I've written an awful lot about
Score-Adjusted Fenwick% -- an even-strength possession-proxy that weights shot attempts based on score effects, as opposed to other metrics (like FenwickClose%) which isolate just on "score-close" attempts. As it stands, it's the
single-best predictor we have available of future success.
In past seasons, I've sort of explored betting lines and series prices for various rounds, using Score-Adjusted Fenwick% to investigate potential profit avenues. I think the best example, by about a hundred miles, would be the Stanley Cup winning 2012 Los Angeles Kings. I think that's what started a lot of the analytics buzz in hockey, on top of Minnesota just totally coming apart in the seams during the regular season that year. They were as strong of a possession team as the in-their-prime Detroit Red Wings, but weren't really billed like that,
and came in as a super undervalued eight seed. Perfect scenario.
The first-round this year didn't present to me a lot of value anywhere. I figured Columbus would give Pittsburgh plenty of trouble (and perhaps win), but was wary of Pittsburgh's terrible underlying numbers being a product of dated injuries during the regular season. I figured Tampa Bay would take care of Montreal handily (this, too, was wrong), but was scared off by them not having Ben Bishop.
But, for the most part, simply picking the better team by Score-Adjusted Fenwick% would've given you six of the eight winners (five of seven if you consider ANA-DAL the flip it was). That's not any better or worse than your average guy picking the better team of the two, but if you isolate on true mismatches like Colorado v. Minnesota, you can win a pretty penny.
So, why am I writing all about this? The second-round has a tasty, tasty match-up.
At least one. Maybe even two.
First, let's look at some fun historical data. Here is the Score-Adjusted Fenwick% over the last twenty regular season games for every team that made it to the Stanley Cup since 2008.
I don't need to tell anyone at this point that you can't win a Stanley Cup without territorial domination of the opposition at even-strength. It's virtually impossible. Save Pittsburgh many moons back, basically every team has been above-average or absolutely elite. Look at the Western Conference! It's insane how good these teams have been out there.
OK, so there are four massive disparities here. Which, of course, mean nothing without knowing associated betting prices. We figure Chicago's going to absolutely steamroll Minnesota, and you imagine the sportsbooks do, too.
Well, let's look at the series prices courtesy Sportsbook.com:
For those who are unfamiliar, + identifies the underdog, - identifies the favorite. Additionally, when the + is noted, it's the amount you win by risking $100; conversely, when the - is noted, it's the amount you have to bet to win $100.
So, read it as: If you bet $100 on Montreal, you win $225. If you bet $270 on Boston, you win $100.
Simple stuff.
So, we know the mismatches -- Boston and Chicago -- that the sportsbooks agree on. The books, however, seem to be a bit stubborn with the New York and Pittsburgh series. Pittsburgh's a fairly decisive favorite (60% likely to advance here); you figure the sportsbooks here think the two are fairly evenly matched, but give benefit of the doubt to the team that will host four of seven games at home. Further, there's the worry I talked about earlier -- whether or not it was Pittsburgh's injuries that were actually crushing their underlying numbers, or whether this team genuinely holds pretender status.
I think New York, obviously, is for real. But I'm still going back-and-forth with this series, just because of a lot of the stuff I've laid out. Pittsburgh's just a massive question mark to me.
The fourth series, though? LA opened at -115 as a road team (!) and that's since been bet to -120. It's
extremely rare for a road team to be a favorite in a best-of-seven series, so they really are showing the team that beat San Jose in seven some love.
-120 suggests that Los Angeles is 54.55% likely to win the series against Anaheim. Strictly on the grounds of the massive disparity in the underlying numbers, I don't think that's close to reality.
An awful lot's been written about Anaheim as a good but not great team; a playoff caliber club, but not a Stanley Cup contender. Alternatively, many people have pegged Los Angeles as one of the three best teams in the league (amusingly, I would've said and still would say the same thing about now-eliminated San Jose). You can research all of this stuff far and wide.
Just something to think about as the second-round gets under way ... LA? Pretty tasty. Definitely would recommend a wager on the Kings.
Ottawa Senators Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»
