Playoff series where the better team lost?

[rent free]

LOL

Only a Nashville fan would say this.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

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

And how exactly do you find that?

 

[Lshap]

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.

Except most of the exceptions being listed here aren't really exceptions, because those weaker teams weren't actually weaker during the series. A team can have a weak regular season, but come on strong in the playoffs. When an 8th seed beats a 1st seed we call that an 'upset' based on expectations, but if they beat the other guy fair and square in a series, the 8th seed was the best team. They didn't win because of flukes or reffing, they won because for those two weeks their players were better than the other players.

 

[Lshap]

The point is to find and discuss those exceptions.

I think my post above answers that.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

Except most of the exceptions being listed here aren't really exceptions, because those weaker teams weren't actually weaker during the series. A team can have a weak regular season, but come on strong in the playoffs. When an 8th seed beats a 1st seed we call that an 'upset' based on expectations, but if they beat the other guy fair and square in a series, the 8th seed was the best team. They didn't win because of flukes or reffing, they won because for those two weeks their players were better than the other players.

Pretty much exactly my thoughts.

 

[Snippit]

And how exactly do you find that?

It's subjective, but if a team has better possession numbers and more high danger scoring chances and equal goaltending, they are more likely to win that game.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

It's subjective, but if a team has better possession numbers and more high danger scoring chances and equal goaltending, they are more likely to win that game.

So your definition of the "better" team is the one that has the higher number in those metrics?

 

[Snippit]

Except most of the exceptions being listed here aren't really exceptions, because those weaker teams weren't actually weaker during the series. A team can have a weak regular season, but come on strong in the playoffs. When an 8th seed beats a 1st seed we call that an 'upset' based on expectations, but if they beat the other guy fair and square in a series, the 8th seed was the best team. They didn't win because of flukes or reffing, they won because for those two weeks their players were better than the other players.

You might disagree with the series that are being listed. Cool, that's the point of the thread - to get discussion going.

Some people might think that certain series did happen because of flukes or reffing.

 

[ColbyChaos]

Habs over the Bruins in 14. There was a ridiculous amount of posts hit by Boston with everyone knowing MTL would have no chance in hell had they actually made the finals over BOS/NYR

 

[Lshap]

You might disagree with the series that are being listed. Cool, that's the point of the thread - to get discussion going.

Some people might think that certain series did happen because of flukes or reffing.

On this board, EVERY series was decided because of flukes and reffing.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

Habs over the Bruins in 14. There was a ridiculous amount of posts hit by Boston with everyone knowing MTL would have no chance in hell had they actually made the finals over BOS/NYR

I remember both teams hitting a fair number of posts in that series. It was fairly competitive and Bruins were in no way shape or form the better team. It was very close.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

You might disagree with the series that are being listed. Cool, that's the point of the thread - to get discussion going.

Some people might think that certain series did happen because of flukes or reffing.

Every fan thinks their team outplayed the other one here and every fan thinks the refs are against their team.

 

[North Cole]

Every playoff series my team lost.... damn refs. Fixing games...





/s

 

[Snippit]

So your definition of the "better" team is the one that has the higher number in those metrics?

My definition of the better team is the one who would win the greatest number of games between them if a sufficiently large sample size was to be played. Essentially the probability of winning a single game argument, with sufficient sample size to prove it.

My point is that you can have the higher probability of winning but still come up short due to the limitations of a 7 game sample.

HDSC, possession are good indicators within a specific game of who might win. But it doesn't really matter if "better team" is something measurable or not.

The better team, quite simply, is the team that would win more if you played an infinite number of independent games. But if you take a limited sample of trials, the better team may not have the majority of wins.

 

[Snippit]

Every fan thinks their team outplayed the other one here and every fan thinks the refs are against their team.

I agree most people are biased.

I put more stock into neutral fans opinions.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

My definition of the better team is the one who would win the greatest number of games between them if a sufficiently large sample size was to be played. Essentially the probability of winning a single game argument, with sufficient sample size to prove it.

My point is that you can have the higher probability of winning but still come up short due to the limitations of a 7 game sample.

HDSC, possession are good indicators within a specific game of who might win. But it doesn't really matter if "better team" is something measurable or not.

The better team, quite simply, is the team that would win more if you played an infinite number of independent games. But if you take a limited sample of trials, the better team may not have the majority of wins.

I can definitely understand where you're coming from.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

2014 Cup Final.

 

[Halakitlikethat]

Habs over the Bruins in 14. There was a ridiculous amount of posts hit by Boston with everyone knowing MTL would have no chance in hell had they actually made the finals over BOS/NYR

Explain why Boston didn’t show up in game 7 in their own building then

 

[Montreal Shadow]

Explain why Boston didn’t show up in game 7 in their own building then

Yeah not sure what he means. Montreal outscored Boston 7 to 1 the last two games lol.

 

[66871]

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

Then unless you've watched all the series being put forward as examples, you are in no position to categorically refute that the better team lost. You can't reasonably expect to rely on personal anecdote for your own argument and deny others the same luxury.

 

[66871]

And how exactly do you find that?

http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/Win_Probabilities.pdf

 

[StarvinArvyn33]

Only a Nashville fan would say this.

if you mean the Mackinnon line sure, but as a team.... you are in the minority besides avs homers

 

[LilySmoov]

Then unless you've watched all the series being put forward as examples, you are in no position to categorically refute that the better team lost. You can't reasonably expect to rely on personal anecdote for your own argument and deny others the same luxury.

It gets even better, because he undermines the validity of his own anecdote:

Except most of the exceptions being listed here aren't really exceptions, because those weaker teams weren't actually weaker during the series. A team can have a weak regular season, but come on strong in the playoffs. When an 8th seed beats a 1st seed we call that an 'upset' based on expectations, but if they beat the other guy fair and square in a series, the 8th seed was the best team. They didn't win because of flukes or reffing, they won because for those two weeks their players were better than the other players.

 

[Lshap]

It gets even better, because he undermines the validity of his own anecdote:

Then unless you've watched all the series being put forward as examples, you are in no position to categorically refute that the better team lost. You can't reasonably expect to rely on personal anecdote for your own argument and deny others the same luxury.

Here's a newsflash for both of you: This entire debate is founded on personal anecdote. There is no way to measure 'Best team' except by the ridiculously obvious answer that the team that wins the series was the best. Forget measurements, because no possession stats or shot counts weigh more than the number 4, which represents games won. When team-A outscores team-B four times, they were better. Disagree? Okay, then we're talking about perception, not numbers. And perception is purely personal, which is why the attempts to twist this into an analytic debate are so silly.

So what evidence have you presented that personal perception of a best-of-seven series outweighs actual results? Nothing. You're trying to make your case based on exceptions -- except they aren't really exceptions at all. A lucky bounce can elevate a lesser team over a better one? No, not over an entire series it can't. Lucky bounces even out over a best-of-seven. A hot goalie steals the series from a superior team? No, because teams win based on aggregate performance, not on an overall average performance of the whole roster. If the other guy's goalie was that much hotter than yours, you didn't have the better team. Just like if their star forward was much better than yours. Hockey's a team game decided by individuals; sometimes those individuals are hot goalies. A lower-seed beats a higher-seed? No, that's an upset based on regular season stats, not based on their performance in the playoffs. In that series, the lower-seed was the better team.

The only real examples of the better team losing are because of injuries. So what do you have left? Maybe one or two examples where a foot in the crease decided the final game, or a dman scored on his own net? Even then, maybe not, but I'm giving those to you because I'm uncomfortable stamping 100% onto any subjective debate.

The bottom line is that all the examples given of the better team losing haven't shown that they were, in fact, the better team. All they've shown is that the poster expected that team to win, or wanted them to win, or wanted the other team to lose. And so they named their favourite team the "Better team" based on those emotional factors. However, wanting or expecting one team to win doesn't make them better when, in the end, they lost.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/Win_Probabilities.pdf

Except that doesn't prove that it's the better team. Your presumption of better is the team that has the better number in some statistics. That's your entirely subjective definition of better.