Playoff series where the better team lost?

[Ivan13]

Preds fans probably won't agree, but I feel that the Avs this year were the better team for most of the series, but paid for their inexperience and mistakes dearly because Preds are a more talented team.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

Preds fans probably won't agree, but I feel that the Avs this year were the better team for most of the series, but paid for their inexperience and mistakes dearly because Preds are a more talented team.

I'm not a Predators fan and I disagree.

 

[Ivan13]

I'm not a Predators fan and I disagree.

OK, based on what?

 

[Snippit]

@Lshap

Ultimately what it comes down to is your belief that 7 games is a sufficient sample size such that all "luck" variables can balance out.

Now, examining basic probability should tell you that statistics do not balance out over a sample size of a small number like 7 in 100% of the cases. I've demonstrated this many times in the thread.

 

[Lshap]

@Lshap

Ultimately what it comes down to is your belief that 7 games is a sufficient sample size such that all "luck" variables can balance out.

Now, examining basic probability should tell you that statistics do not balance out over a sample size of a small number like 7 in 100% of the cases. I've demonstrated this many times in the thread.

I get what you're saying, but my point is that the sample size isn't 7. It's thousands of shots, passes, bounces, and deflections -- multiplied by 7. The way I see it, each series represents many thousands of variables taking place between the same two rosters over two weeks -- enough of a sample size to qualify the winner as the better team. As I said in my longer post earlier, it's a debate between perception versus numbers. The numbers have the final word: Teams win because they score a greater number of goals and prevent a greater number of goals, and they do those two things at the right time.

So outside of injuries, why would anyone think a team can be "Better" when they lose? Probably because we believed they were better heading into the series, and we refused to update our opinion when the actual series played out differently than expected. Instead of saying "That was unexpected", we cling to our earlier perception and say, "The better team lost". No they didn't. They may have been better during the regular season. They may have a better roster on paper. They may have played better in this or that period during the series. But over the entire series the tens of thousands of variables added up to the other team playing better and winning.

'Should've' / 'could've' / 'might have' doesn't make a losing team better. Neither does expecting or wanting them to win. Nothing makes a team better in a series except winning it.

 

[topshelf15]

Curious how a team can win 4 games in a seven game series and still be lucky.

We won 11 and its still considered lucky.....

 

[Snippit]

I get what you're saying, but my point is that the sample size isn't 7. It's thousands of shots, passes, bounces, and deflections -- multiplied by 7. The way I see it, each series represents many thousands of variables taking place between the same two rosters over two weeks -- enough of a sample size to qualify the winner as the better team. As I said in my longer post earlier, it's a debate between perception versus numbers. The numbers have the final word: Teams win because they score a greater number of goals and prevent a greater number of goals, and they do those two things at the right time.

So outside of injuries, why would anyone think a team can be "Better" when they lose? Probably because we believed they were better heading into the series, and we refused to update our opinion when the actual series played out differently than expected. Instead of saying "That was unexpected", we cling to our earlier perception and say, "The better team lost". No they didn't. They may have been better during the regular season. They may have a better roster on paper. They may have played better in this or that period during the series. But over the entire series the tens of thousands of variables added up to the other team playing better and winning.

'Should've' / 'could've' / 'might have' doesn't make a losing team better. Neither does expecting or wanting them to win. Nothing makes a team better in a series except winning it.

Agree to disagree I guess. We’ve both made our points and it’s just a difference of opinion at this point.

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

Panthers over the Penguins in '96 still pains me to this day. Fans were robbed of an Avalanche/Penguins final that would've been star-studded and much more competitive.

 

[Rorschach]

The Kings have done it several times.

2001 vs Red Wings
1990 vs Flames
1989 vs Oilers
1982 vs Oilers

I think each of those times the team was the defending Cup champs or recent champs and three of the four won a Cup the year after.

 

[TurboLemon]

Did anyone mention exhibit a) Speedbag a Sedin and end uwith the Sedin going to the sin bin?

 

[c9777666]

Dryden vs Boston/Chicago 1971

 

[DEVILS130]

'Canes-Sabres in 2006 ECF

Sabres were missing like 4 defensemen in that series and still pushed it to 7

This was the first one I thought of as well

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

I'd say Blues/Hawks 2016. The Blues won 2 games on fluke 3rd period/OT goals that were not even shots, and the Hawks hit an incredible amount of posts, including 2 in game 7 that went off both posts and somehow stayed out of the net. Hawks lost that series because of poor puck luck and nothing more, they outplayed the Blues in the series and somehow lost.

 

[hockeyisgud]

I get what you're saying, but my point is that the sample size isn't 7. It's thousands of shots, passes, bounces, and deflections -- multiplied by 7. The way I see it, each series represents many thousands of variables taking place between the same two rosters over two weeks -- enough of a sample size to qualify the winner as the better team. As I said in my longer post earlier, it's a debate between perception versus numbers. The numbers have the final word: Teams win because they score a greater number of goals and prevent a greater number of goals, and they do those two things at the right time.

