Find year-round coverage of betting news and insights for all sports by visiting our Betting section and subscribing to push notifications.

We're in the throes of March Madness elsewhere in the sports world, while the NHL is truthfully a little sleepy, with a wild-card race that hasn't been turned all the way up yet.

So, while we wait for next month's Stanley Cup Playoffs, let's have some fun and play a "What if" for the NHL, while simultaneously checking in how each team is playing down the stretch.

If the NHL had a midseason tournament like the NBA, only it was one-and-done style like the NCAA Tournament, what would it look like?

Let's find out. Our theoretical bracket's based on the standings through March 17, and we'll use a different core element of hockey handicapping to advance teams in our made-up tournament.

Below are the 16 first-round matchups for what we're calling "Ice Insanity." Like the Stanley Cup Playoffs, teams need to come in playing "playoff-style hockey," since we're picking this round's winners based on teams playing the best since the All-Star break, using a tried and true metric: even-strength expected goals share (ES xG%).

The Red Wings advance thanks to getting one of two matchups that would give them a better xG% since Feb. 1. The Kings and Jets weren't so lucky, as they suffered the biggest theoretical upsets in this not-real exercise. The 2-seed Rangers probably should have suffered the type of upset the actual Stanley Cup Playoffs are known for, but their 46.4% expected goals share was good enough to get past the Ducks. The Golden Knights, the defending Cup champions, weren't so lucky, unable to get away with recent lackluster play.

With the playoffs only a month away, this exercise shines light on teams that may be vulnerable early relative to the betting market, depending on the matchup.

On Friday, we'll look at the Sweet 16 matchups, asking teams: "Is your recent play sustainable beyond a good first-round matchup?"

The cheat sheet

The betting world's dirty little secret is that while there are no bad bets at the right price, the process of discovering a good price is hidden.

Each week, we balance market information from regular-season point totals and in-season advanced metrics - with an even-strength focus - to determine the win probability for each team and the moneyline needed to bet on either side. The idea is to remove the cognitive bias of win-loss records, which can be skewed by outliers like special-team results, poor goaltending performances, and other unreliable events.

You can use whatever parameters you like to decide how much of an edge you need to trigger a bet, but here are mine:

• True line favorite of -111 or longer: 1%
• True line between -110 and +110: 2.5%
• True line underdog of +111 or longer: 4%

I also have a 5% win probability consideration for a team playing the second game of a back-to-back with travel and a 3% consideration for the second leg of a home back-to-back. For injured players, the player's impact on their team's win probability is estimated.

When the betting markets open up the night before, you can compare prices with our "price to bet" column to see if you're getting any value with either side's moneyline. There's a possibility that a moneyline moves into a bet-friendly range at some point between the market opening and puck drop.

Matt Russell is the lead betting analyst for theScore. If there's a bad beat to be had, Matt will find it. Find him on social media @mrussauthentic.

Copyright © 2024 Score Media Ventures Inc. All rights reserved. Certain content reproduced under license.