HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > International Tournaments
International Tournaments Discuss international tournaments such as the World Juniors, Olympic hockey, and Ice Hockey World Championships, as they take place; or discuss past tournaments.

Top countries in Olympic tournaments (since 1998)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-19-2012, 07:59 PM
  #51
saskriders
ColinGreening's#1fan
 
saskriders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary/Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,248
vCash: 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post

Yes they did in 1998.


I think I just explained why they couldn't use 2001, probably they could have used 2000 instead, but you make it sound like they should have decided that after the qualifiers had started which does not make a lot of sense.
In 02 they didn't

I understand why they couldn't use 2001 for teams that had to play in the qualifying tournament, but for teams that would have qualified for the preliminaries in both the 99 and the 2000 tournament, why not make the seeds based off the 2001 tourney. Those teams didn't play till the Olympics (whether or not they played in the preliminary) the IIHF could have used a mix of tourneys to seed.

saskriders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 09:14 PM
  #52
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xokkeu View Post
The preliminary round existed as part of the tournament structure. It was impossible for a team like Slovakia to get to the medal round if they were unable to survive the preliminary round.
They have given the rounds different names in each Olympics but I was refering to the first round that the contending teams (CAN, USA, SWE, FIN, RUS, CZE) played in each year.

I would weight the results depending on how far each team went in the playoff rounds, 8 points for winning, 4 pts for reaching the final, 2 pts for reaching the semi's and 1 pt for making the QF's.

CAN 19
CZE 12
SWE 11
USA 10
FIN 9
RUS 9
SVK 3
BLR 3
SUI 2
GER 1
KAZ 1

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 10:10 PM
  #53
saskriders
ColinGreening's#1fan
 
saskriders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary/Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,248
vCash: 1322
I did a table with the teams records and points (4 for a win, 3 for an OT win, 2 for a tie, 1 for an OT loss) for the last 2 Olympics (not enough players from 02 and 98 still playing to make them have merit in rankings today)


TeamRecord (W-OTW-T-OTL-L)Points
Finland11-0-0-0-344
Sweden9-0-0-0-336
Slovakia8-1-0-0-435
Canada7-2-0-0-334
Russia7-0-0-1-429
Czech Republic6-1-0-0-627
USA6-0-1-1-423
Switzerland2-2-2-1-419
Belarus1-0-0-1-25
Kazakhstan1-0-0-0-44
Italy0-0-2-0-34
Germany0-0-2-0-74
Latvia0-0-1-1-73

So from this it looks like Finland is the best, with Canada Sweden and Slovakia close for second, and Russia and the Czechs close for fifth.

However, this doesn't tell the whole story. Some teams will get better draws then others, so I made some more data, and have a table that shows what percent of a teams total points came from a game against a big 7 team (ex. team A has 9 points, they went 1-0-0-0-0 against big 7 teams, they get 33.3%)

TeamRecord VS Big 7Record VS Other% of Points From Big 7 Games
Latvia0-0-1-1-60-0-0-0-1100
Russia4-0-0-1-43-0-0-0-058.6
Finland6-0-0-0-35-0-0-0-054.5
Slovakia4-1-0-0-44-0-0-0-054.3
Switzerland2-0-0-1-40-2-2-0-047.4
Sweden4-0-0-0-35-0-0-0-044.4
Czech Republic3-0-0-0-53-1-0-0-144.4
Canada3-1-0-0-24-1-0-0-144.1
USA2-0-0-1-44-0-1-0-039.1
Belarus0-0-0-0-21-0-0-1-00.00
Kazakhstan0-0-0-0-41-0-0-0-00.00
Italy0-0-0-0-30-0-2-0-00.00
Germany0-0-0-0-60-0-2-0-10.00

Now this table looks different, but doesn't make a lot of sense, how can a team with no wins be the best? This table basically just tells us that teams that are higher up have had harder draws (with the exceptions of the very few point statistical anomalies, although 1 game in 2 Olympics against a non big 7 team is rough for Latvia ) This is basically telling us that Russia, Finland and Slovakia have had to work the hardest (of the big 7 teams) for their points.

However this still doesn't tell us the full story. You can't blame a team for getting a lucky draw. So I put together one final table that shows how many of the available points a team received from games against Big 7 opponents. (ex. Team B went 1-0-1-0-1 against Big 7 teams, 12 points were available, and team B got 6. Therefore team B gets a 50%)

TeamPoint % VS Big 7
Finland66.7
Sweden57.1
Canada54.2
Slovakia52.8
Russia47.2
Czech Republic38.5
USA32.1
Switzerland32.1
Latvia9.38
Belarus0.00
Kazakhstan0.00
Italy0.00
Germany0.00

So, Finland, Sweden, Canada, and Slovakia are the only teams to win more points (in big 7 games) then their opponents. Now this table, like the others, doesn't tell the whole story. And stats will never tell the whole story, for example stats couldn't explain Bieksa's series winning goal in the 2011 WCF. However if we look at the tables together then we see: teams overall records, how difficult their draw was, and how well they did against top competition. With that in my I would rank them (part is subjective)

1:Finland
2:Sweden
3:Slovakia
4:Russia
5:Canada
6:Czech Republic
7:USA
8:Switzerland
9:Latvia
10:Belarus
11:Kazakhstan
12:Germany
13:Italy

Not much change from the first chart, except I switched Canada and Russia because Russia had a lot harder competition then Canada. However 2-5 and 9-13 are pretty debatable in my opinion

saskriders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 10:46 PM
  #54
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saskriders View Post
I did a table with the teams records and points (4 for a win, 3 for an OT win, 2 for a tie, 1 for an OT loss) for the last 2 Olympics (not enough players from 02 and 98 still playing to make them have merit in rankings today)

So from this it looks like Finland is the best, with Canada Sweden and Slovakia close for second, and Russia and the Czechs close for fifth.

However, this doesn't tell the whole story. Some teams will get better draws then others, so I made some more data, and have a table that shows what percent of a teams total points came from a game against a big 7 team (ex. team A has 9 points, they went 1-0-0-0-0 against big 7 teams, they get 33.3%)
Now this table looks different, but doesn't make a lot of sense, how can a team with no wins be the best? This table basically just tells us that teams that are higher up have had harder draws (with the exceptions of the very few point statistical anomalies, although 1 game in 2 Olympics against a non big 7 team is rough for Latvia ) This is basically telling us that Russia, Finland and Slovakia have had to work the hardest (of the big 7 teams) for their points.

However this still doesn't tell us the full story. You can't blame a team for getting a lucky draw. So I put together one final table that shows how many of the available points a team received from games against Big 7 opponents. (ex. Team B went 1-0-1-0-1 against Big 7 teams, 12 points were available, and team B got 6. Therefore team B gets a 50%)

So, Finland, Sweden, Canada, and Slovakia are the only teams to win more points (in big 7 games) then their opponents. Now this table, like the others, doesn't tell the whole story. And stats will never tell the whole story, for example stats couldn't explain Bieksa's series winning goal in the 2011 WCF. However if we look at the tables together then we see: teams overall records, how difficult their draw was, and how well they did against top competition. With that in my I would rank them (part is subjective)

Not much change from the first chart, except I switched Canada and Russia because Russia had a lot harder competition then Canada. However 2-5 and 9-13 are pretty debatable in my opinion
All I can say is that for your sake I hope you never bet on sports.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 10:50 PM
  #55
saskriders
ColinGreening's#1fan
 
saskriders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary/Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,248
vCash: 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
All I can say is that for your sake I hope you never bet on sports.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that Canada and Russia are way above everyone else, because results say differently

Don't forget this is just for 2 tournaments, not overall


Last edited by saskriders: 12-19-2012 at 11:14 PM.
saskriders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 11:07 PM
  #56
Xokkeu
Registered User
 
Xokkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Frozen
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 4,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
They have given the rounds different names in each Olympics but I was refering to the first round that the contending teams (CAN, USA, SWE, FIN, RUS, CZE) played in each year.

I would weight the results depending on how far each team went in the playoff rounds, 8 points for winning, 4 pts for reaching the final, 2 pts for reaching the semi's and 1 pt for making the QF's.

CAN 19
CZE 12
SWE 11
USA 10
FIN 9
RUS 9
SVK 3
BLR 3
SUI 2
GER 1
KAZ 1

That is an interesting way to calculate it.

Xokkeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 11:22 PM
  #57
Hanji
Registered User
 
Hanji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saskriders View Post
I did a table with the teams records and points (4 for a win, 3 for an OT win, 2 for a tie, 1 for an OT loss) for the last 2 Olympics (not enough players from 02 and 98 still playing to make them have merit in rankings today)

So from this it looks like Finland is the best, with Canada Sweden and Slovakia close for second, and Russia and the Czechs close for fifth.

However, this doesn't tell the whole story. Some teams will get better draws then others, so I made some more data, and have a table that shows what percent of a teams total points came from a game against a big 7 team (ex. team A has 9 points, they went 1-0-0-0-0 against big 7 teams, they get 33.3%)


Now this table looks different, but doesn't make a lot of sense, how can a team with no wins be the best? This table basically just tells us that teams that are higher up have had harder draws (with the exceptions of the very few point statistical anomalies, although 1 game in 2 Olympics against a non big 7 team is rough for Latvia ) This is basically telling us that Russia, Finland and Slovakia have had to work the hardest (of the big 7 teams) for their points.

However this still doesn't tell us the full story. You can't blame a team for getting a lucky draw. So I put together one final table that shows how many of the available points a team received from games against Big 7 opponents. (ex. Team B went 1-0-1-0-1 against Big 7 teams, 12 points were available, and team B got 6. Therefore team B gets a 50%)

So, Finland, Sweden, Canada, and Slovakia are the only teams to win more points (in big 7 games) then their opponents. Now this table, like the others, doesn't tell the whole story. And stats will never tell the whole story, for example stats couldn't explain Bieksa's series winning goal in the 2011 WCF. However if we look at the tables together then we see: teams overall records, how difficult their draw was, and how well they did against top competition. With that in my I would rank them (part is subjective)

1:Finland
2:Sweden
3:Slovakia
4:Russia
5:Canada
6:Czech Republic
7:USA
8:Switzerland
9:Latvia
10:Belarus
11:Kazakhstan
12:Germany
13:Italy

Not much change from the first chart, except I switched Canada and Russia because Russia had a lot harder competition then Canada. However 2-5 and 9-13 are pretty debatable in my opinion
Wouldn't it be easiest to use winning % against big 7 countries? There's a reasonable enough sample size. And too much emphasis isn't put on any one game, or upsets against obvious inferior opponents.
Winning percentage based on available points:
1. FIN (.667)
2. CAN (.625)
3. SWE (.571)
4. SVK (.528)
5. RUS (.472)
6. CZE (.375)
7. USA (.321)


Last edited by Hanji: 12-20-2012 at 12:29 AM.
Hanji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 03:42 AM
  #58
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xokkeu View Post
I listed their numbers and specifically excluded them from the list.
The numbers you listed were misleading.

Had Belarus not been able to qualify once besides 2002, they would have been given a average ranking of 4, which is better than the USA yet not once did they go as far as the USA, not even in 2002. You'd just give them the benefit of having their worst 3 placings disregarded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saskriders View Post
I understand why they couldn't use 2001 for teams that had to play in the qualifying tournament, but for teams that would have qualified for the preliminaries in both the 99 and the 2000 tournament, why not make the seeds based off the 2001 tourney.
Because there is no real benefit to this method, which just makes the whole qualifying system more complicated than it need be.

jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 03:46 AM
  #59
Xokkeu
Registered User
 
Xokkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Frozen
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 4,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
The numbers you listed were misleading.

Had Belarus not been able to qualify once besides 2002, they would have been given a average ranking of 4, which is better than the USA yet not once did they go as far as the USA, not even in 2002. You'd just give them the benefit of having their worst 3 placings disregarded.


Because there is no real benefit to this method, which just makes the whole qualifying system more complicated than it need be.
They are not misleading when I say that they are excluded because they have only 3 entrants and that they are not being included in the list. It cannot by definition be misleading when I specifically point out that those numbers do not apply.

Xokkeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 03:47 AM
  #60
LEAFANFORLIFE23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomast View Post
Finland with most medals
yep gold is the only one that matters though

LEAFANFORLIFE23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 04:13 AM
  #61
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xokkeu View Post
They are not misleading when I say that they are excluded because they have only 3 entrants and that they are not being included in the list.
They had 4 entrants, not 3. You chose to disregard their worst entry when you had every opportunity to count it against their tally. All the asterisks in the world won't chang that.

jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 04:17 AM
  #62
Dynamo81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Moscow,Russia
Posts: 1,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanji View Post
Wouldn't it be easiest to use winning % against big 7 countries? There's a reasonable enough sample size. And too much emphasis isn't put on any one game, or upsets against obvious inferior opponents.
Winning percentage based on available points:
1. FIN (.667)
2. CAN (.625)
3. SWE (.571)
4. SVK (.528)
5. RUS (.472)
6. CZE (.375)
7. USA (.321)
How did you get these numbers? Canada 62.5%?

1998 Olympics
2 Wins 2 Losses

2002
2 Wins 1 Loss (1 Tie not included)

2006
1 Win 2 Losses (Imagine Switzerland was included )

2010
3 Wins 1 Loss

That is a total of 8 wins in 14 matches (57%) or if you include the Tie it is 53%. ?

Dynamo81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 04:22 AM
  #63
Xokkeu
Registered User
 
Xokkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Frozen
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 4,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
They had 4 entrants, not 3. You chose to disregard their worst entry when you had every opportunity to count it against their tally. All the asterisks in the world won't chang that.
No, I didn't disregard their worst entry, I disregarded them entirely from the list. Their numbers were simply put in the post for informational purposes only. I disqualified them entirely for missing a tournament. There was nothing misleading about it and it was clearly spelled out.

Xokkeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 04:48 AM
  #64
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynamo81 View Post
How did you get these numbers? Canada 62.5%?

That is a total of 8 wins in 14 matches (57%) or if you include the Tie it is 53%. ?
Maybe he took into account the fact that some of the games had to go to overtime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynamo81 View Post
2006
1 Win 2 Losses (Imagine Switzerland was included )
Excluding Canada's defeat against Switzerland or Sweden's against Belarus doesn't make a lot of sense IMO. Surely Sweden's 2002 QF defeat was a lot more meaningful than the one against Slovakia in 2006. I mean that was likely the difference between "gold medalists" and "laughing stock".

The reasoning that they shouldn't be included because they were upsets is weird. On the contrary one could argue that's exactly why they should be included. They say a lot more about a team's inability to perform than do games between evenly matched teams which are largely decided by chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xokkeu View Post
No, I didn't disregard their worst entry, I disregarded them entirely from the list. Their numbers were simply put in the post for informational purposes only. I disqualified them entirely for missing a tournament. There was nothing misleading about it and it was clearly spelled out.
By forcibly taking them out ot the list, you make it appear like they did not perform demonstrably worse than Slovakia, that their numbers cannot be directly compared. But they can be directly compared and they did perform demonstrably worse than Slovakia. This information was concealed in your presentation.

jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 05:29 AM
  #65
Xokkeu
Registered User
 
Xokkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Frozen
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 4,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
Maybe he took into account the fact that some of the games had to go to overtime.


Excluding Canada's defeat against Switzerland or Sweden's against Belarus doesn't make a lot of sense IMO. Surely Sweden's 2002 QF defeat was a lot more meaningful than the one against Slovakia in 2006. I mean that was likely the difference between "gold medalists" and "laughing stock".

The reasoning that they shouldn't be included because they were upsets is weird. On the contrary one could argue that's exactly why they should be included. They say a lot more about a team's inability to perform than do games between evenly matched teams which are largely decided by chance.


By forcibly taking them out ot the list, you make it appear like they did not perform demonstrably worse than Slovakia, that their numbers cannot be directly compared. But they can be directly compared and they did perform demonstrably worse than Slovakia. This information was concealed in your presentation.
I fail to find the logical conclusion that by excluding them from the list and noting that the reason for it is because they failed to qualify for a tournament, that somehow that leads one to believe that they did better than Slovakia. How did you come this conclusion. How can not being ranked be indicative of being ranked higher?

Xokkeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 05:44 AM
  #66
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xokkeu View Post
I fail to find the logical conclusion that by excluding them from the list and noting that the reason for it is because they failed to qualify for a tournament, that somehow that leads one to believe that they did better than Slovakia. How did you come this conclusion. How can not being ranked be indicative of being ranked higher?
I'll keep it simple for you:
1- their actual numbers are worse than Slovakia's
2- your numbers do not show that

jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 07:02 AM
  #67
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saskriders View Post
Yeah, keep telling yourself that Canada and Russia are way above everyone else, because results say differently

Don't forget this is just for 2 tournaments, not overall
I never said Russia was above everyone else, but since Canada alone has won half of the Olympics being discussed, plus the '04 WCup, I think it is safe to say they have been above everyone else.

I see you spent a lot of time on your calculations but I think you are missing the most important ingredient, common sense. You are suggesting that based on recent Olympic results that the defending champions should be ranked 5th heading into the next games. Does that sound like a logical conclusion to you?

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 07:03 AM
  #68
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xokkeu View Post
That is an interesting way to calculate it.
the weighting of each round is certainly subjective but having no weighting at all is like saying an NHL preseason game is equivalent to game 7 of the SC final.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 07:16 AM
  #69
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
I'll keep it simple for you:
1- their actual numbers are worse than Slovakia's
2- your numbers do not show that
disagreeing with his method is fine, but I think he has explained himself pretty well. Maybe you should propose you own way of ranking their performances and let us chew on that for a while.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 07:25 AM
  #70
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
Excluding Canada's defeat against Switzerland or Sweden's against Belarus doesn't make a lot of sense IMO. Surely Sweden's 2002 QF defeat was a lot more meaningful than the one against Slovakia in 2006. I mean that was likely the difference between "gold medalists" and "laughing stock".
I never did get peoples fascination with these upsets since all I see is that the better team was asleep at the wheel those days. People draw all kinds of nonsensical conclusions from these upsets, kind of like concluding that the tortoise can run faster than the hare because the tortoise won the race.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 08:08 AM
  #71
NyQuil
Setec Astronomy
 
NyQuil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 42,737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xokkeu View Post
The small sample size means that the 2010 standings alone moved Canada from 4th place to 1st and Russia from 1st to 3rd.
What's funny is that it's the same sample size as the IIHF rankings that some people are so fond of.

NyQuil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 05:25 PM
  #72
Hanji
Registered User
 
Hanji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynamo81 View Post
How did you get these numbers? Canada 62.5%?

1998 Olympics
2 Wins 2 Losses

2002
2 Wins 1 Loss (1 Tie not included)

2006
1 Win 2 Losses (Imagine Switzerland was included )

2010
3 Wins 1 Loss

That is a total of 8 wins in 14 matches (57%) or if you include the Tie it is 53%. ?
It was calculated on saskriders tables for the last 2 olympics.
Winning percentage against big 7 since 1998:

(W-L-T)
1. SWE .583 (7-5-0)
2. CAN .566 (8-6-1)
3. SVK .556 (5-4-0)
4. FIN .529 (9-8-0)
5. RUS .500 (8-8-1)
6. CZE .468 (7-8-1)
7. USA .321 (4-9-1)

Hanji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 05:29 PM
  #73
Xokkeu
Registered User
 
Xokkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Frozen
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 4,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
I'll keep it simple for you:
1- their actual numbers are worse than Slovakia's
2- your numbers do not show that
Nah, they pretty clearly do.

Xokkeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 05:32 PM
  #74
Xokkeu
Registered User
 
Xokkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Frozen
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 4,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
the weighting of each round is certainly subjective but having no weighting at all is like saying an NHL preseason game is equivalent to game 7 of the SC final.
It's interesting, but I'm not entirely convinced it's the best way to do it. Certainly gives a different perspective. Still if a team won the Stanley Cup by beating the #8, #7 and #6 teams etc, I think you still credit them for winning the Cup and don't need too many qualifiers. It does give a different and interesting perspective.

Xokkeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2012, 07:51 PM
  #75
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xokkeu View Post
It's interesting, but I'm not entirely convinced it's the best way to do it. Certainly gives a different perspective. Still if a team won the Stanley Cup by beating the #8, #7 and #6 teams etc, I think you still credit them for winning the Cup and don't need too many qualifiers. It does give a different and interesting perspective.
I don't think there is a best way. Last season Columbus was the worst team in the NHL by a fair margin, yet they tied the Stanley Cup champs in their season series (2W,2L). Make of it what you will.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.