Why underdogs do better in hockey than basketball

[Street Pharmacist]

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%.

It's this.

Goals are rare, and far more random than baskets. If the team with the most shots on net won, hockey would be as predictable as basketball

[Gord Wappel]

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'm imagining the reverse. If Basketball players could change on the fly.
No resting on fouls. accumulate foul shots and shoot differential at end of quarter.
One time-out per team. Fast and furious - Coach's brains would explode.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by redmile04

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.

So, soccer dwarfs Basketball.

I still stand by my statement.

Originally Posted by Dion

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.

Charles don't seem to keen....

http://nypost.com/2017/06/06/bored-b...ley-cup-final/

Charles Barkley has not been shy sharing that he is far more excited about the Stanley Cup playoffs than the NBA playoffs.

Thanks to a night off in the NBA Finals, Barkley took up NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman on his invitation to come watch the pucks in person.

“There’s nothing more nerve-wracking than Stanley Cup overtime hockey,” Barkley said. “It’s the craziest thing you’re ever going to see, so that’s one reason I just love the sport.”

With the NBA Finals switching from Golden State to Cleveland for Game 3 on Wednesday night, Barkley had a free day. The Hall of Famer said he was looking forward to a little time in “Smashville.”

“They say it’s crazy, and the playoffs have been amazing,” Barkley said. “I’m not breaking earth-shattering news. The NBA playoffs have not been very good.”

Barkley noted that while at work, he’s in a room with 20 TVs, so he has watched almost every hockey game this spring.

“I think we showed a stat we’ve only had four basketball games in the playoffs that were less than double digits,” Barkley said. “So it’s not been a lot of fun broadcasting games this year.”

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by timbit

The Warriors were up 3-1 last seasons finals.

Remember who won?

Yes I do, but I don't understand your point.

The Warriors added a scrub named Kevin Durant this year. They are loaded.

[Boreal]

Thanks for posting this. Great stuff. It reminds me of Leonard Mlodinow's work from a few years ago. "The Drunkard's Walk". Randomness plays a larger role than most people realize. Unless of course, you are an Oiler's Fan and the world is just a revolving door of eventual manifest destiny.

“…if one team is good enough to warrant beating another in 55% of its games, the weaker team will nevertheless win a 7-game series about 4 times out of 10. And if the superior team could beat its opponent, on average, 2 out of 3 times they meet, the inferior team will still win a 7-game series about once every 5 match-ups. There is really no way for a sports league to change this. In the lopsided 2/3-probability case, for example, you’d have to play a series consisting of at minimum the best of 23 games to determine the winner with what is called statistical significance, meaning the weaker team would be crowned champion 5 percent or less of the time. And in the case of one team’s having only a 55-45 edge, the shortest significant “world series” would be the best of 269 games, a tedious endeavor indeed! So sports playoff series can be fun and exciting, but being crowned “world champion” is not a reliable indication that a team is actually the best one.” (p. 70-71).

[FlamesAddiction]

I think one think that gets overlooked is that "hard work" and "intangibles" come into play more with hockey as well. In hockey, a team can be loaded with skill, but if they are lazy or poorly coached, it will have a greater effect on the outcome than in basketball.

Sometime being an "underdog" instills those positive intangibles, especially by the time the playoffs roll around.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by timbit

The Warriors were up 3-1 last seasons finals.

Remember who won?

Yah but then they went out and added a Ryan Getzlaf to their lineup while keeping everyone else...

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think one think that gets overlooked is that "hard work" and "intangibles" come into play more with hockey as well. In hockey, a team can be loaded with skill, but if they are lazy or poorly coached, it will have a greater effect on the outcome than in basketball.

Sometime being an "underdog" instills those positive intangibles, especially by the time the playoffs roll around.

No, they're about the same. I play both sports. You can hustle and block shots and jump for rebounds and set screens and attempt steals and stay with your man when he tries to drive to the net. There's legit hustle in basketball. Or you can just let them shoot without so much as trying to contest it because you're lazy.

And basketball has its bounces too. I have gone 10 for 15 from midrange jumpers, and then some games I can't get a basket before half time. Likewise with hockey, sometimes you go a few shifts and you haven't even touched the puck, let alone get a shot on net.

Seriously, if you take away the goalie, guess how many goals you'd have in hockey? Like 100 each team? And everytime someone contacts you in hockey you stop and get a "free shot" from the red line, that's basically the same sport as basketball.

They're very close sports IMO. Just a goalie and physical rules separate the two games.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Vox has a small feature on the subject and it is interesting from an analytics perspective. Basically, it comes down to luck having a bigger factor in hockey due to the fact there is less variance among skill levels of individual players, and that star players need more rest due to the nature of the game.

An unfortunately misleading characterization of the video you posted - neglecting, for instance, the importance of the sample size effect.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Seriously, if you take away the goalie, guess how many goals you'd have in hockey? Like 100 each team?

Has there ever been an NHL game in which one of the teams got 100 shots on goal?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Has there ever been an NHL game in which one of the teams got 100 shots on goal?

If there was no goalie, you'd be shooting constantly.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If there was no goalie, you'd be shooting constantly.

If there was no goalie, there would be six opposing skaters trying to take away your shot.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If there was no goalie, there would be six opposing skaters trying to take away your shot.

Yeah. Kind of like basketball.

[GioforPM]

A few reasons:

a. NHL underdogs can have a good goalie (see Calgary in '04) or even an average one who gets hot.

b. In basketball an offensive player who is fouled gets free shots and 90% of the time scores the same points as if no foul occurred. Hockey fouls just equal a power play which can be defended and is only successful 20% of the time for a decent team. That tips the balance in favour of a less skilled, more defensive team a bit.

c. No zone defence in basketball favours individual skilled players.

d. The best 5-7 players on each team play a huge percentage of the time. So a stacked team like Golden State has a bigger advantage than a stacked team like Pittsburgh. Or to put it another way, LeBron plays 85% of the game. Crosby plays 35-40% or so.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Yeah. Kind of like basketball.

OK, try making a jump shot in hockey.

For that matter, try playing basketball with a puck instead of a ball, on a 17,000-square-foot court.

To say, ‘Hockey without a goalie would be exactly like basketball,’ is laughable. It is oversimplified to the point of being useless.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Dion

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.

Not sure what allowing has to do with anything.
Basketball is by nature a much more individually impacted team sport.

It's not like hockey, soccer, football, baseball and every other sport are not "allowing" their stars to be showcased. They are all truer team sports where depth plays a larger role in success.