1979-2017 - Teams "Carried" to the Stanley Cup Finals by Goaltending (GvE and TvE Analysis)

[quoipourquoi]

The purpose of this thread is to provide two more lists based on the four-round era statistical record:

• The worst scoring Stanley Cup Finalists through three rounds (GvE)
• The playoff teams most reliant on a goaltending to advance to the Stanley Cup Finals (TvE)

To create these lists, I will be looking at performance vs. expectation. If you're unfamiliar with EvE, GvE, and TvE; explanations can be found on last week's thread that looked at 1968-2017 Stanley Cup Champions.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...y-cup-champions-gve-and-tve-analysis.2449867/

Essentially, GvE looks at Goals Scored vs. Expectation (a percentage of how many goals a team scores vs. what a league average team would be expected to score against the same opponent in the same number of minutes) while TvE looks at Threshold vs. Expectation (a percentage of how many goals a team can allow to have an even goal differential vs. what a league average team would be expected to allow against the same opponent while facing the same number of shots).

I will only be looking at GvE and TvE in this thread. GvE weighted each round by minutes will provide us with the first list: the worst scoring Stanley Cup Finalists (performance through three rounds, 1979-2017). TvE weighted each round by shots against will provide us with the second list: the teams most reliant on a goaltending performance to advance to the Stanley Cup Finals (performance through three rounds, 1979-2017).

Important caveats. While empty net goals are removed from the calculation of playoff goal support, they are not removed from the calculation of regular season shooting percentage. If there comes a point when regular season GF minus ENGs becomes more readily available, I will gladly tweak the calculation to reflect this data. As of now, this would require thumbing through every box score of every regular season game for every team since 1967. Also to the extent that shots allowed is affected by goaltending performance or occurring in the state of New Jersey, I have made no subjective adjustment.

Most important caveat. GvE and TvE look at the series as a whole, rather than a series of individual games in a race for four victories.

Mostest important caveat. Teams aren't actually "carried" to the Stanley Cup Finals. It takes a team effort to advance to the Stanley Cup Finals, though in some cases, teams have been more reliant upon goaltending than others.


Lowest Scoring Stanley Cup Finalists
Performance in Rounds 1-3
(Goals vs. Expectation, 1979-2017)

