Playoff series where the better team lost?

[Lshap]

Words...how do they work?

This would a great time for George Carlin to come back to life.

 

[LilySmoov]

Rather than question a clear point I've now made multiple times, please let me know what exactly you're arguing? Do you have a point other than citing semantic word definitions of "Always" and "Best"? Because, as I've said, it's a waste of time to point out that prose, unlike math, does not have to reflect absolutes to be accurate.

I'm arguing against Shadow's claim that the better team wins every time unless a key part of said team is injured.

A statement you also find objectionable as evidenced by you acknowledging the existence of outliers to that trend.

So, once again, what are you arguing?

 

[Montreal Shadow]

The better team doesn't always win an individual game. You've acknowledged this.

Now apply this to repeated trials. I'll even acknowledge this idea that the better team outplays the inferior team every single game (which is not a requirement).

Team A plays better hockey than Team B, and this enables them to win a single game 66% of the time. Obviously the percentage will vary based on the gaps between the two teams, but in this specific example it's quite clear that Team A is superior given this premise. If the two teams were to play 100 games independently of each other, Team A would win 66 of them.

What's the probability that Team B wins exactly 4 out of 7 games? 12.5% (the probability they would win the series is actually slightly higher than this - closer to 16%).

So even limiting myself to the assumption that the better team has to outplay the superior team every single game, it is still completely possible that the inferior team can advance.

This probability can be even higher if my initial percentage is less than 66%.

Again, because you acknowledge that a single game can be won by an inferior team, you should have no problem acknowledging a single series can be won by an inferior team if you understand the probabilities behind it.

There's one fatal flaw with your premise though. You're just using probability in a vacuum but we're not talking mindless slot machines or coin flips, we're talking about humans and applying the same logic to them and machines is flawed.

The behavior of a coin flip or slot machine never really changes. The behavior of a team changes and although I accept the "better" team can be taken by surprise once, if they were truly better they would have adapted and found a way to win. Coin flips and machines cannot do that. Coaching strategies, match ups, players adapting, players reacting to changes etc. These are all variables that are not quantifiable but will, over a 7 game series, have far more of an impact than lucky bounces or a bad call but for some reason you're ignoring that and focus solely on the mathematics of things without acknowledging that you're not dealing with simple numbers but people.

That's why I said you can't seriously call yourself the better team if your sole argument for losing is lolbadluck. Rather than think you were simply better, think how did you lose. What caused your superiority to be challenged to the point of defeat? What could you have done differently? If you were so much better you should have taken a sizable lead to the point a bad call or two wouldn't kill you. If they did it means the other team played well enough to be your equal and a bad break did you in but for that to happen, the other team would have to be so close you couldn't be considered better than them anyway. Luck can decide a single game that can go horribly wrong. An entire series goes horribly wrong? I would tend to blame the losing team.

 

[66871]

In the 1960 World Series the Yankees outscored the Pirates 55-27. The Pirates won four games by an average of 2.25 runs. The Yankees won three games by an average of 8.333 runs. Pittsburgh literally won due to fortunate allotment of its runs between games. Only a fool would look at that and say the Pirates were the better team. If the series was magically extended by two games, the smart bet would be the Yankees taking games 8 & 9. Seven games is not a large sample size. Not even close.

 

[66871]

Luck can decide a single game that can go horribly wrong.

I'm still waiting for you to articulate why that can happen in a single game but not four within a single series.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

I'm still waiting for you to articulate why that can happen in a single game but not four within a single series.

Again I ask, where do we draw the line? An entire series goes horribly wrong and your first reflex is to blame luck? Really?

 

[Snippit]

There's one fatal flaw with your premise though. You're just using probability in a vacuum but we're not talking mindless slot machines or coin flips, we're talking about humans and applying the same logic to them and machines is flawed.

The behavior of a coin flip or slot machine never really changes. The behavior of a team changes and although I accept the "better" team can be taken by surprise once, if they were truly better they would have adapted and found a way to win. Coin flips and machines cannot do that. Coaching strategies, match ups, players adapting, players reacting to changes etc. These are all variables that are not quantifiable but will, over a 7 game series, have far more of an impact than lucky bounces or a bad call but for some reason you're ignoring that and focus solely on the mathematics of things without acknowledging that you're not dealing with simple numbers but people.

That's why I said you can't seriously call yourself the better team if your sole argument for losing is lolbadluck. Rather than think you were simply better, think how did you lose. What caused your superiority to be challenged to the point of defeat? What could you have done differently? If you were so much better you should have taken a sizable lead to the point a bad call or two wouldn't kill you. If they did it means the other team played well enough to be your equal and a bad break did you in but for that to happen, the other team would have to be so close you couldn't be considered better than them anyway. Luck can decide a single game that can go horribly wrong. An entire series goes horribly wrong? I would tend to blame the losing team.

You're using subjective terms like "so much better" but it's never been specified how much better Team A is. Again, 7 games isn't such a massive sample to completely eliminate exceptions from ever happening.

But I can see that your opinion is more of a personal belief rather than something backed up by real evidence or numbers, so it seems like there won't be much use for us to continue here.

 

[Halakitlikethat]

Halak vs caps in 2010

Goalie is a part of the team

 

[Lshap]

I'm arguing against Shadow's claim that the better team wins every time unless a key part of said team is injured.

A statement you also find objectionable as evidenced by you acknowledging the existence of outliers to that trend.

So, once again, what are you arguing?

I didn't read your argument with another poster. Here are the bullet points* to what I'm saying:

• The best team is the one who wins a 7-game series.
• There are enough variables in seven games to even out luck and allow the superior team to win. In other words, winning a series isn't a 'fluke'.
• Injuries are one of the only reasons a better team will lose.
• Words like "Best" or "Always" are used prosaically, not as an analytic measure. 98% = "Always", in this context.

*The points are neither real bullets, nor do they have actual pointy ends.

 

[66871]

Again I ask, where do we draw the line? An entire series goes horribly wrong and your first reflex is to blame luck? Really?

This is a straw-man since I never once have said that the primary reason for teams losing is luck. My one and only assertion is that it's erroneous to assert that the stronger team ALWAYS goes through (always being the key word).

So your answer is pure deflection. Let's try again: Can you articulate why a team could get one fluke win in a series but not four?

 

[66871]

I didn't read your argument with another poster. Here are the bullet points* to what I'm saying:

• The best team is the one who wins a 7-game series.
• There are enough variables in seven games to even out luck and allow the superior team to win. In other words, winning a series isn't a 'fluke'.
• Injuries are one of the only reasons a better team will lose.
• Words like "Best" or "Always" are used prosaically, not as an analytic measure. 98% = "Always", in this context.

*The points are neither real bullets, nor do they have actual pointy ends.

Evidence supporting the assertion in bold?

 

[Montreal Shadow]

You're using subjective terms like "so much better" but it's never been specified how much better Team A is. Again, 7 games isn't such a massive sample to completely eliminate exceptions from ever happening.

But I can see that your opinion is more of a personal belief rather than something backed up by real evidence or numbers, so it seems like there won't be much use for us to continue here.

I literally asked you to define "outplay" and you couldn't. Rather you told me you believed people have a general understanding of the term outplay when it's blatantly false. Your entire argument rests on the belief that your definition of outplayed is the agreed upon definition of everyone else. If it isn't, your position goes out the window.

Aren't opinions always a personal belief? And again, I literally explained to you why using numbers in this context make little to no sense but you conveniently ignored that. The better team won't play game 2 the same way they played game 1. The first coin flip will be practically identical to the second one.

You got this ass-backwards. Results make you the better team, not the means you use to achieve them. Rather than believe your numbers do not reflect reality, you're saying reality doesn't reflect your numbers. What's worse yet? Your numbers cannot even conclusively and objectively prove that the team you claim is better is really better.

 

[StarvinArvyn33]

Colorado this year.

LOL

 

[Snippit]

I'm still waiting for you to articulate why that can happen in a single game but not four within a single series.

He's thinking about it in a way that is fundamentally different from you or I.

I think he is of the belief that a team is better because they advanced. Everything within the series itself can be explained away to illustrate how the advancing team is actually the superior hockey team.

Whereas you and I simply view the better team as simply having a better chance at winning.

