Plugging Habs vs Bruins Into the Formula

[BTH]

[i just posted this on my blog, our first hockey-related post.]

It’s playoff hockey season and, as is their wont, supposed experts all around Canada are sharing their lazily arrived at, uninformed opinions with the deaf, dumb, and blind masses that take them seriously.

The tradition is for the experts to make a prediction about who will win each series and how many games it will take.

In this post I will divulge the formula analysts use to reach their conclusions, and then plug the variables of the equation with information from the Montreal-Boston series.

The process by which analysts arrive at their conclusions goes something like this:

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = W (odds of winning)

Team A vs Team B

1. Which team is higher in the standings?

If it is Team A, then there is now an 80% chance that Team A will be predicted to win.

Boston (the 3rd seed) finished the regular season 7 points ahead of Montreal (the 6th seed). 7 points. Over an 82 game schedule in a league that hands out points to overtime losers and decides games with shootouts, 7 points is a marginal difference. But there is a perceived abyss between the talent levels of the two teams, partly because of their respective success in the past 2 seasons.

But Team B still has a chance to sway the vote.

2. Which team had a better record in the final 10 games of the regular season?

If the answer is Team A - there is now a 90% chance that that is who will be predicted to win, probably in 4 or 5 games.

If the answer is Team B - there is still a 70% chance that Team A will be picked.

The only exception to this rule is the 4th vs 5th series. The two teams are so close in the rankings that many will pick the 5th seed, usually based on that team’s superior reputation.

3. Which team is bigger?

If one team is significantly bigger than the other team, the odds will supposedly sway about 15% in their favour, even though mere size has rarely played a dramatic role in deciding a playoff series. Further, thoughts on a team’s size are usually based on unsubstantiated perceptions.

For example, in the Montreal-Boston series, the reason that is constantly cited for why Boston is going to win is their size. This is not fact, it is perception. It is based on Boston’s historical reputation as the “big bad Bruins,” as well as two big Boston players, Zdeno Chara and Milan Lucic. As Arpon Basu pointed out, Boston is actually significantly smaller than the Washington Capitals team that Montreal outed in the first round last season, except Washington was perceived as a finesse team because their top players were Alex Ovechkin, Nik Backstrom, Alex Semin and Mike Green.

Montreal has proven over the year that they are not intimidated by the Bruins, winning the season series 4-2. But it is those 2 losses (a violent 8-6 barn burner and a 7-0 beatdown) that analysts refer to as proof that the Habs can’t skate with Boston.

4. Which team has the better goaltending?

If the answer is Team B, then when the “experts” try to sum up the series in a balanced way, they will say: “Montreal is small and has too many injuries on D, but if Carey Price can pull off a Halak-like performance, who knows.” This can sway the odds 10%.

First off, even Halak has never pulled off a Halak-like performance. He was incredible last Spring but his success was still blown way out of proportion by the ever sensationalist media. When one speaks of Jaro Halak in the 2010 playoffs, one rarely hears it brought up that Halak was pulled once in all three series, that he was average for the entire third round, or that, after having two weak games in a row, Halak actually sat one one full game out in the Washington series. Instead, we only hear awed tales of his playoff heroics and how he single-handedly eliminated two Eastern powerhouses.

This perpetuates the myth that the goaltender single-handedly does anything. There is a lot of fan and media talk about goaltenders having the power to steal games and series, to carry average teams on their back past stronger opponents. This is completely false, and, again, based on perception and an overvaluation of simplistic statistics. Goaltender stats are products of their teams. An average goalie can play on an elite defensive team and put up impressive numbers. The same goalie could then demand a pay rise, move to a weaker team, and watch his numbers tank. Rumours of a “lack of concentration” and of the goalie “taking it easy now that he has the big contract” will surface as people scratch their heads to figure out why their favourite stud goalie suddenly sucks. The fact is that teams that force shots to the perimeter, clear traffic in front of the net, and get rid of rebounds are going to make any goalie look good. Case in point: the two goalies in the Stanley Cup Finals last year were Michael Leighton and Antti Niemi.

