Blackhawks: 1st place in NHL, 49-23-8, 106 pts, 284 GF, 211 GA
North Stars: 16th place in NHL, 27-39-14, 68 pts, 256 GF, 266 GA
Minnesota wins best of 7 series 4 games to 2.
I guess it's not as much of a shock of who won this series as much as it is the way in which the series was won. Every so often a major underdog will find a way to get past a league powerhouse, but what's almost impossible to understand about this series is how the North Stars were able to dominate most of the play against the Blackhawks.
I could understand the upset somewhat if it was just a matter of Belfour laying eggs and Casey standing on his head, but that's not what happened at all.
Game 1 - MIN 4, CHI 3 (OT). Stars outshoot Hawks 34-23, IN Chicago.
Game 2 - MIN 2, CHI 5. Still, Stars outshoot Hawks 35-30, IN Chicago.
Game 3 - CHI 6, MIN 5. Stars outshoot Hawks 47-31. Hawks very lucky to be up 2-1 in the series.
Game 4 - CHI 1, MIN 3. Stars double Hawks on the shot clock 34-17. What is going on here?
Game 5 - MIN 6, CHI 0. Stars outshoot Hawks 43-25, IN Chicago. Seriously, WTF?
Game 6 - CHI 1, MIN 3. Stars outshoot Hawks 34-27.
Yeah, I know shots aren't an absolute perfect valuation measure, but it still paints a telling and highly bizarre picture that the North Stars outshot the Blackhawks in every game of this series, and by a combined total of 227 to 153. This is the exact opposite of what should have happened.
I've always thought the 1991 Stars were a better team than their 68 points reflected. They had some good players. Propp, Broten, Gagner, Bellows, a young Modano, an old Bobby Smith, Tinordi. That being said they shouldn't have beaten the Hawks. While there were other issues with the Hawks at this time the truth is Belfour did not play well in this series. It took until 1999 when people finally took the monkey off of Belfour's back because of some poor playoff showings
Blackhawks: 1st place in NHL, 49-23-8, 106 pts, 284 GF, 211 GA
North Stars: 16th place in NHL, 27-39-14, 68 pts, 256 GF, 266 GA
Minnesota wins best of 7 series 4 games to 2.
I guess it's not as much of a shock of who won this series as much as it is the way in which the series was won. Every so often a major underdog will find a way to get past a league powerhouse, but what's almost impossible to understand about this series is how the North Stars were able to dominate most of the play against the Blackhawks.
I could understand the upset somewhat if it was just a matter of Belfour laying eggs and Casey standing on his head, but that's not what happened at all.
Game 1 - MIN 4, CHI 3 (OT). Stars outshoot Hawks 34-23, IN Chicago.
Game 2 - MIN 2, CHI 5. Still, Stars outshoot Hawks 35-30, IN Chicago.
Game 3 - CHI 6, MIN 5. Stars outshoot Hawks 47-31. Hawks very lucky to be up 2-1 in the series.
Game 4 - CHI 1, MIN 3. Stars double Hawks on the shot clock 34-17. What is going on here?
Game 5 - MIN 6, CHI 0. Stars outshoot Hawks 43-25, IN Chicago. Seriously, WTF?
Game 6 - CHI 1, MIN 3. Stars outshoot Hawks 34-27.
Yeah, I know shots aren't an absolute perfect valuation measure, but it still paints a telling and highly bizarre picture that the North Stars outshot the Blackhawks in every game of this series, and by a combined total of 227 to 153. This is the exact opposite of what should have happened.
Minnesota power play dominated from the standpoint of opportunities and success. Check the HSP boxscores.
Blackhawks: 1st place in NHL, 49-23-8, 106 pts, 284 GF, 211 GA
North Stars: 16th place in NHL, 27-39-14, 68 pts, 256 GF, 266 GA
Minnesota wins best of 7 series 4 games to 2.
I guess it's not as much of a shock of who won this series as much as it is the way in which the series was won. Every so often a major underdog will find a way to get past a league powerhouse, but what's almost impossible to understand about this series is how the North Stars were able to dominate most of the play against the Blackhawks.