So outside of injuries, why would anyone think a team can be "Better" when they lose? Probably because we believed they were better heading into the series, and we refused to update our opinion when the actual series played out differently than expected. Instead of saying "That was unexpected", we cling to our earlier perception and say, "The better team lost". No they didn't. They may have been better during the regular season. They may have a better roster on paper. They may have played better in this or that period during the series. But over the entire series the tens of thousands of variables added up to the other team playing better and winning.

'Should've' / 'could've' / 'might have' doesn't make a losing team better. Neither does expecting or wanting them to win. Nothing makes a team better in a series except winning it.

Yes it is. Your argument would only make sense if every battle/shot/variable you talk about was give a fraction of a win and then at the end of the series they were all added up to determine the winner. In hockey you can destroy someone 1 game, play them even the next and have the series tied 1-1. That mixed with the fact that edges are so small in hockey and obviously the ¨worse¨ team is going to win the series sometimes. Saying that the team who wins the series was always the better team is ridiculous. They are of course DESERVING of the win, but that isn´t the same thing as being the better team. 7 game sample size is way too small.

 

[Lshap]

Yes it is. Your argument would only make sense if every battle/shot/variable you talk about was give a fraction of a win and then at the end of the series they were all added up to determine the winner. In hockey you can destroy someone 1 game, play them even the next and have the series tied 1-1. That mixed with the fact that edges are so small in hockey and obviously the ¨worse¨ team is going to win the series sometimes. Saying that the team who wins the series was always the better team is ridiculous. They are of course DESERVING of the win, but that isn´t the same thing as being the better team. 7 game sample size is way too small.

So which numbers make a team better even when they lose? Easy to say "The better team lost!", but how were they better? Because they took more shots? No. That means their forwards were better than the other team's forwards, but if those shots couldn't get past the other goalie and defence, then, as a team they weren't better. I'll repeat: Hockey's a team game won by individuals. The catch is it's not always the individuals you expect. In 2010, Washington was a much better team than Montreal during the season, but not in the playoffs. In that series, Cammalleri was better than Ovi and Halak was better than almost everyone. The better team won, not because they were better on paper or better during the season, but because they were better during those seven games. It wasn't the better team losing, it was the unexpected team winning.

There is no statistic I can think of that can make a team 'better' when, injuries aside, they couldn't manage four wins in 300-400+ minutes of head-to-head hockey, including, yes, thousands of those shots, bounces, hits, passes, and deflections I mentioned. Of course each event doesn't represent a fraction of a win. It's not a loyalty-card that gives you win-rewards with every 10 shots. It's just probability. Each of those thousands of events are tiny increments that increase the probability that the stronger, more resilient, more focused, more talented, and more disciplined team will win over a two-week series. They might not have been the better team two weeks earlier, but they were better in the series.

We can keep debating the definition of "Better", though I think the debate is really about the "Unexpected". But this might be the point where we agree to disagree.

 

[Hynh]

1986 Smythe division final.

 

[Fvital92]

2017 Ottawa x NYR.

 

[hockeyisgud]

So which numbers make a team better even when they lose? Easy to say "The better team lost!", but how were they better? Because they took more shots? No. That means their forwards were better than the other team's forwards, but if those shots couldn't get past the other goalie and defence, then, as a team they weren't better. I'll repeat: Hockey's a team game won by individuals. The catch is it's not always the individuals you expect. In 2010, Washington was a much better team than Montreal during the season, but not in the playoffs. In that series, Cammalleri was better than Ovi and Halak was better than almost everyone. The better team won, not because they were better on paper or better during the season, but because they were better during those seven games. It wasn't the better team losing, it was the unexpected team winning.

There is no statistic I can think of that can make a team 'better' when, injuries aside, they couldn't manage four wins in 300-400+ minutes of head-to-head hockey, including, yes, thousands of those shots, bounces, hits, passes, and deflections I mentioned. Of course each event doesn't represent a fraction of a win. It's not a loyalty-card that gives you win-rewards with every 10 shots. It's just probability. Each of those thousands of events are tiny increments that increase the probability that the stronger, more resilient, more focused, more talented, and more disciplined team will win over a two-week series. They might not have been the better team two weeks earlier, but they were better in the series.

We can keep debating the definition of "Better", though I think the debate is really about the "Unexpected". But this might be the point where we agree to disagree.

Ya I guess we just disagree on what "better" means. Results oriented thinking would say the team who won is "better" but with the 7 game sample size I just don't think it is even CLOSE to enough to conclusively say one team is "better" that the other.

Agree to disagree though .