What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy casts another employee in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Jarice Brodie has done some cool things in his life. Next: Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
49 Comments
- markh100, on 06/07/2009, -2/+32I believe the Detroit Red Wings have a statistically significant chance of winning tonight, up 4-0 halfway through. I wonder if the team that scores the first four goals of a game raise the odds of winning?
- Wreckage, on 06/07/2009, -2/+23Lately being the Detroit Red Wings seems to raise the odds of winning.
- Barackalypse, on 06/07/2009, -0/+16Wouldn't an easier way of validating this hypothesis be to just look at a large enough sample of NHL games and see what percentage of the games were won by the team that scored first? Why deal with the complexities of looking at the time distribution of the goals or anything else when the answer is so readily found?
- neoneddy, on 06/06/2009, -1/+14With out RTA I'd say it's a physiological advantage at least, and as a goal tender myself, letting in the first goal is a real bummer, especially if it's the first shot (I've been known to do that).
- Fortune7, on 06/07/2009, -0/+12I believe the word you want is psychological.
I agree, though. - inactive, on 06/07/2009, -3/+12It appeared to increase the likeliness of them going up 5-0, which they did.
- blakecraw, on 06/07/2009, -0/+7Of course it ***** does, it's a one goal advantage!
- mmaine, on 06/07/2009, -2/+9Cleary just made the first goal for the Detroit Red Wings in Game 5 against the Penguins.
- gbudavid, on 06/06/2009, -7/+13only if there are no more goals scored in the contest
- inactive, on 06/06/2009, -1/+7Ya, statistically speaking, there are a significant number of games that end in shut outs.
And adding to that the fact that in a game that isn't a shut out, if both teams go after it completely evenly matched, they still have to play catch up, and so again, a statistically significant number of games that go past 1-1 are probably won by the first team. At least more than half.
Combining these, it's probably likely that games won by the first scorer far outweigh games scored by the second scorer.
Also, 3 games is far too small a sample size to confirm or debunk anything. - BoredDigger, on 06/07/2009, -2/+8Its because first one to score is more likely the better team. They have a better chance to score the first one.
- RyFo18, on 06/07/2009, -0/+5Thank you.
- inactive, on 06/07/2009, -1/+6Yes it does.
You have the advantage. The average number of goals per game is 3. Three scenarios can unfold from then:
You count 2 more goals - you win
You count 1 goal, the opposite team counts 1 goal - you win
They count 2 goals - you lose.
At equal skills and equal chance this is roughly 2/3 chance to win. Even if you add randomness or the fact there might be more goals, you have > 50% chance to win - arplayer2k, on 06/07/2009, -1/+6Datsyuk made a big difference tonight. Glad hes back.
- ph3rny, on 06/07/2009, -0/+4I think whoever scores more goals has a statistically significantly higher chance of winning.
- Kronos6948, on 06/07/2009, -0/+3In hockey, since the scores are lower, it makes it a lot harder for a team who's behind to come back and win it. If it were basketball, the first goal is meaningless.
- jfield1, on 06/07/2009, -0/+3Dugg for obviousness.
- starkraving, on 06/07/2009, -0/+3Yes, statistically speaking I think most of the time the team who scores first ends up winning. And then there's my stinking Vancouver Canucks, who led three different times in as many games against Chicago and ended up losing. WTF?!!
- ostracize, on 06/07/2009, -0/+3Maybe the other team gets stronger after they score the first goal?
- RyFo18, on 06/07/2009, -0/+2More than 3 goals are scored per game though....This article says it's 6, which significantly makes it more near a 50-50, but still gives a slight advantage to the first goal. And you have to agree, a lot of it depends on when the first goal is scored.
- duniyadnd, on 06/07/2009, -0/+2Not if you're the NY Rangers
- bmcnally, on 06/07/2009, -0/+2My coach used to tell us that 2-0 was the hardest lead to keep going into the 3rd.
- crazytucker, on 06/07/2009, -0/+2You score then precede to play defensively, and force the other team to play offensively. When they are on offense you have more openness in their defense and you can try to build the lead.
- jmferris, on 06/07/2009, -0/+2<sarcasm>Where is the fun in that? It is much more exciting to watch self-proclaimed "experts" get into a pissing match.</sarcam>
- trib4lmaniac, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2Technically, it's not.
- ostracize, on 06/07/2009, -0/+2Sure, you just apply the same principles as in the article and compound the results four times over.
- Nudar, on 06/07/2009, -1/+2Maybe I missed this part of the article. Does the team who scores the first goal win more often or not? All I see is a discussion of when goals occur.
- inactive, on 06/07/2009, -0/+1That makes more sense.
