The So-Called "Randomness" of the NHL

[GGG]

Originally Posted by troutman

What can no longer be considered random - a Canadian team has not won the Cup since 1993 (a generation ago). No Canadian team made the second round this year.

Beyond bad luck, bad management, we have to conclude that Canadian teams are at a real competitive disadvantage. Is this something the NHL could or should address?

Ignoring pre lockout as there were systemic issues that we know affected Canadian teams ability to win there is roughly a 5% chance that a specific set of 7 teams won’t win the cup from 06-19. So it isn’t entirely unexpected and the odds are better than that as Winnipeg didn’t have a team for part of that and many of the teams had owners who mismanaged them.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by troutman

What can no longer be considered random - a Canadian team has not won the Cup since 1993 (a generation ago). No Canadian team made the second round this year.

Beyond bad luck, bad management, we have to conclude that Canadian teams are at a real competitive disadvantage. Is this something the NHL could or should address?

Calgary won in 2004.

More seriously, any disadvantage Canadian teams have is based in taxes, city lifestyle and the US dollar differential (the latter really only affects the owners' pocketbooks). It would be hard for the NHL to address this without creating some serious differences (like allowing a different cap for Canadian teams).

The other thing is mismanagement. Cup winners like Pittsburgh, Chicago and Washington have managed to parley high picks into success. Tampa has to a degree as well. Edmonton famously has not. We shall see if Toronto can turn the Matthews pick into success.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Calgary won in 2004.

More seriously, any disadvantage Canadian teams have is based in taxes, city lifestyle and the US dollar differential (the latter really only affects the owners' pocketbooks). It would be hard for the NHL to address this without creating some serious differences (like allowing a different cap for Canadian teams).

The other thing is mismanagement. Cup winners like Pittsburgh, Chicago and Washington have managed to parley high picks into success. Tampa has to a degree as well. Edmonton famously has not. We shall see if Toronto can turn the Matthews pick into success.

I'm pretty sure Dubas has already ####ed that team with contracts and Marner still left to pay.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by troutman

What can no longer be considered random - a Canadian team has not won the Cup since 1993 (a generation ago). No Canadian team made the second round this year.

Beyond bad luck, bad management, we have to conclude that Canadian teams are at a real competitive disadvantage. Is this something the NHL could or should address?

I don't think there is anything you can do, because I don't think the results have to do with a competitive disadvantage. Canadian teams in Winnipeg, Calgary and Toronto this year were all considered Stanley Cup contenders heading into the playoffs. I suspect the problem is primarily psychological—in a game that moves at the speed of NHL hockey, nerves and emotion arguably make a more significant impact than in any other sport. I think that playing in Canadian markets is hard for players and it always will be. The pressure is what eliminates Canadian teams from the playoffs more often than not.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Its parity, this is what the NHL wants. Playoffs races to the final day and coin tosses in the playoffs.

I've always said the four series between the division winners and the wildcards, the division winners should get 5 home games 3-2-2. Not sure that would have helped the Flames anyways.

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I understand that, but I think you need some sort of compromise. We know that a shorter season and fewer PO teams is not happening because of $$$. If anything, they will probably add teams. So, you need some sort of compromise - bye for the division winners or 2-1-2-1-1 advantage for them (5 home games)...

At first it sounds crazy, but the mindset of 4 home games likely came from 'let's not give the better team too much of an advantage' - which is out-dated and doesn't jive with the parity they wanted to accomplish. I also think that if a big shift was made to make home-ice advantage greater than just 1 game I would keep caring about the 82 games. I like the idea of 5 games, and I think I lean on 3-2-2 to tilt the home advantage that much more. 3 road games to start the series is a big bummer, plus it's less travel.

Hell, I'd like to hear how open they are to the idea of making this a gigantic spectacle. You want entertaining? The top seed each round hosts the 7-game tournament

That's a huge advantage on the ice, but it also makes it pretty gruelling to pull off an upset. That's hotels and being the bad guys around town from finishing the season through to May if anyone squeaks their way to the Cup.

Plus, just imagine what a top-seeded Calgary Flames could have meant for local businesses. If they go far, that's months of a pop-up NHL tournament you can cheer for all season long to get. And sometime in the summer some city gets to host a week+ of a Stanley Cup festival. I'm sure the NHL can find some cash in there somewhere as well...

Plus, with so many top-seeded teams going down some cities are suddenly home to an NHL tournament. How fun would that be? Surprise St. Louis!

You'll see a lot less 'resting the big names' to close out 82 as well if home ice means enough. The Lightning, deservedly, would be in the rare position to rest their stars and still be settling in for a long home tournament if we went full-crazy on the Playoffs.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Calgary won in 2004.

