Playoff Success by Seed (with a poll!)
by D'ohboy on Feb 3, 2011 1:06 PM EST
Email
PrintAfter the discussion about playoff seeding yesterday, I decided to do some research about how different seeds have fared in the playoffs since the lockout. I posted the numbers in the Clips thread, but it was pretty late and I'm interested to hear what more folks think, and I'd rather not take a second Clips thread to the margin. I've also added the data since the NHL went to Conference-based, rather than Division-based playoffs. The results and a poll below the jump.
(For those of you who want to skip the wall 'o text below, skip to the bottom and click on the image, or click here for the Google Doc.)
1994-1998: The league went from a divisional playoff to a conference playoff in 1994. There were still only four divisions in two conferences, but instead of having each division play each other, the top eight teams were seeded in order of finish (no preference for division winners) and there was re-seeding after each round.
First Round Matchup Records:
1 vs 8: 7-3
2 vs 7: 4-6
3 vs 6: 8-2
4 vs 5: 7-3
Conference Finals Appearances:
1 Seed: 5
2 Seed: 3
3 Seed: 5
4 Seed: 3
5 Seed: 2
6 Seed: 1
7 Seed: 1
8 Seed: 0
Total: 20
Cup Finals Appearances:
1 Seed: 2
2 Seed: 1
3 Seed: 3
4 Seed: 2
5 Seed: 1
6 Seed: 0
7 Seed: 1
8 Seed: 0
Total: 10
Stanley Cups:
1 Seed: 1
2 Seed: 1
3 Seed: 2
4 Seed: 0
5 Seed: 1
6 Seed: 0
7 Seed: 0
8 Seed: 0
Total: 5
1999-2004: 1998-99 saw the introduction of the conference format as we know it today: two conferences, each with three divisions, with the division winners getting the top three seeds.
First Round Matchup Records:
1 vs 8: 9-3
2 vs 7: 5-7
3 vs 6: 8-4
4 vs 5: 10-2
Conference Finals Appearances:
1 Seed: 7
2 Seed: 5
3 Seed: 3
4 Seed: 4
5 Seed: 0
6 Seed: 3
7 Seed: 2
8 Seed: 0
Total: 24
Cup Finals Appearances:
1 Seed: 5
2 Seed: 2
3 Seed: 1
4 Seed: 1
5 Seed: 0
6 Seed: 1
7 Seed: 2
8 Seed: 0
Total: 12
Stanley Cups:
1 Seed: 4
2 Seed: 1
3 Seed: 0
4 Seed: 1
5 Seed: 0
6 Seed: 0
7 Seed: 0
8 Seed: 0
Total: 6
2006-2010: Although the format of the playoffs is technically unchanged since the lockout, I think that the introduction of a salary cap and the shootout may have an effect on seeding, therefore I've separated it out.
First Round Matchup Records:
1 vs 8: 7-3
2 vs 7: 8-2
3 vs 6: 4-6
4 vs 5: 5-5
Conference Finals Appearances:
1 Seed: 4
2 Seed: 5
3 Seed: 0
4 Seed: 4
5 Seed: 1
6 Seed: 3
7 Seed: 1
8 Seed: 2
Total: 20
Cup Finals Appearances:
1 Seed: 1
2 Seed: 5
3 Seed: 0
4 Seed: 2
5 Seed: 0
6 Seed: 0
7 Seed: 1
8 Seed: 1
Total: 10
Stanley Cups:
1 Seed: 1
2 Seed: 3
3 Seed: 0
4 Seed: 1
5 Seed: 0
6 Seed: 0
7 Seed: 0
8 Seed: 0
Total: 5
Totals from 1994-2010:
First Round Matchup Records:
1 vs 8: 23-9
2 vs 7: 17-15
3 vs 6: 20-12
4 vs 5: 22-10
Conference Finals Appearances:
1 Seed: 16
2 Seed: 13
3 Seed: 8
4 Seed: 11
5 Seed: 3
6 Seed: 7
7 Seed: 4
8 Seed: 2
Cup Finals Appearances:
1 Seed: 8
2 Seed: 8
3 Seed: 4
4 Seed: 5
5 Seed: 1
6 Seed: 1
7 Seed: 4
8 Seed: 1
Stanley Cups:
1 Seed: 6
2 Seed: 5
3 Seed: 2
4 Seed: 2
5 Seed: 1
6 Seed: 0
7 Seed: 0
8 Seed: 0
Here's all the data in a table (click it to get a better image):
(Sorry for the blurriness of the table. It looks great on Tinypic, but the instant I upload it to SBN it goes all to hell.)
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.
48 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Always First...
Having home ice for Game 7 is usually an edge. Admittedly the Caps are 1-3 in those, but that can and will change…
Washington Capitals 2009-10 = Quebec Nordiques 1994-95
--- D'ohboy
I Took Second
Not necessarily because of the 2 seed’s post-season success since the lockout. If the Caps get the 2 seed, that means a few things:
1) They pulled their heads out of their asses in the last two months;
2) Related to #1, they probably figured out the #2C issue;
3) Home Ice and an “easier” matchup; and
4) By avoiding the top spot, they’ll avoid some of the media attention regarding last year’s loss to Montreal. Finish first again, and that’s all the media will want to talk about.
T-R-A-P: TRAP, TRAP, TRAP!!!
Agree, I went for #2. I don’t want the top seed this team seems to get tight, and I don’t want the endless “here we go again” stories. But getting #2 would mean they went on a good run and got some mojo back, but excitement is still tempered. #1 is only better then #2 for the ECF and beyond which I’ll worry about when they get there.
On a different note one of the interesting things I noticed would be what one might call the “weak sister” division effect. It seems that the #3 seed performs markedly worse then where you would expect a true third best team. The #6 seed doesn’t ever seem to be able to take advantage of playing the weak sister though.
Except the Flyers of 2007-2008 when they played the Caps. (But one could argue that the Caps of that year were more like an 8th seed than a 3rd seed.)
Rocking the Red for teams on the banks of the Potomac and at the Gateway Arch and Singing the Blues about Hockey.
I would assume that because the 4 seed might be a better team (more points) then some of the higher seeds but finished second in their division and therefore can’t be seeded any higher
by crazycaldwell on Feb 3, 2011 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
Right. This is why I like what (I think?) the NBA does. Division winners are guaranteed a spot and home-court/field/ice in the first round, but not necessarily the top three spots (i.e., division winners are three of the top four). This way, if the top two teams in the conference are in the same division, as it looks like could very well happen this year with Philly and Pittsburgh, the top two teams in the conference are seeded 1 and 2, instead of 1 and 4.
Eat, drink, and be merry! And then drink some more.
by SmallZ827 on Feb 3, 2011 2:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Appreciate the leg-work, but the small sample size caveats very much apply to this analysis. That said, here is what I focused on:
Cup Finals Appearances:
1 Seed: 8
2 Seed: 8
Stanley Cups:
1 Seed: 6
2 Seed: 5
Lots of variability over the timeframe, but it seemed pretty obvious that the numbers show that the best teams in the regular season are generally the best teams in the postseason.
Plus, for the Caps to be seeded #1, that would mean they played like gangbusters to finish out the year, which is what you want to happen. So I voted #1.
It’s interesting how the 2nd seed lost so many times to the 7th seed, until the lockout. And the 3rd seed dominated the 6th until then, but has a losing record since the lockout. My vote goes for 2nd seed, to avoid the pressure of being the 1st seed while still winning the division.
Matt Bradley: He has sensitive skin, no?
Vote, comment, read… off to read now.
J/k. I voted “1st.” If the Caps somehow won the Conference, they’d have to be playing some pretty awesome hockey come playoff time.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
If the Caps somehow won the Conference, they’d have to be playing some pretty awesome hockey come playoff time.
You and D’oh both said it. I think it’s kind of a cop out. If the choice is “seeding or playing well” then you two are saying “both.” That’s pretty obvious. I’m looking at it more like “would I rather replay last year where they weren’t playing their best hockey when the playoffs came around but had the seeding, or would I rather them limp through the regular season but play well in the playoffs.” Combining the two by saying “we can’t get the top seed without playing well at this point,” while true, is unfaithful to the basic argument.
