Nate Silver asks: Why hasn't a Canadian team won the Stanley Cup in 20 years?

[The Goon]

Interesting look at the numbers and economics that might be some of the reasons a Canadian city hasn't raised the Cup since 1993:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/why-cant-canada-win-the-stanley-cup/?smid=tw-fivethirtyeight&seid=auto

edit: For those unaware, Nate Silver is a real statistics geek who has done a remarkable job predicting US election outcomes in recent years.

[calumniate]

I believe Calgary won it in 2004..

Good read though!

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by The Goon

edit: For those unaware, Nate Silver is a real statistics geek who has done a remarkable job predicting US election outcomes in recent years.

He's also the inventor of the PECOTA system of baseball projection. I read his blog and own his book... he is a very smart fellow.

If you want the cliff-notes answer...

1: Because the Canadian Dollar was low,
2: When the dollar evened out the salary cap restricted their ability to spend the windfall,
3: There are less Canadian teams then their should be given market demand.
4: Bad Luck

[Igster]

Odds? 6 (now 7) vs 23?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Igster

Odds? 6 (now 7) vs 23?

Straight odds suggests that a Canadian team would then win once every five years.


I haven't read the article yet, but the most obvious reason has nothing to do with geography. The six teams (excluding Winnipeg), have simply been managed extremely poorly throughout much of that time. Certainly economics played a role, but they all have long periods of poor drafting, signings they'd rather forget, etc.

Four Canadian teams have reached the final since 2004, and three of them went to game 7s. At this point, it is simply bad luck more than anything.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Very interesting. Awesome to find Calgary (and Edmonton) to have the highest percentage of "avid" fans at 67%, notwithstanding our recent lackluster teams. I just wish that would translate to a noisier saddledome!

[troutman]

Theory - the extra pressure on Canadian teams is not helpful.

Sports psychologists talk about athletes needing to be relaxed to perform their best.

The pressure to win in Canada forces teams to concentrate on short-term plans, rather than long builds.

[trackercowe]

I think he also sort of makes a point that Canadian teams are happy with being mediocre, and really have only attempted to find ways to make the playoffs rather than finishing as one of the top seeds. Which is absolutely true when you think about it. Calgary of course is the perfect example of a team that finds a lower seed perfectly adequate. But, that applies to all the Canadian teams really.

Then with some American teams the fans only seem to care if the team is a real contender, so they have to strive to be a top seed instead of a team in the middle.

Very good read though, it's really unbelievable that no team has won the cup when you look at the odds of it happening (99.2%).

[Table 5]

What an awesome article.

[Erick Estrada]

Some pretty interesting stats and it's cool to see Alberta teams have the most per capita NHL interest of all teams.



My personal take it the two biggest reasons oustide of a little bad luck are;

1. Canadian teams have been poorly managed in general compared to top flight US teams. Sutter for a few years was a bright light in what's been a poorly managed Flames team since Fletcher left. The Leafs were only truly decent when Fletcher was running them as well. The Habs have had some terrible GM's (Houle, Gainey, Gauthier). The Oilers....well enought said there under Lowe. Ottawa and Vancouver haven't had the outright GM circuses that the the other Canadian cities have gone through but nothing spectacular either and average isn't good enough to be the best.
2. The intense media spotlight adds immense pressure that most US markets players don't have to deal with. In most US cities the players can just focus on playing the games and going home to their families. In Canada everywhere they go in public people know who they are and if the team is struggling it's hard to escape the pressure. GM's are under more pressure and scrutiny as well. It's easier for a US team to undergo a rock bottom rebuild than it is in Canada where fans and media have less patience.

[macrov]

As amazing at Nate Silver is, and as good as his analysis is, he does make some pretty obvious mistakes when analyzing his thesis that "Canadian teams have more fans, and are profitable, so don't need to field teams that are as good"

1) In his regression of US VS American teams, he shows a positive relationship between on ice performance and profitability. There is no such positive statistical relationship in Canada. Ok...that's great on first glance. But, Silver also explains that all the Canadians team make an operating profit but not all US teams do. So, by extension, Canadian teams can spend more equal amounts on payroll, while some US teams will be constrained to spend by their revenues (Ie - Nashville, Florida). As a result, there would per a correlation between profitability and performance in the US, because more profitable teams can spend more on payroll. In Canada most of the teams can spend up to the Cap if it makes sense for them to do so.

2) His argument is weaker when you consider that to become a contender, you often need to pick up top 5 overall draft talent. Toews, Kane, Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Doughty, Schenn, and Johnson were all top 5 talent playing for 1 of the 4 final teams. How do you get top 5 draft talent? By being really bad. Which teams can afford to be bad - teams in market with lots of hardcore fans? Or teams in markets with a lot of fickle fans? Arguably its the former. Which suggests that teams with more fans should end up with better draft picks because they can afford to think more long-term.

3) He ignores that for many owners, the primary reason of owning a team is not the money - Tampa, Calgary, Ottawa, Buffalo, Detroit come to mind as the most obvious. So incentives for winning are aligned regardless of fan intensity or number of fans.

----

I think the issue with the Canadian teams has more to do with the first part of his argument - in the mid 1990s to early 2000s, Calgary, Vancouver and Edmonton couldn't really field competitive teams. As a result their were only 3 teams that could seriously compete.

[sun]

I will bookmark this to read later, but my uneducated, personal opinion is that it's partly because of the fans. Management groups listen to rabid fans and make emotional decisions based on our reactions instead of logical decisions based on reality. Canadian teams chase a cup after their window has closed to win a cup for their fans. Worst thing for an NHL team is a large, vocal fanbase and a management group that listens to them. We're not the experts - they are.

Our buildings also sell out regardless of how well the team is playing - less incentive to win. The oilers were the worst team in history the past 3-4 years and they sold out every game right? Think katz would have fired klown by now if the building was half empty the past three years? Me too. Instead he is thankfully still employed and will hopefully run that franchise even further into the ground.

[troutman]

The Avid Fan tables are interesting.

The data suggests Halifax has twice as many avid NHL fans than Nashville.

Six small markets in Canada have more avid fans than Seattle.

This measure of hockey fans does a very good job of predicting each team’s profitability. The 13 teams with 700,000 or more N.H.L. fans in their markets all made money and totaled $357 million in operating profits. The six teams in markets with fewer than 300,000 fans all lost money, totaling $77 million in operating losses. The teams between 300,000 and 700,000 fans had varied results but roughly broke even, on average. (This is the range in which a quality of a team’s management matters, along with other factors like per-capita income in the region and a team’s appeal outside its immediate metropolitan area.)

Six of the seven Canadian teams are above the 700,000-fan threshold (and therefore made money). So did Winnipeg, with roughly 560,000 fans. In total, Canadian teams brought in $219 million in operating profits in 2011-12 — whereas the American teams made a net of just $31 million. (Outside of the highly profitable Rangers, in fact, the United States-based teams lost money that year.)

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by sun

I will bookmark this to read later, but my uneducated, personal opinion is that it's partly because of the fans. Management groups listen to rabid fans and make emotional decisions based on our reactions instead of logical decisions based on reality. Canadian teams chase a cup after their window has closed to win a cup for their fans. Worst thing for an NHL team is a large, vocal fanbase and a management group that listens to them. We're not the experts - they are.

Our buildings also sell out regardless of how well the team is playing - less incentive to win. The oilers were the worst team in history the past 3-4 years and they sold out every game right? Think katz would have fired klown by now if the building was half empty the past three years? Me too. Instead he is thankfully still employed and will hopefully run that franchise even further into the ground.

I was thinking the same thing. The fans in most Canadian cities would be burning effigies if they had to endure the long rebuilds that many American market went through to build a contender. We just have no patience and I think it is really detrimental. Even with the Flames rebuilding finally, many fans talk about ways to try and speed it up... which almost always ends in failure.

