HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

We Are.... #26 - ESPN Power Rankings

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-13-2009, 12:26 PM
  #1
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
We Are.... #26 - ESPN Power Rankings

If you need any further evidence that Scott Burnside of ESPN does not have clue, this should do it.

Last week the the Canucks were #17 (rankings done by Pierre LeBrun who actually does know something about hockey), they win 2 games and slip to 26???
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/powerranking

Jason Botchford's take on the ESPN rankings:
Quote:
In his latest NHL power rankings, he places the 2-3 Canucks 26th in the NHL. That's one spot behind the hapless and winless Islanders. It's also down from 17th last week even after two impressive wins, a huge game against the Habs and a shootout home win against the Stars, accomplished without their leading sniper and arguably their best defenceman.

The 1-0-3 Stars one win was against a Flames team which started backup goalie Curtis McElhinney. Dallas managed to get the 18th spot, even after losing to the reportedly lowly Canucks.

Sure, the rankings are ultimately a pointless exercise. Who cares, really? But Burnside got some attention in the preseason when he picked the Canucks to miss the playoffs. Anyone know if he got some bad sushi on his last visit?
http://communities.canada.com/thepro...thinks-so.aspx

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 12:32 PM
  #2
R0bert0 Lu0ng0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,465
vCash: 500
Aren't these power rankings usually hugely influenced by injuries?

In the last week we've lost (arguably) our best forward and defenceman..

R0bert0 Lu0ng0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 12:33 PM
  #3
Back in 94
In Gillis I trust
 
Back in 94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,635
vCash: 500
I've never even heard of him before.

Back in 94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 12:39 PM
  #4
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by roddy View Post
Aren't these power rankings usually hugely influenced by injuries?

In the last week we've lost (arguably) our best forward and defenceman..
No, normally power rankings reflect the past week's performance and record except for the first edition which is based upon:
Quote:
How exciting -- the first Power Rankings of the season.

Not a single puck has been dropped on the 2009-10 campaign, so this is all about expectations, past experience and maybe a little voodoo puck magic thrown in for good measure.
Scott Burnside just seems to have this thing for trashing the Canucks.

He got the Maple leafs right however - #30.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 12:41 PM
  #5
NuxFan09
Registered User
 
NuxFan09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,839
vCash: 500
I don't care.

NuxFan09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 12:46 PM
  #6
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back in 94 View Post
I've never even heard of him before.
Look him up in the Urban Dictionary and you would find:
1. Scott Burnside

Stupid tool who does not check his facts when writing articles. Typically he makes fun of people who have far more money and far more power then he could ever think of having.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...ott%20Burnside

He had great fun picking the Canucks to not make the play-offs this season when virtually every hockey pundit was giving them a shot at the Cup (hint Scott there is this guy named Roberto something or other who is supposed to be a pretty good goalie).

Last season he teed off on the Canucks for signing Mats Sundin:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/column...t&lid=tab5pos1

Scott Burnside = Eklund with a press pass.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 12:48 PM
  #7
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,082
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
If you need any further evidence that Scott Burnside of ESPN does not have clue, this should do it.

Last week the the Canucks were #17 (rankings done by Pierre LeBrun who actually does know something about hockey), they win 2 games and slip to 26???
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/powerranking

Jason Botchford's take on the ESPN rankings:

http://communities.canada.com/thepro...thinks-so.aspx
This is what he did to do the rankings...he put every team name in a hat and started drawing names. The Canucks came up 26th.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 12:51 PM
  #8
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauser View Post
This is what he did to do the rankings...he put every team name in a hat and started drawing names. The Canucks came up 26th.
I heard he brought TSN's Maggie the Monkey out of retirement.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 12:55 PM
  #9
EpochLink
Canucks and Jets fan
 
EpochLink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,357
vCash: 500
ZOMG! We should forfeit the season!

EpochLink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 12:58 PM
  #10
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,684
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
We deserve to be in the bottom 10 after our start, but not that low. Probably the 20-23 spot.

CCF23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 01:57 PM
  #11
crazycanuck
Registered User
 
crazycanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,498
vCash: 500
Scott Burnside is on crack, how can you have a team who is winless above not one but 4 teams with wins, 2 of which have 2 wins. I thought he knew hockey, apparently not, lol. Scott Burnside you officially are comic relief and nothing more.

crazycanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 02:05 PM
  #12
Placebo Effect
Registered User
 
Placebo Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Your Mind
Country: China
Posts: 7,155
vCash: 500
I'm doing my own Power Rankings (hopefully out tonight, harder than I thought) and I have the Canucks in the 18-23 range probably after 2 wins. Not sure yet though, still looking at other teams records.

Just to make sure, what's everyone's definition for power rankings. Mine is how well the team has played since the last ranking regardless of overall record. Islanders could win three straight next week and find themselves top 10 but would still be probably bottom 5 in overall ranking.

Edit: A lot more teams with a losing record this past week to bump the Canucks up.


Last edited by Placebo Effect: 10-13-2009 at 02:12 PM.
Placebo Effect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 02:20 PM
  #13
Meganuck*
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,036
vCash: 500
guys. He's a Flames fan. that should explain it. similar to that ********* from spike tv.

The guy says he's american now and doesnt like anything Canadian and takes every oppurtunity to rip every Canadian team except for his beloved Flames.

I loved the part where he wrote "FLAWLESS" and "Kiprusoff" in the same sentence.

Meganuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 03:31 PM
  #14
The Protein Shake*
I'm Hungry.
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,990
vCash: 500
I Dont even know who he is, and if I did.. I dont give a ****.

The Protein Shake* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 03:33 PM
  #15
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
To tell you the truth, I really don't see the point of power rankings in general. There's only one ranking that matters.

*Injektilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 03:41 PM
  #16
Vancouver_2010
Go Canucks & Oilers
 
Vancouver_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,189
vCash: 500
i think we deserved to be on the 32nd after two wins.

Vancouver_2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 03:42 PM
  #17
Hooker
Registered User
 
Hooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,369
vCash: 500
Do we really have to wait until Friday for the next game?

Hooker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 07:45 PM
  #18
colonel_korn
Luuuuuuuuuu....lay?
 
colonel_korn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
If you need any further evidence that Scott Burnside of ESPN does not have clue, this should do it.

Last week the the Canucks were #17 (rankings done by Pierre LeBrun who actually does know something about hockey), they win 2 games and slip to 26???
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/powerranking

Jason Botchford's take on the ESPN rankings:

http://communities.canada.com/thepro...thinks-so.aspx
TSN (Scott Cullen)'s rankings have the Canucks at #23 (dropping from #6 ), also one spot below the Islanders.

http://www.tsn.ca/fantasy_news/feature/?ID=549

From my understanding these aren't really subjective; rather, the author comes up with some formula that they think encapsulates team success, crunches the numbers and then writes a short blurb for each team. Certainly the formula itself is subjective (in that certain things are weighted more heavily than others), and should be modified if it's churning out nonsense results, but the results aren't.

I guess what I'm saying is that the fact that say, the Islanders are #22 and the Canucks #23 doesn't necessarily mean that the author sat down and said "yeah, the Islanders are a better team than the Canucks", but simply that when he plugged the two teams' stats into his magical formula, the Islanders came out ahead by some probably small margin.

This is why I think they're largely useless and am kind of mystified as to why anyone cares about them, literally the only thing they tell you is which teams got the highest values from whatever formula the person is using, which is almost always kept a secret. I mean, I can understand it would be interesting to come up with a formula itself and see how closely it correlates to team success, but as a reader, what's the point? All TSN's rankings tell me is that the Islanders' stats so far give a better score from Scott Cullen's formula than the Canucks' do. Without knowing what the formula is, I have no context to judge what it actually means.

That said, I suspect the reason why the Canucks are scored so low, in two "major" rankings now, is that the formulas take injuries into account, so they're "correcting" for the number of points Daniel has scored so far and assuming that there will be much fewer in the upcoming games where he isn't playing.

colonel_korn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 08:31 PM
  #19
Jyrki21
Registered Trademark
 
Jyrki21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Lesotho
Posts: 4,703
vCash: 500
While I agree this latest swing is weird (and don't they claim it's purely a formula anyway? I don't think he's picking the slots), you have to understand that picking the Canucks to miss the playoffs is not that big a stretch. It's a 30-team league with a salary cap... no team makes the playoffs by a whole lot anymore. Not winning your division -- any division -- puts you perilously close to the edge.

In the past 4 years, the Canucks have done exactly the opposite of what was predicted for them every single year. Why would this be so different, when their ups and downs haven't actually been that far apart? Injuries can be the entire difference maker, as they very well may be this year.

Up until the end of the summer, I sort of thought we'd be missing the playoffs this year too, indeed because of probable injuries.

Jyrki21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 08:31 PM
  #20
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colonel_korn View Post
This is why I think they're largely useless and am kind of mystified as to why anyone cares about them, literally the only thing they tell you is which teams got the highest values from whatever formula the person is using, which is almost always kept a secret. I mean, I can understand it would be interesting to come up with a formula itself and see how closely it correlates to team success, but as a reader, what's the point? All TSN's rankings tell me is that the Islanders' stats so far give a better score from Scott Cullen's formula than the Canucks' do. Without knowing what the formula is, I have no context to judge what it actually means.
My suspicion is that they came up with the power rankings specifically so that we can no longer say that +/- is the most meaningless statistic in hockey.

*Injektilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 08:34 PM
  #21
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,245
vCash: 500
Good...lets fly under the radar. LOL.

monster_bertuzzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 08:54 PM
  #22
CrosbyCrosby*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,216
vCash: 500
TSN's power rankings uses injuries. I remember last year canucks were extremely hot but one of their injuries still dropped them a bunch of spots.

CrosbyCrosby* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2009, 09:40 PM
  #23
David Bruce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12
vCash: 500
Scott Cullen's power rankings

Scott Cullen has a page explaining his power rankings system, and I have read it before. You are correct that it is completely based on a formula. Basically he calculates a numerical score for each player (based on their stats), quantifying their contribution to the team, then he generates a team score based on the aggregate stats of all the players **currently on the active roster**. So yes, injuries to Daniel & Salo are going to drop us way down, and it has nothing to do with the fact that we won the last 2 games.

AFAIK, power rankings are meant to be a representation of how the teams are playing right now, e.g. for purposes of making your SportsAction picks. So if #5 is playing #16 then you should probably put your money on #5.

David Bruce 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 03:00 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.