Debunking the President's Trophy

by AZDWK on Dec 16, 2009 7:35 PM EST

As I'm reveling in the Caps' new position atop the League's standings, I keep hearing words of warning from friends and family. You may have heard them too: the Curse of the President's Trophy. Apparently, if you have the best record in the league for the regular season, you doom yourself to playoff failure. I thought this misconception was confined to the hockey ignorant, but Peerless last week mentioned that having the best record in the league "is not necessarily a good thing if you consider the number of President’s Trophy winners that traded up to a Stanley Cup (seven in 23 seasons)." Then on Ted's Take yesterday: "...we also know that it is highly unusual for the team that has the best record in the NHL to go on and win the Stanley Cup."

The truth: President's Trophy winners have far and away the best track record of winning Cups.

This myth is so easy to debunk, it's barely worth the trouble, but since it keeps popping up, I'll lay it out.

Here's a breakdown of where in the League standings the last 20 Stanley Cup winners finished.

1st (President's Trophy) = 6 teams (DET '08, DET '02, COL '01, DAL '99, NYR '94, CAL '89)
2nd = 2 teams (TB '04, COL '96)
3rd = 1 team (DET '98)
4th = 4 teams (ANA '07, CAR '06, NJ '03, NJ '00)
5th = 2 teams (DET '97, EDM '90)
6th = 2 teams (MON '93, PIT '92)
7th = 1 team (PIT '91)
8th = 1 (PIT '09)
9th = 1 (NJ '95)

Yes, 6 out of 20 is only 30%, but it's far and away the best place to be if you want to win the Cup.

Kaboom. Myth busted. Now let's all just settle down and enjoy our team's success.

If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's editors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 6 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Thank you sir (ma’am?). People should know this.

by sixsevenfiftysix on Dec 16, 2009 7:49 PM EST reply actions

It’s sir. And happy to share the good news!

by AZDWK on Dec 16, 2009 8:26 PM EST reply actions

i wondered how that assertion would hold up – thanks for the info! :)

"No Brooks Laich, no win. Know Brooks Laich, know win."

by kellobellow on Dec 16, 2009 8:49 PM EST reply actions

It angers/saddens me to see way to man PIT’s on that list…

Resign Semin so I don't have to buy yet another new jersey.

by Ovechkin on Dec 16, 2009 10:30 PM EST reply actions

Rec'd

Hockey players aren't like other people. Witt after being hit by a car:
I’m okay. No big deal...I’ve got to go play some hockey. I’m a hockey player.

by zephyr on Dec 16, 2009 11:25 PM EST reply actions 7 recs

Nice. A rec for this picture and a rec for this post.

"So much on my mind I just can't recline. Blastin' holes in the night 'til she bled sunshine."

by Laich It Or Lump It on Dec 17, 2009 9:30 AM EST up reply actions

It’s interesting that the second most cup winners came in fourth place during the regular season. I wonder why that is.

"So much on my mind I just can't recline. Blastin' holes in the night 'til she bled sunshine."

by Laich It Or Lump It on Dec 17, 2009 9:31 AM EST reply actions

My best bet is often times the second best team in the conference can often be the second in a division forcing them to the 4th spot. don’t know if there was snark in that comment but if there was i missed it

"Ovechkin is as subtle as a shot of vodka."

by i12swim on Dec 17, 2009 5:08 PM EST up reply actions

Nope, no snark intended. I was just trying to think of some different reasons why it might play out like that, but nothing seemed quite right to me. What you said makes sense. If there is a strong division and a team just barley misses winning it, the best they can do is fourth place in the conference.

"So much on my mind I just can't recline. Blastin' holes in the night 'til she bled sunshine."

by Laich It Or Lump It on Dec 17, 2009 6:55 PM EST up reply actions

4th is going to be a team that is really good but not the division winner a lot. They could also be a team that climbed out of an early hole and finished hot, but didn’t get burdened with a low seed and forced to face the 1/2 seeds early on. I dunno, you’d probably have to look at the specific teams/seasons to figure it out.

In an ideal world all ten fingers would be on my left hand so my right hand could just be a fist for punching.

by Rob Parker on Dec 17, 2009 7:01 PM EST up reply actions

But aren’t these overall league standings? The team in 4th would be the 4th out of 6 division winners.

by sixsevenfiftysix on Dec 17, 2009 9:34 PM EST up reply actions

No, because division winners are not taken into account when looking at the President’s Trophy. The winner of the pres Trophy will win their division (obviously), but second place doesn’t have to be a division winner at all.

Unleash the Alex!

by gotsparkly on Dec 18, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions

Concerning the number of #4 teams:

Look at it from the perspective of seedings within the conference. The teams that finished 4th overall are bolded.