One thing Caps and Pens fans agree on, Blueshit Banter sucks.
Ok, I’ll be clearer. If given a choice between having the Caps get super-hot over the next 3-4 weeks, then cooling off the last week of the season and being the #2 seed, or being kinda-sorta mediocre the next few weeks, then surging at the very end of the season to grab one of the 4/5/6 seeds, I’d take the #2 seed.
Right now, there are two “elite” teams in the East – the Pens and the Flyers. Then there are 4-5 teams that occupy the next rung down: Washington, Boston, Tampa Bay, Montreal and maaaaaaybe NYR. After that, there are a few teams that will fight it out for the final spot: Atlanta, Carolina, Buffalo and Florida. So let’s draw up two hypothetical seedings:
If the Caps get the 2 Seed:
1. Philly/Pitt
2. Caps
3. Boston
4. Pittsburgh/Philly
5. Tampa
6. Montreal
7. Rangers
8. Atlanta/Buffalo/Florida/Carolina
In this seeding, let’s say probability holds (I know it won’t, but it makes for a clear hypothetical), and every higher seed wins. The Caps would play NYR, then Boston, then get to meet the “winner” of Philly vs. Pitt in the Conference finals. I put winner in quotations, because those teams would very likely claw each other to tiny bits, leaving them weaker for their next opponent.
For the sake of argument, if there’s an upset (3 vs. 6 is where it usually happens) and Montreal downs the B’s. Then the Caps would have to face the Pens with home ice advantage in the second round, just like 08-09.
If the Caps get the 5 Seed:
1. Philly/Pitt
2. Boston
3. Tampa
4. Pittsburgh/Philly
5. Washington
6. Montreal
7. NYR
8. Atlanta/Florida/Buffalo/Carolina
In this scenario, the Caps get one of the two best teams in the Conference right off the bat. They’d probably be better off tanking and going for the #6 seed, to be honest. If all the higher seeds except the Caps hold serve, the Caps would play Pitt/Philly in the first round, then Pitt/Philly again in the second round. Ouch. If there’s a 3-6 upset, the Caps would play Pitt/Philly in the first, then Boston in the second. . . provided they made it that far. And they’d have to do both without home-ice advantage.
While I understand your argument about “how the team is playing,” I’ll say this: the team simply could not have been hotter entering the playoffs in 07-08, going 9-1 in their last ten games. The team’s four best players were its four leading scorers in that playoffs against Philly, with each scoring at around or above a point per game. And yet they lost.
In 08-09, the Caps entered the playoffs having gone 6-2-2 in their last ten games, although they weren’t playing their best defensive hockey. They eked their way out of the first, then took the Pens to seven.
in 09-10, the Caps entered the playoffs having gone 6-1-3 in their last ten games, with two victories over Pittsburgh and one over Boston among that group. They weren’t playing perfectly, but that’s pretty good. And we all know what happened next. (For what it’s worth, Montreal was 3-4-3 in their last ten games, and one of their OT/SO losses was to Toronto on the last day of the season with their playoff berth on the line. Just brutal.)
We’ve seen the Caps come into the playoffs with all the Young Guns firing and the team on a roll. They lost. We’ve seen them come in looking slightly lackadaisical – they won and then lost. We’ve seen them coming in looking strong and then lose in the first. Last year, Semin had 8 points in his last five games before the playoffs, then had his epic failure against Montreal.
From all this, I’ve learned that:
A) How a team is playing, especially a Capitals team, is a poor barometer for how they’re going to do once they reach the playoffs. Three years in a row the Caps have come into the playoffs winning over 60% of their games, then looked flat. The year we advanced in 08-09, the Caps looked totally disinterested the last couple of games.
B) There is no way to predict the performance of players based on what they were doing just prior to the playoffs, and this goes doubly for guys like Semin
C) The only thing a team can work to control is its seeding, and therefore its home-ice advantage and first-round matchup.
In other words, even if the Caps start “playing well” in April, I have no faith in their ability to carry that through into the postseason. Even if all the Young Guns are firing on all cylinders, I have no faith that they’ll be able to sustain that performance once the playoffs start. The only thing I have faith in is that home ice helps, and that matchups matter and facing the best team in the conference right off the bat is good way to exit in the first round.
I blame Schultz
by D'ohboy on Feb 3, 2011 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
I put winner in quotations, because those teams would very likely claw each other to tiny bits, leaving them weaker for their next opponent.
Pens went through the Flyers twice to play for the Cup. I don’t think PHI took too much out of them.
Caps had home ice for all those series, and yet seeding didn’t matter. I don’t care much about the records, they were playing poor hockey going into the playoffs last year, and at the most charitable they were playing uninspired hockey going into NYR and it cost them. They were hot going into PHI, but a lot of that was Huet, who took a big step back in the playoffs. It also took the stars of the team about 3.5 games to figure out how to play playoff hockey, and that was a huge factor in that series.
I know that April performance isn’t necessarily predictive, but I never made that claim. I said that if given the choice I’d rather the team be playing well in the playoffs than be seeded well. They could play like dog shit until the first game of the playoffs and get the 8 seed, but if you are guaranteeing me the team plays it’s best hockey (or a reasonable facsimile) in the playoffs, I’ll take that over whatever seeding advantage you could guarantee (in the absence of also guaranteeing great hockey).
I never said “I want the Caps playing well at the end of the regular season.” I said “I want the Caps playing well in the playoffs.” That’s what PHI and MON did, regardless of their sluggish regular season finish. I know those teams are ridiculous comparisons to you, but given this hypothetical world, that’s my choice. Some of us have been championing “regular season means dick” for over a year now. I’m standing with that position. If seeding is really that important, then regular season does not mean dick. It means quite a bit.
Pens went through the Flyers twice to play for the Cup. I don’t think PHI took too much out of them.
Given the option, would you prefer to meet Philly/Pitt after they play each other, or after they played Carolina or Tampa? Yeah, I thought so.
Caps had home ice for all those series, and yet seeding didn’t matter.
I’d say it most certainly mattered in the Rangers series. Overall, the data doesn’t agree with you. Home-ice advantage matters. Moreover, the Caps have been much, much better at home since 07-08. This year, the Caps are .500 on the road, while 11 games over at home (not counting OTL/SOL).
I don’t care much about the records, they were playing poor hockey going into the playoffs
Those wins against the Pens and Bs beg to differ. The team wasn’t playing 07-08 well, but they were certainly better than the year prior and obviously better than the Habs were during the same period. None of it mattered.
I know that April performance isn’t necessarily predictive, but I never made that claim.
Fair enough, I was just trying to figure out some way of quantifying quality of play entering the playoffs.
They could play like dog shit until the first game of the playoffs and get the 8 seed, but if you are guaranteeing me the team plays it’s best hockey (or a reasonable facsimile) in the playoffs, I’ll take that over whatever seeding advantage you could guarantee
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like you’re saying that you don’t care how they go into the playoffs, which is fair, because that doesn’t seem to impact things whatsoever. But you’re also saying that you want the team to play their best hockey in the playoffs. . . So essentially you’re arguing for a guarantee that a magical switch will get flipped sometime around April 12 and the Caps will play their best hockey of the season. I just don’t think you can bank on that. At all. Especially with this team. What you can bank on, however, is that higher seeds win more often, that home ice matters, and that avoiding the 4/5 matchup will save the Caps the need to play one of the conference’s two best teams. The first two aren’t debatable opinions – they’re pure statements of fact. The latter one depends in large part on whether or not you see Philly/Pitt as the best two teams in the conference, but I’m pretty sure you agree with me there.
Some of us have been championing "regular season means dick" for over a year now.
You’ll note I’m conspicuously absent from those discussion. 1 and 2 seeds make the Cup finals more often than all the other seeds combined. It matters.
