HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Canada Cup/World Cup

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-19-2013, 10:23 PM
  #51
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanji View Post
No conclusion can be drawn from such a superficial examination. You have not even scratched the surface. I had time this weekend and calculated average placement and winning % for all games for all major players since 1982. Results are as follows. Slovakia is omitted as they have yet to host.

Average placement is temperately better when a country is host, as is win/loss record. But I am not comfortable forming a conclusion as to whether an advantage exists. It would be beneficial if we had info for all home and away games. We could compare that to our host team information.
A similar thread exists here ,
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1376939
The study I did a few years ago looked at the relative placing of teams in the World Championships in the years before and after they host the tournament and it showed that teams on average finished slightly better when not hosting. I chose this method since obviously the strength of teams / nations varies over time and the winning percentage of a team in 2010 probably has little to do with their performance in 1985. However one thing I will admit is there is relatively very little modern data to work with when it comes to international hockey, especially compared to league stats.

There have been a number of home ice advantage threads through the years but they almost exclusively focus on the home ice advantage in league play. Even in league play the home ice advantage statistically is very small but also many of the reasons for the advantage don't apply in international hockey. For example the rules advantage, last line change, etc., don't apply, the home team being more familiar with any quirky things about the rink usually don't apply, the travel advantage doesn't apply, etc, etc, etc.

My guess is that the pressure of playing at home helps some and hurts some but saying that the host team has some sort of big advantage just isn't true.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 10:39 PM
  #52
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanji View Post
Yes it does matter because visibility is imperative. Visibility provides the initial spark in many instances. You are correct in that it's the community and sponsors job to invest in participation once interest is generated. But the olympics offer x10000 the exposure a World Cup can. A World Cup every 4 years will only reach the already converted.
People make this claim all the time but have zero evidence to back it up. Take American Football for example. The Superbowl gets loads of global exposure every year (not just every 4 yrs). It is a pretty cheap sport to play, especially in its recreational form and the infrastructure to play football, i.e. soccer fields, already exists just about everywhere. Yet the sport has seen more or less zero growth outside of the US.

The notion that the periodic exposure to a sport say once a year, or once every four years, does anything meaningful to grow the game is just not based in reality. Only the day in and day out exposure of a league can do that and expanding leagues successfully takes time.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 06:30 AM
  #53
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
The qualification process would not determine whether the best on best tournament was legitimate or not in their eyes. People may say that now who are trying to discredit the Canada Cup, but it would not be an issue otherwise.
Keep using your own silly logic, I keep using mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
Back in the Canada Cup days pretty much every country who played hockey at even a basic level took part in the tournaments so the "rest" of the hockey world did have a chance to participate.
There were 8 countries in the IIHF A group (as opposed to 6 in the Canada Cup) + 8 in the B group alone during the Canada Cup days. Of course, you can say that IIHF B group level is not even "basic level", but that's just another case of the two of us not agreeing on anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
If qualification is so important to you then think of the prelimary round as the qualification process for playing in the final tournament.
If you really mean that then it shows that you have understood nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
As I've said many times I would not choose the Canada Cup format moving forward. To keep the quality of hockey as high as possible I would recommend starting an IIHF B on B tournament with a bye for the top 6 teams and then have two more spots open via some sort of qualification process. When more countries were ready to compete I would expand the number of teams in the tournament.
I would prefer a broader field of 8 + 4 or something similiar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
It is just splitting hairs as another weak attempt to discredit the Canada Cup.
If you don't see the difference between randomly inviting a country that you consider competitive and having objective rules as to who gets a spot, your bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
As I pointed out teams have played in the Olympics without following a qualification process, essentially by invitation, so his argument really holds no water.
It does hold water. Only the host, 1 country out of 14/12, received an "invitation" in 1998/2006. It's the same in the Soccer World Cup and no-one claims the Soccer World Cup is an in invitational tournament.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
As a dual EU - Canadian national I am perfectly aware of Cricket's status in Europe. The fact it is not popular in most of Europe has absolutely nothing to do with their qualification process
Your were the one who argued that "The Rugby World Cup started as an invitational tournament and then had automatic qualification for the top 8 teams in subsequent years and it has a strong following in Europe, the same is more or less true for cricket". I don't believe Cricket's popularity or lack of popularity has anything to do with the qualifying anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
Common sense dictates that if the best players from the contending countries (plus a few others) are there then you are going to have a legitimate, serious competition.
Then Europeans lack what you consider common sense. They have their own "silly" logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
Take American Football for example. The Superbowl gets loads of global exposure every year (not just every 4 yrs). It is a pretty cheap sport to play, especially in its recreational form and the infrastructure to play football, i.e. soccer fields, already exists just about everywhere. Yet the sport has seen more or less zero growth outside of the US.
Football has actually seen a considerable growth since the 1990s in several European countries.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 06:55 AM
  #54
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussi View Post
Isn't it just the World Championships?
It has officially been renamed World Cup. Does not make any difference though. Even the football World Cup used to be known as World Championship and is still called just that in German or Dutch and various other languages.

jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 07:52 AM
  #55
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
If you don't see the difference between randomly inviting a country that you consider competitive and having objective rules as to who gets a spot, your bad.
I'm sorry but most of your reply was just arguing the sky is not blue and I didn't see much worth discussing it further.

So is Anderson Silva less of a champion because his boss chooses who he thinks his best opponent would be? Is the Ryder Cup not a legitimate competition because the players are invited to play as opposed to having to qualify? Let's not even talk about the Spengler Cup, it sure draws a lot of fans in Europe for an illegitimate competition that Europeans would never embrace, period. How about how players are selected for national hockey teams? To make the teams legitimate shouldn't there be some sort of qualification process, just inviting them based on who thinks the best players are doesn't seem right, does it?

The truth is every team who had a snowballs chance in **ll of winning or even finishing in the top 3 of the Canada Cups was there, so saying the results are somehow not legitimate is just a load made up by sore losers. And if the competition wasn't serious someone forgot to tell the contestants.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 10:03 AM
  #56
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
So is Anderson Silva less of a champion because his boss chooses who he thinks his best opponent would be?
I had to look the guy up and I don't know anything about mixed martial arts or whatever it is, so I don't pretend I know a lot about this topic. But generally speaking: his boss chooses the next opponent? Sounds like a circus to me, like WWE, and not like a legitime way to determine a champion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
Is the Ryder Cup not a legitimate competition because the players are invited to play as opposed to having to qualify?
It's a nice exhibition-like tournament, but not a legitime world championship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
Let's not even talk about the Spengler Cup, it sure draws a lot of fans in Europe for an illegitimate competition that Europeans would never embrace, period.
The Spengler Cup is a nice exhibition tournament, but no one considers it a legitime European club championship. This example once again shows that you don't understand the point that I and others have made in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
How about how players are selected for national hockey teams? To make the teams legitimate shouldn't there be some sort of qualification process, just inviting them based on who thinks the best players are doesn't seem right, does it?
What does team selection have to do with the structure of a tournament? Sorry to repeat myself, but this argument of yours again highlights that your "common sense" is not what is common in Europe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
The truth is every team who had a snowballs chance in **ll of winning or even finishing in the top 3 of the Canada Cups was there, so saying the results are somehow not legitimate is just a load made up by sore losers.
I never said that the results of the Canada Cup are not legitimate. All I have said is that the Canada Cup was not a legitime World Championship/World Cup like the Soccer World Cup is. Which is in line with what the OP himself posted, he only wanted to know why that is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
I'm sorry but most of your reply was just arguing the sky is not blue and I didn't see much worth discussing it further.
Funny, I read your replies and get the same impression from you. Not much worth discussing anymore.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 04:04 PM
  #57
Hanji
Registered User
 
Hanji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
The study I did a few years ago looked at the relative placing of teams in the World Championships in the years before and after they host the tournament and it showed that teams on average finished slightly better when not hosting. I chose this method since obviously the strength of teams / nations varies over time and the winning percentage of a team in 2010 probably has little to do with their performance in 1985. However one thing I will admit is there is relatively very little modern data to work with when it comes to international hockey, especially compared to league stats.

There have been a number of home ice advantage threads through the years but they almost exclusively focus on the home ice advantage in league play. Even in league play the home ice advantage statistically is very small but also many of the reasons for the advantage don't apply in international hockey. For example the rules advantage, last line change, etc., don't apply, the home team being more familiar with any quirky things about the rink usually don't apply, the travel advantage doesn't apply, etc, etc, etc.

My guess is that the pressure of playing at home helps some and hurts some but saying that the host team has some sort of big advantage just isn't true.

How many world championships did you analyze? I analyzed the last 30 using your criteria. A large and trustworthy sample size is always beneficial. Results show an advantage for the host country. 58% of the time the host country will achieve a higher placement than the average of the preceding and following year. May we also consider only 1 N. American WC was played. Its conceivable that an even distribution of N. American and European hosted events would tilt the advantage to the host country even more.
PM me if you'd like to view my findings.


Last edited by Hanji: 03-21-2013 at 01:42 PM.
Hanji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2013, 06:39 AM
  #58
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
As long as it's invitational it's not going to be taken seriously in Europe, period.
The Rugby Six Nations tournament is invitational and is taken very seriously in Europe (I'm speaking in relation to hockey obvioulsy).


Last edited by Mr Kanadensisk: 03-24-2013 at 07:05 AM.
Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-24-2013, 07:01 AM
  #59
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanji View Post
How many world championships did you analyze? I analyzed the last 30 using your criteria. A large and trustworthy sample size is always beneficial. Results show an advantage for the host country. 58% of the time the host country will achieve a higher placement than the average of the preceding and following year. May we also consider only 1 N. American WC was played. Its conceivable that an even distribution of N. American and European hosted events would tilt the advantage to the host country even more.
PM me if you'd like to view my findings.
Sorry, I had a very busy week and I couldn't find my original numbers so I had to go through the calculations again. I went back to 1993 and compared the finishing postion of the host team to where they finished on average in the year before and year after. For example Sweden hosted in 1995 and finished 2nd. In 1994 and 1996 Sweden placed 3rd and 6th respectively, so on average they finished in 4.5th. In other words here Sweden placed higher as hosts than they did the years before and after.

Also sometimes the host did not play in the Championships in the year before and year after. For example Norway hosted in 1999, but only played in 2000, not 1998, so in that case I only used the '99 (12th) and '00 (10th) placements to determine whether they did better or worse.

At the World Championships from 1993 to 2012 there were six times when the host finished higher than their average for the year before and year after. Two times when they placed the same and eleven times where they did worse.

Furthermore if you look at the traditional hockey powers (CAN, SWE, RUS, FIN, CZE, SVK, USA*) in the same period of the ten times they hosted only once did they do better as hosts, twice they did the same and seven times they finished worse.

As far as I can tell the claim that the host team in international tournaments has an advantage is just not true.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2013, 10:38 AM
  #60
Hanji
Registered User
 
Hanji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
Sorry, I had a very busy week and I couldn't find my original numbers so I had to go through the calculations again. I went back to 1993 and compared the finishing postion of the host team to where they finished on average in the year before and year after. For example Sweden hosted in 1995 and finished 2nd. In 1994 and 1996 Sweden placed 3rd and 6th respectively, so on average they finished in 4.5th. In other words here Sweden placed higher as hosts than they did the years before and after.

Also sometimes the host did not play in the Championships in the year before and year after. For example Norway hosted in 1999, but only played in 2000, not 1998, so in that case I only used the '99 (12th) and '00 (10th) placements to determine whether they did better or worse.

At the World Championships from 1993 to 2012 there were six times when the host finished higher than their average for the year before and year after. Two times when they placed the same and eleven times where they did worse.

Furthermore if you look at the traditional hockey powers (CAN, SWE, RUS, FIN, CZE, SVK, USA*) in the same period of the ten times they hosted only once did they do better as hosts, twice they did the same and seven times they finished worse.

As far as I can tell the claim that the host team in international tournaments has an advantage is just not true.
But your data is limited in quantity and content. It's like you're picking and choosing data to support an assumption. The Worlds should be part of the analysis. It's not the entire analysis. The Worlds are only half the equation as N. American host ice isn't accounted for.

I ran your Worlds calculations with a larger sample size - since 1978, the year Canada reentered. In total 54% of host countries placed higher than the average of the previous and following year. If we add this to the previously analyzed the World Juniors in this thread, they both show a small advantage for host team. Then we have our limited Olympic data which clearly shows a host ice advantage. We also must acknowledge a host team advantage exists in every sport, even sports without built in home advantages like last change.

Everything considered it appears a correlation exists between host ice and higher placement. At least those are my findings.


Last edited by Hanji: 03-26-2013 at 01:19 PM.
Hanji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-26-2013, 07:06 PM
  #61
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanji View Post
But your data is limited in quantity and content. It's like you're picking and choosing data to support an assumption. The Worlds should be part of the analysis. It's not the entire analysis. The Worlds are only half the equation as N. American host ice isn't accounted for.

I ran your Worlds calculations with a larger sample size - since 1978, the year Canada reentered. In total 54% of host countries placed higher than the average of the previous and following year. If we add this to the previously analyzed the World Juniors in this thread, they both show a small advantage for host team. Then we have our limited Olympic data which clearly shows a host ice advantage. We also must acknowledge a host team advantage exists in every sport, even sports without built in home advantages like last change.

Everything considered it appears a correlation exists between host ice and higher placement. At least those are my findings.
In league play you have virtually the same players on each team for both the home and away games, so it makes it easier to compare the home / away records. The reason I used the WC for my study was because they have the most consistent rosters from tournament to tournament. In the WJC each year the teams have almost completely new players, so comparing the teams performance from one year to another isn't really valid. This is even more true with the Olympics. Also the reason I only went back 20 years with the WC is because before that is really a different era of hockey where some of the countries practically had full time national teams. My study pretty clearly shows that hosting is a disadvantage and I think uses a more reliable data set. I realize that if your goal is to diminsh or refute Canada's accomplishments in best on best tournaments then you are probably going try to find numbers that show differently but I think this can only be done by using garbage or irrelevant data. Look at how many times the USSR/Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech or Slovakia have hosted either a WJC, Olympics, or WC and how many times as a host they have won. Winning gold as the host is not easy.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 10:15 PM
  #62
Hanji
Registered User
 
Hanji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
In league play you have virtually the same players on each team for both the home and away games, so it makes it easier to compare the home / away records. The reason I used the WC for my study was because they have the most consistent rosters from tournament to tournament. In the WJC each year the teams have almost completely new players, so comparing the teams performance from one year to another isn't really valid. This is even more true with the Olympics. Also the reason I only went back 20 years with the WC is because before that is really a different era of hockey where some of the countries practically had full time national teams. My study pretty clearly shows that hosting is a disadvantage and I think uses a more reliable data set. I realize that if your goal is to diminsh or refute Canada's accomplishments in best on best tournaments then you are probably going try to find numbers that show differently but I think this can only be done by using garbage or irrelevant data. Look at how many times the USSR/Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech or Slovakia have hosted either a WJC, Olympics, or WC and how many times as a host they have won. Winning gold as the host is not easy.
You used World Juniors data when it supported your opinion. But when it doesn't the data is not valid information? Very suspicious yes.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...5&postcount=25






Objectivity and thoroughness are my #1 priority. I've analyzed host ice from every angle. On the contrary, your study contains a narrow and limited data set. You even use data when convenient, then discard it when not - World Juniors. You seem to have a vested interest in an outcome. Especially when you claim your opinion as fact. I'm sorry but no analysis can be achieved with such a mindset. I was expecting an honest and objective discourse. But I think people reading this thread are smart enough to see through nationalist tendencies and can gain something with this study. It's a shame but there's no point in continuing here.


Last edited by Hanji: 03-28-2013 at 02:09 AM.
Hanji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 07:15 AM
  #63
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanji View Post
You used World Juniors data when it supported your opinion. But when it doesn't the data is not valid information? Very suspicious yes.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...5&postcount=25

Objectivity and thoroughness are my #1 priority. I've analyzed host ice from every angle. On the contrary, your study contains a narrow and limited data set. You even use data when convenient, then discard it when not - World Juniors. You seem to have a vested interest in an outcome. Especially when you claim your opinion as fact. I'm sorry but no analysis can be achieved with such a mindset. I was expecting an honest and objective discourse. But I think people reading this thread are smart enough to see through nationalist tendencies and can gain something with this study. It's a shame but there's no point in continuing here.
You are right, I used a different method because the conditions were not the same, which was the right thing to do. Comparing the performance of a nation in the year before and year after hosting doesn't mean anything if teams are completely different.

There will always be people like yourself who try to twist numbers to suit their need, like the time you ranked Olympic performance based on aggregate winning percentage. When you use a system where the gold medal winner could finish with a .500 record and the 6th place finisher with a .750 record and try to suggest that the 6th place finisher did better you pretty quickly lose credibility, as you have here.


Last edited by Mr Kanadensisk: 03-29-2013 at 07:25 AM.
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 06:49 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.