific playoff series and odds of playing each seed, average win %, home ice, etc, you could do a lot of math to get to the specifics but a baseline view is good enough

Or just look at these odds to win each round, and the cup.

NHL Playoff Odds -MoneyPuck 2025 Playoff & Cup Odds

NHL Playoff Odds updated many times a day. Stanley Cup Odds, Playoff seeding, and Draft Lottery Odds

moneypuck.com

 

[dgibb10]

Yep, that applies to all sports, hockey is not unique in that regard.

First you eliminate half the teams, then playoffs start. Then you need to win 4 rounds of best of 7.
That’s why it’s referred to the hardest trophy in sports to win.

Yes, there is no feasible way to determine a definitive best team to an acceptable margin of uncertainty due to the limitations of time and the human body, as well as having so many teams, all so close together.

You would have to play hundreds and hundreds of games to realistically determine beyond a doubt who the best team is (as well as cut the league in half at a minimum). Something humans are not capable of doing, due to wear and tear, time, aging, etc. And even if you played a bunch of games in a row to maximize sample size, it would change the goal to be more towards endurance and durability rather than what it currently is. And the randomness adds to the experience.

4 best of 7 series is a very acceptable solution. It ensures every team to win the cup is at the least an excellent team.

As long as people understand that it does NOT definitively determine who the best team is.


And best is subjective.

The NHL system rewards teams for being better against the other top teams, while not heavily punishing you for playing down to the level of bad teams, and specific stylistic matchups matter a ton.

Soccer on the other hand you need to take care of business against those bad teams or you will not get a trophy, and it is important to be able to match up against everyone.