Do “Hot” Teams Have More Playoff Success?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I’m not gonna bury the headline. TL;DR No, they most certainly don’t.

Playoffs are basically a crapshoot no matter which arbitrary timeframe you examine, even overall standings.

This has come up a lot recently. Hot teams heading into the post season and whether they can carry forward that success.

Dissatisfied with what I could find out there, I decided to run some numbers myself. It’s kind of a crappy process because the data had to be gathered by running dozens of queries on naturalstattrick.com and then I had to manually record the results.

My goal was simple. Look at the last 40 teams who participated in the Conference Finals (2009 playoffs to last year) and then check their records for 3 separate time frames. Jan 1 to end of season, All Star break to end of season and Trade Deadline Day (TDD) to end of season. Since the latter two dates aren’t consistent year to year I cheated a bit and just used Jan 1, Feb 1 and Mar 1 as my dates. They’re arbitrary anyways and close enough to the ASG and TDD so I went with those. If you see me reference the All Star break or TDD below, I really mean Feb 1 and March 1, respectively.

My methodology was also relatively simple. Final 4 teams, record their ranking for the 3 aforementioned timeframes. I also kept track of their overall season ranking for a wider reference and of course who won the Cup and who was runner up. One note on this, I also used naturalstattrick.com for the final season rankings and I have no idea how they do tiebreakers on that site, so some of the overall season rankings may not factor in tiebreakers but, again, close enough for my purposes.

All rankings for my arbitrary timeframes were based on point % to account for uneven games played.

I have all the data I collected and would be happy to share or answer any questions people have so they can draw their own conclusions.



Few disclaimers. Did my best to verify the data was correct but mistakes happen. I didn’t account for two “hot” teams playing each other in an early round. The ranking for each teams was their record in the entire NHL over the 3 timeframes, I didn’t have the time or inclination to exclude non playoff teams to avoid teams that get hot when they have nothing to play for. I didn’t track what happened to the “hottest” teams. If they didn’t make the final 4, I didn’t track them. I included 2013, lockout shortened season, even though I probably shouldn’t have. Whatever.



Here are some takeaways. All rankings are in the order of Jan 1 to end of season, Feb 1 to end of season and March 1 to end of season so I don’t have to write “respectively” 20 times.

- For reference the Flames finished 5th, 14th and 24th in the 3 timeframes this year. And obviously finished 2nd overall.

- The hottest team over ANY of the 3 timeframes only won the Cup TWICE! And one of those was Chicago in 2013 when it was only half a season (give or take) due to the lockout. The other was the Pens in 2009 who were the hottest team in the NHL post trade deadline. To be extra clear, the team who was hottest Jan 1 and/or Feb 1 to end of season won the Cup exactly zero times in the last decade.

- Based on a quick look at my numbers, overall season ranking is a slightly better indicator of making the Conference Finals, SCF or winning the cup than the ranking during any of the 3 timeframes. There’s no discernible trend that I can identify.

- In 2010 Philly was the 14th, 20th and 23rd ranked team in the 3 timeframes and still made the finals. But they were 20th overall so that was a weird run.

- In 2010 Chicago finished 3rd overall and were 6th, 5th and 14th in the 3 timeframes and won the cup.

- Boston was 10th, 13th and 14th in 2011 when they won. 7th overall.

- Chicago was 19th, 14th and 15th in 2015 when they won. 7th overall.

- along with Vegas last year, the two above are the best examples of teams who struggled down the stretch and made the finals.

- Ottawa in 2017 and Philly in 2010 are the only two teams who weren’t top 10 in any of the 3 timeframes or overall and still made conference finals.

- TB in 2016, similar to 2019 Flames, got worse in every timeframe. 6th, 13th and 21st in the 3 timeframes and made cup final. 12th overall.

- 7 of the last 10 cup winners were top 5 in at least 1 of the 3 timeframes in the season in which they won.

- FWIW, Flames were 5th Jan 1 to end of season this year. But 24th post TDD, which would be the lowest ranking of any cup champ in the last 11 seasons. In fact, it would be the lowest ranking in any of the 3 timeframes for any team who made the final 4 in the last 11 years. Not encouraging.

- But only 3 of the 10 cup winners were top 3 in at least 1 of the 3 timeframes in which they won.

- In 2012 the Rangers were 2nd overall but 6th, 7th and 19th in the 3 timeframes. Lost in Conference Final to Devils tho.

- 9 of the 40 teams were top 3 from Jan 1 to end of season. 17 of 40 were top 5.

- 10 of the 40 were top 3 from Feb 1 to end of season. 15 of 40 were top 5.