I blame Schultz
I’m not counting on them flipping the switch. I’ve said I don’t think they can do it. I’m just saying that of the two factors, I think that playing well is far more important than seeding. If I had to put a list together, seeding is probably not in my 3 top factors. I’d have play quality, health, and match ups ahead of seeding.
Again, I think this comes down to my comment below – namely I think you’re approaching this from a “perfect world” standpoint, and I’m approaching this from a “real world” standpoint. In a perfect world, if I could guarantee that every player on the team was healthy and playing their best, then sure, I’d be willing to see the Caps in the 5/6 seed.
Even still, I’m not sure that a healthy Caps team playing their best could overcome all the obstacles laid down in front of a 7/8 seed – I think that road is just too rocky, which is why teams from those seeds don’t win the Cup.
I blame Schultz
I’ll also point out that in a recent relevant discussion not a single person showed any concern for seeding. If seeding was that important, you’d think at least one person would have said “give me whichever team is the 4 seed so that we don’t go in as the 8 seed.” Even your own position implicitly supports match ups as a greater factor than seeding, and explicitly supports quality of play over seeding.
’ll also point out that in a recent relevant discussion not a single person showed any concern for seeding.
That’s because the discussion wasn’t relevant – it was a binary choice between the Flyers and Pens with no regard to seeding. If the choice were “Flyers, Pens or another team,” I’m guessing that “another team” gets all the votes.
Even your own position implicitly supports match ups as a greater factor than seeding, and explicitly supports quality of play over seeding.
Again, the choice was binary between the two teams. Given the choice, I’d prefer that the Caps play anyone by Philly and Pittsburgh in the first round.
To answer the implied argument – yes, matchups may be more important than seeding in some cases. I alluded to this above when I said that the Caps would be better off tanking and finishing 6th than finishing 5th, with the implication being that we’d get to play either Boston or Tampa, instead of Philly/Pittsburgh.
That being said, the best way to ensure “easy” matchups is to finish high in the standings, especially in a year where it’s clear that the two best teams in the conference are in the same division. In my opinion, finishing 4th or 5th this year virtually guarantees an exceedingly difficult matchup in the first round that the Caps would be unlikely to win.
I blame Schultz
We’ve seen the Caps come into the playoffs with all the Young Guns firing and the team on a roll. They lost. We’ve seen them come in looking slightly lackadaisical – they won and then lost. We’ve seen them coming in looking strong and then lose in the first. Last year, Semin had 8 points in his last five games before the playoffs, then had his epic failure against Montreal.
And having the a top 3 seed every time did nothing to help them.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Feb 3, 2011 11:05 PM EST up reply actions
Sure enough, but the numbers don’t lie – higher seeds go further, particularly the 1 and 2 seeds. What the Caps did last year was a fluke. It shouldn’t have happened.
Just because the Caps have flipped a coin three times and it came up heads every time doesn’t mean it’ll come up heads again.
I blame Schultz
And just because the Caps have come into the playoffs hot and lost doesn’t mean that the quality of the team is less important than the seed. Furthermore, lost in all of this talk about how the Caps finished the season is that the same underlying problems with the team were present regardless of their play down the regular season stretch. Hot or cold, the Caps have had the same issues with inconsistency, problems on defense and undisciplined play. It wasn’t exactly a shock to people that the Caps were a great regular season team but maybe not built from the playoffs. So we are getting almost no variation in quality of team or seeding in the Caps’ experience. They’ve been light’s out regular season dynamo (since BB took over) that can get a high seed with serious questions about how their game will translate to the playoffs. And every time those problems of the team have won out over seeding.
The reason that figuring out how much seeding matters is difficult is because we so rarely see high quality teams in low seeds and low quality teams in high seeds because it is rare for a team to so greatly underperform or overperform in the regular season. In those instances where seeding and talent aren’t aligned (the Caps and Flyers last year on the overperform and underperform sides, respectively) talent matters more than seeding. Way more, IMO. There is a lot of parity in the league and matchups can be so unpredictable that I still completely disagree with the claim that team’s playing their best can’t
overcome all the obstacles laid down in front of a 7/8 seed – I think that road is just too rocky, which is why teams from those seeds don’t win the Cup.
