View Single Post
11-09-2012, 11:53 AM
Global Moderator
Mess's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 64,864
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by hockeyfanz View Post
I dont see it. If the season were 10 games long...the Leafs would have neither a better or worse shot at the playoffs because every other team would also have 10 games to play. It would be an even playing field and it would just mean that every game would have importance...and teams would be playing at a much higher level knowing that each loss would be huge. The games more intense. All in all. 82 games or 10 games...the chances are the same.

Last season after 41 games (1/2 a season) the LA Kings had fired their coach and were sitting outside the playoffs.

After 82 games the Kings had clawed their way back into the playoffs securing the 8th and final spot in the Western Conference.

LA Kings win the 2011-12 Stanley Cup, however after 1/2 a season they wouldn't even have qualified to make the playoffs. Thus making the results in the shortened season vastly different then those over the course of a full season.

We have seen in many years a strong 1/2 season by the Leafs and poor 1/2 season either at the beginning or the end.. Neither was a true reflection that was not fully seen until all 82 games where played. ie. a different Stanley Cup winner. Last year at the midpoint the Leafs were in playoff spot and after 82 games they ended up 5th from the bottom of the league, implying that the results of a shortened season varied from those of a full one.

Perhaps the odds ie. 1 of 8 teams make the playoffs in each conference therefore the length of games does not change the percentages, however as I have shown with the LA example the final results can vary depending on length of season.

The general rule applies in many areas where the smaller the data set /sample size the more inaccurate the results.

Signature: “If you think there’s no pain coming, there’s pain coming,”.. Mike Babcock
Mess is offline   Reply With Quote