- 10 of the 40 were top 3 from March 1 to end of season. 14 of 40 were top 5.

- The lowest ranking, in any timeframe, of any team that made final 4 was Philly at 23rd post TDD in 2010.

- Lowest Feb 1 to end of season ranking was Philly in 2010 and Chi in 2014 at 20th.

- Lowest Jan 1 to end of season was Chicago, twice! 2014 and 2015 they were 19th. Lost to Kings in West Final in 2014 but won Cup in 2015.

- Vegas last year was 13th, 16th and 18th in the 3 timeframes, 5th overall but made cup final.

- last year the final 4 teams were 2nd (Wpg), 10th (Wash), 11th (TB) and 13th (VGK) from Jan 1 onwards.

- conversely in 2016 they were 2nd (Pit), 4th (Stl), 5th (SJ) and 6th (TB) from Jan 1 onwards. By far the best rankings for that timeframe of any year except lockout shortened season in 2013.


That I can tell, no timeframe seems to be a much better predictor than others. Obviously since there’s overlap there tends to be a trend for each team but it’s not like hot teams post TDD seem to do better than teams who are good from Jan 1 onwards.

I would say post TDD is the least useful timeframe. Lots of teams ranked 10-20th in point % post TDD who did well in the post season. I think quite a few more than the other timeframes. This would lead me to conclude consistency is more important than getting hot late in the season.


TL;DR (again) it’s a dogs breakfast. Making the final 4 based on your record over 3 arbitrary timeframes seems totally ####ing random.

[Erick Estrada]

The answer to the question is yes. The Athletic a month ago analyzed outcomes and advanced stats from 2008 upwards, concluding that playing well down the stretch matters. It doesn't guarantee success but the odds are in the favor of hot teams winning their opening series. You have to get out of the 1st round to win the cup and it's the 1st round where a lot of damage is done to cup contenders.

https://theathletic.com/881096/2019/...he-postseason/

As it turns out, there is truth to the notion that coming in hot matters. Of the 80 first-round series to happen since 2008, the “hotter” team was expected to win 52 percent of its series based on the market price of each and won 59 percent instead. It’s a very small sample, but it signals that a team at its best might deserve extra consideration when it is facing a club that is struggling prior to the postseason. When the gap between hot or not gets wider, the difference gets larger, too, as the top half of the hot teams won 60 percent of their series when they were only expected to win 48 percent of the time.

Based on this you can argue that the Jets (probably the biggest disparity between hot and not) in particular are in real trouble.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ quick calculation. 80 series - difference between 59 percent actual and 52 percent expected is seven percent.

For convenience sake, call it ~5 out of 80, or one out of 16.

So on average, about once every two seasons, a hot team scores an upset.

Hardly a resounding and definitive ‘yes’

[EldrickOnIce]

Most of what Dom writes for the Athletic is.... puzzling.
This has been beat to nearly death. There is no real positive correlation.

[sempuki]

It's a matter of perspective. Clearly being "hot" (or conversely "cold") matters (slightly) in the first round, but being "good" dominates as time goes on.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ quick calculation. 80 series - difference between 59 percent actual and 52 percent expected is seven percent.

For convenience sake, call it ~5 out of 80, or one out of 16.

So on average, about once every two seasons, a hot team scores an upset.

Hardly a resounding and definitive ‘yes’

Anytime your expected winning percentage increases it matters and as stated in the case of a hot team vs a cold team the percentages are even higher. Did you read the article? There's more meat to it.

One of the more intriguing analytics findings over the past decade only bolsters that theory. In 2015, TSN’s Travis Yost wrote about the merits of a team’s score-adjusted Fenwick in its final 25 regular season games leading up to the playoffs and its predictive power. At the time, nearly 70 percent of series were won by the team that was stronger in that single metric — over eight percent higher than using a team’s full-season goal differential. In that sense, playing well down the stretch — specifically a team’s process at 5-on-5 — mattered more than its full-season play.

The more you read the more you see that it indeed matters. This is actually a positive for the Flames as 5 on 5 they were very good down the stretch and they were let down by a poor powerplay.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

^ quick calculation. 80 series - difference between 59 percent actual and 52 percent expected is seven percent.

For convenience sake, call it ~5 out of 80, or one out of 16.

So on average, about once every two seasons, a hot team scores an upset.

Hardly a resounding and definitive ‘yes’

That's a bit of an oversimplification though. All else being equal, an extra 7% to win is pretty significant in sports...especially when the betting sites have most favourites' odds between 50%-60%.