Montreal’s playoff strategy is centered around defense. They block tons of shots, let their goalie see all of them, and are first on rebounds. Sure, Halak was on fire last year, and Price deserved his shutout in Game 1, but the media tends to ignore the great defensive work of the 18 Montreal skaters and heap all the praise on the goaltender for winning the game all by himself. The same thing is guaranteed to happen this year. If Montreal wins the series, Price will get all the credit and the experts will spin their usual narrative to explain how they could have possibly been wrong.

And on to the next one. Being a journalist or analyst is like being a psychic, an astrologist, or a weatherman: there is no punishment for being wrong. Just don’t say anything controversial, the network might receive complaints.

5. Who has ‘intangibles?’

This can sway the odds 5-10%.

In short, ‘intangibles’ equal ‘immaterials’ because they are non-existent. They are 100% based on perception and, by extension, reputation.

That is not to say that we can not conclusively state that Gionta is more experienced than PK Subban. But who has the ability to measure the importance of leadership in a playoff series? Where is the statistic that tells me that experienced Brian Gionta is more valuable than inexperienced Brian Gionta was? The answer, of course, is that it is impossible to measure something that does not exist. And that is exactly why they are called intangibles: because they are delusions, only they are mass delusions that carry some sort of pseudo-intellectual currency in hockey debates for this reason.

In the Montreal-Boston series, both teams have elite goaltenders and both teams were pretty hot down the stretch. That leaves only the three other variables.

1. Which team finished higher in the standings? Boston.

2. Which team is bigger? Boston.

3. Which team has more intangibles? Montreal.

Our equation looks like this:

80 + 0 + 15 + 0 - 10 = W

Using simple mathematics, we can solve for W.

80 + 15 - 10 = W

95 - 10 = W

85 = W

W = 85% chance of Boston winning

In my opinion, the series is a toss up. I would have given Boston about a 55% chance of winning but now that Montreal has taken the first game, I’d give Montreal roughly a 65% chance of winning. I think Montreal has a real chance to win the series based on their success versus Boston in the past and their incredible defensive work last playoffs. It will take another trapping team to beat them and I think the Bruins are more focused on crashing and banging than on trapping. But three things are for certain: that (1) even if Montreal sweeps the series, nobody will admit that the difference between the two teams was never very big, that (2) fictional narratives will be spun to explain how the big bad Bruins got their ass kicked by Carey Price and his team of smurfs, and that (3) there will be no negative consequences for being dead wrong.

There is a reason why Maggie the Monkey is able to predict the winners as well as any expert on TSN, Sportsnet or CBC. They are all clueless, just her method is less full of bullshit.

Edited April 16, 2011 by BTH

[BrenDittero]

By god! It's the the Rosetta Stone of hockey analysis.

Not since Indy's discovery of the Holy Grail have I been so elated.

Good work BTH.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

BTH, that was a brilliant post!

What it goes to show, to some degree, is that these 'experts' are really just generalists. They only acquire any specialized insight into a team if they follow it night in and night out (in which case, homer bias tends to seep in, contaminating the analysis from a different direction). That's why you'll tend to get vastly more insightful analysis from bloggers and intelligent posters on this site, as well as the rare analytically-minded pros who actually specialize in the team being discussed (Arpon Basu being the showcase in this context). The hacks like Pat Hickey just regurgitate the conventional wisdom shaped by their generalist colleagues.

Anyhow, you've cracked the code. Expect a call from Claude Julien asking you to solve the last great mystery of modern science - cracking the habs's D

[Seb]

Nice post BTH! I'm at a point where listening to "experts" is more entertaining than it is insightful. Especially listening to them muttering some over used cliche and then giving the most general, nowhere-near-the-truth explanation for why they made the claim. It's awesome.

Honestly, I think beating the Habs is easy, because their style of play is obvious, and if you play into it, that's when they thrive. If you want to beat the Habs (of course it helps if you don't allow goals in the first couple minutes), you make it a mirror match. What I mean by that is you play defensively against them: make it a stare down. First team to get frustrated loses, and we've seen it often, that when things aren't going Montreal's way, they have a very difficult time scoring. In the first two games, Boston has given Montreal an early lead with bonehead plays forcing them to try and score and allowing Montreal to sit back. Montreal scores when they capitalize on their opponents' mistakes. Well it's difficult to score on a team who rarely makes them, and thus rarely affords them the odd-man rushes they use to score. Basically, frustrate Montreal and eventually they'll open up. But they don't get frustrated with the lead, so Boston's got to work on that aspect of their game.