I don’t think it’s that the road is so rocky, it’s because the best of a 7/8 is usually not good enough to get through 4 playoff series. The best of the Flyers last year was good enough to get them to Game 6 of the Cup Finals last year (I know they didn’t win, but seeding was completely irrelevant at that point). If the Caps land in a low seed their best is likely better than the average low seeded team. Then again, the chances of the Caps playing their best for an extended stretch may be very low (and this may be another factor in team quality), in which case getting a high seed won’t help them.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Feb 4, 2011 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
The reason that figuring out how much seeding matters is difficult is because we so rarely see high quality teams in low seeds and low quality teams in high seeds because it is rare for a team to so greatly underperform or overperform in the regular season.
That’s not really all that rare. While maybe seeing a 07-08 Wings type team finish 8th might be, in general the 8th place team will only be a bit worse than, say, the 3rd seed. If you want recent examples, Dallas looks like they’re playing over their heads, MTL is doing worse than they should, last year’s Sabres weren’t as good as their seed (if memory serves), Philly obviously underperformed, Pittsburgh actually underperformed last year (or NJD overperformed, take your pick), etc. There’s tons of parity, it’s why we see upsets all the time.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Feb 7, 2011 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
I think you are right that it isn’t too uncommon that teams overachieve by a couple spots and get upset (because having a high seed doesn’t mask their deficiencies). But in terms of top teams underperforming into a low seed (a question that is more relevant to the discussion about whether 6-8 seeds can win) that is very uncommon. We have Philadelphia, and then I can’t think of anyone else in recent memory. Pens may have underperformed a bit by not winning the division, but they were still a 4 seed. It’s very rare that a team with legitimate Cup contender make up slips to the 6-8 seeds in the playoffs.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Feb 7, 2011 9:34 PM EST up reply actions
Fair enough, but so is saying you’d rather them limp through the regular season but play well in the playoff – all of us would. I’m not really sure how to faithfully address the question – given where the Caps are now, they’re either going to play well the rest of the way and get a good seed, coast the rest of the way and get a 5-8, or crap themselves and miss the playoffs. I don’t see how those last two are desirable, so I’d go with the first one.
Or, given D’ohboy’s option…
Ok, I’ll be clearer. If given a choice between having the Caps get super-hot over the next 3-4 weeks, then cooling off the last week of the season and being the #2 seed, or being kinda-sorta mediocre the next few weeks, then surging at the very end of the season to grab one of the 4/5/6 seeds, I’d take the #2 seed.
… I’ll agree with his choice, but for a different reason – if the Caps “get super-hot over the next 3-4 weeks,” it shows that they’ve still got “it.” If “it” fades for a week with the 2 seed locked up, I’m not as worried that they won’t be able to find it again. The late surge option, however, stinks of desperation, the kind that they wouldn’t turn back on again until they were down a couple of games in a playoff series, at which point it’d likely be too late. Plus, of course, the more favorable matchup, the home ice, etc.
In sum, if I can’t pick the Caps to finish first, I’ll take second. If for some reason I’m not allowed to do that, I’ll take third. And so on.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I don’t disagree with your specific examples, but I don’t think that really disproves my position. All I’m saying is that I think in an absolute sense playing good hockey is more important than seeding. That’s it.
All I’m saying is that I think in an absolute sense playing good hockey is more important than seeding.
I guess we’re coming at this from two different angles. You’re looking at this purely hypothetically. As in, “If the Caps could play the very best hockey that they’re capable of for 4 playoff rounds,” you’d prefer that to a higher seed.
I’m looking at this from a real world perspective (not to imply that my way is better) and saying: “given what I know about hockey and the Caps, I think I’d rather the Caps get a high seed that start the playoffs playing well,” because the Caps are inconsistent and they will eventually play poorly, or run into a hot goalie or what have you. I think the Caps need the cushion of home ice and playing against weaker opponents wherever possible.
The playoffs are a bitch and rare is the team or player that plays their best the whole way through. Everyone has letdowns at some point, and when they happen, it helps teams to have the “cushion” of playing at home against “weaker” opponents.
