Subject: WAAA Why did I lose this match

hockey.powerplaym anager.... not my match, but I'm curious why the home team won 5-1. The away team ratings are way much better.

Sorry, here's the link: hockey.powerplaym anager.... .

hockey.powerplaymanager.c...

hockey.powerplaymanager.com/en /game-summary.html?data=103467 18

Guys, I did some research on this and came up with some numbers... i've got the spreadsheet at home, I'll share my findings in this thread when I'm done work.

Home team had home ice advantage, played on much higher importance and had 5 PP chances with 2 PP goals.

Okay, based on a sample of 1200 games played in Canada last year, about 47 results were what I deem to be "Massive upsets".

Let me break it down further:

1200 games total

808 games where one team had 10% or more OTS than the other team
296 times the "underdog" won in the above 808 games (about 37% "upsets"

47 times the "underdog" who won had more than 25% less OTS than the other team (ie- Team X has 100 OTS, Team Y has 74 OTS, Team Y wins). That is essentially 6% chance of upset, given the data.

That was over the course of Season 7 in Canada (I think I took all the games from I.1 and II.X)

Thoughts? Questions?

What about game importance ?

I think the chance for an upset should be better, if the underdog plays on higher game importance. And if the underdog plays on lower game importance, the chance should be close to none.

Did you track....

Game importance?
Home vs Away?
Tactics?
3 lines vs 4?
Pulled goalies?

ROFL

What's so funny?

OTS means absolutely NOTHING if you don't play the game right. The wrong tactic at an away game can make a massive difference between winning and losing.

It really annoys me when people whine about losing games, but don't take into account EVERY aspect of the game.

I agree with you when you say OTS means nothing.

Bigger ots doesnt mean easy victory, and that sounds good to me. You have to play with tactics, intensities...

I think line strength, shot value, tactic, intensity, home advantage, random, maybe more are mixed up to give the off zone poss.
The more poss you have, the more shots you get, the more penalties your opponent is suppopsed to get, imo, the better chances to win the game you have, or am I wrong ?
What I dont understand (and do notice ) is why results are sometimes ( as my examples ) completly opposed to what they should be when you look at this off zone poss....
This is what annoys me ( sometimes upsets me ) in ppm,actually, I dont like lose nor win games like these.

True, in theory, but if team A, who has more possession has low shooting attribute then their shots will be less effective. If team B who has less possession has better special teams and much higher shooting, then they could easily score more than the team with more possession.

You are right, it could happen this way and it wouldnt shock me
To be honnest, it is rarely as you say, when you look at examples which are linked in this topic...

I took OTS because it's a high level indicator of a team strength...

I have access to all the other information you mention, but we're not sure if the old "tactics" work the same way anymore.

I did some other research on tactics, and found that Offensive, far and away, was the best tactic to use against ANY tactic.. So I did not include that in my research.

As far as Game Importance goes, I could modify my findings to results where GI is negligable (ie- both play the same importance), but I wanted to keep a broader scope on things.

The fact remains that regardless of those other factors, only 6% major upsets is pretty telling.

Yep, but the figures you have are far from accurate because it's impossible to truly take into account all of the factors. I think for 98% of the upsets, there is often a valid argument made as to why it happened.