HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Correlation between payroll and regualr season standing 2003/2004

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-29-2004, 07:43 AM
  #51
Other Dave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New and improved in TO
Posts: 2,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
It's not like these teams decided to shop players because they thought they could improve their team by moving them.
Except that's exactly what they did. Part of a player's value to the team is their cost-effectiveness. A hard cap will make that part of a player's value MORE significant in player transactions, not less.

Other Dave is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 10:15 AM
  #52
futurcorerock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 6,435
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to futurcorerock
You guys are bashing CH pretty hard about this, hes just using a little math to show that teams arent defined by success. Though, you might not have to use math based on teams like New York (big salary, few playoffs since '94) or Ottawa (tiny salary, repeat playoff appearances).

However, if you wanted to find a definitive answer, maybe it would be best to assist him in gathering the data, rather then finding fault in him not having enough data. I'm interested to see the result of this 'study' and I found him quite insightful to dealve into how payroll can affect a team's season standings. Though some of you may be quick to write him off, its pretty admirable that he's willing to spend his time to put together some mathematical analysis into the NHL.


Last edited by futurcorerock: 05-29-2004 at 10:21 AM.
futurcorerock is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 10:50 AM
  #53
Anksun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Anksun
Quote:
Originally Posted by futurcorerock
You guys are bashing CH pretty hard about this, hes just using a little math to show that teams arent defined by success. Though, you might not have to use math based on teams like New York (big salary, few playoffs since '94) or Ottawa (tiny salary, repeat playoff appearances).

However, if you wanted to find a definitive answer, maybe it would be best to assist him in gathering the data, rather then finding fault in him not having enough data. I'm interested to see the result of this 'study' and I found him quite insightful to dealve into how payroll can affect a team's season standings. Though some of you may be quick to write him off, its pretty admirable that he's willing to spend his time to put together some mathematical analysis into the NHL.
No bashing from my part. I thought this was a pretty good idea in fact. It's just a good idea to elaborate the discussion and the stats as this board is use for this.

Anksun is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 03:22 PM
  #54
futurcorerock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 6,435
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to futurcorerock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anksun
No bashing from my part. I thought this was a pretty good idea in fact. It's just a good idea to elaborate the discussion and the stats as this board is use for this.
Well yeah, i wasnt pointing fingers to who specifically was doing this, its a subjective thing anyhow. People who've frequented the thread knows whos guilty.

Its good to point out that stats are a great way to show a great deal about a team, but I think ive expressed numerous times before, stats arent everything to the hockey game. I personally find statistics to be boring. I'd much rather watch the game =D

futurcorerock is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 04:52 PM
  #55
Taxman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 336
vCash: 500
The point is that spending more gives a team more of an advantage than a team that can't spend as much. The correlation doesn't matter because the fact remains that a team who can spend more can make more mistakes and simply spend over them. A team who can't spend as much has much less leeaway and hence less room for error.

There is no denying that teams who spend different amounts of money on payroll are playing on two different playing fields. That is fact. That is why something needs to be done. A sports league is supposed to be fair to every member, meaning as level of a playing field as possible. Who wins and loses should be based soley on who drafts better, scouts better and coaches better, not which team can spend more.

Taxman is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 05:14 PM
  #56
futurcorerock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 6,435
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to futurcorerock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman
The point is that spending more gives a team more of an advantage than a team that can't spend as much. The correlation doesn't matter because the fact remains that a team who can spend more can make more mistakes and simply spend over them. A team who can't spend as much has much less leeaway and hence less room for error.

There is no denying that teams who spend different amounts of money on payroll are playing on two different playing fields. That is fact. That is why something needs to be done. A sports league is supposed to be fair to every member, meaning as level of a playing field as possible. Who wins and loses should be based soley on who drafts better, scouts better and coaches better, not which team can spend more.
I think hes trying to point out that spending doesnt necessarily mean success. Ofcourse it gives you a better chance, youd have to be stupid or way out of the loop of business ethics to not get this one. You dont need stats to prove that point either.

Through the use of statistics hes trying to reinforce this notion of salary not always equaling success, i dont think theres anything groundbreaking about the findings, as we can draw a similar conclusion by looking at teams now and teams in the past, It's just interesting to see how numbers can play into the definitive facts, thats all.