Anyway, not that I'm cheering for Boston, I'm actually taking great delight in watching Boston try and play a style that evidently is not working against Montreal.

[BTH]

BTH, that was a brilliant post!

What it goes to show, to some degree, is that these 'experts' are really just generalists. They only acquire any specialized insight into a team if they follow it night in and night out (in which case, homer bias tends to seep in, contaminating the analysis from a different direction). That's why you'll tend to get vastly more insightful analysis from bloggers and intelligent posters on this site, as well as the rare analytically-minded pros who actually specialize in the team being discussed (Arpon Basu being the showcase in this context). The hacks like Pat Hickey just regurgitate the conventional wisdom shaped by their generalist colleagues.

Anyhow, you've cracked the code. Expect a call from Claude Julien asking you to solve the last great mystery of modern science - cracking the habs's D

Generalists is a good word. I don't know how somebody can possibly be a specialist on all 30 hockey teams. This morning I was watching some Sportsnet panelists try to explain what Chicago has to do better to beat the Canucks. His answer was that they had to get Toews, Kane, Sharp and Hossa going. I thought this was a stupid answer that pretty much ignored the question. But then I realized that I couldn't give a better answer. I have no clue what Chicago has to do differently to beat Vancouver. I only know the Habs. Rather than regular panelists that return every night, I think they would get better analysis if there was one analysts for every team or for every division. Imagine if six of TSN's major experts were given a division to focus on.

I also want to add one thing to my post and it's related to generalization. When a team is perceived to have a certain quality, every player on that team is perceived to have that quality. So when people say that the Bruins are a much bigger team than the Habs, they speak as if that means every player on the Bruins is bigger than every player on the Habs. And when the Red Wings play Phoenix, people speak as if every Red Wing is more experienced than every Coyote. In other words, a generalization is made based on a small sample. Lucic and Chara (and a handful of others) are big therefore the Bruins are big even though the Bruins are a 20-man team.

Honestly, I think beating the Habs is easy, because their style of play is obvious, and if you play into it, that's when they thrive. If you want to beat the Habs (of course it helps if you don't allow goals in the first couple minutes), you make it a mirror match. What I mean by that is you play defensively against them: make it a stare down. First team to get frustrated loses, and we've seen it often, that when things aren't going Montreal's way, they have a very difficult time scoring. In the first two games, Boston has given Montreal an early lead with bonehead plays forcing them to try and score and allowing Montreal to sit back. Montreal scores when they capitalize on their opponents' mistakes. Well it's difficult to score on a team who rarely makes them, and thus rarely affords them the odd-man rushes they use to score. Basically, frustrate Montreal and eventually they'll open up. But they don't get frustrated with the lead, so Boston's got to work on that aspect of their game.

That is exactly what I meant by this:

It will take another trapping team to beat them and I think the Bruins are more focused on crashing and banging than on trapping.

We saw it against Philly last year.

By god! It's the the Rosetta Stone of hockey analysis.

Not since Indy's discovery of the Holy Grail have I been so elated.

Good work BTH.

Thanks.

[SOOPAVILLIN]

By far the most intelligent analysis I've read or seen anywhere. Great post BTH.

[BrenDittero]

I like BTH's post because what I take away from it is that trying to predict who will win a series is like trying to predict a coin toss.

Yet analysts will make their case as though they have inside knowledge and insight that no one else possesses.

They're guessing just as much as anyone else, and it really puts the whole profession into perspective.

[SOOPAVILLIN]

I like BTH's post because what I take away from it is that trying to predict who will win a series is like trying to predict a coin toss.

Yet analysts will make their case as though they have inside knowledge and insight that no one else possesses.

They're guessing just as much as anyone else, and it really puts the whole profession into perspective.