Rank	Year	Team	1-3 GvE	R1 GvE	R2 GvE	R3 GvE
#1	1986	Montreal	74.55	95.54	57.49	85.80
#2	1982	Vancouver	77.76	73.48	83.38	75.06
#3	1985	Philadelphia	86.52	107.45	78.74	82.23
#4	1993	Montreal	89.84	84.13	106.51	83.59
#5	2002	Carolina	89.86	65.47	142.94	63.74
#6	1997	Detroit	90.58	77.64	89.28	104.68
#7	1984	New York	91.20	69.35	128.09	78.56
#8	2003	Anaheim	92.97	86.45	95.86	95.27
#9	2003	New Jersey	96.23	78.48	98.32	106.67
#10	2004	Calgary	97.36	102.28	78.70	110.16
#11	1989	Montreal	97.37	117.56	99.43	81.21
#12	1986	Calgary	100.63	105.78	90.45	108.41
#13	1987	Philadelphia	100.73	90.15	88.41	125.14
#14	1996	Florida	100.79	138.00	88.33	85.79
#15	1990	Boston	101.07	99.17	104.50	100.15
#16	1994	Vancouver	101.63	100.44	110.63	95.07
#17	2000	Dallas	102.13	111.37	120.01	83.36
#18	2006	Carolina	102.71	80.44	119.93	110.67
#19	2007	Anaheim	102.73	101.40	102.66	103.82
#20	1982	New York	103.37	104.49	109.40	93.48
#21	2012	New Jersey	103.86	96.18	114.07	104.40
#22	1989	Calgary	103.90	118.01	127.47	65.69
#23	1995	New Jersey	103.93	98.02	87.66	123.20
#24	2011	Vancouver	104.29	87.01	86.41	149.40
#25	1998	Washington	104.40	88.77	140.91	93.30
#26	2014	New York	105.84	97.76	83.10	141.45
#27	2006	Edmonton	106.46	108.69	102.11	109.26
#28	2017	Nashville	106.79	113.75	98.51	109.77
#29	2013	Chicago	107.39	118.63	96.13	110.91
#30	1999	Dallas	108.66	83.61	103.53	129.99
#31	2001	Colorado	109.01	134.69	81.03	128.16
#32	1991	Pittsburgh	109.39	92.43	106.24	131.75
#33	1988	Boston	110.03	119.72	96.19	111.43
#34	2007	Ottawa	111.58	129.43	118.13	89.45
#35	1990	Edmonton	112.76	94.50	140.89	116.31
#36	2011	Boston	112.81	88.00	169.45	105.77
#37	1992	Pittsburgh	113.31	93.92	123.01	131.89
#38	2000	New Jersey	113.96	122.33	96.14	124.46
#39	2015	Chicago	115.24	120.67	120.92	108.02
#40	2015	Tampa Bay	115.31	89.23	118.87	138.25
#41	1992	Chicago	115.46	113.37	89.48	143.97
#42	1994	New York	117.03	178.94	130.68	79.35
#43	2004	Tampa Bay	117.39	86.23	143.62	124.69
#44	1987	Edmonton	117.40	152.22	121.02	79.65
#45	1980	Philadelphia	117.59	86.80	83.71	173.27
#46	2013	Boston	118.94	113.61	134.68	109.00
#47	2010	Chicago	119.75	103.61	137.47	117.45
#48	2001	New Jersey	120.67	127.06	120.22	113.61
#49	1984	Edmonton	121.94	132.66	115.04	126.17
#50	1999	Buffalo	124.13	126.90	127.02	118.17
#51	1996	Colorado	124.19	123.38	111.47	139.77
#52	2012	Los Angeles	125.84	97.94	184.64	108.27
#53	2009	Pittsburgh	125.95	92.82	130.55	170.03
#54	2009	Detroit	126.32	165.73	95.32	141.84
#55	1988	Edmonton	126.37	132.53	117.91	127.10
#56	2017	Pittsburgh	127.80	173.53	132.85	91.57
#57	2016	San Jose	128.08	136.38	114.53	139.30
#58	2008	Pittsburgh	128.25	124.33	124.65	135.04
#59	1980	New York	128.27	133.91	125.09	127.29
#60	2010	Philadelphia	128.48	135.40	131.59	116.93
#61	1993	Los Angeles	128.48	163.78	118.92	107.98
#62	1991	Minnesota	128.52	147.53	115.26	121.30
#63	2014	Los Angeles	130.34	144.72	104.91	141.20
#64	1995	Detroit	130.43	125.24	186.77	96.39
#65	1981	New York	130.91	147.74	115.07	142.39
#66	2016	Pittsburgh	131.76	156.08	115.14	129.23
#67	1979	New York	133.48	120.72	169.49	109.12
#68	1981	Minnesota	133.81	184.58	131.57	109.83
#69	1997	Philadelphia	134.18	111.59	147.09	143.60
#70	1998	Detroit	137.36	150.08	134.45	127.86
#71	2002	Detroit	140.95	136.59	122.47	156.95
#72	1985	Edmonton	145.97	83.40	123.39	193.42
#73	1983	New York	149.86	130.98	133.60	178.57
#74	2008	Detroit	153.56	142.57	213.31	121.02
#75	1983	Edmonton	167.31	115.10	178.91	191.64

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Teams Most Reliant on Goaltending to Advance to the Stanley Cup Finals
Performance in Rounds 1-3
(Threshold vs. Expectation, 1979-2017)

