HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > International Tournaments
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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
12-20-2012, 09:03 PM
  #76
Xokkeu
Registered User
 
Xokkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Frozen
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 4,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
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.
I saw a study that statistically claimed that a 38 game European soccer season didn't give a statistically reliable conclusion on who had the best team. The authors actually said it would take a minimum of 7 full seasons or 266 games.

Xokkeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:50 AM
  #77
Raimo Sillanpää
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Espoo, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,203
vCash: 500
This thread is about consistency and funny enough, those results stand true even when you toss in the 1 non-olympic best on best tournamenet we've had. The last world cup of hockey.
Canada winning with Finland second.

That consistency from what should arguably be the 5th-7th of the top 7 nations on paper is the best proof anyone ever needs that team is spelled with a capital T.

Raimo Sillanpää is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 07:26 AM
  #78
daver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 3,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xokkeu View Post
I saw a study that statistically claimed that a 38 game European soccer season didn't give a statistically reliable conclusion on who had the best team. The authors actually said it would take a minimum of 7 full seasons or 266 games.
Did the authors play sports?

Way too much emphasis on the preliminary round (or whatever you want to call the round before the medal round) especially where all teams make it to the medal round. It's who wins when it's do or die that matters. The cream rises to the top in those situations.

I would give points as follows:

3 for gold
2 for silver
1 for bronze

So:

Canada - 6
US - 4
Finland 4
Czech - 4
Sweden - 3
Russia - 3

Throw in 04 World Cup

Canada - 9
Finland 6
Czech - 5
US - 4
Sweden - 3
Russia - 3

daver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 08:13 AM
  #79
roto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 456
vCash: 500
This thread is interesting but also a bit stupid. Sample size is very small and tournament format is not good, so there's no way to make any proper statistical conclusion.

It's clear that Canada has been best if we look at four last olympics and the WC 2004 (three wins out of five). Finland has been consistently strong and it's hard to argue against it (four times in top three). Sweden, for example, has been a disappointment with four QF losses (even though they have one gold).

I'd like to see tournament where all top-8 countries played against each other and then the final would be played by the two best teams. It'd be good at least for two reasons:
- All games would be important
- A lot of games between top teams
- No blowouts
- Winning several good teams is required to make it into the final

Even though I don't give much value to those olympic tournament results, it still requires something more than just luck to win three of five tournaments (or to finish four times in top three with not-so-talented team).

roto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 10:55 AM
  #80
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xokkeu View Post
I saw a study that statistically claimed that a 38 game European soccer season didn't give a statistically reliable conclusion on who had the best team. The authors actually said it would take a minimum of 7 full seasons or 266 games.
I have always felt that as a fan good international hockey is a lot of fun to watch but the results are a pretty poor indicator of which country has the best players. Over time the countries with the best players will win more often, but single games or even single tournaments don't really tell you anything. For example as bad as Canada did at the Turin games anyone can see that player for player Canada had by far the best line up, same goes in '98 and every other major tournament with the possible exception of the US in '96. People will call me arrogant for saying that but it's only because we have had so many more people playing the game than everyone else. I don't know why anyone would expect it to be any different.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 02:31 PM
  #81
roto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 456
vCash: 500
Looking at statistics is one way to rank the players and Canada usually has the top team in that sense. There are, however, many other things which affect the performance of a player:
- line mates
- role
- team
- coach
- team tactics
etc

My point is that there's no way to define the best players and best players in NHL don't necessarily form the best line-up in national team (especially in a short tournament). Ice hockey is a team sport and not some 4x400m relay where athletes with best stats likely win.

roto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 08:00 PM
  #82
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by roto View Post
Looking at statistics is one way to rank the players and Canada usually has the top team in that sense. There are, however, many other things which affect the performance of a player:
- line mates
- role
- team
- coach
- team tactics
etc

My point is that there's no way to define the best players and best players in NHL don't necessarily form the best line-up in national team (especially in a short tournament). Ice hockey is a team sport and not some 4x400m relay where athletes with best stats likely win.
I agree with you. All I am saying is that if you are trying to determine which country has the better players it is better to evaluate each player individually than it is to look at international team results.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 05:29 PM
  #83
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xokkeu View Post
I saw a study that statistically claimed that a 38 game European soccer season didn't give a statistically reliable conclusion on who had the best team.
Best team in soccer is definded as the team who is number 1 after a 38 game season. Considering this definition, the claim of the study is pointless.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 05:42 PM
  #84
f1nn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Espoo, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 1312
Send a message via AIM to f1nn
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
Change making the semifinals to 4 points and making the final to 6 and I'd agree.. making the QF and the SF is quite a big difference IMO

f1nn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 05:45 PM
  #85
f1nn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Espoo, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 1312
Send a message via AIM to f1nn
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)


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
good post

f1nn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 06:21 PM
  #86
Xokkeu
Registered User
 
Xokkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Frozen
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 4,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Best team in soccer is definded as the team who is number 1 after a 38 game season. Considering this definition, the claim of the study is pointless.
What?

Xokkeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 07:22 PM
  #87
LeftBackLegend
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 290
vCash: 500
What he means is, we have a given set of parameters -agreed on by every participant- to compete within, and then we end up with a winner. Given that there is no foul play that is always the correct result and the winner is, by definition, the best. There are no what if trophies.

LeftBackLegend 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 12:32 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.