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.

 

[Lshap]

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

Sorry, your statistics dodge the main point. You can't disprove a 'best team' in the playoffs because they didn't align with regular season stats. That's simply the wrong way to evaluate this.

We've already covered that any human performance includes some variability. However, in the playoffs that variability takes the form of physical skill and mental focus. We may not be able to quantify things like focus, response to pressure, adrenaline, determination, etc., but they exist. The winner of a series is the team that better harnesses those factors. That makes them the best team.

Suggesting they got lucky is a weak excuse.

 

[dgibb10]

Sorry, your statistics dodge the main point. You can't disprove a 'best team' in the playoffs because they didn't align with regular season stats. That's simply the wrong way to evaluate this.

We've already covered that any human performance includes some variability. However, in the playoffs that variability takes the form of physical skill and mental focus. We may not be able to quantify things like focus, response to pressure, adrenaline, determination, etc., but they exist. The winner of a series is the team that better harnesses those factors. That makes them the best team.

Suggesting they got lucky is a weak excuse.

The best team is the one who won because they won.

It's circular logic and it's terrible.

You claimed that if the best team was the presidents trophy winner, they should "win almost every year".

I showed you that that is simply statistically wrong and not how probabilities work.

The presidents trophy winners do win disproportionally more than every other team.

Presidents trophy winners win 20% of the time.

The average not president's trophy winning seed wins approximately 5% of the time.

 

[Lshap]

The best team is the one who won because they won.

It's circular logic and it's terrible.

You claimed that if the best team was the presidents trophy winner, they should "win almost every year".

I showed you that that is simply statistically wrong and not how probabilities work.

The presidents trophy winners do win disproportionally more than every other team.

Presidents trophy winners win 20% of the time.

The average not president's trophy winning seed wins approximately 5% of the time.

You've managed to avoid the logical answer staring you in the face: The entire premise of sports is being best when it counts. In hockey, that's the playoffs.

A hockey team doesn't "Win because they win". They win because they're the first to score more goals in four games out of a possible seven. That's a head-to-head competition lasting between 10 days and two weeks. That's between 240 and 420 minutes of hockey, not including overtime. That's somewhere between 1200 and 1600 passes, shots, and bounces. That's more than enough data to determine the best team, especially when it's gathered when it counts most.

A playoff series isn't a dart throw where a drunk guy can blindly hit the bullseye. It's a long campaign both teams have prepared to fight all season, requiring enormous sustained energy and skill, where both rosters know everything is at stake. Thousands of mini-events happen during any series, some random of course, but even the random events have a strategic response. Your stick breaks, the puck skips over your stick – one team immediately knows how to take advantage, the other how to counter. Reducing the whole thing to "Luck" grossly underestimates the work, strategy, and skill required to beat another team over a two-week span.

Could a close series have gone the other way? Sure... except it didn't. Not because the winner was lucky, but because they were better prepared, and slightly stronger than the other team in all the above factors. And they did it when it counted.

Human performance is very selective, which is why we see spikes during competitions, playoffs, and championship games. There's plenty of science behind why some people step up to pressure while others cave. A weaker team during the season beats a stronger team in the playoffs because they possess better qualities in higher stakes games. You won't find those stats by looking at the regular season, and yet GMs are always looking for those 'clutch' players because they know those qualities exist.

Frankly, if you don't think a playoff series has enough data to determine the best team, then the Olympics, the World Series, the Super Bowl, and every other sporting championship has no value. All those winners were best when it counted. That makes them the best.

 

[ijuka]

You've managed to avoid the logical answer staring you in the face: The entire premise of sports is being best when it counts. In hockey, that's the playoffs.

A hockey team doesn't "Win because they win". They win because they're the first to score more goals in four games out of a possible seven. That's a head-to-head competition lasting between 10 days and two weeks. That's between 240 and 420 minutes of hockey, not including overtime. That's somewhere between 1200 and 1600 passes, shots, and bounces. That's more than enough data to determine the best team, especially when it's gathered when it counts most.

A playoff series isn't a dart throw where a drunk guy can blindly hit the bullseye. It's a long campaign both teams have prepared to fight all season, requiring enormous sustained energy and skill, where both rosters know everything is at stake. Thousands of mini-events happen during any series, some random of course, but even the random events have a strategic response. Your stick breaks, the puck skips over your stick – one team immediately knows how to take advantage, the other how to counter. Reducing the whole thing to "Luck" grossly underestimates the work, strategy, and skill required to beat another team over a two-week span.

Could a close series have gone the other way? Sure... except it didn't. Not because the winner was lucky, but because they were better prepared, and slightly stronger than the other team in all the above factors. And they did it when it counted.

Human performance is very selective, which is why we see spikes during competitions, playoffs, and championship games. There's plenty of science behind why some people step up to pressure while others cave. A weaker team during the season beats a stronger team in the playoffs because they possess better qualities in higher stakes games. You won't find those stats by looking at the regular season, and yet GMs are always looking for those 'clutch' players because they know those qualities exist.

Frankly, if you don't think a playoff series has enough data to determine the best team, then the Olympics, the World Series, the Super Bowl, and every other sporting championship has no value. All those winners were best when it counted. That makes them the best.

Counterargument: If playoffs are all that counts, why play anything else? Why have the regular season? Why not just have playoffs from the start?

The reason is, hockey, and sports in general, are not about winning. They're about entertainment. About being a spectacle. The point is to play games so that people can watch them. Stanley Cup or anything else of that nature is a mere afterthought.

The players aren't even being paid for playoffs. It's essentially free labor. It's very different from many other tournaments where winning actually gives you money. Winning the Stanley Cup essentially has no worth. Your worth is your play in the regular season. That's what you're paid to do.

Take Tennis. This sport is actually based on tournaments. There is no regular season. Instead, you have a tour, and participate in tournaments. You win some, lose some. You earn money from them.

NHL is about the regular season. That's what your job is. That's what earns you your pay.

 

[Lshap]

Counterargument: If playoffs are all that counts, why play anything else? Why have the regular season? Why not just have playoffs from the start?

The reason is, hockey, and sports in general, are not about winning. They're about entertainment. About being a spectacle. The point is to play games so that people can watch them. Stanley Cup or anything else of that nature is a mere afterthought.

The players aren't even being paid for playoffs. It's essentially free labor. It's very different from many other tournaments where winning actually gives you money. Winning the Stanley Cup essentially has no worth. Your worth is your play in the regular season. That's what you're paid to do.

Take Tennis. This sport is actually based on tournaments. There is no regular season. Instead, you have a tour, and participate in tournaments. You win some, lose some. You earn money from them.

NHL is about the regular season. That's what your job is. That's what earns you your pay.

The regular season is really just a very long seeding process for the playoffs. Yeah, the tennis format is more interesting from a fan perspective, but that format is unworkable for team sports. Imagine telling half the NHL owners to cancel the rest of their games because their teams were eliminated in December. Teams need those 82 games to generate the revenue that keeps 'em alive.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Randomness is a part of life.

 

[Oilslick941611]

I don’t see it as a random factor. I see it as dynamic vs linear.

A linear sport like football or baseball it’s easier to control variables because for the coach every play is defined by the down or yardage and you have a set of optimal plays based on the situation and read of the defensive alignment. Or in baseball it’s the pitcher bs the batter. In a dynamic sport like hockey there is more options available to the individual players and less of the outcome is affected by coaching.

Of course there are elements of randomness to all sports. Some more than others.

 

[x Tame Impala]

@dgibb10 What does it say about Boston and Carolina who, since the 2018/19 season have the most and second most points in the regular season during that time frame and yet zero championships to show for it?

The Hurricanes made it to the ECF twice in that span and were swept both times, they're otherwise out in the 2nd round every year. The Bruins blew a game 7 SCF game against one of the weakest opponents in the Finals history post lockout and have otherwise been total playoff duds never making it past the second round and in fact often lose in the first round.

Surely 6 years of playoffs for both teams would be enough data points to draw a conclusion, no? Do Boston and Carolina merely get unlucky every year? How do the Wings and Pens make it to back to back Finals in 08/09? Or the Hawks and Kings being the Cup winners for 5 out of 6 seasons from 2010-2015? The Penguins again in 16 & 17? If the playoffs are so lucky how is it that Tampa, to no surprise of anyone, absolutely stomped the #12 seeded Canadiens in 5 games?

This is a weak argument designed by losers to rationalize their team's failure to get the job done when it matters most.

You've managed to avoid the logical answer staring you in the face: The entire premise of sports is being best when it counts. In hockey, that's the playoffs.

A hockey team doesn't "Win because they win". They win because they're the first to score more goals in four games out of a possible seven. That's a head-to-head competition lasting between 10 days and two weeks. That's between 240 and 420 minutes of hockey, not including overtime. That's somewhere between 1200 and 1600 passes, shots, and bounces. That's more than enough data to determine the best team, especially when it's gathered when it counts most.

A playoff series isn't a dart throw where a drunk guy can blindly hit the bullseye. It's a long campaign both teams have prepared to fight all season, requiring enormous sustained energy and skill, where both rosters know everything is at stake. Thousands of mini-events happen during any series, some random of course, but even the random events have a strategic response. Your stick breaks, the puck skips over your stick – one team immediately knows how to take advantage, the other how to counter. Reducing the whole thing to "Luck" grossly underestimates the work, strategy, and skill required to beat another team over a two-week span.

