View Single Post
Old
11-09-2012, 01:14 PM
  #48
hockeyfanz*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Counterpoint:

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.
I don't really agree with the Kings example....knowing full well there were 82 games to be played. Hey some individuals/teams etc...don't perform until they have to. My point is in a shortened season...every game counts. Less "throwaway" games therefore maybe individuals or even teams pick it up a notch. Russians were famous for doing this in international tourneys...playing rope-a-dope in the round robins...then when it counted turned it on. You think in an 82 game schedule, individuals and teams don't take nights off?

hockeyfanz* is offline   Reply With Quote