Final Numbers and a Couple of Random Thoughts

662-643      +95

15-3      +1373 in Playoffs

This was another exciting season and is shaping up as an interesting playoffs.   There are a couple of juggernauts, like Colorado and Carolina, as well as some surprising teams, like Anaheim and Philadelphia that are providing a good mix of very good teams as well as some hot teams that will provide plenty of playoff excitement.  

This is the worst season I have had in any sport.  It started off okay.  But then went downhill in a hurry.  Every time I would gain some traction it would slip away again.  Then I had a decent run to close out the regular season.  

I was just assuming it was an excessive amount of variance that would eventually even out.  Which it sort of did.  

But I will have to look at the numbers that I use and see what adjustments need to be done or if some might need to be added or dropped from the models that I use.  

It might be my imagination that so many team totals, puck lines, and totals would go over or lose to empty-netters.  It could be that I just do not remember the ones that I needed hitting because of empty-netters.

Nowadays, with the slightly higher scoring than many years ago I think the analytics has shifted a bit more to emphasizing things I may not have fully accounted for.  Things such as power play efficiency and faster players with a higher skill set.  

I think in most sports you see better value in the unders instead of the overs.  But, naturally, the books will shade the totals this way to account for more elite goalies or slower teams.

There is a slight uptick in empty-net goals.  This is due partly to coaches pulling the goalies earlier than they used to.  The analytics has changed the game in this area.  Around 25-35% of games will have an empty-net goal.  This will work out to about .3-.4 empty-net goals a game.  

This may be a key area I will have to look at.  

Another way analytics has changed the game is in the rise of xG — expected goals.  

There is now an emphasis on shot quality over quantity.  

For example, teams have moved away from ‘low-danger point’ shots.  They now are emphasizing ‘slot shots’ and ‘cross-ice’ passes.  In other words, there is more ‘east-west’ passes.  

There is now more reliance on the analytics for data for zone starts, hiding weaker players, and player matchups.  

The pace is emphasized and is quicker.  

The power play has shifted to more ‘one timers’ and ‘seam passes’.  Now teams are using more of a ‘1-3-1’ style of setup for this.   

This has resulted in power play efficiency climbing and helping to add to the totals.  

Goalies are now looked at with more than just ‘shots saved’.  They are now looked at with GSAx, or ‘goals saved above expected’.  

Then on the defensive side, the idea of just ‘collapsing and blocking shots’ has changed to more of a style of concentration on ‘preventing dangerous shots altogether’ style of defense.  

The new look at load management and rest has also changed the game to have more pace and consistency at the end of the game.

So, as a whole, analytics has shifted the game toward more efficiency, more speed, and more high-danger chances.  

From a betting perspective this has been good for a higher-scoring baseline and more volatility.  This tends to aid in scoring.

So, now there is an increase in offensive quality, reduction in dumb plays that could be exploited, and an increase in late-game leverage decision making.

The obvious thing in drastic changes in the league is that some coaches and teams will use these new analytics advancements before other teams and/or better than other teams as the game transitions.  You saw this with the MLB and you see it with the NFL.

These are a few of the things I will have to reevaluate at the end of the year.

I felt like I was getting a better grasp toward the end of the season and starting the playoffs.  

But last night seemed to be a microcosm of the season — where I was more lucky than right.  

I know luck is a huge part of it and you try to set yourself up for luck to happen along with good capping.  

The Ottawa game seemed to have plenty of chances and I assumed Ottawa would go all out earlier and even allow Carolina a couple of backend goals early on because of this.  

I got very lucky for this to go over.  It needed 4 goals in the last period and 3 of those in the last two-and-half minutes.  

The Minnesota game seemed to start like I expected with both teams scoring in the 1st period.  It had plenty of action after that in front of the goals but nothing was going in.  So, the over was dead even though it had the shots and good looks on goal. Then Minnesota started really pressing late and in the overtime and had a couple of times they were very fortunate that Wallstedt made some great saves.  It was expected to be a close game and I feel fortunate to get a win here.  I had doubled up on it because I really expected Minnesota to have a solid game-plan to attack early and this did not materialize.

Then the Philadelphia game started slower than I expected and never got into the pace I expected.  Then I was very lucky to get the empty-netter to get the game over.  

Usually in the playoffs I up the unit sizes because there are better teams that are more focused and I can pick my spots better.  

While I was playing them for a higher unit size, I did not feel comfortable posting them at that size.   

So, I think this has just been a good — and lucky — start to the playoffs.   

Like they say: sometimes it is better to be lucky than good.  

I will continue to play the games and hope Edmonton and Boston can play their way into the next round.  Maybe even Montreal could make a deep run for all of the Canadian fans.  

BOL to all in the forum the rest of the way.

Betting 1300+ games and being ahead even 1 cent is very good imo lol

Sometimes the best bet is the one you don’t make. I have to remind myself of that all the time. 

In regards to your overall theme of changing trends, I’d have to say this is absolutely a thing. When I got serious about capping puck totals my edge was always in taking unders.

Post bubble this is much more difficult. It’s not that the Unders are not there, but my data no longer is in synch.

Also, from a purely subjective angle, there is a weird inconsistency within the games. I should probably look at period totals more. In a LOT of games, teams seem to shut down for large sections. I’m seeing periods where a team might register 3-4 shots, then come out next period and hammer SON. No idea why this has become so prevalent. Are these guys analyzing flow and figuring out, ok, this game is all going to be decided in the last 10-12 minutes of the third so we’ll rest and put the hammer down then?

Consistency..the late Lem Banker always pumped the merits of NBA betting because the factors leaned toward consistent game flow. Round ball, flat playing surface, fewer participants. Hockey is the exact opposite to start with and then you throw in the empty nets, PPs OT erratic goalies…

@Gainsford

 Very good points.  I have rarely looked into period betting.  

I think it is more fluky betting.  I think the better teams/bets wins out the longer you give it.

You see this with tennis.  The better players will win more when the match is best of 5 sets instead of best of 3 sets.

You see it in MLB.  The better teams will win the best of 7 games as opposed to best of 3 or 5 games.

Weaker players/teams can get lucky in a smaller timeframe and the better ones will overcome it in a longer timeframe.

But you bring up an interesting point about the flow of the game and the inconsistency at times.

So, maybe there is something to look at there.

As a non mathematical statistical thinker most of the time (I wish I had more of the left brain when it comes to numbers but I have a combo of both sides I think) I find the more I crunch it ends up in paralysis by analysis. Modern sports has evolved into bigger, faster, stronger, and essentially year round. So whether you like the product or not there is more skill involved in these sports. While I do agree there are value in unders because the under is like taking the don't pass or don't come in craps. The inclination for people is to want take offense so value is on the unders. I hate unders so much because I have been burned (as many can attest) in so many leagues (whether it's a meaningless fourth quarter TD, empty net goal, or a bucket in the waning seconds in basketball) that I am loathe to take them even with the value. I still do but I go in with the caveat I may get screwed late while being right most of the game.  

Loved your insight on the offensive and defensive sides in NHL. Always enjoy seeing your posts in NHL, MLB, and NFL with the analysis. A great asset to the forum win or lose