Why underdogs do better in hockey than basketball

[Simon96Taco]

Originally Posted by GGG

It's simple statistics.

If you have a 10% chance of scoring on any shot and 30 shots per game your variance per game is higher than if 50% of shots go in and you have 100 shots per game.

So if in hockey one team scores on 9% of their opportunities and the other 10% the underdog has a much higher chance of upset than the the team that scores on 45% of there shots vs the team scoring on 50%.

This.

[redmile04]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Also Basketball sucks, and hockey does not.

Clearly, this is a minority opinion. There is a reason why NBA players get paid more, why the sport worldwide is more popular than hockey and why the NBA TV contract is significantly bigger than the NHL's.

[You Need a Thneed]

In Hockey, good shots don't always go in, and bad shots sometimes do go in.

Basketball is different - if it's a good shot, it will go in, and if it's a bad shot it won't.

In Hockey, teams regularly outplay the opposition and lose, while in basketball, that just doesn't happen.

In basketball, there's 240 total player-minutes to be divided between teammates, and stars usually play around 40 of them (1/6th, or 16.6%). In hockey, there are 360 player minutes to be divided up, and while a goalie takes up 60 of those, generally other players don't play more than about 25, which is only 7%.

It really shouldn't be a surprise that basketball doesn't have too many underdog winners. A "favourite" team may have a bad shooting game, and lose a game or two, but they aren't going to be losing a 7 game series.

[TheFlamesVan]

Nm

[FireGilbert]

Four reasons:

-Bigger rosters and shorter shifts in hockey. Superstars only play 30% of the game.
-Hockey has more bounces and success depends on a bit of luck.
-The lack of a goaltender and the higher scoring in basketball. If hockey played 5 on 5 without a goalie there would be far less upsets.
-The NBAs currently salary cap structure which has created super teams and put a drastic gap between the top and bottom teams.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

In Hockey, good shots don't always go in, and bad shots sometimes do go in.

Basketball is different - if it's a good shot, it will go in, and if it's a bad shot it won't.

In Hockey, teams regularly outplay the opposition and lose, while in basketball, that just doesn't happen.

In basketball, there's 240 total player-minutes to be divided between teammates, and stars usually play around 40 of them (1/6th, or 16.6%). In hockey, there are 360 player minutes to be divided up, and while a goalie takes up 60 of those, generally other players don't play more than about 25, which is only 7%.

It really shouldn't be a surprise that basketball doesn't have too many underdog winners. A "favourite" team may have a bad shooting game, and lose a game or two, but they aren't going to be losing a 7 game series.

2004 Pistons
2006 Heat
2011 Mavericks
2014 Spurs
2016 Cavs

To be pretty grossly underdog teams. Basketball can still have enough variance for upsets, and when those upsets happen I think they're more memorable. When the 2007 Warriors upset the 2007 Mavericks it was legendary, maybe more than when the 2010 Habs' made a run through the Eat.

Overall though, I think people overrate variance as an indicator of entertainment value. Yes, close games are more interesting than blowouts, but likewise I'm a lot more interested in watching a Stephen Curry or Roger Federer display total mastery over their sport than I am in watching for instance 2006 Fernando Pisani or 2016 Troy Brouwer display small sample size results that don't reflect their actual ability level. The process is as interesting as the result, and you need a balance of both.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Also Basketball sucks, and hockey does not.

At least basketball is allowed to showcase it's star players. Watched the Finals last night where James and Curry were wowing the crowd with their talents.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by TheFlamesVan

That's not why the TV contract is bigger. One TV contract is for a population of 30 million.

The other is for a population of 321 million.

Last I checked, there are U.S. NHL teams.

[TheFlamesVan]

Originally Posted by chedder

Last I checked, there are U.S. NHL teams.

Haha true. That's not what I meant though I was comparing the two major broadcast rights by country. Didn't think about US coverage for NHL. But obviously I can't compare them because that doesn't make any sense at all.

But basketball still sucks.

[Love]

Hockey is a less predictable sport than basketball. More variables to account for in hockey. Also a huge skill gap in between stars and role players, hell even a huge skill gap between superstars and elite players (Lebron vs. Derozan for example).

[Love]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Also Basketball sucks, and hockey does not.

Lol

[Senator Clay Davis]

1. Depth matters way more in hockey. Playoff basketball means 7-8 man rotations. Obviously a hockey team that only cycles its top 6 F and top 4 D wouldn't get very far.

2. There's no goalie in basketball, in that there's no one player who can fundamentally steal a series.

3. Home court matters way more in the NBA, in the NHL it barely matters at all. But it matters way more in the NBA, primarily for the next point....

