|
How are you doing? A pretty simple question, right? When it comes to Stanley Cup playoff teams, some can say that they are doing quite fine, thank you, while others – well, not so much. A few more teams are no longer "doing" anything to advance to the Stanley Cup as they are "done", as in cooked. Summer vacation is already here for the Montreal Canadiens, Columbus Blue Jackets, St. Louis Blues and Philadelphia Flyers. Several other teams are ready to join them soon on the beach or at the local country club.
You might look on Montreal and Columbus with some measure of pity, having met the powerhouse teams of Boston and Detroit. You might say that they didn't have much of a chance over the course of a best-of-seven series. While that might not be too far from the truth, it still does not excuse being swept in four games while having your doors blown off in most of those contests.
How bad were their performances? Which teams have performed as expected, based on their level of opposition? Which offensive and defensive units have carried their teams to victory? To find out who has over- and under- achieved in their postseason series so far, we can use Tom Awad's latest Power Rankings to give us a measure of each team's expected goals for, goals against and goal difference and compare to those expectations to actual playoff performance.
On average, teams scored 2.91 goals per game during the 2008-9 regular season. Therefore, an average team would have had an offensive rating (Orat) of 2.91, a defensive rating (Drat) of 2.91 and a total rating (Trat) of 0.00. Against a similarly average opponent, they would be expected to have a Goals For (GF) of 2.91, a Goals Against (GA) of 2.91 and a Goal Difference (GD) of 0. Imagine, the Buffalo Sabres (2.95, 2.91, 0.04) playing the St. Louis Blues (2.91, 2.90, 0.01). Ah, parity.
You might note that one of those average teams made the playoffs while the other just missed the postseason. Those are risks of mediocrity in a league that allows 16 of 30 teams to enter their second season. Not withstanding the similar strengths of the Sabres and Blues, there was a significant difference between the average playoff team and average non-playoff team, on the order of about half a goal per game in total rating:
Average of: Orat Drat Trat
Playoff teams 3.03 2.82 0.21
Non-playoff teams 2.77 3.01 -0.24
Difference 0.26 -0.19 0.45
Looking at the first round matchups, it is interesting to note that the difference between the average 1-4 seeded playoff team and the average 5-8 seeded playoff team was not much less than the difference between the average playoff team and the average non-playoff team:
Average of: Orat Drat Trat
1-4 Seeds 3.13 2.76 0.37
5-8 Seeds 2.92 2.87 0.05
Difference 0.21 -0.11 0.32
What could we have expected in each series, based on the offensive, defensive and total ratings of each playoff pairing? By averaging each team’s Orat with their opponents’ Drat and their Drat with their opponents’ Orat, the expected GF per game and GA per game are derived. At a glance, the biggest favorites were Boston and Detroit, who went on to sweep their series, but the next biggest favorites –San Jose, Chicago and Washington– are still fighting for their playoff lives.
Expected (per Gm)
Seed Team Orat Drat Trat GF GA GD
E1 BOS 3.15 2.48 0.67 3.06 2.74 0.32
E8 MTL 2.99 2.96 0.03 2.74 3.06 -0.32
E2 WSH 3.15 2.95 0.20 2.94 2.79 0.15
E7 NYR 2.62 2.72 -0.10 2.79 2.94 -0.15
E3 NJD 2.93 2.65 0.28 2.86 2.78 0.07
E6 CAR 2.91 2.78 0.13 2.78 2.86 -0.07
E4 PIT 3.09 2.95 0.14 3.01 3.04 -0.04
E5 PHI 3.13 2.92 0.21 3.04 3.01 0.04
W1 SJS 3.07 2.57 0.50 2.99 2.77 0.22
W8 ANA 2.97 2.90 0.07 2.77 2.99 -0.22
W2 DET 3.50 2.96 0.54 3.15 2.89 0.27
W7 CLB 2.81 2.80 0.01 2.89 3.15 -0.27
W3 VAN 3.02 2.81 0.21 2.96 2.86 0.10
W6 STL 2.91 2.90 0.01 2.86 2.96 -0.10
W4 CHI 3.13 2.74 0.39 3.07 2.90 0.17
W5 CGY 3.06 3.01 0.05 2.90 3.07 -0.17
We can look at the next table to see how each team has performed at scoring and preventing their opponent from scoring. Not surprisingly, the three teams that swept their opponents dominated in GF and GA as well as in wins and losses. On a GD level, New Jersey and Carolina deserve to be heading for a deciding Game 7, while Washington has had a difficult fight to draw even with New York, even though they have dominated the scoresheets 17-10.
Actual (per Gm)
Gm GF GA GD GF GA GD
E1 BOS 4 17 6 11 4.25 1.50 2.75
E8 MTL 4 6 17 -11 1.50 4.25 -2.75
E2 WSH 6 17 10 7 2.83 1.67 1.17
E7 NYR 6 10 17 -7 1.67 2.83 -1.17
E3 NJD 6 12 13 -1 2.00 2.17 -0.17
E6 CAR 6 13 12 1 2.17 2.00 0.17
E4 PIT 6 18 16 2 3.00 2.67 0.33
E5 PHI 6 16 18 -2 2.67 3.00 -0.33
W1 SJS 5 12 14 -2 2.40 2.80 -0.40
W8 ANA 5 14 12 2 2.80 2.40 0.40
W2 DET 4 18 7 11 4.50 1.75 2.75
W7 CLB 4 7 18 -11 1.75 4.50 -2.75
W3 VAN 4 11 5 6 2.75 1.25 1.50
W6 STL 4 5 11 -6 1.25 2.75 -1.50
W4 CHI 5 17 15 2 3.40 3.00 0.40
W5 CGY 5 15 17 -2 3.00 3.40 -0.40
Finally, let’s break down each series to see how the on-ice combatants have performed, offensively, defensively and overall:
Expected (per Gm) Actual (per Gm) Deviation (per Gm)
Seed Team GF GA GD GF GA GD GF GA GD
E1 BOS 3.06 2.74 0.32 4.25 1.50 2.75 1.20 -1.24 2.43
E8 MTL 2.74 3.06 -0.32 1.50 4.25 -2.75 -1.24 1.20 -2.43
Boston’s four game sweep of ailing Montreal illustrated their domination on both sides of the puck, exceeding expectations by a goal and a quarter in both GF and GA. While the absence of team MVP Andrei Markov severely hamstrung the Habs on both offense and defense, the Canadiens deserve as much criticism for their weak performance as the Bruins deserve praise for their dominant performance.
Expected (per Gm) Actual (per Gm) Deviation (per Gm)
Seed Team GF GA GD GF GA GD GF GA GD
E2 WSH 2.94 2.79 0.15 2.83 1.67 1.17 -0.10 -1.12 1.02
E7 NYR 2.79 2.94 -0.15 1.67 2.83 -1.17 -1.12 -0.10 -1.02
With a flurry of scoring in Game 5 and Game 6, Washington has gotten their GF/Gm up to expected levels. The Blue Shirts’ offense has been even more anemic than expected, even against a below average defensive squad; without some late third period window dressing in Game 6, it would have been the fifth game in a row where the Rangers scored two or fewer goals. In addition to the perpetually referenced Henrik Lundqvist (.907, 1 SO), the Rangers will need every high energy player clicking on all cylinders to turn the tide and pull this series out.
Expected (per Gm) Actual (per Gm) Deviation (per Gm)
Seed Team GF GA GD GF GA GD GF GA GD
E3 NJD 2.86 2.78 0.07 2.00 2.17 -0.17 -0.86 -0.61 -0.24
E6 CAR 2.78 2.86 -0.07 2.17 2.00 0.17 -0.61 -0.86 0.24
With the hot play of Carolina down the stretch and with a late stumble by New Jersey, the Eastern Conference 3-6 matchup looked to be a highly competitive one, and it has not disappointed. This has been a low scoring affair overall, driven by the superior goaltending of both Martin Brodeur (.938) and Cam Ward (.942) – including dueling shutouts in the last two games. Instead of the 3-3 expected scores, these matches have averaged 2-2. That’s playoff hockey.
Expected (per Gm) Actual (per Gm) Deviation (per Gm)
Seed Team GF GA GD GF GA GD GF GA GD
E4 PIT 3.01 3.04 -0.04 3.00 2.67 0.33 0.00 -0.37 0.37
E5 PHI 3.04 3.01 0.04 2.67 3.00 -0.33 -0.37 0.00 -0.37
Our Power Rankings showed fifth seed Philadelphia with the slightest of edges going into yet another Battle of Pennsylvania, but Pittsburgh’s sustained run of excellent play since the trading deadline made the fourth seeds the favorites in the minds of many. On the stats sheet, the Penguins won this series on marginally better GA than expected. A solid performance by Marc-Andre Fleury (.922) against a gifted offensive team may have been the difference.
Expected (per Gm) Actual (per Gm) Deviation (per Gm)
Seed Team GF GA GD GF GA GD GF GA GD
W1 SJS 2.99 2.77 0.22 2.40 2.80 -0.40 -0.59 0.03 -0.62
W8 ANA 2.77 2.99 -0.22 2.80 2.40 0.40 0.03 -0.59 0.62
While the teams have done as expected when Anaheim has the puck, it is the matchup of San Jose’s offense versus Anaheim’s defense that has been the difference. The struggles of Marleau and Setoguchi have seemed to carry into the playoffs and the Sharks lackluster power play has been stonewalled by rookie Jonas Hiller (.953, 2 SO).
Expected (per Gm) Actual (per Gm) Deviation (per Gm)
Seed Team GF GA GD GF GA GD GF GA GD
W2 DET 3.15 2.89 0.27 4.50 1.75 2.75 1.35 -1.14 2.49
W7 CLB 2.89 3.15 -0.27 1.75 4.50 -2.75 -1.14 1.35 -2.49
The Blue Jackets’ first playoff appearance was fun for the brief time it lasted. Detroit’s statistical dominance on both offense and defense would have been even more pronounced if not for the Game 4 score-a-thon that brought Chris Osgood (.936, 1 SO) back down to earth.
Expected (per Gm) Actual (per Gm) Deviation (per Gm)
Seed Team GF GA GD GF GA GD GF GA GD
W3 VAN 2.96 2.86 0.10 2.75 1.25 1.50 -0.21 -1.61 1.40
W6 STL 2.86 2.96 -0.10 1.25 2.75 -1.50 -1.61 -0.21 -1.40
What shaped up to be a relatively competitive series was over in a short four games. While Vancouver’s offense and St. Louis’ defense punched in at expected levels, anyone who saw even a single game’s highlights knows that the star of this series was Roberto Luongo (.962, 1 SO), who helped suppress the Blues’ scoring down to nearly a one goal per game level from an expected three goals per game level.
Expected (per Gm) Actual (per Gm) Deviation (per Gm)
Seed Team GF GA GD GF GA GD GF GA GD
W4 CHI 3.07 2.90 0.17 3.40 3.00 0.40 0.33 0.10 0.23
W5 CGY 2.90 3.07 -0.17 3.00 3.40 -0.40 0.10 0.33 -0.23
The results of this series looked like a statistical dead heat before the Blackhawks 5-1 win in Game 5. Both teams have slightly overachieved offensively, aided by underwhelming efforts by Nikolai Khabibulin (.893) and Miikka Kiprusoff (.893).
What to expect going forward? The dominant efforts of Boston and Detroit, exceeding expectations in their first round series by 2.5 GD/Gm, bode well for deep runs into the playoffs. Better than expected performances by Vancouver, Anaheim and Washington (should they survive the Rangers) also portend favorably for those teams. The marquis matchup of the second playoff round may very well be the Red Wings versus the Ducks, matching up two recent Stanley Cup winners that are currently on a roll.
Timo Seppa is an author of Hockey Prospectus.
You can contact Timo by clicking here or click here to see Timo's other articles.
| 
0 comments have been left for this article. 
Conn Smythe Watch: Lundqvist Leads