One reason might be the intense rivalry between the teams. From the day Chicago was put it the Western Division in the early '70s, they were the team the Stars had to overcome. We were 1-2 in the Division that year and Chicago had that team that got to the Cup finals a couple times. With divisional playoffs many of those years, we met 6 times in the playoffs, with plenty of fights, so no love lost. These kind of rivalry matches are often rife for upsets, if one team or the other can channel the hatred properly. Plus, the Stars weren't that bad a team. Had some offense and remember, they went on to beat the defending Stanley Cup champ Oilers in the next round and led Pittsburgh, 2-1, in the finals before Lemieux & Co. took over. Also, the Stars showed some character coming back in the series after blowing a big lead in game 3 at home and giving the Hawks a 2-1 series lead that should have been theirs. It was the only time I remember our announcers sounding absolutely disgusted with the team - a lot of people probably thought that blown game would be the turning point for Chicago, who were, after all the President's Cup winners and could be expected to take over the series. But maybe that game was a microcosm of the series in reverse - Chicago, with their own rivalry hatred, rides the emotion of a big comeback against a despised foe, but maybe they thought they had killed the beast with that comeback, because they laid down and watched he Stars charge back for three straight wins after that. That was a great ride for N. Stars fans, who within two years would have their team stolen by a greedy owner. We're hoping (if there's a season) Minnesota will get some of that magic back with a Wild team that looks pretty promising for the next few years.
I've always thought the 1991 Stars were a better team than their 68 points reflected. They had some good players. Propp, Broten, Gagner, Bellows, a young Modano, an old Bobby Smith, Tinordi. That being said they shouldn't have beaten the Hawks. While there were other issues with the Hawks at this time the truth is Belfour did not play well in this series. It took until 1999 when people finally took the monkey off of Belfour's back because of some poor playoff showings
Belfour did pretty well in '92. Entering the SCF he had 11 wins in a row, during which he had a 1.99 GAA and .916 SV%. From '94-98 he was 27-11 with a 2.07 GAA and a .924 SV%.
I wouldn't put '91 all on Belfour. They were up 2-1 in the series and scored a total of 2 goals in the final 3 games. Goulet was probably missed more later in the series. Minnesota was better than their record, close to a .500 team by GF/GA ratio.
Belfour did pretty well in '92. Entering the SCF he had 11 wins in a row, during which he had a 1.99 GAA and .916 SV%. From '94-98 he was 27-11 with a 2.07 GAA and a .924 SV%.
I wouldn't put '91 all on Belfour. They were up 2-1 in the series and scored a total of 2 goals in the final 3 games. Goulet was probably missed more later in the series. Minnesota was better than their record, close to a .500 team by GF/GA ratio.
He was good in 1992, until they faced the Penguins, then not so much. That was just a knock with Belfour that dogged him throughout the 1990s. The numbers don't always tell you how he played in the postseason. 1993 was another example. Got swept by the Blues, was wandering from the net when the series winning overtime goal was scored. 1994? Could have gone either way. 1995 let in a couple of really poor overtime goals against Detroit. The game 3 overtime goal from Vladdy should have not gone in during a peewee game. Didn't fare well in overtime in 1996 well either. Then by 1998 he was close but no cigar. 1999 is when he finally was recognized as a goalie who could win. It was his temper and focus that held him back I thought. This is why Belfour was not considered for the 1996 World Cup or 1998 Olympics. But, he wins the Cup in 1999, wins two back to back Game 7s against Patrick Roy and all of the sudden he is picked for the 2002 Olympics as the third stringer. The way Belfour was viewed - pre 1999 - is how many of us view Luongo today.
The poor start made their overall record look bad, but what happens in October is usually of little relevance in April when the playoffs start. Also they were particularly impressive at home down the homestretch of the season, going 12-1-2 over their last 15 home games. So maybe it shouldn't be considered a huge surprise that they carried that over into the playoffs, going 7-1 at home over the first three rounds.
Worth noting that Chicago and St. Louis were in a race for 1st overall that wasn't decided until the last day of the season. Could Chicago have put too much into that relatively meaningless accomplishment that they didn't have enough left in the tank for the playoffs? It was a similar situation in '86 when another Mike Keenan-coached team in Philadephia went to the wire with Wsahington fighting for first in the division right up to the final day of the season, only to have both teams lose to the divisions #4 seed in the playoffs.
Yeah I remember that upset. That Minnesota run that year was a great one and their last great moment as the North Stars.
__________________
Exhibit A as to how hockey doesn't matter on ESPN:
Last night an ESPN program was discussing how the Detroit Pistons needed a hero citing the heroes on the Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions and no mention of the Detroit Red Wings. All this despite the Red Wings probably being the most succesful team in Detroit right now.
I could write pages about this series. It's one of my favourites of all time and it tells a great underdog story. That being said, I'll lay down some brief facts.
Chicago was VERY undisciplined throughout this whole series while Minnesota turned the other cheek and burned them badly on the power play. Hell, even Shane Churla and Basil McRae were uncharacteristically disciplined while Stu Grimson and other enforcers on the Hawks actually became a detriment to their team.
Minnesota's power play was red hot during those playoffs (well at least up until the Stanley Cup final). I think they set a record for power play goals in the playoffs.
Coach Mike Keenan's act had worn thin with much of the Blackhawks roster. Many of players had grown to resent him despite all the success they had in 1990-91. One in particular was Doug Wilson, who Keenan actually scratched in Game 6. This marked the end of Wilson's career in Chicago as Keenan eventually shipped him out of town just as he had done with Denis Savard the year before. After this playoff failure there would be quite a shake up on the Hawks roster.
I think the Blackhawks simply took the North Stars way too lightly. Minnesota's record was deceiving because they got better as the year went on. In fact, I think they were one of the hottest teams in the NHL after the All-Star Break. Chicago, on the other hand, had been talked about as Stanley Cup favourites all year. I guess it went to their heads and they believed the North Stars would be pushovers. Many were expecting this to be a short series and I remember a lot of observers were shocked when the North Stars took Game 1 in Chicago. When the Blackhawks won Game 2 many assumed things were back to normal and the complacency and lack of discipline set back in. Chicago was actually lucky to win Game 3 in Minnesota because the game-winning goal was extremely controversial and should not have counted (Brian Hayward was interfered with if I remember correctly). This simply motivated the Stars who would beat the Hawks in the next three games by a combined score of 12-2 (This included Game 5 in Chicago where the Hawks were crushed 6-0).
Minnesota got away with bloody murder that's what happened. The Hawks as a team accumulated 274 PIM's in 6 games...
Minnesota spent half the series on the power play...
Probably some of the worst officiating I've ever seen.
I remember Chris Chelios getting purposely high-sticked with 80% of the front of his white jersey soaked in blood with his lip busted and there was no call....
After that I knew they were just handing the series to Minnesota.
I'm usually not one for blaming losses on poor officiating but I think in this series it is certainly warranted. I'm not saying anyone was paid off but it was quite clear the officials had something against the Hawks.
I could write pages about this series. It's one of my favourites of all time and it tells a great underdog story. That being said, I'll lay down some brief facts.
Chicago was VERY undisciplined throughout this whole series while Minnesota turned the other cheek and burned them badly on the power play. Hell, even Shane Churla and Basil McRae were uncharacteristically disciplined while Stu Grimson and other enforcers on the Hawks actually became a detriment to their team.
Minnesota's power play was red hot during those playoffs (well at least up until the Stanley Cup final). I think they set a record for power play goals in the playoffs.
Coach Mike Keenan's act had worn thin with much of the Blackhawks roster. Many of players had grown to resent him despite all the success they had in 1990-91. One in particular was Doug Wilson, who Keenan actually scratched in Game 6. This marked the end of Wilson's career in Chicago as Keenan eventually shipped him out of town just as he had done with Denis Savard the year before. After this playoff failure there would be quite a shake up on the Hawks roster.
I think the Blackhawks simply took the North Stars way too lightly. Minnesota's record was deceiving because they got better as the year went on. In fact, I think they were one of the hottest teams in the NHL after the All-Star Break. Chicago, on the other hand, had been talked about as Stanley Cup favourites all year. I guess it went to their heads and they believed the North Stars would be pushovers. Many were expecting this to be a short series and I remember a lot of observers were shocked when the North Stars took Game 1 in Chicago. When the Blackhawks won Game 2 many assumed things were back to normal and the complacency and lack of discipline set back in. Chicago was actually lucky to win Game 3 in Minnesota because the game-winning goal was extremely controversial and should not have counted (Brian Hayward was interfered with if I remember correctly). This simply motivated the Stars who would beat the Hawks in the next three games by a combined score of 12-2 (This included Game 5 in Chicago where the Hawks were crushed 6-0).
The Stars could do no wrong in the officials eyes in that series..
They played dirty and got called for little to nothing while the Hawks retaliated and got called for everything...
I'm more pissed about this series than I am about the Hawks blowing it in the finals in 1992....
I don't know if such a formula or metric exists for this, but I imagine that if you were to look at both teams' GF and GA in the season, and come up with an “expected” percentage of goals scored in the series for each team, this would be one of the bigger reversals of expected fortunes of the modern era.
In this case Minnesota scored 56% of the goals, but using historical data for comparable situations (1.35 GF:GA ratio to 0.96) they were probably expected to score closer to 30% of the series’ goals. That’s just a number I made up, but perhaps someone like Iain Fyffe has done a better job in the past (I hope so)
I don't know if such a formula or metric exists for this, but I imagine that if you were to look at both teams' GF and GA in the season, and come up with an “expected” percentage of goals scored in the series for each team, this would be one of the bigger reversals of expected fortunes of the modern era.
In this case Minnesota scored 56% of the goals, but using historical data for comparable situations (1.35 GF:GA ratio to 0.96) they were probably expected to score closer to 30% of the series’ goals. That’s just a number I made up, but perhaps someone like Iain Fyffe has done a better job in the past (I hope so)
That's an interesting idea.
I think you're confusing expected % of goals (EG%) with expected win% (EW%). GF/GA ratio should be almost linearly related to EG%, but exponentially related to EW%.
Shouldn't it be something like:
EG% = .96 / (1.35 + .96) = .416 or 41.6%
Another way would be to average the goals:
Minn 256 GF + Chi 211 GA = 467
Minn 266 GA + Chi 284 GF = 550
EG% = 467 / (467 +550) = 1017 = .459 or 45.9%
I'm not sure the better method mathematically, but intuitively would choose the latter and have done so in similar cases.
One could look at the differences as simple difference in percentage points or as a ratio of actual % goals to expected % goals. The latter is essentially the method I used for adjusted playoff scoring, using actual goals over expected goals based on regular season team rates.
I haven't done any work on this, but would guess this isn't one of the very largest variations. It's most likely going to be a team that lost in 4-5 games despite being one of the best teams in the league. An example of a larger variance would be 2003 Detroit vs. Anaheim and I'm sure there are others. It's going to be driven more by the actual % in the playoffs, which can vary much more substantially than the EG% which is based on a much larger sample, although both are important.
I would especially look for series where one of the top teams in the league won 0 or 1 games in the series and at seasons before the mid-90s when weaker teams made the playoffs.
Last edited by Czech Your Math: 08-08-2012 at 01:36 PM.
Minn 256 GF + Chi 211 GA = 467
Minn 266 GA + Chi 284 GF = 550
EG% = 467 / (467 +550) = 1017 = .459 or 45.9%
I'm not sure the better method mathematically, but intuitively would choose the latter and have done so in similar cases.
I thought that too, but 45.9 is pretty high; that means each game is pretty much a coinflip; we know that isn't true.
Chicago's GF:GA ratio was based on playing all teams, not just below average ones like Minnesota. And Minnesota's was based on playing all teams, not just dominant ones like Chicago. An "expected outcome" formula would have to take those two factors into account.
I thought that too, but 45.9 is pretty high; that means each game is pretty much a coinflip; we know that isn't true.
On second thought, the method that yielded 45.9 is probably not the better of the two. I would use A / (A+B), where A is team A's GF/GA ratio and B is team B's ratio. Maybe there is a better way that I am overlooking at this time, such as converting GF/GA ratios into EW%s and then deriving EG%s from that (see below for the reverse of that). I think I confused you by presenting two possible formulas and leaning towards the worse one without time to give it much thought, which probably led to the other half of your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
Chicago's GF:GA ratio was based on playing all teams, not just below average ones like Minnesota. And Minnesota's was based on playing all teams, not just dominant ones like Chicago. An "expected outcome" formula would have to take those two factors into account.
To me this is a separate issue, in that it affects the GF/GA ratios of each team, not how those ratios should be used to calculate expected performance. Although one could still incorporate that into a single formula somehow, I would prefer to look at it separately. Plusandminus has done a lot of work on scoring adjusted for schedule, so I would defer to someone such as him on that. However, I'll do my best to quickly think it through.
I may be misinterpreting what you are saying, but it seems like it is this:
"Chicago's GF/GA ratio would expected to be even better against a below average team like Minny, and Minny's GF/GA ratio would be expected to be even worse against an above average team like Chicago. Therefore, using those ratios to calculate expected goal % is going to make expectations too low for Chicago and too high for Minny."
First, one can look at HR.com and see that Chicago's SOS was -.06, while Minny's was +.03. Since Chicago had the easier schedule, if the GF/GA ratios are misleading, it is going to make Chicago's EG% higher than it should be and Minny's lower. Let's look at it another way: They were in the same division, so w/o looking at schedules (and esp. given SOS data), let's assume they had identical schedules, except they played one another. Again, w/o looking at actual results, one would expect that Chicago outscored Minny in the games they played during the season. If we deducted those games from otherwise identical schedules, this would yield identical schedules, which would allow completely fair comparison. We could do so in proportion to their actual GF/GA ratios, which therefore wouldn't affect the results. Or we could do so using the A/(A+B) formula, which yields EG%s of 58.3% for Chicago and 41.7% for Minny. Since those numbers are higher than Chicago's 57.3% and lower than Minny's 49.0%, this only hurts Chicago's new ratio and help's Minny. Therefore, when using the formula to calculate new EG%, Chicago's share will be even lower and Minny's higher than the 58.3%/41.7% split calculated previously.
However, the most crucial part of this whole scenario IMO, is understanding that however the EG% is calculated, it is not the same as EW%. Let's just use the EG%s and an exponent of 2.00 to keep it simple.
So Chicago's EG% of 58.3% translates to an EW% of 66.2%. One could change the EG%s or the exponent, but it would only change the magnitude a bit, not the direction of the effect.
That's another reason the playoffs are so misunderstood. Let's look at it from the vantage point of the strong teams:
- they have the much stronger GF/GA ratios to start
- these ratios translate into much higher EW%s relative to EG%s
- these EW%s translate into much higher EW%s for a 7 game series than a single game
That is why big upsets in the playoffs are so big. It's not a couple of marked cards in the deck in a game of five card draw. There's a handful of teams holding three of a kind or four cards to a straight flush before most of the other teams even get their first cards.
That is why when people say "Detroit was a clutch team" or something of the sort, I tend to bristle. If anything, Detroit may have underperformed in the playoffs over the past ~20 years, given how strong their teams were during the season.
Last edited by Czech Your Math: 08-08-2012 at 06:00 PM.
On second thought, the method that yielded 45.9 is probably not the better of the two. I would use A / (A+B), where A is team A's GF/GA ratio and B is team B's ratio. Maybe there is a better way that I am overlooking at this time, such as converting GF/GA ratios into EW%s and then deriving EG%s from that (see below for the reverse of that). I think I confused you by presenting two possible formulas and leaning towards the worse one without time to give it much thought, which probably led to the other half of your post:
You're right - the first method that you used is correct.
Exactly which method do you mean? I used the second method first and the first method second, so I'm really confused now!
I think it should be calculated using each team's GF/GA ratio, not averaging team A's GF and team B's GA and vice versa.
Sorry - I should have clarified.
In order to calculate the goal percentage of Team A vis-a-vis Team B, determine the goal ratio of Team A, the goal ratio of Team B, and then divide the goal ratio of Team A by the sum of the goal ratio of Team A and Team B.
This would correspond to what you did in the first method, where you divided the goal ratio of Minnesota by the sum of Minnesota's goal ratio and Chicago's goal ratio. This indicated that we would expect Minnesota to score about 41.6% of the goals in a series against Chicago.
In order to calculate the goal percentage of Team A vis-a-vis Team B, determine the goal ratio of Team A, the goal ratio of Team B, and then divide the goal ratio of Team A by the sum of the goal ratio of Team A and Team B.
This would correspond to what you did in the first method, where you divided the goal ratio of Minnesota by the sum of Minnesota's goal ratio and Chicago's goal ratio. This indicated that we would expect Minnesota to score about 41.6% of the goals in a series against Chicago.
Thanks, that's what I've thought since making the second post on the matter. We're in agreement here.