- Vworldv, on 06/07/2009, -0/+1Math Nazi here: actually, in stradf's scenario there is a roughly 75% chance of winning. This is due to binomial probability--there are two equally probable ways to gain one goal per team, depending on the order of scoring, each with equal probability to the other scenarios. :)
- ElAmo, on 06/06/2009, -0/+1Completely agree. Thank you for your sound statistical insight.
- Soulself, on 06/07/2009, -2/+3Just waiting for the one D-bag who knows nothing about hockey to comment on a hockey article about how no one watches hockey. Hockey is awesome.
- Auraness, on 06/07/2009, -1/+2I think you need to find another position.
- inactive, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1Does it really have to be a Poisson distribution? Aren't these games normally distributed such that there's no need for non-parametric tests?
http://www.teachersparadise.com/ - shrudheuie, on 06/07/2009, -0/+1Whoa. You mean being ahead increases your odds of winning? I think we should contact the National Institute of Science to confirm this. It just doesn't sound right to me.
- sanderscm2, on 06/07/2009, -0/+1Now...correct me if I'm wrong, but:
If (at the end of the game) the score is 1-0 then the first score wins, yes? - inactive, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1yeah, the team who first scores wins only when they keep the other one from scoring. LOL
- shoelessschippa, on 06/07/2009, -0/+1@ DigLord Do not even start! What about the 25 seconds of of too many men on the ice in game three? What about Malkin pushing over Osgood in Detroit after the whistle? What about the great Shakespearean flops by the penguins? Both teams do sneaky little things and Detroit started to do a little acting in game 5, so don't start about the officiating, its been horrible the whole series.
- lens42, on 06/07/2009, -0/+0Yes. For cripes sake, I never seen a simple question covered with so much mumbo jumbo. The title of the article asks a simple question, but article never provides the simple answer. As analysis, this is complete garbage.
- jaydub99, on 06/07/2009, -0/+0Well, they're not analyzing real results, just theoretical games. If goals are distrubuted normally, so many goals per game avg, both teams equally likely to score, etc. Nothing to do with the real world. But yes, the commentators are correct, I would guess maybe 70-80% of games are won by the team that scores first. Anybody got the stats?
Wel, ok, not quite. But close!
http://forechecker.blogspot.com/2008/03/does-it-re ... - nickmdp, on 06/07/2009, -2/+2For *****'s sake, can people stop obsessing over stats. Every time I watch any national broadcast of ANY sport, they always bring up useless stats like this, and it pisses me off.
There are times to bring up stats, like power play and penalty kill %, a player's season stats after he scores a goal, and intermission. Instead of ignoring what is going on and talking about how well the visiting team plays on Thursday afternoons over the last 50 years, talk about what is happening RIGHT NOW.
/rant - kinerry, on 06/07/2009, -1/+1technically, it's two. because the other team has to score two to get ahead
- jaytek13, on 06/07/2009, -3/+2Having not read the article, I would be inclined to say that the team who gets the first goal get's psyched up to win, while the team who doesn't get the first goal might subconsiously (or consciously) develop a losing mentality.
- cubbiesx, on 06/07/2009, -3/+2is everyone here being serious? i can't tell...
of course scoring first raises your chances of winning. as would being spotted a 1-0 lead before the game starts would. in other news, having more goals scored than goals against raises the probability of winning to 100%. - cztfbc, on 06/07/2009, -1/+0I don't think the author actually knows what a Poisson distribution is; there's no particular maximum.
- FrankFutter, on 06/07/2009, -3/+1Should've pulled Fleury at 4-0....
- DiggLord, on 06/07/2009, -5/+3Most of those goals he was screened, also it doesn't help that the refs feel like calling everything the penguins do a penalty.
- Thistlejack, on 06/07/2009, -3/+1Hot hand in basketball has been statistically disproved, despite what commentators believe. Even in 3-pt contests where defense cannot increase coverage on a player, the chance of hitting a shot AFTER a commentator has claimed the player in question is "hot" is no different than for other participants. I would imagine some of the same basic rules apply for hockey with some major differences: changing defensive strategy, etc. Or perhaps teams that are down play harder to catch up? The assumption mentioned in the article that each team has a 50/50 chance of winning is pretty dubious, though...
- graywong, on 06/07/2009, -6/+1Free Hockey HD TV Online in
http://www.nowgoal.com/11.shtml
Livescore,live Soccer,NBA ,Hockey,Tennis... in
http://www.nowgoal.com/11.shtml
enjoy your passion in
http://www.nowgoal.com/11.shtml - Jimbob200, on 06/07/2009, -7/+2That's a shame, I was rooting for Pittsburgh. Crosby needs to get it together!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is