More seriously, any disadvantage Canadian teams have is based in taxes, city lifestyle and the US dollar differential (the latter really only affects the owners' pocketbooks). It would be hard for the NHL to address this without creating some serious differences (like allowing a different cap for Canadian teams).

The other thing is mismanagement. Cup winners like Pittsburgh, Chicago and Washington have managed to parley high picks into success. Tampa has to a degree as well. Edmonton famously has not. We shall see if Toronto can turn the Matthews pick into success.

I wonder why players aren't payed by the league to eliminate all of this?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't think there is anything you can do, because I don't think the results have to do with a competitive disadvantage. Canadian teams in Winnipeg, Calgary and Toronto this year were all considered Stanley Cup contenders heading into the playoffs. I suspect the problem is primarily psychological—in a game that moves at the speed of NHL hockey, nerves and emotion arguably make a more significant impact than in any other sport. I think that playing in Canadian markets is hard for players and it always will be. The pressure is what eliminates Canadian teams from the playoffs more often than not.

I do agree that this is part of the explanation, but Canadian teams won the Cup 14 times between 1971 and 1993. Was there no pressure then?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by troutman

I do agree that this is part of the explanation, but Canadian teams won the Cup 14 times between 1971 and 1993. Was there no pressure then?

The pressure was microscopic in the 1990s compared to how it is today. A lot of this has to do with how sports and media have evolved in that time, but I think a significant component of why is the circularity of it: the longer Canadian teams go without winning the Stanley Cup, the more the pressure in each market intensifies.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The pressure was microscopic in the 1990s compared to how it is today. A lot of this has to do with how sports and media have evolved in that time, but I think a significant component of why is the circularity of it: the longer Canadian teams go without winning the Stanley Cup, the more the pressure in each market intensifies.

No kidding. Just take one look at twitter and instagram feeds to see just how toxic Canadian fans are. Fans have unreasonable expectations of these players as human beings.

[Philly06Cup]

Over the last 20 years in the NHL, how many teams in the bottom half of the playoff standings have won the cup? I can think of 2: the LA kings as an 8 seed and the LA kings as a 6 seed. How many bottom half teams have made the cup final? Still not that many. This year is an anomaly, but most other years, its not that random: the better teams still tend to win in the playoffs. People are skewing facts for their own perspectives here.

[2macinnis2]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Over the last 20 years in the NHL, how many teams in the bottom half of the playoff standings have won the cup? I can think of 2: the LA kings as an 8 seed and the LA kings as a 6 seed. How many bottom half teams have made the cup final? Still not that many. This year is an anomaly, but most other years, its not that random: the better teams still tend to win in the playoffs. People are skewing facts for their own perspectives here.

So the same number of bottom-seeded teams have won the Cup in the cap era as President’s trophy winners.

Sounds about right.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by 2macinnis2

So the same number of bottom-seeded teams have won the Cup in the cap era as President’s trophy winners.

Sounds about right.

Well, yeah. But this glosses over the fact that 12 of the last 18 Cup Champions since 1999 have been top-two seeds in their Conference, and only five times has a team outside of the top-three managed to win.

In short, it is better to finish high.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Over the last 20 years in the NHL, how many teams in the bottom half of the playoff standings have won the cup? I can think of 2: the LA kings as an 8 seed and the LA kings as a 6 seed. How many bottom half teams have made the cup final? Still not that many. This year is an anomaly, but most other years, its not that random: the better teams still tend to win in the playoffs. People are skewing facts for their own perspectives here.

I think a lot of people are seeing this years playoffs as the results of parity, and potentially the sign of what's to come - contrasting the last 20 years

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Split98

I think a lot of people are seeing this years playoffs as the results of parity, and potentially the sign of what's to come - contrasting the last 20 years

I don't really see any reason to think there is a significant change on the horizon. It really does seem as a simple as an anomaly: while every one of the Division winners was eliminated from the playoffs in the first round this season for the first time in recent memory, last season all four played in the second round for the first time in years.

Honestly, this is just how things go sometimes.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't really see any reason to think there is a significant change on the horizon. It really does seem as a simple as an anomaly: while every one of the Division winners was eliminated from the playoffs in the first round this season for the first time in recent memory, last season all four played in the second round for the first time in years.



Honestly, this is just how things go sometimes.

It will be funny if that's how all this shakes out in the rearview

I think it feels that way for a lot of top-Division team fans right now - but Tampa and Calgary could be the final next year for all we know

[getbak]

Originally Posted by troutman

What can no longer be considered random - a Canadian team has not won the Cup since 1993 (a generation ago). No Canadian team made the second round this year.

Beyond bad luck, bad management, we have to conclude that Canadian teams are at a real competitive disadvantage. Is this something the NHL could or should address?

3 of the last five seasons have seen a Canadian team in the Conference Finals. In that time, 14 different teams have made it to the third round. 3 of 14 is 21.4%, which is very close to the 22.6% of the league that plays in Canada.



In the last 14 seasons, 4 Canadian teams have played in the Final, and 3 of them played in Game 7 of the Final. 2 of them had 3-2 leads in their series.

19 different teams have played in the Final since 2004. 4 of 19 is 21.1%, again very close to the percentage of Canadian teams in the League.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by getbak

3 of the last five seasons have seen a Canadian team in the Conference Finals. In that time, 14 different teams have made it to the third round. 3 of 14 is 21.4%, which is very close to the 22.6% of the league that plays in Canada.



In the last 14 seasons, 4 Canadian teams have played in the Final, and 3 of them played in Game 7 of the Final. 2 of them had 3-2 leads in their series.

19 different teams have played in the Final since 2004. 4 of 19 is 21.1%, again very close to the percentage of Canadian teams in the League.

Your calculations are off. The Oilers aren't a real NHL team, and should have been excluded from your numbers.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Split98

At first it sounds crazy, but the mindset of 4 home games likely came from 'let's not give the better team too much of an advantage' - which is out-dated and doesn't jive with the parity they wanted to accomplish. I also think that if a big shift was made to make home-ice advantage greater than just 1 game I would keep caring about the 82 games. I like the idea of 5 games, and I think I lean on 3-2-2 to tilt the home advantage that much more. 3 road games to start the series is a big bummer, plus it's less travel.

Hell, I'd like to hear how open they are to the idea of making this a gigantic spectacle. You want entertaining? The top seed each round hosts the 7-game tournament

That's a huge advantage on the ice, but it also makes it pretty gruelling to pull off an upset. That's hotels and being the bad guys around town from finishing the season through to May if anyone squeaks their way to the Cup.

Plus, just imagine what a top-seeded Calgary Flames could have meant for local businesses. If they go far, that's months of a pop-up NHL tournament you can cheer for all season long to get. And sometime in the summer some city gets to host a week+ of a Stanley Cup festival. I'm sure the NHL can find some cash in there somewhere as well...

Plus, with so many top-seeded teams going down some cities are suddenly home to an NHL tournament. How fun would that be? Surprise St. Louis!

You'll see a lot less 'resting the big names' to close out 82 as well if home ice means enough. The Lightning, deservedly, would be in the rare position to rest their stars and still be settling in for a long home tournament if we went full-crazy on the Playoffs.

If I told you the Japanese baseball playoff system you would not believe me and think it's crazy but here goes.


1. There are 2 divisions of 6 teams.
2. The top 3 teams in each division qualify for the playoffs.
3. 3rd plays 2nd in a best of 3, all games in 2nd's stadium.
4. The winner plays 1st in a best of 7, all 6 games in 1st's stadium, 1st is given Game 1.
5. The winners play in the Japan series, regular 2-3-2 best of seven with the better record getting home advantage.


Note: A game is declared a tie after 12 innings, so games could be replayed if needed.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by getbak

3 of the last five seasons have seen a Canadian team in the Conference Finals. In that time, 14 different teams have made it to the third round. 3 of 14 is 21.4%, which is very close to the 22.6% of the league that plays in Canada.



In the last 14 seasons, 4 Canadian teams have played in the Final, and 3 of them played in Game 7 of the Final. 2 of them had 3-2 leads in their series.

19 different teams have played in the Final since 2004. 4 of 19 is 21.1%, again very close to the percentage of Canadian teams in the League.

Not sure why you did the last calculation with “different teams”. Last 15 years there are 30 positions in the Finals. 4 out of 30 is 13 %. Cups won is 0%.

[2macinnis2]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Well, yeah. But this glosses over the fact that 12 of the last 18 Cup Champions since 1999 have been top-two seeds in their Conference, and only five times has a team outside of the top-three managed to win.

In short, it is better to finish high.

Pre-lockout isn't a fair comparison because there was no salary cap. For the most part the most expensive teams were the best teams in the regular season and playoffs.

In today's cap era NHL, the majority of teams and players are capable of playing technical 'road hockey,' and aren't fazed much by crowd noise or intimidated by the opposing buildings, which have become increasingly sterile with newer construction. There isn't much home ice advantage come playoff time. I'd argue last change probably is the biggest (and maybe only) tangible advantage.

Anyhow, this second round pretty much stinks. The best teams are gone. I have so little interest, and not just because the Flames are gone.

No one really commented on my proposal of eliminating the 'regulation rink' but most folks that I've discussed the idea with think it would be fun and could help restore a real home ice advantage.