Rank	Year	Team	1-3 TvE	R1 TvE	R2 TvE	R3 TvE
#1	2003	Anaheim	65.04	53.07	67.75	77.09
#2	1993	Montreal	77.52	64.32	89.84	84.67
#3	1996	Florida	78.65	117.77	58.42	65.24
#4	1982	Vancouver	78.74	65.26	88.55	77.29
#5	1998	Washington	82.17	59.11	118.48	78.72
#6	2006	Edmonton	82.25	70.25	101.73	79.22
#7	2004	Calgary	82.30	88.46	57.30	105.02
#8	2002	Carolina	82.87	54.49	147.38	59.45
#9	1986	Montreal	85.04	101.45	68.00	94.72
#10	1985	Philadelphia	85.20	110.64	74.44	78.59
#11	1994	Vancouver	85.28	90.57	83.54	80.20
#12	2013	Boston	88.45	78.23	112.45	78.32
#13	1984	New York	89.25	69.97	102.13	96.66
#14	2003	New Jersey	91.73	84.54	111.76	82.64
#15	2007	Anaheim	91.83	82.53	100.10	92.15
#16	2017	Nashville	93.20	99.52	86.42	94.82
#17	2015	Chicago	94.24	95.13	93.29	93.92
#18	2000	Dallas	94.32	126.63	112.68	64.45
#19	1999	Buffalo	95.00	77.58	109.82	98.85
#20	2017	Pittsburgh	95.25	106.01	79.31	103.18
#21	2011	Vancouver	95.72	77.51	87.90	123.33
#22	1987	Philadelphia	96.30	95.53	100.90	92.58
#23	1981	Minnesota	97.79	125.67	92.31	86.07
#24	1997	Detroit	97.93	89.28	94.42	111.71
#25	2011	Boston	98.64	85.35	122.93	96.08
#26	2015	Tampa Bay	98.72	95.02	90.89	109.32
#27	1992	Pittsburgh	98.95	81.88	88.03	145.57
#28	1991	Pittsburgh	98.99	85.23	90.79	124.82
#29	2014	New York	100.23	108.68	65.42	137.63
#30	1993	Los Angeles	102.09	125.99	91.59	89.39
#31	2001	Colorado	103.22	173.59	83.01	88.54
#32	2004	Tampa Bay	103.85	77.06	132.59	107.43
#33	1986	Calgary	103.99	140.60	74.94	116.50
#34	2012	Los Angeles	105.12	68.54	155.42	113.91
#35	1989	Montreal	105.81	114.75	103.70	99.26
#36	2012	New Jersey	105.83	114.59	121.29	82.98
#37	1980	New York	105.93	169.48	88.95	84.80
#38	2016	Pittsburgh	106.16	123.69	80.17	120.49
#39	1990	Boston	106.38	108.82	95.28	117.89
#40	2010	Chicago	107.44	112.76	116.80	89.33
#41	1996	Colorado	107.89	134.22	99.60	91.60
#42	1999	Dallas	108.07	123.22	95.25	112.31
#43	1980	Philadelphia	109.18	107.69	75.20	141.56
#44	2013	Chicago	109.33	134.81	89.85	111.63
#45	2006	Carolina	109.34	92.06	131.57	109.93
#46	1990	Edmonton	109.88	94.54	117.77	122.14
#47	2000	New Jersey	110.09	103.94	112.62	112.13
#48	1979	New York	111.26	109.69	146.68	76.08
#49	1995	New Jersey	111.36	109.23	82.87	147.23
#50	2014	Los Angeles	113.49	111.08	97.14	130.66
#51	2007	Ottawa	113.66	145.01	108.09	92.32
#52	1982	New York	113.70	127.49	119.67	90.26
#53	1998	Detroit	114.54	155.77	105.68	84.18
#54	1984	Edmonton	115.37	120.00	105.65	130.82
#55	1991	Minnesota	116.70	131.42	98.15	123.88
#56	1983	New York	121.08	113.25	133.00	116.57
#57	1988	Boston	122.33	139.89	84.67	134.59
#58	1992	Chicago	123.63	111.93	83.51	202.33
#59	1994	New York	124.51	217.66	145.86	70.97
#60	2008	Pittsburgh	124.62	119.72	122.31	131.30
#61	2009	Detroit	125.52	166.49	108.02	118.31
#62	2009	Pittsburgh	126.22	77.83	153.81	163.30
#63	1997	Philadelphia	126.56	109.69	124.99	146.59
#64	2002	Detroit	126.65	131.72	104.85	139.11
#65	1988	Edmonton	127.76	151.40	106.03	120.55
#66	2016	San Jose	128.83	141.26	113.47	141.21
#67	1989	Calgary	129.18	131.12	148.45	109.67
#68	2010	Philadelphia	130.72	127.44	140.25	119.69
#69	1985	Edmonton	139.30	70.96	120.54	196.27
#70	2008	Detroit	142.53	112.06	209.73	121.61
#71	1987	Edmonton	144.24	191.33	131.47	101.54
#72	1983	Edmonton	151.60	132.90	158.83	155.51
#73	2001	New Jersey	155.12	183.47	139.20	146.30
#74	1981	New York	158.26	189.44	125.73	184.46
#75	1995	Detroit	182.87	166.67	351.35	108.26

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Reminder: none of the above charts is a reflection of goaltending performance itself - only the demand placed on the goaltenders relative to goal support and shots allowed (TvE).


The 1995 Detroit Red Wings placed the least amount of pressure on their goaltending in order to advance to the Stanley Cup Finals, in large part due to a Conference Semifinals series in which they scored 24 goals on the San Jose Sharks' goaltenders while allowing just 61 shots. This series ranked as the easiest threshold (vs. expectation) from a post-expansion Stanley Cup Finalist.

• 351.35 - 1995 Detroit (vs. San Jose)
• 217.66 - 1994 New York (vs. New York)
• 202.33 - 1992 Chicago (vs. Edmonton)
• 196.27 - 1985 Edmonton (vs. Chicago)
• 191.33 - 1987 Edmonton (vs. Los Angeles)
• 189.44 - 1981 New York (vs. Toronto)
• 184.46 - 1981 New York (vs. New York)
• 183.47 - 2001 New Jersey (vs. Carolina)
• 173.59 - 2001 Colorado (vs. Vancouver)
• 169.48 - 1980 New York (vs. Los Angeles)

The 2003 Mighty Ducks of Anaheim faced the most difficult threshold (vs. expectation) of any team on their way to the Stanley Cup Finals in the four-round era, as well as the most difficult single series. The 1996 Florida Panthers and 2002 Carolina Hurricanes had two series each that ranked among the top-10 most difficult thresholds, though in the case of the 2002 Carolina Hurricanes, their victory against the New Jersey Devils saw them win the series in spite of not reaching the threshold, getting outscored 11 goals to 9.

• 53.07 - 2003 Anaheim (vs. Detroit)
• 54.49 - 2002 Carolina (vs. New Jersey)
• 57.30 - 2004 Calgary (vs. Detroit)
• 58.42 - 1996 Florida (vs. Philadelphia)
• 59.11 - 1998 Washington (vs. Boston)
• 59.45 - 2002 Carolina (vs. Toronto)
• 64.32 - 1993 Montreal (vs. Quebec)
• 64.45 - 2000 Dallas (vs. Colorado)
• 65.24 - 1996 Florida (vs. Pittsburgh)
• 65.26 - 1982 Vancouver (vs. Calgary)

Of the teams that faced the top-10 most difficult thresholds (vs. expectation) on the way to the Stanley Cup Finals, only two went on to win the Stanley Cup: the 1986 Montreal Canadiens and 1993 Montreal Canadiens. For most Cinderella teams, the clock does indeed strike midnight.

Back-to-back Conference Quarterfinals from the Carolina Hurricanes and New Jersey Devils in 2001 and 2002 provide one of the top-10 easiest thresholds (in New Jersey's favor) and one of the top-10 most difficult thresholds (that Carolina needed to overcome).

The 2003 Stanley Cup Finals saw two of the ten lowest scoring Stanley Cup Finalists (vs. expectation) face each other.

Click to read more...

 

[Killion]

^^^ Whoa.... what did I just read?!

