From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Radical Format Change (flame bait)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:04:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.175213.20509@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.195356.29881@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>The Stanley Cup playoffs more reliably decide whom the best team is than
>>the regular season...
>
>To determine this, you first have to define what you mean by "best".
>

The best means that if you play an opponent a reasonable number of
matches head-to-head, you'll win more than you lose...where the
travel and schedule are equal, and after a proper preparation period...
and the number of matches is sufficient to discount good fortune
but few enough to lessen the influence of other random factors like
injuries.

>>
>>1) The Stanley Cup playoffs more reliably produce repeat champions...
>
>While this is certainly a piece of evidence for the reliability of the
>playoffs in determining the best team, it's not conclusive.  Lack of parity
>can explain this.
>

The Stanley Cup playoffs format has more reliably produced repeat
champions OVER 5 DECADES.  In that span, hockey has gone from six
teams to 20 plus, has gone from nearly 100% Canadian content, to
an American and European influx of players, the competition with a rival
league, through various forms of player entry into the league from
club sponsorship to the entry draft to more liberalized free agency.

Through all this, the Stanley Cup winner is always more likely
to repeat than the regular season champion.

>>2) The regular season schedule is unbalanced, eastern teams have an
>>huge travel advantage in the regular season.
>
>How big is this effect?  Do, for example, eastern teams have better road
>records than western teams?
>

The Los Angeles Kings claim that when McNall let them use the plane
for the whole season that it probably helped them to the tune of
5-10 points.  I haven't thought of a way to try analyzing this
quantitatively.                                      

>>3) Regular season standings are affected by injuries...and by teams
>>undergoing a learning curve.  Liberalized free agency means team
>>turnover is going to be much larger in the future, and a good coach
>>needs about 40 games for coaching to have any effect.
>
>Of course, playoffs are affected by injuries even more severely; missing
>one game of an 84 game season due to injury is much less harmful to the
>team's chances than missing one game of a 7 game series.  
>
>The reason teams use the regular season to undergo learning curves is
>because the rules in the NHL have made the regular season little more than
>an exhibition season, by allowing so many teams into the playoffs.  
>

Well there is essentially no practice time...and there is a lot to
learn...you don't get better by accident.  A regular season would
could perhaps be made more meaningful, if you shortened the season,
played fewer games, and allowed for more practices, but you can't pay
million dollar salaries by having practices instead of games.

Gerald
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey