Quick Playoff Runs and Adversity in the Playoffs

[devilsrule33]

The LA Kings are steamrolling the entire Western Conference on route to the Stanley Cup Finals. They are 1 game away from their 2nd Stanley Cup appearance in franchise history, and they have only lost 1 single game. Pretty damn impressive. Right now, everyone is talking up the Kings and they will most likely be the favourites from Vegas and the experts once the Finals match-up is set (sorry Phoenix. You aren't coming back).

Well it got me thinking today as I remembered the Senators had steamrolled the East in 2007 before being totally manhandled by the Ducks in 5 games. So I did a little research over the last 23 years to see how dominant three round teams, like the Kings, did once they made the finals. I started in 1989 because that was after the NHL's last dynasty and a few years after the 1st round became best of 7. I am sure the Oilers. Isles, Habs etc, were powerhouses that dominated the entire league in the playoffs.

Well here is what I found since 1989 and over 22 seasons:

- 9 teams have zipped through the first three rounds with 3 or fewer losses. They are the 89 Habs (3 losses), 92 Hawks ( 2 losses), 93 Canadiens (3Ls), 95 Wings (2Ls), 97 Flyers (3Ls), 1999 Sabres (3Ls), 2003 Ducks (2Ls), 2007 Senators (3Ls), and 2008 Penguins (2Ls). The combined record? 1-8. Only the 1993 Canadiens went on to win the Stanley Cup. But the interesting thing with the Habs is they played 8 OT games in the first three rounds winning 7 of them.

- In the 22 seasons, the teams that had played more games through the first three rounds went 13-5 in the Finals (4 times they had played the same amount of games before the finals started)

- The teams that played more games in the Conference Finals, therefore having a shorter layoff before the Finals started had a 13-5 record in the Finals (4 times the Conference Finals went the same length).

- A lot of people have the Devils and Rangers going 7. Well 9 times a team advanced to the Cup Finals by winning their Conference Final in 7 games while their eventual Cup opponent did it in fewer games. The team that won in 7 games? A 7-2 record (93 Kings and 96 Panthers are the exception).

- 8 times did two teams meet where only one of the two had been in a 7 game series before the Finals. The teams that had been in a 7 game series went 5-3.

So do any of these stats mean anything? Do teams need to face a level of adversity in the playoffs in order to win the Stanley Cup? Thoughts?

Edited May 18, 2012 by devilsrule33

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

I think a lot of this is random, but to me, so much of what happens in the playoffs (especially now) comes down to how teams match up. Philadelphia is a prime example: they had all of the answers against Pittsburgh, but none against the Devils. And though the '95 Devils might have seemed surprising, it's not when you consider that, once the playoffs started, they played much more like the '94 Devils that could handle every team in the NHL except the Rangers. That '94 Devil team really was terrific.

But yeah, there's probably a sweet spot between finishing a series in 7 games, and sweeping an opponent and having to wait (possibly losing your edge in that time). Who knows really? The Kings definitely don't seem to be affected by having swept St. Louis.

Guess at the end of the day, this is a damned near impossible thing to quantify. Maybe some of those teams' runs were less impressive upon further examination than their W-L record would leave one to believe, and the luck they might have enjoyed in getting to their Conference record ran out? Maybe some of those teams' goalies struggled upon reaching the Final? Maybe some of those teams enjoyed easier runs, in that their competition was not that tough, or not nearly as good as the team they ultimately faced in the SC Finals. You'd pretty much have to go research each team's run to have any light shed on this.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Colorado Rockies 1976

[NJDevs4978]

Good numbers, and logically you'd have to think the Kings will face some adversity along the way because no team steamrolls to a Cup in 17-18 games. The least number of games I can remember a team winning it in is the '95 Devils winning in 20 (16-4 record) and they definitely had adversity in 'two' series - being down 1-0 to Pittsburgh in a tie game late in Game 2, being 2-2 going back to Philly after losing two straight at home.

That said, right now it means about as much as the stat where no team wins the next round after winning the first two series in seven games.

[John Wensink]

It's funny you brought this up. I am convinced that the easy win against the Pens in '01 hurt us early on in the finals vs Avs. If we get through this year let's hope this hold true again!

[devilsrule33]

Guess at the end of the day, this is a damned near impossible thing to quantify. Maybe some of those teams' runs were less impressive upon further examination than their W-L record would leave one to believe, and the luck they might have enjoyed in getting to their Conference record ran out? Maybe some of those teams' goalies struggled upon reaching the Final? Maybe some of those teams enjoyed easier runs, in that their competition was not that tough, or not nearly as good as the team they ultimately faced in the playoffs. You'd pretty much have to go research each team's run to have any light shed on this.

Perhaps, but maybe having faced the adversity and being resilient in the early rounds really help. LA is zipping through right now, but what happens if they lose the first game in Cup Finals? Will the players in their locker room be able to cope with that and adjust? What about down 3-2 in the series? Right now, we know the Devils and Rangers have faced some of that stuff and might have that collective mindset to say, "Okay relax, we've been through this before and know how to win. Just play the way we can and don't press too much."

