1-0 lead
- Thread starter Bookman
- Start date
That's true, but typically you want to refine theories into something testable. Unless you're talking about mathematics in which case
Why even bother speaking then?
May as well just post a series of stats and graphs for us all to enjoy, no need for a forum. Bum.
MastuhNinks
Registered User
Something doesn't add up here, how could there possibly be 216 1st round game 1s and 184 game 1s in round 2? Shouldn't it be exactly half?
It would be exactly half for the era of four round playoffs, yes, but there haven't always been four rounds. The first round numbers above are all from this era and might more properly be called the conference quarterfinals. The first round from the three round era would be the conference semis (i.e., two rounds removed from the Finals) and thus are counted towards the "second round" totals here. Back further still, the first round in the O6 days was the conference finals.
Not So Mighty
Enjoy your freedom, you wintertimer.
Of course but the game two winner strikes some of the confidence from the game one winner and instills insecurity for game three and at that point it is a much shorter series with less time for mistakes and playing catch up. Game one winner is now more afraid to make a mistake than game two winner.
This is obviously all speculative mumbo jumbo from a guy who's never played in playoffs of any kind but I still find it perfectly logical that Game 2 winners have higher win % than Game 1 winners.
Epsilon
#basta
The more likely explanation (rather than something unquantifiable like "momentum and confidence") is that the series being tied 1-1 presents one of two scenarios:
1. The lower-seeded team won game 2 and now has home-ice advantage in the remaining best-of-5 series, which does provide a historical advantage in terms of results.
2. The higher-seeded team has tied the series 1-1; even though they have lost home-ice advantage, in many situations being higher-seeded (like say, 1 vs 8) indicates a substantial difference in quality, and they might still be expected to win the remaining best-of-5 even though they no longer have home-ice advantage.
I'd like to see the data where the high-seeded team gets in an 0-2 hole. At that point, you'd expect them to lose significantly more often even in spite of being seeded higher.
Epsilon
#basta
Teams up 2-0 historically win more often than teams up 1-0, 2-1, or 3-2, so that's a highly dubious claim.
Surprisingly 15% of teams I think still lose going up 2-0...that may be the highest out of the NHL, NBA, MLB. Even more odd, I think its an even split 7% each way going up 2-0 at home and on the road. One would think only 2% of teams going up 2-0 on the road have lost the series but its equally as likely statistically to lose going up 2-0 as it goes going up 2-0 at home. I don't think any NBA team has gone up 2-0 on the road and lost the series and only 3 MLB teams have done so and lost the series, one of which was robbed by a historically bad call, so NHL again proves its a very tough sport come playoff time, even up 3-0 there are no guarantees.
Hasn't Montreal been involved in like 4 or 5 series where either they or their opponent has gone up 2-0 and ultimately lost the series? It seems they are always a part of those.
Epsilon
#basta
This is incorrect, the winning percentage for MLB (83%) is lower than for the NHL (86%). Both are considerably lower than the NBA (94%).
Bookman
Registered User
Road teams that take a 2-0 series lead are 66-18 (.786) in the series, so yeah, teams that blow the first two at home are in trouble.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Pelicans Lahti @ Tappara Tampere - Tappara leads series 2-0Wagers: 2Staked: $15,126.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-
