OK, so I wanted to have a look at the Stanley Cup winners and their shot suppression numbers. Running with that theory that Ryan has, but in reverse.

"The fewer roles of the dice your opponent gets, the less likely you are to lose."

I hate the negativity of the term, however with so much luck involved in the playoffs, good/bad bounces, or a hot/cold streak at the right/wrong time, well you get the picture, the less chances you give the other team the less likely you are to hit that bad PDO(luck).

Going through these tables from 2009, I will say this to Penguins fans, they fought off the 'luck' stat. Say what you will about that team, but they are the only Cup Finalist who has a PDO under 100.

As Ryan said to me the other day, Jordan Staal didn't let the Red Wings win in 2009.

If you look at the tables below both the Corsi for and Corsi against are all over the place for the winners of the Cup. However you can see the numbers for the 09 Wings team and the 13 Blackhawks teams being totally dominant.

Both of Boston's trip to the Cup finals was on the back of their goalie, I don't think anyone would argue that Tim Thomas was deserving of the Conn Smythe that year. Raask was also the reason the Bruins made the finals in 2013, however I don't think it would have mattered who came out of the east that year, the Blackhawks were dominant.

One thing that was consistent with all winners besides the anomaly of the 2009 Pittsburgh Penguins, is each club's PDO is over 100, some of them substantially so.

 

2015_02_13_09.png2015_02_13_10.png2015_02_13_11.png2015_02_13_12.png2015_02_13_13.png2015_02_13_14.png

Basically the winner of the Cup has either a better PDO or Corsi against (CA) than the other Cup finalist.

Maybe I should delve into the CA and PDO of each series to see how big the changes in each metric change, but I stand by my thought process at the moment, the ability to reduce the PDO component of your playoff run will go a long way to winning.

Thanks for reading.

FacebookTwitterDiggRedditNewsvine