[Tinordi]

Nate Silver for NHL President.

[thefoss1957]

I think one can point to ineptness of some ownership groups...Take an example, the team I cheer for, a non-Canadian team to be sure, but, due to inept ownership, went from 1962 to 2009 without a championship, despite time in a 6 team league. Even early expansion teams flew by us, in terms of success.

In the case of Bill Wirtz, he had been quoted as saying that it was TOO EXPENSIVE TO WIN THE STANLEY CUP...his goal was profit taking from playoff revenue, and saw no reason to expend resources for the ultimate team prize.

I think Toronto has suffered from the same, and to a lesser degree Montreal and Edmonton. Calgary has had, IMO, issues with adaptation to the changes in the NHL over the last decade. Sutter, when in charge there, seemed stuck in his playing era's style, to the detriment of offensive creativity.

The Senators and Canucks seem like cursed franchises (and as a 'Hawk fan, I curse Vancouver regularly!). Honestly, I often forget that there even is a franchise in Ottawa, they are so far off of the radar in the US press, and as Western Conference fan, I pay far less attention to Eastern teams, and really can't comment much about the Sens.

Winnepeg, of course came from an expansion team in a weak division, and really is still establishing themselves. The Thrash never seemed to be able to put anything to gether in Atlanta.

Quebec/Colorado and Winnepeg/Phoenix, two ex-WHA Canadian teams, both had issues post-merger and left Canada, seeking to carve market niches in the US. Quebec just couldn't seem to compete with the Habs, Winnepeg was having severe cash issues befor bailing to the desert.

Montreal's fan dynamics, IMO, works against team success...even to fans demanding, not necessesarily a brilliant or competant coach, but by narrowing the coaching pool to Francophones only.

My 'Hawks only won 3 Cups in 40 years in a six-team league. Winning the Cup is not a given for any team, and now it is a 30 team league. In an "average" year, among Canadian Teams, there are likely 2 good teams, 3 average teams and 2 weak teams...it is not surprising that the Cup hasn't been hoisted up North in a while.

[SofaProfessor]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I just wish that would translate to a noisier saddledome!

Avid fans may not necessarily be able to afford going to games. When I lived in Calgary, if I went to the Dome for a game it was once or twice a season. Just too expensive when I can watch at home with friends. Now, I could easily afford season tickets (actually getting them may be another story) but I don't live in Calgary. 'Tis life. Point is, I am an avid fan, watch every single game and follow all the news. I contribute exactly nothing to the Saddledome crowd.

[Meers]

I understand the economics of the low Canadian dollar as the primary culprit through the early 2000s.

Nate's argument concerning the possible chief problem since then:

Finally, and related to the excess demand for hockey in Canada, Canadian teams routinely sell out their arenas at high ticket prices — whether or not they are any good. This may reduce their incentive to compete.

ignores that the principal financial incentive for on-ice success in Canada is additional revenue from playoff games.

Without salaries to pay, the owners make out like bandits from an extended playoff run.

So, there's still plenty of financial incentive for Canadian teams to ice a successful squad.

[Meers]

Originally Posted by macrov

2) His argument is weaker when you consider that to become a contender, you often need to pick up top 5 overall draft talent.

On that basis, the Oilers should be a lock to win the Cup. But obviously, the reality is different . . .

[browna]

There are certainly economics involved...and by the time the economics sorted itself out with the Canadian dollar, then you still had no cap, which other teams were so far ahead on before there was a cap (ie DET). Once that was rectified, you also then had to flush through the system all the decisions (on roster players and management) that were originally made with the Canadian dollar and then cap restrictions in mind.

And then, as has been mentioned, toss in the fans and media from the Canadian cities clamouring for their team to provide quicker than reasonable fixes, which, if not managed properly, pile up and snowball into a stickier situation, where US teams don't have that same pressure/timeline.