The Devils and Rangers have responded extremely well after tough losses. I don't think that can be overlooked. If the Devils happen to win and lose game 1 to LA, is anyone on that team worried?

Not saying it becomes as simple as that, but it is definitely one piece to look at in a large picture.

Edited May 18, 2012 by devilsrule33

[Triumph]

dr33: Interesting look, yeah. I'm not sure what it says - I do think some of these teams were running a bit hot. The 2003 Ducks weren't a great team - they missed the playoffs both the year before and the year after. The 1992 Hawks are actually a pretty good analogue for the 2012 Kings - they outshot the opposition by 600 but got terrible shooting luck and didn't have great goaltending. In the playoffs they got solid goaltending and still continued to outshoot teams. This was back when outshooting teams meant less than it does today; the 1980s Oilers didn't outshoot teams - they just got decent goaltending and had a way higher shooting percentage than their opponents. Pittsburgh swept Chicago, but it appears that all but one of the games were 1 goal games.

Oh, also, the 2008 Penguins ran super hot and the 2008 Red Wings are one of the greatest teams in NHL history.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Triumph

[Daniel]

Each series is its own event, so don't see the significance. It's pure correlation without causation, unless you can point to some concrete and verifiable reason why more teams that steamroll through the first three rounds lose in the finals. The "rest vs. rust" debate doesn't get you there.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Each series is its own event, so don't see the significance. It's pure correlation without causation, unless you can point to some concrete and verifiable reason why more teams that steamroll through the first three rounds lose in the finals. The "rest vs. rust" debate doesn't get you there.

Maybe rust was a factor in two or three of those Finals, who knows, but yeah, there's no one reason that's going to be THE reason for teams sailing through three rounds, only to fail. There's too many legitimate reasons for why it could happen. And I agree that every series is a different animal unto itself, and that trying to bring the transitive property into the equation doesn't necessarily work.

Philly crushes Pittsburgh

Devils crushes Philly

But I don't think if they had faced each other in the playoffs, that the Devils were a slam-dunk to crush Pittsburgh.

One other question...did any of those 3-rounder teams get obscenely hot on special teams? Maybe that helped fuel them (LA's actually done almost nothing on their PP...6-for-64 so far this year).

Edited May 18, 2012 by Colorado Rockies 1976

[Satans Hockey]

The key thing is there is always a first time for everything.

Not to mention that this Kings team has guys who have been to and won in the Stanley Cup Finals before. Penner, Williams and Scuderi have won cups. Richards, Carter and Stoll have been to the finals and lost. There are plenty of guys on this Kings team that know what it's like and what it takes to play in the Finals.

Also this Kings team has been playing excellent since they made the trade for Carter. In the last 21 games of the regular season after they got Carter they went 13-5-3.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Satans Hockey

[StormJosh]

Oh, also, the 2008 Penguins ran super hot and the 2008 Red Wings are one of the greatest teams in NHL history.

I would be very interested to hear a brief version of why the 2008 Red Wings were among the greatest teams in NHL history.

[Daniel]

the 2008 Red Wings are one of the greatest teams in NHL history.

I disagree, it's a very good game, but I think Donkey Kong is the best game ever.

[Triumph]

I would be very interested to hear a brief version of why the 2008 Red Wings were among the greatest teams in NHL history.

Brief version: Put up a 59% Fenwick Tied in the regular season, then put up 63% Fenwick Tied in the *playoffs*. Led the league in SA/60 4 on 5. Led the league in SF/60 5 on 4. Had a +32 goal differential in the playoffs despite a 1.7% difference in S% and SV%. Assuming their goals for holds constant, for the Red Wings of 2008 to be even in goal differential in the playoffs, Osgood would've had to have an .861 SV%.

2008 Red Wings are without question the best team of the last 10 years. Comparing them to anything before 1993 is real hard, but they were an incredibly dominant team.

By comparison, the 2000 Devils had a playoff goal differential of +22 and if we had 'advanced' stats from that era, they would look sort of similar. Still, NJ was +190 in shots, Detroit was +284.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Triumph

[StormJosh]

Brief version: Put up a 59% Fenwick Tied in the regular season, then put up 63% Fenwick Tied in the *playoffs*. Led the league in SA/60 4 on 5. Led the league in SF/60 5 on 4. Had a +32 goal differential in the playoffs despite a 1.7% difference in S% and SV%. Assuming their goals for holds constant, for the Red Wings of 2008 to be even in goal differential in the playoffs, Osgood would've had to have an .861 SV%.

2008 Red Wings are without question the best team of the last 10 years. Comparing them to anything before 1993 is real hard, but they were an incredibly dominant team.

By comparison, the 2000 Devils had a playoff goal differential of +22 and if we had 'advanced' stats from that era, they would look sort of similar. Still, NJ was +190 in shots, Detroit was +284.

Awesome, thanks. Your description triggered something I read a long time ago that showed how goalies would have to perform for an even goal differential. To only need an .861 to play coin-flip hockey is incredible.