I blame Schultz
by D'ohboy on Feb 4, 2011 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
All I’m saying is that I think in an absolute sense playing good hockey is more important than seeding.
I’ve actually asked my buddy Gabe to look into that question, specifically, “how predictive is ‘playing well’ entering the playoffs?” Stay tuned.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
He has a post about hot goaltending into the playoffs. Zero predictive value.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Feb 7, 2011 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
I think the more interesting question regarding seeding is if TB runs away with the division, would you rather land in the 4/5 matchup or get the 6th or 7th seed to get TB or BOS in the first round?
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Feb 3, 2011 11:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
6/7 undoubtedly. Home ice is nice, but avoiding Phi/Pit is more important, unless they’re dealing with some random injuries to key players.
I blame Schultz
Since my expectations are in the trash,
I’m taking the contrarian route and going 6-7-8 and playing well. A low seed means less pressure and expectations on them, and I think they can take out anyone in the conference—except Philly—if they are playing good hockey.
Nice work on the research, by the way.
"We know the answers have to come from this room," Hendricks said. "They're in here."
Home ice is worth around 2-3% in winning a series depending on the specifics; you take the standard 5.8% for home ice and Games 1-6, and then Game 7 is oddly (but extremely consistently) worth a little extra. So that’s something, but it’s not that big of a deal. Obviously there’s reason to desire the President’s Trophy because it gives you an extra edge (and that is what I voted for), but there’s nothing wrong with being, say, the Detroit Red Wings of last year, where you are a very good team playing out of a bad spot.
Would prefer anything but first.
I would think the team would have a lot of pressure on them as the first seed to do well. Yeah, it helps to be the best and to have home ice and whatnot, but I just feel like this team would be better served with less pressure on their shoulders.
Plus, if they were a lower seed, I could make some Black Mamba jokes if they come out of nowhere.
So I voted 4th.
"Cloud nine gets all the publicity, but cloud eight actually is cheaper, less crowded, and has a better view."
Well, I see a lot of people voted 6th/7th/8th but how they are playing is more important. While that’s true, it’s not a coincidence that the 6th/7th/8th seeds don’t fair well in the later rounds. They’re the lower seeds for a reason.
Based on the data you would have to be crazy not to pick first or second but I voted for third based on what I think the reality is with this team. We would have to go on a crazy run sometime within the next 29 games to be the top seed in the East. However, I do think we can win the majority of our remaining games. Best case scenario I see the Caps being third in the East and based on the stats I’ll take it.
~~~ R0cK D@ R3D ~~~
"I was pretty excited that Bruce made me captain and it's something I enjoyed. My record speaks for itself. I'm 1-0. I just went out there and did what I do: get the game winner." - Matt Bradley
by Chaz-Capapalooza on Feb 5, 2011 8:26 PM EST reply actions
substitute every time i said “third” with “fourth”
~~~ R0cK D@ R3D ~~~
"I was pretty excited that Bruce made me captain and it's something I enjoyed. My record speaks for itself. I'm 1-0. I just went out there and did what I do: get the game winner." - Matt Bradley
by Chaz-Capapalooza on Feb 5, 2011 8:28 PM EST up reply actions
I do hope the Caps play well enough to grab a top 4 seed, but I’m just going to throw this out there: I think they would be a very dangerous bottom-3 seed. Frankly, given the way the Caps have started series at home in the playoffs, I think they might fare better with the first two on the road to focus them and give them that “us against the world” edge.
This team, regrettably, does not always handle the pressure of expectations well. I think a road playoff series or two could end up being liberating for them.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Who are the Non-Smythe candidates for the Devils, Kings?
- End is near for Rick Nash, Blue Jackets as trade discussions set to resume
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Driven DeBoer delivers Devils back to NHL's elite
- Driven DeBoer, fired by Panthers, delivers Devils back to the land of elite in just one year
- Bruins acquire son of Hall of Famer Ray Bourque
- Bruins add a Bourque: Chris Bourque, son of Hall of Famer Ray Bourque, acquired from Capitals
- Shinnimin named CHL's Player of the Year