I think our understanding is a better representation of reality but you can see that there's not really a way to debate at this point.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

This is a straw-man since I never once have said that the primary reason for teams losing is luck. My one and only assertion is that it's erroneous to assert that the stronger team ALWAYS goes through (always being the key word).

So your answer is pure deflection. Let's try again: Can you articulate why a team could get one fluke win in a series but not four?

I'll make this easy for you. Four games cannot be called a fluke any more. It means one team is doing something that allows them to reach the objective faster than the other one thus making them the better team. Again, the results determine the better team in a 7-game series. Not the method used to achieve said results.

Can you please define "better"?

 

[LilySmoov]

I didn't read your argument with another poster. Here are the bullet points* to what I'm saying:

• The best team is the one who wins a 7-game series.
• There are enough variables in seven games to even out luck and allow the superior team to win. In other words, winning a series isn't a 'fluke'.
• Injuries are one of the only reasons a better team will lose.
• Words like "Best" or "Always" are used prosaically, not as an analytic measure. 98% = "Always", in this context.

*The points are neither real bullets, nor do they have actual pointy ends.

See, my question still stands, and the reason is the qualifiers in your third and fourth bullets. The entire point of this thread is to find out what those other reasons are; it's to identity those 2% of series where the better team loses.

Your user title is painfully appropriate.

 

[Lshap]

Evidence supporting the assertion in bold?

Here's my evidence: I have never seen a team with the better aggregated performance lose a playoff series.

 

[Lshap]

See, my question still stands, and the reason is the qualifiers in your third and fourth bullets. The entire point of this thread is to find out what those other reasons are; it's to identity those 2% of series where the better team loses.

Your user title is painfully appropriate.

And an argument lost in the semantic clouds is just plain painful.

The OP asks if when the better team loses. My answer is: Never. Except for injuries and the rarest of exceptions.

 

[Snippit]

And an argument lost in the semantic clouds is just plain painful.

I still don't get what you're arguing for here.

You acknowledged that the exceptions do exist. Okay, cool. The thread was originally meant to find the exceptions.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

I think our understanding is a better representation of reality but you can see that there's not really a way to debate at this point.

My understanding is based on what happened. Your understanding is based on what should have happened. Pray tell, how is your understanding a better representation of reality? Perhaps your understanding is better at predicting what will happen. It sure as hell ain't better at explaining what happened.

 

[LilySmoov]

And an argument lost in the semantic clouds is just plain painful.

The OP asks if when the better team loses. My answer is: Never. Except for injuries and the rarest of exceptions.

The point is to find and discuss those exceptions.

 

[Snippit]

My understanding is based on what happened. Your understanding is based on what should have happened. Pray tell, how is your understanding a better representation of reality? Perhaps your understanding is better at predicting what will happen. It sure as hell ain't better at explaining what happened.

Talk about circular thinking here.

Of course, if you take the position that "the better team always advances", and your evidence is that "they advanced", 100% of the series support your argument. Congratulations.

You're taking the results and consequently twisting the series to fit into the results.

The difference is that 66871 and I recognize that hockey is a sport of high variance, and that variation still exists even in repeated trials. You are of the belief that through a 7 game series, the better team "has" to advance. Okay, cool. We can't refute an illogical belief based upon nothing.

 

[Maestro84]

Pens vs Caps last year stands out quite a bit. From what I remember, the Caps outshot the Pens in all but 3 of the periods played in that series, and yet they somehow still lost. Flower was simply incredible in that series, and no question he straight up stole the Capitals' life savings in that series.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

Talk about circular thinking here.

Of course, if you take the position that "the better team always advances", and your evidence is that "they advanced", 100% of the series support your argument. Congratulations.

You're taking the results and consequently twisting the series to fit into the results.

The difference is that 66871 and I recognize that hockey is a sport of high variance, and that variation still exists even in repeated trials. You are of the belief that through a 7 game series, the better team "has" to advance. Okay, cool. We can't refute an illogical belief based upon nothing.

All we can do is demonstrate the flaws in your thinking.

The day you define "better" team is the day that argument might go somewhere. Otherwise it's pointless.

 

[Snippit]

The day you define "better" team is the day that argument might go somewhere. Otherwise it's pointless.

The team that has a greater chance of winning an individual game.