The stats dont go as far to say 'yes' or 'no', rather, they express a maybe or a possibly.

Regardless, I think this poster did a great job using a statistics formula in a real life situation. I mean im sure there are more applicable ways, but you know... As long as you're learning the stuff, whats it matter? This is all in fun anyhow, i find it very interesting

futurcorerock is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 05:22 PM
  #57
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by futurcorerock
I think hes trying to point out that spending doesnt necessarily mean success. Ofcourse it gives you a better chance, youd have to be stupid or way out of the loop of business ethics to not get this one. You dont need stats to prove that point either.

Through the use of statistics hes trying to reinforce this notion of salary not always equaling success, i dont think theres anything groundbreaking about the findings, as we can draw a similar conclusion by looking at teams now and teams in the past, It's just interesting to see how numbers can play into the definitive facts, thats all.
Then again, a quick counter examination points out that 7 teams out of the top 10 payrolls made the playoffs while only 2 teams out of the bottom 10 payrolls made the playoffs. In other words, if your team has a big payroll, it has a 70% chance of making the playoffs, while if your team has a small payroll, it only has a 20% chance of making the playoffs. As I pointed out, a mere payroll standings correlation isn't the best way to examine this case.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 05:26 PM
  #58
futurcorerock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 6,435
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to futurcorerock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
Then again, a quick counter examination points out that 7 teams out of the top 10 payrolls made the playoffs while only 2 teams out of the bottom 10 payrolls made the playoffs. In other words, if your team has a big payroll, it has a 70% chance of making the playoffs, while if your team has a small payroll, it only has a 20% chance of making the playoffs. As I pointed out, a mere payroll standings correlation isn't the best way to examine this case.
Mmhmm, i didnt dispell that. I merely said that payroll doesnt completely decide a team's success. Theres no trend saying that the top payroll teams are always winning cups, making finals appearances and finishing the season with a record in the top 8 of the NHL

Youre completely right that you can increase your chances of success by expanding your payroll, but as you said its a percentage of like 70%, not a "complete" trend as i pointed out above. The italicized word makes all the difference in what i'm saying in support of the threadbearer's statistical findings

futurcorerock is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 06:04 PM
  #59
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
It feels like fans objective is simply to knock salaries down. Take the current league average team payroll of about $40mil as a salary cap. This of course implies a redistribution of talent around the league. Hatcher will have to go to Florida. Roenick to Carolina, Sundin to Washington, etc. Then we will have financial parity. Hardly seems a worthy wish for fans.


The NHL labour market presents a salary structure that allows Ottawa to have Havlat, Hossa, Spezza, and Chara for less than the price of Holik. If the labour market was a true free market that wouldnt happen. What the effect of this CBA on salaries does is allow every team the opportunity to build a first time champ cheaply. When you repeat as champ, you are big market revenue and then you have different options includig signing them all if you win. Any team can do that.


I think one of the fundamental stuimbling blocks of fans is the desire that every team should be equal every year as being the only way to define fair. This doesnt really make sense to me. Seeing as it is a zero sum game. For there to be good teams like Tampa, Ottawa, Vancouver, cities that have teams entering their prime years with great shots at a cup and suddenly affordable as they are winning, there has to be corresponding bad teams like Fla, Atl, Nash, Phx, all teams just a couple of years away from becoming the next Ottawa/Tampa, and teams like Det, Col, Tor, that are about to become like NYR, Wash, Pit and cycle back to the starting point.

In terms of expense and stage of team building cycle:
STAGE 1 Dal, Det, Col, NJ, Tor, Phi
STAGE 2 Ott, Vanc, TBay, Bos
STAGE 3 Atl, Nash, Cal, Mtl, Edm, Clb, Phx
STAGE $ NYR, Wash, Pit

One would expect the cup winner to be coming from Stage 1-2 teams. The more expensive groups. This would be normal and expected. The cup winner in a fair league will be coming from one of the teams in the top 2 expensive groups. So fair means the cup winners payroll would be in the top third. CH's stats seem to back that up.

One would expect, and it makes the system work well that teams in group 3 and 4 trade their older expensive free agents to the teams that can afford them for youth. Its mutually beneficial. Wash and Fla or well positioned for several years down the road. They will probably contend faster this way than if they kept adding free agents.