1st seeds: DET ’08, TB ’04, DET ’02, COL ’01, DAL ‘99
2nd seeds: ANA ’07, CAR ’06, NJ ’03
3rd seeds: none
4th seeds: PIT ’09, NJ ‘00

Drilling into the four teams who finished 4th overall: two of them were actually tied in the standings (ANA and NSH ’07, 100 points; CAR and DAL ’06, 112 points) and therefore were only 4th by virtue of a tiebreaker. For the other two teams the standings were so tight that only three points separated 3rd from 5th place.

Or, to say it another way:
- Eight out of 10 Cup winners were #1 or #2 seeds
- Two 4th overall finishers were actually tied with another team
- All 4 of them would have finished 3rd or 5th instead if a team in the opposite conference had won or lost a single game over the course of the season.

I think this shows that there’s nothing special about 4th place. The real thing that emerges is that #1 and #2 seeds have the best chance to win the Cup. It’s hard to argue that being 2nd seeded / 4th overall is somehow superior to being 2nd seeded / 2nd, 3rd or 5th overall. Yes, several of those #2 seeds have landed at #4 overall in the last few years, but I’d call it a coincidence.

by AZDWK on Dec 18, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions

I should have mentioned

I only did the last 10 Cups for this one, because prior to that there were no 4th overall finishers.

by AZDWK on Dec 18, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions

Ok, but the fact remains that i12swim’s hypothesis doesn’t hold water.

by sixsevenfiftysix on Dec 18, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions

You can spin the stats a number of different ways. If you just did this decade it would mean that 4th place teams have won the most. Each year’s Cup run has its own flow and uniqueness, so where a team finishes in the regular season really isn’t all that important. Matchups can also play a large role sometimes. You can have 1st place or whatever other place you want. I’ll take the team full of guys who are ready to sell out come playoff time. A goalie playing well doesn’t hurt either.

A man gotta have a code

by Carl Putnam on Dec 17, 2009 9:58 AM EST reply actions

The myth is winning the Presidents trophy is bad but the actuality is that teams that have won the Presidents trophy have won quite a few times.
Anything better than 1 or 0 sort of busts this myth in my opinion.

So he’s not trying to say which place is better he is just debunking that it’s horrible to be in 1st place.

Hockey players aren't like other people. Witt after being hit by a car:
I’m okay. No big deal...I’ve got to go play some hockey. I’m a hockey player.

by zephyr on Dec 17, 2009 10:39 AM EST up reply actions

I think this whole “myth” thing has been overblown. Most people just point out that winning regular season points race means little come playoff time.

A man gotta have a code

by Carl Putnam on Dec 18, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions

I hear people refer to it as “if you win the presidents trophy you won’t win the cup.” That sort of doesn’t matter though.

Hockey players aren't like other people. Witt after being hit by a car:
I’m okay. No big deal...I’ve got to go play some hockey. I’m a hockey player.

by zephyr on Dec 18, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions

I’m with you that it’s surprising that people still have this idea… thanks for killing it.

Rec’d

DC, where Hockey is a baffling ordeal.

by Chris meet Alex on Dec 17, 2009 11:45 AM EST reply actions

There is no curse

If you could simulate an infinite number of seasons, the reality is that the best team in the regular season will have the highest likelihood of winning the Cup. That is a given based on the law of large numbers. Over the course of 20 seasons, that pattern is muddled by many factors that generate variance (i.e. injuries, a “hot” goalie). A curse is just a lazy label given by people who look at the last 6 seasons and see 1 President’s Cup trophy winner hoist the Cup – it has no statistical merit whatsoever.

by Strong Side on Dec 17, 2009 11:52 AM EST reply actions

I’m not sure I agree with this completely. What you are saying is generally correct— a team’s winning percentage in the regular season will correlate strongly with postseason winning percentage, however the nature of the game itself changes slightly in the postseason.

Energy levels are higher in the post season, no one would argue otherwise. Thus playoff success tends to favor teams with heartier skaters, so to speak. Now, I don’t mean to forecast a poor postseason for the Caps considering our reliance on run and gun, flashy offense (most of the time), nor am I claiming a team of grinders will always trump a team of danglers. All I am saying is, all things being equal, a team that relies and has success getting the puck in deep, and pounding the opposition relentlessly on both sides of the ice, will be better suited to make it deeper in the postseason than their regular season winning percentage might suggest. (ala the Ducks, Canes over the last few years.)

There is a lot of postulating in this post without much to back it up, and I’d love to see some stats comparing regular season win % to postseason success for teams that favor this type of physical play and flow to a game.

by Bushwood Bushwhacker on Dec 17, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions