Crawl Across the Ocean

Friday, April 30, 2010

2010 NHL Playoff Predictions, Round 2

Round 1 Review:

Washington vs. Montreal

Pick: Capitals in 4.
Actual: Montreal in 7.

Well, I didn't get that right, although it really wasn't far from being a Capitals sweep, and I did express concern that Washington wasn't a good playoff team...

New Jersey vs. Philadelphia

Pick: Devils in 7.
Actual: Flyers in 5

Wrong again, although I did say this was the most likely upset in the East.

Buffalo v. Boston

Pick: Sabres in 5.
Actual: Bruins in 6.

Probably the most wrong pick I had. I really thought Buffalo would play better D, but they didn't.

Pittsburgh vs. Ottawa

Pick: Penguins in 6.
Actual: Penguins in 6

Correct, played out as expected.

San Jose vs. Colorado

Pick: Sharks in 5.
Actual: Sharks in 6

Pretty much right, Avs were lucky to win 2.

Chicago vs. Nashville

Pick: Hawks in 6.
Actual: Hawks in 6

Right again.

Vancouver vs. Los Angeles

Pick: Canucks in 6
Actual: Canucks in 6

Phoenix vs. Detroit

Pick: Detroit in 6.
Actual: Detroit in 7

So 5 for 8, I nailed the West but missed all the upsets in the East (in fact I thought upsets were more likely in the West!)

Round 2 Predictions:

Pittsburgh vs. Montreal

Pittsburgh in 6

Boston vs. Philadelphia

Who knows, but I'll take Boston in 7.

San Jose vs. Detroit

OK, game 1 already happened, but I'm still taking Detroit in 7, despite their loss in game 1.

Chicago vs. Vancouver

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the Hawks have too much depth on forward for the Canucks D. Key for the Canucks will be if they can avoid getting pinned in their own end and giving up goals any time they are ahead in the series.

Pick: Hawks in 6.

Labels: , ,


  • I don't mean to be cheeky, but my random picks also landed me 5 out of 8...what can I say? It could have gone very differently!

    By Blogger Andrew W., at 3:13 PM  

  • Well, flipping a coin would net you 4 out of 8 on average, so it's easy enough to get 5 out of 8.

    And given that 1 of each seed (1 through) made it through to the second round, it almost seems as if the results *were* random.

    But I wouldn't want to mess with all the great narratives people come up with to explain what happened by suggesting it was all just random :)

    By Blogger Declan, at 12:37 AM  

  • Well, to be honest, they weren't really random, they just weren't based on previous performance!

    I was taking full advantage of the gambler's fallacy here.

    By Blogger Andrew W., at 6:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home