Could a close series have gone the other way? Sure... except it didn't. Not because the winner was lucky, but because they were better prepared, and slightly stronger than the other team in all the above factors. And they did it when it counted.

Human performance is very selective, which is why we see spikes during competitions, playoffs, and championship games. There's plenty of science behind why some people step up to pressure while others cave. A weaker team during the season beats a stronger team in the playoffs because they possess better qualities in higher stakes games. You won't find those stats by looking at the regular season, and yet GMs are always looking for those 'clutch' players because they know those qualities exist.

Frankly, if you don't think a playoff series has enough data to determine the best team, then the Olympics, the World Series, the Super Bowl, and every other sporting championship has no value. All those winners were best when it counted. That makes them the best.

I question how people who don’t understand this can even call themselves sports fans.

 

[catnip]

Apparently I may not be cognitively fit to be a sports fan so I'll be brief... In my sport it's very well understood and accepted that the best athlete doesn't always win. We aren't delusional enough to think we can control our surroundings to the degree that how we respond to randomness determines the outcome. It doesn't mean we find no value in competition. It does mean some of you may want to consider being more open-minded instead of gatekeeping sports fandom from people who think differently.

 

[Soundwave]

It's a piece of rubber bouncing around on a playing surface that's ice, of course randomness is a big part of the game.

 

[dgibb10]

@dgibb10 What does it say about Boston and Carolina who, since the 2018/19 season have the most and second most points in the regular season during that time frame and yet zero championships to show for it?

The Hurricanes made it to the ECF twice in that span and were swept both times, they're otherwise out in the 2nd round every year. The Bruins blew a game 7 SCF game against one of the weakest opponents in the Finals history post lockout and have otherwise been total playoff duds never making it past the second round and in fact often lose in the first round.

Surely 6 years of playoffs for both teams would be enough data points to draw a conclusion, no? Do Boston and Carolina merely get unlucky every year? How do the Wings and Pens make it to back to back Finals in 08/09? Or the Hawks and Kings being the Cup winners for 5 out of 6 seasons from 2010-2015? The Penguins again in 16 & 17? If the playoffs are so lucky how is it that Tampa, to no surprise of anyone, absolutely stomped the #12 seeded Canadiens in 5 games?

This is a weak argument designed by losers to rationalize their team's failure to get the job done when it matters most.


I question how people who don’t understand this can even call themselves sports fans.

"Surely 6 years of playoffs for both teams would be enough data points to draw a conclusion, no? Do Boston and Carolina merely get unlucky every year?"

What is it with you and claiming sample sizes of less than 10 as some definitive piece of evidence lmao. No, being one of the consistently better teams doesn't guarantee you anything. Even if you build the best team in the league, your chances of winning a cup are realistically 15% tops (and don't bring up repeat winners as if they are some statistical anomaly. A team MUST win every year, so we are only really looking at 1 year for the repeat. In fact they prove this further. We have 2 repeat champs in the last 19 years post lockout. 10.5%.

In fact, if there was less luck involved, you would see WAY MORE repeat champions.

"If the playoffs are so lucky how is it that Tampa, to no surprise of anyone, absolutely stomped the #12 seeded Canadiens in 5 games?"

Why were they against the canadiens in the first place?

You seem to think that the "best team" should have like a 50-60% chance of winning the cup, when the entire point of the playoff structure is to actively prevent that (as has now been shown to you countless times).

"How do the Wings and Pens make it to back to back Finals in 08/09?"

The whole back to back concept as some statistical evidence is incredibly stupid (and again, shows you don't understand statistics or probabilities).

2 teams must make the cup final every year. That is a given. So then you go to the next year and it is simply the odds of 2 specific teams (generally very good teams) reaching the cup finals. For a really good team those odds are probably around 25ish%, with some variability. To the power of 2 is 0.0625, or 1 out of every 16 years you'd expect the cup final to be the same 2 teams as the year previous, or exactly lining up with what we've seen post lockout

"Or the Hawks and Kings being the Cup winners for 5 out of 6 seasons from 2010-2015?"

Again, this is a misunderstanding of statistics and probabilities.

Since you HAVE to have a cup winner in each of those 6 years, you've already got 2 covered no matter what. From then on you are just looking for teams to win in the other years, knowing you have good teams. You have again, around 25% chance of one of 2 better teams winning in each year, and needing 3/4 years.

Some simple binomial distribution gets you to a 5% chance of those 2 teams winning at least 3 of the other 4 cups. Or about 1/20. And again, we're looking at around that many 6 year samples to look at. Nothing the statistics don't explain. In fact, if luck wasn't such a big factor, you'd expect to see a lot MORE of these streaks, as the better teams would have a higher odds to win any individual cup and thus be more likely to win multiple.