 

[Canadiens1958]

1999 Buffalo, 19th is a definite surprise.

 

[quoipourquoi]

^^^ Whoa.... what did I just read?!

Just the scribblings of a mad man while his wife is out of the home. It was this or re-doing the linen closet.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Just the scribblings of a mad man while his wife is out of the home. It was this or re-doing the linen closet.

You made the correct choice.

 

[quoipourquoi]

1999 Buffalo, 19th is a definite surprise.

They still had a tough theshold in Round 1, but it does mostly line up with a point I believe TDMM raised a few years back - Buffalo scored a lot of goals in the series they won in 1998 and 1999. Whether it would off-set the shots allowed and opponent strength was one of my curiosities coming into this.

77.58

109.82

98.85

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Canadiens1958]

They still had a tough theshold in Round 1, but it does mostly line up with a point I believe TDMM raised a few years back - Buffalo scored a lot of goals in the series they won in 1998 and 1999. Whether it would off-set the shots allowed and opponent strength was one of my curiosities coming into this.

77.58

109.82

98.85

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

An interesting sub study would be to look at the nature of the goals as opposed to the quantity. How many times in the 21 games did Buffalo score the first goal of the game, first two goals of the game?

Then extend the study from 1979 to date. Playing with the lead in the playoffs vs playing catch-up.

 

[Sturminator]

I don't know if "goaltending" and "overall defense" are especially differentiated here. There seems to be at least one assumption at work that may not be very good. Either:

1) shots against are all of the same quality.
or
2) the quality of shots will even out over 10-20+ game sample sizes.

I have serious doubts about both of these assumptions.

 

[Voight]

I thought 2003 Ducks and 99 Sabres would be higher.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I don't manceknow if "goaltending" and "overall defense" are especially differentiated here. There seems to be at least one assumption at work that may not be very good. Either:

1) shots against are all of the same quality.
or
2) the quality of shots will even out over 10-20+ game sample sizes.

I have serious doubts about both of these assumptions.

This is true for all hockey SOG data available and goalie performance studies released to the public.

So the effort is in line with all previous efforts in this regard and the usual disclaimers apply.

 

[Ace36758]

Really, really great read. Thanks for posting.

A lot of Cinderella teams on there.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Amazing work Q. Just another metric that makes Patrick Roy look brilliant as a postseason performer.

 

[Sticks and Pucks]

I'm a little surprised to see the 2011 Bruins below the 2011 Canucks.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm a little surprised to see the 2011 Bruins below the 2011 Canucks.

This is only looking at the first three rounds, and one of the Bruins' toughest thresholds to overcome was in Round 4 against the Canucks themselves. Overall, the Bruins had the 5th most difficult threshold for any Stanley Cup Champion from 1968-2017, but getting to the Finals might have been easier for their goaltending than necessarily winning the Finals.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Amazing work Q. Just another metric that makes Patrick Roy look brilliant as a postseason performer.

Thanks! For clarification, this does not necessarily reflect on his performance - only the necessity of the level of performance he provided. The 1986 and 1993 Canadiens needed a goaltender to allow only 85.0% and 77.5% of what an average goaltender would be expected to allow in order to advance; Roy allowed just 60.3% and 54.3%.

At some point, I'll get the EvE tables (goaltender performance) back up. Everything is on a txt file, so it shouldn't take too much to do - just another day when I have nothing else going on!

 

[ImporterExporter]

Thanks! For clarification, this does not necessarily reflect on his performance - only the necessity of the level of performance he provided. The 1986 and 1993 Canadiens needed a goaltender to allow only 85.0% and 77.5% of what an average goaltender would be expected to allow in order to advance; Roy allowed just 60.3% and 54.3%.

At some point, I'll get the EvE tables (goaltender performance) back up. Everything is on a txt file, so it shouldn't take too much to do - just another day when I have nothing else going on!

Oh, absolutely. It's an indirect connection but I'm not surprised to see the Montreal teams he took to the Finals as being very high on the list. It falls in line with Hockey Outsider's adjusted save % study which shines a bright light on Roy's brilliance.