Stanley Cup Playoffs betting: Investigating the 'bounce-back spot'

Instead of working to determine which hockey team is better ahead of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, we apparently only needed to exercise some restraint and avoid betting Game 1 to find value. That way, we could've just piled into the loser of each series' first game to even the series in Game 2.

Losers of Game 1 went 6-2 on the moneyline in Game 2. The exceptions were the Predators - whom the Avalanche swept - and the Bruins, who eventually drew even back in Boston.

All of this is said in hindsight, but it's worth looking at a pair of issues around the concept of the "bounce-back game." How much of an adjustment, if any, are oddsmakers making for a bounce-back performance, and how much better does a team play after a Game 1 loss?

Moneyline market adjustment

Let's compare the losing teams' consensus closing moneylines for Game 1 and what they closed at before Game 2:

The Lightning, Predators, and Stars were the only losers to get a better price in Game 2. The market, never shy to back the Maple Leafs, got ahead of itself after the team's convincing Game 1 win. Meanwhile - whether it was the Wild, Oilers, and Panthers after a loss or the Avalanche and Flames after a win - the big favorite had their price pushed even higher.

With the Penguins forced to go with their third-string goaltender, the Rangers were bet out to -170 - the biggest discrepancy of the eight games. The move was a 4.5% increase in implied win probability and ended up being worth it when New York won.

Overall, the market didn't react strongly to the idea of a bounce-back situation for any of the various "types" of teams.

Even-strength play

Knowing oddsmakers and the betting market don't overreact after a loss - and considering the 6-2 record - did teams actually play better in a bounce-back situation? Or was it just a matter of the puck going in at a better rate?

Let's look at the even-strength expected goal share for each team in Game 2 compared to the first game.

The Bruins and Predators need asterisks as they lost both games on the road, but at least Boston improved its already good even-strength play.

The Wild didn't play as well at five-on-five as they did in a Game 1 loss but won anyway. Then they lost again in Game 4 with a similar ratio. That series is just weird.

The Lightning, Oilers, Rangers, and Panthers all improved their play in a win, while the Stars basically continued to play the Flames close to even and benefitted from the lone (non-empty net) goal the second time around.

On average, teams that lost the first game of the series bounced back by playing 3.24% better at even strength in Game 2, albeit with a wide dispersion of results. If that was reflected in a moneyline, it'd look like the difference between -110 and -125 for a pick'em game or -200 and -233 for a heavier favorite.

The 1-1 series refresh

With so many series at 1-1, the change in locations for Game 3 could be considered somewhat of a refresh.

Five of the six teams that took a lead after Game 3 lost in Game 4, but the Panthers, Flames, and Kings were the only ones to improve their expected goal share in Game 4.

With a little patience, bettors could have gone 11-3 on the moneyline just by relying on the NHL's signature parity. Though given the small sample size and mixed results of whether the trailing team can be expected to play better, bettors should be wary of blindly backing the bounce-back spot.

Matt Russell is a betting writer for theScore. If there’s a bad beat to be had, Matt will find it. Find him on Twitter @mrussauthentic.