+1

[BTH]

I like BTH's post because what I take away from it is that trying to predict who will win a series is like trying to predict a coin toss.

Yet analysts will make their case as though they have inside knowledge and insight that no one else possesses.

They're guessing just as much as anyone else, and it really puts the whole profession into perspective.

Do they keep track of their predictions? I'd like to see how well the TSN panelists did at the end of the playoffs.

I bet they all hover around 50%.

50% = Maggie the Monkey and her wheel.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

It's absolutely right to say that the way to beat the Habs is to trap them. Out-Hab the Habs. Then our lack of size and elite scoring power up front become problems, because we don't have players who can punch through the suffocating defence. It's quite remarkable that not all teams seem to have figured that out. Having said that, it may not be QUITE that simple. The X-factor is the speed of our forwards. This ain't the 1990s where you can clutch and grab like crazy. So while I'm sure Julien is not an idiot and wants his team to play hermetic defence, Boston may simply lack the horses on the blueline to execute. That's what I was getting at in the 'series' thread when I suggested that the match-ups are wrong for Boston in this series. Boston may have the exact inverse of what you need to beat the Canadiens: mostly medium-sized D of mostly moderate mobility, combined with big hulking forwards that our bulky D can mostly handle. What you really want is blazing speed PLUS physicality up front and a suffocating, intimidating blueline. While that combo will beat a lot of teams, it is particularly toxic to ye Habs, which is why Philly owns our asses.

Boston may not be optimally built to match our particular combination of strengths and weaknesses. In that sense, strategy may not be their main problem. Still, they win Game 3, suddenly WE'RE the team under pressure, so it ain't over yet.

Edited April 17, 2011 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[saskhab]

Rather than regular panelists that return every night, I think they would get better analysis if there was one analysts for every team or for every division. Imagine if six of TSN's major experts were given a division to focus on.

This is actually how NHL teams do pro scouting. They assign scouts per division/area.

[Wamsley01]

It's absolutely right to say that the way to beat the Habs is to trap them. Out-Hab the Habs. Then our lack of size and elite scoring power up front become problems, because we don't have players who can punch through the suffocating defence. It's quite remarkable that not all teams seem to have figured that out. Having said that, it may not be QUITE that simple. The X-factor is the speed of our forwards. This ain't the 1990s where you can clutch and grab like crazy. So while I'm sure Julien is not an idiot and wants his team to play hermetic defence, Boston may simply lack the horses on the blueline to execute. That's what I was getting at in the 'series' thread when I suggested that the match-ups are wrong for Boston in this series. Boston may have the exact inverse of what you need to beat the Canadiens: mostly medium-sized D of mostly moderate mobility, combined with big hulking forwards that our bulky D can mostly handle. What you really want is blazing speed PLUS physicality up front and a suffocating, intimidating blueline. While that combo will beat a lot of teams, it is particularly toxic to ye Habs, which is why Philly owns our asses.

Boston may not be optimally built to match our particular combination of strengths and weaknesses. In that sense, strategy may not be their main problem. Still, they win Game 3, suddenly WE'RE the team under pressure, so it ain't over yet.

BTH's post just goes to show how flawed the TSN/Sportsnet preview model is.

Not only are all the analysts under informed, but their bias leads them to reject a probable outcome. It isn't like the Canadiens over the last two seasons have proven that their is some sort of kryptonite quality to the way they have been assembled in regards to the Bruins Lets disregard one of the biggest factors in a short series over 7 points and some myths about size. It devolves into not what might happen, but what they want to happen.

The hockey math nerds have done studies that prove that performance entering the playoffs is not an indicator of playoff success, and with confirmation bias everybody who picked the Sabres to beat the Flyers will think it is because they finished strong, not the fact that Pronger missed the first half of the series.

If you want to be successful in playoff pools, here is the formula. Hammer the obvious series (Vancouver/Chicago and Detroit Phoenix) and then go opposite the media majority in the other ones. That will leave you with better odds because it will eliminate everybody who followed the popular majority.

[Chris]

Wow, that's alot of info.

All I know is the habs have to win 2 out of the next 5.

The Bruins have to win 4 out of the next 5.