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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Adjusted Stanley Cups

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-30-2013, 12:37 PM
  #26
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancouver Blazers View Post
30 is the easiest number to use since there are 30 teams now. We'd get the same ratio of Cups no matter what number we used.
What if the league expands? Does winning the cup really become harder? Maybe there's an apex number of teams that represents the hardest league, and anything before or after that number is less so

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 12:42 PM
  #27
ResilientBeast
Moderator
ATD Draft Czar
 
ResilientBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,773
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
I don't really follow any other sport. I can't provide an informed opinion to be honest. Asking me, I could easily tell you that hockey 30 years ago was more challenging than baseball today. In my lousy opinion, when an obese sloth like Babe Ruth is one of the best ball player ever, while the race to take the most roids is today's baseball challenge, its hard to take the athleticism of the sport seriously. Goes to show that you're asking the wrong guy.
Ahahaha alright, just curious.

ResilientBeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 12:58 PM
  #28
gudzilla
Registered User
 
gudzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Well, regular season games is a start. An 82 game season is more taxing than the 50-70 game season that the original six had. I think we both know how important being healthy is when trying to win a cup.

The game has changed significantly, especially after the dead puck era. Goalies are harder to beat. Less goons and more skill is required. Introduction of the composite stick. Introduction of European players. Reduction of draft rounds. The rules have changed too so that the game is stretched.

Also, business has changed which resulted in more competition, more development leagues, more incentive for owners and players. A player having to work part time as a machinist while playing hockey is not as good as a player who literally dedicates the bulk of their day training and practicing hockey. Team's have more resources (facilities, personnel, equipment) towards their product. Players have more avenues to develop and therefore the talent pool changed.

I mean, isn't it obvious? What was once a joke 6 team traveling circus is now a billion dollar empire.
every team played the same amount of games, and with todays medical research, i'm pretty sure that its easier than before

gudzilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 01:00 PM
  #29
66871
Registered User
 
66871's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 2,003
vCash: 500
Here's what I've come up with for Cups Over/Under Expected. This ignores the previous incarnation of the Senators. I'll edit with an alternative number if we were to include both Senators eras.

Montreal Canadiens: 13.91
Edmonton Oilers: 3.68
Toronto Maple Leafs: 2.91
Detroit Red Wings: 2.81
New York Islanders: 2.27
New Jersey Devils: 1.40
Pittsburgh Penguins: 0.88
Colorado Avalanche: 0.68
Anaheim Ducks: 0.33
Tampa Bay Lightning: 0.29
Philadelphia Flyers: -0.12
Carolina Hurricanes: -0.32
Minnesota Wild: -0.40
Columbus Blue Jackets: -0.40
Winnipeg Jets: -0.44
Nashville Predators: -0.47
Florida Panthers: -0.67
Ottawa Senators: -0.71
Calgary Flames: -0.73
San Jose Sharks: -0.75
Los Angeles Kings: -1.12
Dallas Stars: -1.12
Phoenix Coyotes: -1.32
Washington Capitals: -1.60
Vancouver Canucks: -1.87
Buffalo Sabres: -1.87
St. Louis Blues: -2.12
Boston Bruins: -2.50
Chicago Blackhawks: -3.19
New York Rangers: -4.19

EDIT: Including the first incarnation of the Senators would change their Over/Under to +0.55


Last edited by 66871: 12-30-2013 at 01:12 PM.
66871 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 01:04 PM
  #30
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida pwnthers View Post
every team played the same amount of games, and with todays medical research, i'm pretty sure that its easier than before
But the schedule has changed. 50-70 games a season while traveling only in and around the north east corridor is less taxing today's schedule that involves a stretch in travel across the continent and more games to be played. Plus a longer play-offs. Maybe more working days off ice too?

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 01:15 PM
  #31
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
HFBoards Escape Goat
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 5,511
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66871 View Post
Here's what I've come up with for Cups Over/Under Expected.
This is my preferred way of looking at this. The number of Cups won were actually won (so we don't need to quibble about so-and-so winning 0.6 Cups), but how many would we expect a team to have won given their era?

Bear of Bad News is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 03:53 PM
  #32
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,589
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
I agree with the OP entirely. A cup earned in today's era is worth 5X more than a cup earned during the original 6 era IMO.
It is almost impossible that it work like that.

Because winning a cup in a 2 team league is infinitely worth more than winning a cup in a one team league

It would not be linear like that, the number of serious contender in the league is important.

To give in examples, the first year after the expension when the 06 team always won the cup in the final over the new team, that cup was just marginaly greater to win than in the 06. Yet you had twice the team in the league.

Also in a league, it is not true that it will always have bad team (this is not an obligation, you could have great team and average one, with no bad one, just imagine if they did a cup canada with 4 country (USA-Canada-Russia-Sweden) in it, they would have 0 "bad" team in that tournament).

MadLuke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 04:39 PM
  #33
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 25,019
vCash: 500
On the contrary,...

The more teams there are, the LESS quality of opposition!

Winning the Stanley Cup in the Original Six era against a ton of all-time greats is no less valuable (not an iota, maybe more valuable even) than an extra couple of rounds against the 16th and 8th best teams in a 30-team league.

Adjusting Stanley Cups is inane, apart from the Challenge Era pre-NHA/PCHA when two or three cup challenge series happened some years.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 04:45 PM
  #34
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
What if the league expands? Does winning the cup really become harder? Maybe there's an apex number of teams that represents the hardest league, and anything before or after that number is less so
If we go by the premise in the OP, if the league expands, winning the Cup is statistically less likely by a small margin, so each previously won Cup will be worth slightly less relative to any Cups won after that date.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 04:55 PM
  #35
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,589
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancouver Blazers View Post
If we go by the premise in the OP, if the league expands, winning the Cup is statistically less likely by a small margin, so each previously won Cup will be worth slightly less relative to any Cups won after that date.
And that a part of the problems, the first year that the Lightings and Senators joined the league did almost nothing to add to the "worth' of the 92-93 Habs cups, relatively of winning the year before.

A couple of year later, when those team were good, they added like any other team to the cup "worth".

MadLuke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 06:50 PM
  #36
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
And that a part of the problems, the first year that the Lightings and Senators joined the league did almost nothing to add to the "worth' of the 92-93 Habs cups, relatively of winning the year before.

A couple of year later, when those team were good, they added like any other team to the cup "worth".
How would you adjust the formula to compensate for that?

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 07:45 PM
  #37
ResilientBeast
Moderator
ATD Draft Czar
 
ResilientBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,773
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancouver Blazers View Post
How would you adjust the formula to compensate for that?
I wouldn't adjust it, the formula assumes that every team has an equal chance of winning each season, Which is technically true, but is most certainly not.

ResilientBeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 08:09 PM
  #38
invictus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,747
vCash: 500
It would be fun to somehow add the dimension of payroll to this. ie, a max cap team versus a cap floor team.

invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 08:21 PM
  #39
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResilientBeast View Post
I wouldn't adjust it, the formula assumes that every team has an equal chance of winning each season, Which is technically true, but is most certainly not.
So you'd keep it the same despite its imperfections?

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2013, 08:30 PM
  #40
ResilientBeast
Moderator
ATD Draft Czar
 
ResilientBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,773
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancouver Blazers View Post
So you'd keep it the same despite its imperfections?
I'd rather not reference it all since I don't see the purpose.

But if you want to keep it around, maybe counting the amount of teams that made the playoffs aka 16, instead of 30 would probably be more value.

ResilientBeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2013, 04:13 AM
  #41
begbeee
Registered User
 
begbeee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,126
vCash: 500
Number of playoff rounds has probably more influence than number of teams in a league.
Example:
a) One round - every upset results to SC/better team wins almost everytime
b) Two rounds - lesser team needs two upsets/ better team has twice a chance of becoming upset
c).. so on

In the end, statistically, the more round the bigger chance for upset, making it harder for every contender, let alone weak team.

begbeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2013, 06:08 AM
  #42
Sanf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 843
vCash: 500
From 1918 till consolidation NHL teams played for O'Brien Trophy in their league. Western teams were also competing for Stanley Cup. If those are not counted (edit. in some way) then there would likely to be some problems with conference/division history (Im not that familiar with those). Especially last season when there was no interconference games.

Or maybe I misunderstood something. Im not very good in math


Last edited by Sanf: 12-31-2013 at 09:35 AM.
Sanf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2013, 08:35 AM
  #43
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,589
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee View Post
Number of playoff rounds has probably more influence than number of teams in a league.
Example:
a) One round - every upset results to SC/better team wins almost everytime
b) Two rounds - lesser team needs two upsets/ better team has twice a chance of becoming upset
c).. so on

In the end, statistically, the more round the bigger chance for upset, making it harder for every contender, let alone weak team.
The number of round is probably what matters more, team have twice as many series to win now, with equal competition it would be a little bit like winning to cup in a row (not 4 imo).

Number of series with a metric of average quality of the playoff team (when the NHL had more than 70% of the team in the playoff...) by salary mass could be a good way.

MadLuke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2013, 01:01 PM
  #44
66871
Registered User
 
66871's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 2,003
vCash: 500
So if you use the Cups Over/Under Expected method as I've given above, the Canadiens would have to go at least the next 418 years (depending on expansion) without a cup before they were in the negative.

66871 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2013, 06:09 PM
  #45
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66871 View Post
So if you use the Cups Over/Under Expected method as I've given above, the Canadiens would have to go at least the next 418 years (depending on expansion) without a cup before they were in the negative.
Seems probable.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2013, 06:17 PM
  #46
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalupa Batman View Post
He did acknowledge (in the original post) that it's "far from perfect".
Therein lies part of the problem, many will only accept a perfect new version but have no problem going back to the old way looking at things.

The OP has a valid point and it's very simple math going on, I'd rather be in a lttery with 6 teams than 30.

The 5 to 1 Ratio is probably off since this is hockey and not pure math or a lottery but it's closer to 5-1 than 1-1 current thinking is as well (At least in a 30 team league).

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2014, 12:21 AM
  #47
Brooklanders*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancouver Blazers View Post
We're adjusting everything else, why the hell not?

(I did a Google search for this and nothing came up, apologies if this has already been done)

I'm among the few that doesn't think it's fair that all Stanley Cups are to be considered equal. Some cups were won in a three or four team league, and most were won when there were 12 or fewer teams. How can a Cup in such a small league be worth just as much historically as a Cup won last season? The competition is far greater, and should reflect on the franchise in a higher manner.

Simple formula: Cup Value = n/30, where n = number of teams in the league that year.

Obviously this is far from perfect, but I'm curious as to how this would look if it was (very) crudely adjusted.

Rough Google Doc with the raw info:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...2WjBaT3c#gid=0

Results, in order:

Montreal Canadiens - 8.7667
Detroit Red Wings - 5.2667
Edmonton Oilers - 3.5
New Jersey Devils - 2.8
New York Islanders - 2.8
Chicago Blackhawks - 2.7667
Boston Bruins - 2.6667
Toronto Maple Leafs - 2.5667
Pittsburgh Penguins - 2.4333
Colorado Avalanche - 1.8677
New York Rangers - 1.7333
Philadelphia Flyers - 1.1333
Anaheim Ducks - 1.0
Carolina Hurricanes - 1.0
Los Angeles Kings - 1.0
Tampa Bay Lightning - 1.0
Dallas Stars - 0.9
Calgary Flames - 0.7
Ottawa Senators - 0.6
Montreal Maroons - 0.5333
Vancouver Canucks - 0

Can you tell I'm bored?
I'm glad someone finally did this as I'm so tired of hearing about the number of cup Montreal has. Much less number of teams and easier to get and keep star players and no draft. Money talks.

Brooklanders* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2014, 05:50 AM
  #48
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalupa Batman View Post
It's certainly not irrelevant.
It's close to irrelevant. It was still extemely tough to win during the O6 espeically for teams not named Canadiens. I'd say that it's worth five times more to win the cup finals versus a stacked Habs team than it is to win over basically any team that lost the finals since the lock-out.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2014, 07:02 AM
  #49
begbeee
Registered User
 
begbeee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,126
vCash: 500
I'm not much into pre 1967 hockey, so I'm genuinly curious - I know there were stacked teams but was it really so close? I mean was there really small gap between the last and the first?

begbeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2014, 11:28 AM
  #50
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee View Post
I'm not much into pre 1967 hockey, so I'm genuinly curious - I know there were stacked teams but was it really so close? I mean was there really small gap between the last and the first?
It's a hard one to answer. The league was run with a mafioso attitude between the owners since they knew each other pretty good or even partly owning more than one team. But I would say that most of the time the bottom-2 weren't bad except for the Bruins in the 60s that were atrocious. Small gap between number one and number six? No, not small but not that big either. Several teams could end up last one season and go to the (or almost go to the) finals the next.

jkrx 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 04:24 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.