View Single Post
Old
05-11-2013, 03:10 PM
  #710
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 18,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SA16 View Post
That's not the same thing. A random stat like team history in game 7's is just chance, small sample size, and completely irrelevant to now.

Regarding the powerplay of course you're never "due" for one. You're never "due" for anything. That's just the gamblers fallacy. Our 5 on 4 powerplay for the year scored a goal approximately every 12 minutes which essentially means (if we assume this number is meaningful) that we have a 16% success rate on a regular 5 on 4 powerplay.
Thus our chance of not scoring a goal on:
1 PP = 84%
2 consecutive PP = 71%
3 consecutive PP = 59%
4 consecutive PP = 50%
5 consecutive PP = 42%
6 consecutive PP = 35%
7 consecutive PP = 30%
8 consecutive PP = 25%
9 consecutive PP = 21%
10 consecutive PP = 17%

Now versus a bad PK like the caps obviously our chances of scoring will be higher since our 16% would be in general assumed to be against the league average (or the average of the teams we faced which should come out around average).

So you can see here when given a powerplay as poor as ours if you even take a string of 10 consecutive powerplays 1 out of every 5 times we will still not score.

Now if you take a PP like the Caps who scored a PPG every 6 minutes which would equate to a 33% success ratio on full 5 on 4's

Their chance of not scoring a goal on:
1 PP = 67%
2 consecutive PP = 45%
3 consecutive PP = 30%
4 consecutive PP = 20%
5 consecutive PP = 13%
6 consecutive PP = 9%
7 consecutive PP = 6%
8 consecutive PP = 4%
9 consecutive PP = 3%
10 consecutive PP = 2%

And there's nothing to buy into with chance or law of averages. It's a real thing that exists. And it's used LONG TERM. Short term it doesn't tell you much. Saying "well we haven't scored on 10 consecutive powerplays so we are due to score on one soon" is obviously incorrect and flawed logic.
Hey copycat! Pretty much said the same thing, except I used an arbitrary number. For what it's worth, I don't think it's a great way of looking at this. If the Rangers have a 20% PP for the season, I don't think that means that every PP they have they have a 20% chance of scoring on. If I go out 6 nights a week and end up getting a woman's phone numbers 3 times on average. Does that mean that I have a 50% chance of getting a woman's phone's number on any given night? I'm not sure that's how it works. That said, for lack of a better method I did the same thing as you.

It's look at in the big picture. Failing on 10 consecutive PPs is less likely than failing on 9 consecutive PPs. Failing on 10 consecutive PPs is improbable. However, if you already beat the odds and failed on 9 consecutive PP, then the chances that you fail on the 10th is exactly the same as any other individual PP.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote