Who had the Easier Ride (Penalties) to the 2024 Stanley Cup Finals, Oilers or Panthers?

Who had the Easier Ride (Penalties) to the 2024 Stanley Cup Finals, Oilers or Panthers?

Below is a comparison of the penalties given to the Oilers and the Panthers in their respective playoff series, previous to the Stanley Cup finals.  I should note that if I use the term 'bias' or 'advantage' I only mean that in the statistical sense of the term.  It does not mean that the referees were calling games unfairly (though many partisans might think they did).

Comparison of Penalties Given to Stanley Cup Finalists and their Opponents in First Three Rounds

Edmonton Oilers

The Oilers had just about the same number of penalties called on them as against them, overall (68 penalties to them vs 70 to their opposition). That is a ratio of 0.97 to 1.00, in Edmonton's favor.  So, overall a very slight edge for Edmonton over their opponents, over the first three rounds of the playoffs.

That slight overall edge was due to a large Edmonton edge during the L.A. series, where they had 0.75 penalties called for every one called on the Kings.  Those ratios reversed in the Vancouver series (1.03 penalties for Edmonton for every one called on the Canucks) and the Dallas series (1.33 penalties called on the Oilers for every one called on the Stars).

When playing in Edmonton's rink, the Oilers had 0.88 penalties for every penalty given to the opposition (some home-ice bias).  When playing in the opposition rinks, they had 1.05 penalties called against them for every 1 called on the opposition team (also a home-ice bias for the opposition teams, though not quite as strong as was the case in the Edmonton rink).

Edmonton had a strong home ice advantage in the L.A. series, but actually had both home-ice and visitor disadvantages in the Vancouver and Dallas series.  That said, things were nearly even in the Vancouver series, but not so much in the Dallas series (though the overall number of penalties was low in that series). 

In conclusion, the Oilers didn't get an easy ride from the officials overall, though it could be said that they had it easy in the L.A. series, very even in the Vancouver series, and were somewhat hard-done by in the Dallas series.

Rink Location	Team	Rnd 1	Opp	Rnd 2	Opp	Rnd 3		Total
Edm	Edm	7	(LA)	14	(VAN)	7	(DAL)	28
Edm	Opp	13	(LA)	13	(VAN)	6	(DAL)	32
Opp	Edm	14	(LA)	17	(VAN)	9	(DAL)	40
Opp	Opp	15	(LA)	17	(VAN)	6	(DAL)	38
EdmTeam – Home&Away		21	(LA)	31	(VAN)	16	(DAL)	68
OppTeam – Home&Away		28	(LA)	30	(VAN)	12	(DAL)	70
Ratio (Edm:Opponent)		0.75	(LA)	1.03	(VAN)	1.33	(DAL)	0.97
Edm Rink (Edm:Opp)		0.54	(LA)	1.08	(VAN)	1.17	(DAL)	0.88
Opp Rink (Edm: Opp)		0.93	(LA)	1.00	(VAN)	1.50	(DAL)	1.05

Florida Panthers

The Panthers had significantly fewer penalties called on them as against them, overall (65 penalties to them vs 77 to their opposition). That is a ratio of 0.84 to 1.00, in Florida's favor.  So, overall a significant but not huge edge.

That slight advantage was reversed in the series against Tampa Bay, where the Florida was penalized 1.33 times for every time that Tampa took a penalty.  Those ratios turned to the Panthers' advantage for  the Boston series (0.67 penalties for Florida for every one called on the Bruins) and the New York Rangers series (0.74 penalties called on the Panthers for every one called on the Rangers.

When playing in their home rink, the Panthers had 0.73 penalties for every penalty given to the opposition (a home-ice bias).  When playing in the opposition rinks, they had 1 penalty called against them for every 1 called on the opposition team (i.e. no advantage either way).

Florida had a home ice penalty advantages in all three pre-final series.  The advantage was fairly small in the Tampa series (0.92 penalties for every 1 penalty to Tampa, moderately large in the Boston series (0.75 to 1 for Florida) and large in the New York Rangers series (0.50 penalties for every 1 NYR penalty). 

In conclusion, when it came to penalties, the Panthers were almost completely opposite to the Oilers.  They were at a penalty disadvantage early against Tampa Bay, but had the advantage in the later Boston and NYR series.  

Rink Location	Team	Rnd 1	Opp	Rnd 2	Opp	Rnd 3	Opp
FLA	FLA	12	TAM	15	BOS	6	NYR	33
FLA	Opp	13	TAM	20	BOS	12	NYR	45
Opp	FLA	12	TAM	9	BOS	11	NYR	32
Opp	Opp	5	TAM	16	BOS	11	NYR	32
FLA Team – Home&Away		24	TAM	24	BOS	17	NYR	65
OppTeam – Home&Away		18	TAM	36	BOS	23	NYR	77
Ratio (FLA:Opponent)		1.33		0.67	BOS	0.74	NYR	0.84
FLA Rink (FLA:Opp)		0.92	TAM	0.75	BOS	0.50	NYR	0.73
Opp Rink (FLA: Opp)		2.40	TAM	0.56	BOS	1.00	NYR	1.00

Conclusion

It seems reasonable to conclude that Florida had a somewhat more favorable penalty situation than Edmonton, in the two teams' respective playoff series, prior to the finals.  This was particularly true on home-ice.  It will be interesting to see whether this pattern persists in the finals.  If it does, that would obviously be advantageous for Florida.  If the pattern is more neutral or favorable to Edmonton, the Oilers chances will be improved.

Throughout the season, both teams had excellent power plays and good penalty kill results.  During the first three rounds, Edmonton had the edge in these categories.  Should the home-ice penalty advantage hold for Miami, the Oilers will definitely need their excellent special teams play to continue.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here’s an account of a different sort of Canada-U.S. experience, though equally as interesting as hockey:

On the Road with Bronco Billy

Sit back and go on a ten day trucking trip in a big rig, through western North America, from Alberta to Texas, and back again. Explore the countryside, learn some trucking lingo, and observe the shifting cultural norms across this great continent.

Amazon U.S.: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00X2IRHSK

Amazon U.K.: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00X2IRHSK

Amazon Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B00X2IRHSK

Amazon Australia: https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B00X2IRHSK

Amazon Germany: http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B00X2IRHSK

Amazon France: https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B00X2IRHSK

Amazon Spain: https://www.amazon.es/dp/B00X2IRHSK

Amazon Italy: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B00X2IRHSK

Amazon Netherlands: https://www.amazon.nl/dp/B00X2IRHSK

Amazon Japan: https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B00X2IRHSK

Amazon Brazil: https://www.amazon.com.br/dp/B00X2IRHSK

Amazon Mexico: https://www.amazon.com.mx/dp/B00X2IRHSK

Amazon India: https://www.amazon.in/dp/B00X2IRHSK

=======================================================

What follows is an account of a ten day journey through western North America during a working trip, delivering lumber from Edmonton Alberta to Dallas Texas, and returning with oilfield equipment. The writer had the opportunity to accompany a friend who is a professional truck driver, which he eagerly accepted. He works as a statistician for the University of Alberta, and is therefore is generally confined to desk, chair, and computer. The chance to see the world from the cab of a truck, and be immersed in the truck driving culture was intriguing. In early May 1997 they hit the road.

Some time has passed since this journal was written and many things have changed since the late 1990’s. That renders the journey as not just a geographical one, but also a historical account, which I think only increases its interest.

We were fortunate to have an eventful trip - a mechanical breakdown, a near miss from a tornado, and a large-scale flood were among these events. But even without these turns of fate, the drama of the landscape, the close-up view of the trucking lifestyle, and the opportunity to observe the cultural habits of a wide swath of western North America would have been sufficient to fill up an interesting journal.

The travelogue is about 20,000 words, about 60 to 90 minutes of reading, at typical reading speeds.

==========================================