Ottawa is going to face tough decisions in 4 years. When our stars are all 28-30 yrs old. To get any compensation, we have to trade them then, and return to Fla, Nash levels or sign them thinking lke Colorado with Sakic et al we could sustain it. Its a tough market choice. As it should be. I think the impression of a payroll cap is that there will be no tough decisions. Everyone will be able to sign anyone the want anytime.

Comrie would of done the same thing even if there was a hard cap.


Team building is a cycle. A fair one in terms of developing a great team. All teams should always be cycling through these stages. Not every team should be trying for the cup this year.

We think that the way to win a cup the first time is to create a team with a $60mil payroll like Tor, Phi, or Det. But it isnt. Its to create a team with a $40mil payroll like Tamp, Ott, Vanc, SJ, Cal.

A $60mil team is not $20mil better than a $40mil team. Its $20mil older. And with a smaller window of opportunity. FLorida doesnt gain by signing Primeau or Tkachuk as free agents. They need their youngsters to turn into a team that can win.

Its not equality that makes the system fair, its equality of opportunity. Since rich teams really have no advantage by spending their way to developing a winner, there is equality of opportunity. As fans, i thought we would want that. Finda system that respects and works in coordination with the natural team building cycle.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 06:24 PM
  #60
Taxman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 336
vCash: 500
Yes, but the idea that spending more doesn't give a team an advantage is silly IMO. Of course spending more helps. Just because a team doesn't spend its money wisely all of the time doesn't mean that the act of spending more doesn't give them an extra opportunity over a team who can't spend that money.


Last edited by Taxman: 05-29-2004 at 06:39 PM.
Taxman is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 07:18 PM
  #61
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
Well thats what I would have thought too. That when San Jose salary dumped Nolan and Selanne, they would get worse and Tor Col would get better. That when Ottawa salary dumped Yashin we would get worse and NYI would get better. That when Washington salary dumped Jagr, they would get worse and NYR would get better. I really would of thought it is true. But in the big picture, it hasnt been turning out that way.

Florida, Washington and Pittsburgh dont get closer to a cup signing big name UFA's. They arent disadvantaged by not being able to do so because their quest is a longer term one.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 07:25 PM
  #62
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Well thats what I would have thought too. That when San Jose salary dumped Nolan and Selanne, they would get worse and Tor Col would get better. That when Ottawa salary dumped Yashin we would get worse and NYI would get better. That when Washington salary dumped Jagr, they would get worse and NYR would get better. I really would of thought it is true. But in the big picture, it hasnt been turning out that way.

Florida, Washington and Pittsburgh dont get closer to a cup signing big name UFA's. They arent disadvantaged by not being able to do so because their quest is a longer term one.
I guess Buffalo wasn't hurt when we had to trade Hasek because we couldn't afford his $8M per year price tag and we couldn't afford to bring in the help to get to the cup (Of course he did demand to be traded...). And he didn't help Detroit at all...

We can all find examples where things didn't exactly work out how you would expect, but that doesn't mean the general trend is not there.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 07:44 PM
  #63
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
Buffalo doesnt need the right to have an expensive team. They need the right to have an inexpensive team to try and win their first cup with. The way everyone has to do it. If your inexpensive team has become expensive and you havent won a cup, it is a good team building decision to try again. Trade old for youth. The secret to building a winner is to develop a young one, not buy an old one.

Besides, a cap will force the decision arbitrarily. Buffalo, Pitsburgh, Edm, and Ottawa were forced to make tougher decisions than most as they were trying to establish their businesses. Cap doesnt change anything for them during other business problems. All can just as easily as Col get a 2nd chance and make it with a young team they develop.

Poor markets cant afford expensive teams. Rich markets can but dont win from it. You wouldnt think it would be, but because of the nature of team building and needing a first time champ to be young and cheap, the system is fair. Buffalo had to make a tough choice. They would have had to make the same choice if Hasek put them over the cap, just unfairly and arbitrarily.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 08:09 PM
  #64
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Buffalo doesnt need the right to have an expensive team. They need the right to have an inexpensive team to try and win their first cup with. The way everyone has to do it. If your inexpensive team has become expensive and you havent won a cup, it is a good team building decision to try again. Trade old for youth. The secret to building a winner is to develop a young one, not buy an old one.

Besides, a cap will force the decision arbitrarily. Buffalo, Pitsburgh, Edm, and Ottawa were forced to make tougher decisions than most as they were trying to establish their businesses. Cap doesnt change anything for them during other business problems. All can just as easily as Col get a 2nd chance and make it with a young team they develop.

Poor markets cant afford expensive teams. Rich markets can but dont win from it. You wouldnt think it would be, but because of the nature of team building and needing a first time champ to be young and cheap, the system is fair. Buffalo had to make a tough choice. They would have had to make the same choice if Hasek put them over the cap, just unfairly and arbitrarily.

So, Buffalo has the youngest team in the league, is in the bottom half of league salaries and has only two players making more than $3M per season. We have some solid prospects in the organization, and we can't really keep our star players because we lost ~$10M last season and have to give 10% increases to a majority of our RFA's which will increase our budget by ~$3-$4M. Poor management? I'm not so sure. We've keept our payroll low and have got good return on our trades. Poor drafting? No worse than anyone else.

What has hurt us the most? Hasek demanding a trade because he wants to be on a contender and Peca demanding more money than the team can afford. There may be a few other issues, but those are two of the biggest.

So, by your reasoning we should trade our stars and start over because we can't afford our payroll?

What do you mean rich teams can't win from spending money? That's what Detroit and Colorado have been doing. It doesn't always work, but even if it doesn't work, these teams are driving up the salaries across the league to levels where many teams can't make make a profit, even with an improving young team!

djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 08:19 PM
  #65
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
You cant win your first cup by trying to buy all the best free agents.

Buffalo has a great young core. They are rebuilding well. When your youngsters become like Ottawa, Tampa, Or Vanc, you will start winning, and suddenly will find more fans and money. Buffalo doesnt need free agents, they need more youth to develop and need to give them the ice time to do so.

Where is Buffalo in the cycle. When is their window for contending going to come based on the players you are building around.

Its hard work and takes patience to build a champ. YOu dont expect you should be able to buy one in one summer do you?

How has Colorados spending hurt Ottawa signings of Hossa, Chara, Alfie, Havlat. What about Richards and Lecavalier. Calgary, like all Canadian teams, is making money with Iginla, as is Vancouver with Bert and Naslund. Why? Because they are now winning.

Holik and Colorado were supposed to send salaries spiralling out of control. Doesnt look like it to me. Seems young, small market teams have been able to develop teams cheaply and have great success and profit.

Every Canadian team is making money!

thinkwild is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 08:19 PM
  #66
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
So, Buffalo has the youngest team in the league, is in the bottom half of league salaries and has only two players making more than $3M per season. We have some solid prospects in the organization, and we can't really keep our star players because we lost ~$10M last season and have to give 10% increases to a majority of our RFA's which will increase our budget by ~$3-$4M. Poor management? I'm not so sure. We've keept our payroll low and have got good return on our trades. Poor drafting? No worse than anyone else.

What has hurt us the most? Hasek demanding a trade because he wants to be on a contender and Peca demanding more money than the team can afford. There may be a few other issues, but those are two of the biggest.

So, by your reasoning we should trade our stars and start over because we can't afford our payroll?

What do you mean rich teams can't win from spending money? That's what Detroit and Colorado have been doing. It doesn't always work, but even if it doesn't work, these teams are driving up the salaries across the league to levels where many teams can't make make a profit, even with an improving young team!
id rather fold BUF and yes even VAN if they cant afford to operate in the NHL. the fact is, BUF couldnt afford Hasek. Deal with it. He wasnt born into this world to be our entertainment pawn. DET could afford and wanted to pay him 8m, why shouldnt the system allow that ? Because you think that you are owed Hasek's rights for eternaty ? Hasek earned the right to choose his team and set his price because he was UFA.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 08:27 PM
  #67
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
Part of managing your assets is determining when to make the decisions to trade your players. Similarly for a cap. The closer they get to 31, the less trade value they have. It is fair. You have to rationalize your decisions in the market. Although it was unexpected to me, it turns out the market doesnt give money an advantage.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
05-29-2004, 10:05 PM
  #68
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
What the effect of this CBA on salaries does is allow every team the opportunity to build a first time champ cheaply. When you repeat as champ, you are big market revenue and then you have different options includig signing them all if you win. Any team can do that.

In terms of expense and stage of team building cycle:
STAGE 1 Dal, Det, Col, NJ, