Why do President Trophy winning teams almost never win the cup?

[valet]

the presidents trophy is actually a......
















horcrux

totally cursed bro

 

[Plural]

So you ask, why the team that most often wins the cup almost never wins the cup? Does that sound logical to you?

 

[c9777666]

Interestingly:

From 1967-68 (first year of expansion) through 1984-85 (the year before the presidents trophy), teams that finished with the league’s best record made it to the NHL Final Four/semifinals every year but 1 (1970-71 Bruins).

Finishing first overall seemed less of a kiss of death before the Presidents Trophy.

 

[Dustin]

This is why I don’t want my Preds to win it.

Well you should. The team that wins it has by far the best odds at winning a cup.

This thread needed a little research before being posted or at the very least needs a title change.

 

[Voight]

Most cup contenders prefer to cruise during the season nd take it easy so they still end up as a #2-4 seed but don't exhaust themselves before playoffs. Even tho its just a trophy that has no real bearing outside of seeding, if players have a shot at helping their team win it they will go all out.

Not many take in that none of the other 3 major leagues have a trophy for best regular season team. Why? Because it don't mean much.

 

[Doctor No]

Well 16 teams make the playoffs meaning that each has a 6.25% chance of winning the Cup.

You just told us that PT winners have a 26% win rate, 4x that of any other team going in. I would say that is pretty damn impressive given the randomness of the POs

Exactly this.

To add to this, suppose that you're such a good team that you have an 84% chance of winning any series that you participate in (I think we'd agree that this would be a very good team).

Your chance to win the Cup under those circumstances is only (84%)^4 or 49.8%, meaning that you're still more likely to not win the Cup than to win the Cup.

Winning the Cup is difficult, especially with 16 teams in the playoffs.

 

[Akrapovince]

I’m surprised they win it as often as they do to be honest.

There’s 1 Presidents trophy winning team and 15 other..

 

[SotasicA]

26% is not "almost never". That's over a quarter of the time! Much, much more than the average 1/16 odds.

I'd stay that stat begs the question, "why does the President's Trophy winner go on to win the Cup at such a high rate?".

 

[CascadiaPuck]

Nashville can lock up the trophy tonight, and they are one of the cup favourites. But when I checked its history, since it was established in 85-86', only 8/31 teams that won the PT, won the cup. That is a 26% winning rate; 2 in the last 12 years as a comparison.

Going even further, only 11 teams that have won the PT have actually reached the cup final (8 winners, 3 losses), a winning % of 35.

Why is that? They are usually the best team in hockey, so you would expect a better winning %.

Will Nashville fall into the trap?

It's been said repeatedly but it bears repeating: the individual team with the best chance of winning the Cup is the Presidents Trophy winner. If you checked the math on #2 all the way down to #16 you would see decreasing odds (it wouldn't be a perfect descent right now because the sample size is relatively small, but over time it absolutely would). 26% odds of winning the Cup are great.

For the record, it looks like only 2 of 12 Presidents Trophy winners have won the Cup since the salary cap arrived (05/06). That's about 18%, which is STILL great odds.

26% or 18% are long odds. But they're still probably better odds than the odds of any other individual team seeded #2 to #16.

EDIT: Related to this, those parity-driven long odds - and the reality of a 31 (soon 32) team league - are exactly why people need to shut up about the importance of Cups to being admitted to the HHOF. Times have changed. It's WAY too early to say, but it's very possible that a standout player like McDavid might dominate individually but never win a Cup.

 

[thejaf7]

#1 seed is the kiss of death position

 

[Doctor No]

#1 seed is the kiss of death position

It's almost like you didn't bother to read any single response to the thread starter.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Because Vancouver and Washington always win the President's Trophy.

 

[Hoek]

The Presidents Trophy curse has been debunked thoroughly, but you had to explain why it's not even higher it's probably because regular season hockey is pretty different from playoff hockey. A lot very skillful, high scoring teams have run away with the Presidents Trophy only to be exposed by the much tighter game in the postseason.

 

[SotasicA]

If over the course of 82 games one team gets 1-3pts more than another team, it doesn't mean there is a significant difference in their comparable odds of winning the Cup.

Still, I don't think any other team wins as many Cups as the #1 seed. Even if there shouldn't be a huge jump just because that team won 1 more game out of 82.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Because there's a lot of teams at the top.

 

[adsfan]

Most cup contenders prefer to cruise during the season nd take it easy so they still end up as a #2-4 seed but don't exhaust themselves before playoffs. Even tho its just a trophy that has no real bearing outside of seeding, if players have a shot at helping their team win it they will go all out.

Not many take in that none of the other 3 major leagues have a trophy for best regular season team. Why? Because it don't mean much.

Before 1969, the pennant winners in baseball were the #1 teams out of 8. With expansion, the playoffs decided the pennant winner out of 12 teams in each league. You still had to be #1 in your division or you went home.

 

[Varan]

It's been said repeatedly but it bears repeating: the individual team with the best chance of winning the Cup is the Presidents Trophy winner. If you checked the math on #2 all the way down to #16 you would see decreasing odds (it wouldn't be a perfect descent right now because the sample size is relatively small, but over time it absolutely would). 26% odds of winning the Cup are great.

For the record, it looks like only 2 of 12 Presidents Trophy winners have won the Cup since the salary cap arrived (05/06). That's about 18%, which is STILL great odds.

26% or 18% are long odds. But they're still probably better odds than the odds of any other individual team seeded #2 to #16.

EDIT: Related to this, those parity-driven long odds - and the reality of a 31 (soon 32) team league - are exactly why people need to shut up about the importance of Cups to being admitted to the HHOF. Times have changed. It's WAY too early to say, but it's very possible that a standout player like McDavid might dominate individually but never win a Cup.

stated that already bud!

and idk, I just assumed it would be higher

 

[ColePens]

26% out of 16 teams seems like a very good record.

This isn't basketball​

Agreed. Just to add:

- Playoff hockey is different than regular season hockey.
- PT winners are still at a 26% clip, which is solid.
- The tournament is hell to get through.
- There is solid parity in the league.
- The playoff format gives the PT winner zero advantage. They aren't playing some scrub team with no chance in the first round.

Some times people look for reasons to things that are just obvious. There is no secret here. It's a tough tournament to win. They've done it in the past. There is no curse. There is no damning reason.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

I think because some of them push too hard in the regular season. I find the teams that play the best overall play comfortably in a healthy atmosphere.

 

[biotk]

I think a better question might be why do the second place seeds do so poorly?

Over the last 31 years the second place team has only made it to the SC final 5 times. Far fewer than the 1st place team (11 times), but also fewer than the 3rd place team (7 times), 4th place team (6 times) and only as many times as the 7th and 8th place teams (5 each) and actually only one more appearance in the finals than the 15th place seed (4 times).

The top 8 seeds obviously do far better than the bottom 8 seeds (28 cups to 3, and 47 finals appearances to 15), but what is interesting is that the 15th place seed has 4 finals appearances (all losses), while the 16th place seed has none, and 9th and 13th seeds only have one each.

The 3 cups won by bottom 8 seeds were by the 10th seeded team (twice) and the 13th seeded team (LA in 2012).

 

[ThirdManIn]

A lot of expectation is put on teams that do the best during the regular season, specifically the team that does the best. If they don't win, people take notice. If they do win, it's almost expected. Since the losses are magnified relative to lower seeded teams, the idea grew that the President's Trophy is somehow a curse.

 

[ThirdManIn]

I think a better question might be why do the second place seeds do so poorly?

Over the last 31 years the second place team has only made it to the SC final 5 times. Far fewer than the 1st place team (11 times), but also fewer than the 3rd place team (7 times), 4th place team (6 times) and only as many times as the 7th and 8th place teams (5 each) and actually only one more appearance in the finals than the 15th place seed (4 times).

The top 8 seeds obviously do far better than the bottom 8 seeds (28 cups to 3, and 47 finals appearances to 15), but what is interesting is that the 15th place seed has 4 finals appearances (all losses), while the 16th place seed has none, and 9th and 13th seeds only have one each.

The 3 cups won by bottom 8 seeds were by the 10th seeded team (twice) and the 13th seeded team (LA in 2012).

Was Nashville not the 16th seed last year?

 

[illpucks]

Caps were garbage heading into the playoffs and had already peaked when they won. At least they were nowhere near as hot as the Pens.

Caps this season are hotter heading into the playoffs both of their presidents' runs.

Nashville's problem is that the Jets are equivalent to the Pens. 2nd place team that is way hotter than them.

 

[Devils090]

Think some teams just lose the intensity and focus once they wrap up a division and can’t switch it back on right away for the playoffs. Also winning a cup is really f-ing hard.

 

[biotk]

Was Nashville not the 16th seed last year?

I guess they were. I was going with the hockey-reference.com summary which listed Calgary as 16th (who were instead 15th due to tiebreakers)