Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 4,979
- 2,361
Stanley Cup winners with negative goal differentials
- Thread starter Johnny Engine
- Start date
Canadiens1958
Registered User
1945 Toronto
1945 Toronto Maple Leafs. 24 GF / 30 GA. Happens more frequently that a team will win a series despite being outscored, !950 Detroit SC won the semi-finals against Toronto despite being out scored 10GF / 11GA
1945 Toronto Maple Leafs. 24 GF / 30 GA. Happens more frequently that a team will win a series despite being outscored, !950 Detroit SC won the semi-finals against Toronto despite being out scored 10GF / 11GA
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I was thinking this myself today. It's pretty funny, they keep winning the close games and getting ****kicked in their losses.
Christian Ehrhoff is a game away from a really dubious record, too - worst playoff +/- by a Stanley Cup winner (he's at -10 right now, I couldn't find anyone who posted a rating below -7 before)
Christian Ehrhoff is a game away from a really dubious record, too - worst playoff +/- by a Stanley Cup winner (he's at -10 right now, I couldn't find anyone who posted a rating below -7 before)
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
It's happenned once.
From the current Stanley Cup Playoffs board thread:
Has a team ever won a Cup with a negative goal differential in the playoffs?
From the current Stanley Cup Playoffs board thread:
Has a team ever won a Cup with a negative goal differential in the playoffs?
I believe Grant Jennings holds the "record", posting a -9 in the Pens run in '92. On the other hand, he only played ten games. Scott Mellanby was -10 in '96 but of course his Panthers lost in the finals.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Ouch. I didn't check the 92 pens. Looks like ehrhoff might not break the record... with a little luck.
I have no problem at all with this since the fundamental unit of the sport is the game. The object is to score more goals than the opponent in a game, not over a series of games--at least today.
There's no parallel in the NHL apparently, given pnep's usual invaluable contribution. But off the top, I remember the Pittsburgh Pirates doing the same to the New York Yankees in the 1960 World Series.
Edit: And how! Just looked it up. Here are the game scores, Yankees first, 4-6, 16-3, 10-0, 2-3, 2-5, 12-0, 9-10.
That adds up to 55-27 in runs scored, but 3-4 in games won.
There's no parallel in the NHL apparently, given pnep's usual invaluable contribution. But off the top, I remember the Pittsburgh Pirates doing the same to the New York Yankees in the 1960 World Series.
Edit: And how! Just looked it up. Here are the game scores, Yankees first, 4-6, 16-3, 10-0, 2-3, 2-5, 12-0, 9-10.
That adds up to 55-27 in runs scored, but 3-4 in games won.
Last edited:
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Very True
Very true. Baseball is often dependent on starting pitching match-ups. In the 1960 WS Danny Murtaugh the Pirates manager out - managed Casey Stengal the Yankees manager by arranging his pitching staff so that his ace Vern Law was guaranteed 3 starts if necessary while Stengal held his ace Whitey Ford until the third game effectively limiting him to only 2 starts.Beyond the three starters Law, Friend, Haddix and the best reliever in the game Elroy Face, the Pirates had so-so pitching. In game 3 Murtaugh started Mizell his #4 starter against Whitey Ford.
The Yankees ran up the score against the weak relievers but Ford's two shutouts could not change the advantage that the Pirates had in pitching in the remaining 5 games.
Hockey is not dependent on a single player(pitcher) who can start every three or four games in the playoffs like baseball so the reason's are much more subtle and widespread when anomalies happen.
Very true. Baseball is often dependent on starting pitching match-ups. In the 1960 WS Danny Murtaugh the Pirates manager out - managed Casey Stengal the Yankees manager by arranging his pitching staff so that his ace Vern Law was guaranteed 3 starts if necessary while Stengal held his ace Whitey Ford until the third game effectively limiting him to only 2 starts.Beyond the three starters Law, Friend, Haddix and the best reliever in the game Elroy Face, the Pirates had so-so pitching. In game 3 Murtaugh started Mizell his #4 starter against Whitey Ford.
The Yankees ran up the score against the weak relievers but Ford's two shutouts could not change the advantage that the Pirates had in pitching in the remaining 5 games.
Hockey is not dependent on a single player(pitcher) who can start every three or four games in the playoffs like baseball so the reason's are much more subtle and widespread when anomalies happen.
WingsFan95
Registered User
Bottom line, the 2011 Nucks will be the first team in 80 years with less than 10 goal differential.....fantastic.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
DJ Man
Registered User
One would think that this would happen only in the high-scoring periods of NHL history.
When the typical scores are 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 and so on, you aren't likely to get so many 6-2, 8-3 and 11-0 games that are needed to create this situation.
When the typical scores are 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 and so on, you aren't likely to get so many 6-2, 8-3 and 11-0 games that are needed to create this situation.
Both the Canucks and Bruins have had a weird playoffs, the Canucks one of the weirdest in history if they win the CUP.
Bottom line is that fans in both cities have been waiting a long time for this to happen and they won't care how their teams stack up historically.
Bottom line is that fans in both cities have been waiting a long time for this to happen and they won't care how their teams stack up historically.
Or perhaps the contrary? With all these close games, one needs just one or two major losses to create a situation like this.
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
Interesting point - in a high-scoring era, it would be easier to erase the differential caused by one or two really bad games.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Negative Differential
Negative differential in goals for and against should be viewed strictly on a per series basis since reversing the negative differential with results from a previous or later series gives a false reading and opens the door to misunderstandings as to cause and effect.
The 1972 Summit Series is worthy of consideration as are others on an individual series basis.
Negative differential in goals for and against should be viewed strictly on a per series basis since reversing the negative differential with results from a previous or later series gives a false reading and opens the door to misunderstandings as to cause and effect.
The 1972 Summit Series is worthy of consideration as are others on an individual series basis.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
Looking at too short of a time frame also opens the door to misunderstandings.
reckoning
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2005
- 7,020
- 1,264
This is an example of why I have a problem with the pythagorean formulas which use a teams GF/GA as a measure to judge their worth. Some claim that it's just as valid as a teams W-L-T record; but the major flaw with it is that blowouts will skew the rankings. Every game is an independent event, which should have an equal weight.
I think there is something to the idea that a teams record in close games is more likely to gravitate towards .500, and that teams with exorbinantly high or low records in 1-goal games will even themselves out over the long haul. But there's there's really no difference between losing 6-1 or 9-1.
I think there is something to the idea that a teams record in close games is more likely to gravitate towards .500, and that teams with exorbinantly high or low records in 1-goal games will even themselves out over the long haul. But there's there's really no difference between losing 6-1 or 9-1.
overpass
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2007
- 5,271
- 2,807
I prefer the version of the pythagorean formula that is calculated on a game by game basis. I believe it's been shown to be slightly more accurate in baseball, at least, mostly because it treats the game as the unit of measure and keeps blowouts from affecting the numbers disproportionately.
For this final series, the numbers for Vancouver would be:
Game 1: 1-0 = 1.00 wins
Game 2: 3-2 = 0.69 wins
Game 3: 1-8 = 0.02 wins
Game 4: 0-4 = 0.00 wins
Game 5: 1-0 = 1.00 wins
Games 1-5: 2.71 wins
Where the classic pythagorean formula would give them 0.78 estimated wins for 6 GF and 14 GA in 5 games.
For the 1960 World Series referenced earlier, the numbers for Pittsburgh:
6-4: 0.69 wins
3-16: 0.03 wins
0-10: 0.00 wins
3-2: 0.69 wins
5-2: 0.86 wins
0-12: 0.00 wins
10-9: 0.55 wins
Series: 2.83 estimated wins, where the classic pythagorean would give 1.36 estimated wins.
Of course this method is a lot more time-consuming to calculate, especially for a full season. It also gives all shutouts the same value, which may or may not be right. But I think it's a better method than just using aggregate GF and GA.
WingsFan95
Registered User
I just think blowouts in such situations are a testament to the team's mentality.
Basically, fight for a close win, if you're up a goal, put your foot down and keep it.
If you're down 3 goals, stop trying and save energy for the next game.
This is most common in tennis where I've seen too many games a player gives up on a set if down 3-0 or 4-1 and save energy for the next set.
Compare this NHL series to tennis and it'd look something like:
7-6
0-6
7-5
1-6
Entering the fifth set, or the six/seventh game, all that matters is the team win the last game.
So if we're to judge the Nucks, they're just less professional in my opinion than most past Cup Champs. But a Champ is still a Champ.
Basically, fight for a close win, if you're up a goal, put your foot down and keep it.
If you're down 3 goals, stop trying and save energy for the next game.
This is most common in tennis where I've seen too many games a player gives up on a set if down 3-0 or 4-1 and save energy for the next set.
Compare this NHL series to tennis and it'd look something like:
7-6
0-6
7-5
1-6
Entering the fifth set, or the six/seventh game, all that matters is the team win the last game.
So if we're to judge the Nucks, they're just less professional in my opinion than most past Cup Champs. But a Champ is still a Champ.
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
The reason that GF/GA is used is that it generally predicts future success (in terms of W-L-T) than actual past W-L-T does. This implies that it is a better measure of team effectiveness than W-L-T is.
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
Is saving energy for the next set more professional or less professional? Don't professional teams often play to the score?
WingsFan95
Registered User
Well the obvious difference is that in tennis it's one/two players, in hockey it's a whole team.
But when you're down 3-4 goals, most teams do tend to coast, both ways. The Sedins aren't going to be pressed to light it up down 4-1 in the 3rd period because it's not worth the risk.
But at the same time, the team shouldn't let their star goalie kept in when he's allowed 5, 6, 7 goals.
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,301
- 4,353
So the Canucks are now at -11. The North Stars at -12 in '91 are the only other team to even survive to a sixth game with that bad of a differential, and even then it was mostly racked up in the sixth game (an 8-0 loss). Every other time, at least as far back as the '67 expansion, the team on the negative end of a double-digit deficit was dispatched in four or five. One of the most unprecedented statistical occurences in NHL history just to survive to a 7th game with that poor of an overall performance, nevermind possibly winning the series.
WingsFan95
Registered User
Like I said, less professional.
I suspect the Nucks in the 1st round up 3-0 just coasted hoping the Hawks would lay down.
They did the same in Game 3 this series.
