I did a little more number crunching, and I found something fascinating that might explain why people believe in the curse: In seasons where neither team OR both teams touch their respective conference championship awards, the winner of the Campbell Bowl won 77% of the finals. If one team touches the trophy but the other doesn't, the winner of the prince of Wales Trophy wins 62% of the Finals. When the Prince of Wales Trophy winner is the only team that touches the trophy, they win 70% of the Finals. (wait till the end for the Campbell Bowl) So, if you're in the East, you'll want to try and do the opposite of what the other team does. If you're in the West, you want to try and do the same as the other team. It's similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma, except one side wins if both choose to split or steal, and the other side wins if one chooses split and the other chooses steal. This is where it gets crazy: If you apply the Prisoner's Dilemma game theory to touching the trophy in order to "steal" the Cup, it applies to every season (but two) where only the Prince of Wales Trophy was touched. However, the Opposite Prisoner's Dilemma game theory applies to every season (but one) where only the Campbell Bowl was touched. Applying either game theory to explain why a team lost in the Finals works for 10 of the 13 seasons where only one team touched their trophy (77%, same as when they both chose to touch or not touch) The only three seasons since 1997 where this doesn't apply happen to be the only seasons when the Campbell Bowl was touched and the Prince of Wales Trophy wasn't: 1997 - Lindros starts "the curse" 1999 - The infamous "No Goal" 2004 - "The curse" hits Iginla Thanks for coming to my Ted Lindsay Talk.
Love this analysis. What you’re describing is closely related to a classic game in game theory called “matching pennies”. In that game, each player chooses heads or tails with the rule one player wins if they match and the other player wins if they don’t match. This game is often used as a starting point in game theory for understanding mixed strategies and why it might be beneficial to be unpredictable in strategic environments
I think the bigger "curse" might be taking a team picture with the conference trophy, and not touching vs not touching. But also keeping in mind, the winner of the Cup is who plays better and irrelevant of a "curse" lol
Great analysis here. Additionally, I feel like 1997 is the commonly cited starting point of the curse, because it lets the person conveniently ignore that at least 5 of the 6 Cup winners prior to that year touched their respective conference championship trophy (could be 6 of 6 if there's any reliable footage/info on whether the 93 Canadiens did or not). ETA: There's footage of the 93 Wales final, Guy Carbonneau did in fact lift the Wales trophy. 6 out of 6 confirmed.
My Pittsburgh Penguins won all 5 of there Stanley cups when Mario or Sid touched the Prince of Wales and picked it up even too. The one time we didn't in 2008 we lost.
"Touch" team vs "No touch" team series is all that really matters. "Touch" team 9 wins and "No touch" team 4 wins. 69.2% success rate for "Touch" team. Margin of error is 25.1%. So, 50-50 case is within margin of error. Touching seems is good, but I would not call it confirmed because sample size is to small.
True, but you don't always know if the other team will touch it or not. Seems better just to touch when in doubt. I actually like what Derian Hatcher did in 1999. Skate up alone, touch it for the picture, and then skate away leaving it on the pedestal.
The Avs have touched it every time and are 3/3 in the Final. Just saying. Maybe it's more of a team tradition thing too. Every franchise seems to have their own superstitions about it.