4. ...which is that referees can straight up manipulate the outcome of NBA games, and the best teams often are teams from the biggest markets (which the NBA favors). NBA refs are literally allowed to award points, limit players minutes through foul trouble, ignore fouls to keep players on the court etc... It's why so many think the NBA is the least legitimate of the big four sports.

5. NBA playoffs are often predictable, which is why most basketball fans prefer the NCAA tournament since it's significantly less predictable, and, you know, they actually call things like travelling and double dribble unlike the NBA who has a token call a game to remind you the rules actually exist.

[MarkGio]

Goaltending and Physicality is what separates the two sports IMO.

If you could body check and "slash" in basketball it would be really, really hard to get baskets. The scores would be much closer to hockey. Because of the nature of offensive and defensive fouls, basketball can be played man-on-man, so all you have to do is beat your opponent in front of you to get a scoring chance. If you can't, then your offensive is more like a chess game that depends on screens, off ball picks, and ally-oops to find the basket. And your defense is dependent on double teams.

With hockey its harder to beat a player man on man because your opponent can use their body. Hence hockey is more of a cycle game and "board battle" strategy. Add to the fact that there's a goalie who stops 90% of the few chances you get, and you now have strategies like screening the goalie and deflecting the puck. Only recently am I seeing players use basketball screen techniques on the cycle. That's why the Sedins are so effective at cycling and getting clean chances on net.

The physicality is also why hockey players need shorter shifts. Not just in terms of the tax on the body, but play stoppages in basketball lengthen the time on court. Since ball players are on the court 40 mins a game, the roster becomes more dependent on few key guys. If ball players were only on the court 20mins a game, the bench players would be much more valuable.

So like I said, physicality and goaltending are what separates the two sports. Other than that, they're very similiar sports. Basically, picture hockey where you can hit the other player and anytime you do, the play stops and lets the player shoot the puck at the goalie from the slot, rather than there being a roster handicap (ie power play). Take out the goalie and you basically have basketball on ice

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Love

Basketball is a less predictable sport than hockey. Less variables to account for. Also a huge skill gap in between stars and role players, hell even a huge skill gap between superstars and elite players (Lebron vs. Derozan for example).

If Derozan is allowed to obstruct Lebron like Kesler could on McDavid, it would be comparing apples to apples

[d_phaneuf]

It's the variance thing, that's by far the biggest reason

There's 200+ score events in a basketball game and the shooting percentages is between 40-50

Hockey has around 60-65 shots on net and the shooting percentages are 7-9

It's the same reason soccer has it as well

All you need to win a soccer or hockey game is a few breaks on shots, whereas in basketball with over hundreds of events in each game it's less likely a few outlier events effects the outcome

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

i wonder what would happen if hockey were played with only 15 players

9 forwards, 4 defensemen and 2 goalies.

Shifts would have to be longer and slower and would favor the superstars.

I would love to see this, but it'd be a complete non starter with the NHLPA.

[Strange Brew]

I think the impact of the goalie on a hockey game is the single biggest reason, more so than the number of scoring events which is clearly very important also.

Goalies can steal a game and their mere presence increases the unpredictability on good shots/scoring chances equaling goals.

Now that said, if you stacked an NHL team the way the Warriors are stacked, I think they'd roll through the playoffs.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I think the impact of the goalie on a hockey game is the single biggest reason, more so than the number of scoring events which is clearly very important also.

Goalies can steal a game and their mere presence increases the unpredictability on good shots/scoring chances equaling goals.

Now that said, if you stacked an NHL team the way the Warriors are stacked, I think they'd roll through the playoffs.

The Warriors were up 3-1 last seasons finals.

Remember who won?

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I think the impact of the goalie on a hockey game is the single biggest reason, more so than the number of scoring events which is clearly very important also.

Goalies can steal a game and their mere presence increases the unpredictability on good shots/scoring chances equaling goals.

Now that said, if you stacked an NHL team the way the Warriors are stacked, I think they'd roll through the playoffs.

Didn't the 2003/04 Avalanche try this having Kariya and Selanne on their 3rd line?

They were eliminated in the 2nd round while the definitely not stacked Flames came out of the Western conference.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by d_phaneuf

It's the variance thing, that's by far the biggest reason

There's 200+ score events in a basketball game and the shooting percentages is between 40-50

Hockey has around 60-65 shots on net and the shooting percentages are 7-9

It's the same reason soccer has it as well

All you need to win a soccer or hockey game is a few breaks on shots, whereas in basketball with over hundreds of events in each game it's less likely a few outlier events effects the outcome

The variance is a symptom, not a cause