How much do you think a big ticket trade deadline piece like Mark Stone adds? Vegas' odds maybe improved around ~2% because of that trade?

Being hot definitely helps - probably even more than a major deadline deal. You can say 7% is nothing but when a lot of playoff series are a coin flip, it's not meaningless.

[EastCoastFlamesFan]

Totally pulling this one out of LF, and I'll back it up with stats later...

1993 Adams Division Semi Finals: Bruins/Sabres

Going into the series the Sabres lost their last seven games in a row to end the season on a brutal note. On the other side, the Bruins finished the season on an 8 game winning streak. Yeah, you can imagine how this one ended. Sabres swept the series! Yeah, I know it's one series out of hundreds, but this one always sticks out to me as once the playoffs start, anything can happen.

[Bingo]

Plus with more information available these days, the definition of playing well gets a little more microscopic as well.

The Avalanche went 7-1-2 in their final ten to finish second in the NHL in that time period, only St. Louis ahead of them.

When you dig into shot metrics the Blues were playing better, but both teams are riding a goaltender.

CF% Blues 10th / Avalanche 28th
xGF% Blues 11th / Avalanche 24th
SCF% Blues 10th / Avalanche 23rd
HDCF% Blues 11th / Avalanche 18th

Shooting percentage Blues 5th / Avalanche 13th
Save percentage Blues 13th / Avalanche 7th
PDO Blues 5th / Avalanche 6th

[troutman]

"Hot" Teams often had a soft schedule. I start with that. COL had a very easy schedule in March and April.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Plus with more information available these days, the definition of playing well gets a little more microscopic as well.

The Avalanche went 7-1-2 in their final ten to finish second in the NHL in that time period, only St. Louis ahead of them.

When you dig into shot metrics the Blues were playing better, but both teams are riding a goaltender.

CF% Blues 10th / Avalanche 28th
xGF% Blues 11th / Avalanche 24th
SCF% Blues 10th / Avalanche 23rd
HDCF% Blues 11th / Avalanche 18th

Shooting percentage Blues 5th / Avalanche 13th
Save percentage Blues 13th / Avalanche 7th
PDO Blues 5th / Avalanche 6th

I've been suspecting this about the Avs for a while now. You might win a series with a hot goalie and one line, but you aren't winning a cup.

That's about the only thing that scares me here. Calgary with a slow start, Avs with a hot goalie and a hot top line is just about the only way I see us losing this series.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Most of what Dom writes for the Athletic is.... puzzling.
This has been beat to nearly death. There is no real positive correlation.

I don't quite get his model - unless it somehow favours offense stats over defense stats. Or it focuses a lot on line-ups (which change a fair amount during a season/series) over the actual team stats.

[Shazam]

Boy I did not read that title correctly.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The answer to the question is yes. The Athletic a month ago analyzed outcomes and advanced stats from 2008 upwards, concluding that playing well down the stretch matters. It doesn't guarantee success but the odds are in the favor of hot teams winning their opening series. You have to get out of the 1st round to win the cup and it's the 1st round where a lot of damage is done to cup contenders.

https://theathletic.com/881096/2019/...he-postseason/



Based on this you can argue that the Jets (probably the biggest disparity between hot and not) in particular are in real trouble.

No where near enough data there to draw any kind of meaningful conclusion. Also, the definition of hot was subjective.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

That's a bit of an oversimplification though. All else being equal, an extra 7% to win is pretty significant in sports...especially when the betting sites have most favourites' odds between 50%-60%.

How much do you think a big ticket trade deadline piece like Mark Stone adds? Vegas' odds maybe improved around ~2% because of that trade?

Being hot definitely helps - probably even more than a major deadline deal. You can say 7% is nothing but when a lot of playoff series are a coin flip, it's not meaningless.

The problem is the 7% is likely not caused by a team being "hot" down the stretch. The article even said the sample size was small and DeluxeMoustache proved this out with some quick math. Quite honestly, with a sample size that small, the 7% is probably just noise with no real cause.

People hate to admit it, but luck is a huge factor in playoffs and often the overall champion is not actually the best team. I think we can all agree that Tampa is the best team this year, but they are probably only about 20-30% chance to win the Cup due to luck and short-term variations. That is still way more than anyone else, mind you.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I would like to do this again for the first round when upsets seem to be more common but that’s 160 teams to track instead of 40.

Maybe if I can’t sleep again tonight I’ll give it a go.

[Mathgod]

Fair to say that there are many factors that go into it. So in other words, it's entirely possible that being hot going into the playoffs does matter, but there are other factors which muddy up the results such as complacency, pressure, injuries, goalies suddenly get hot/cold etc.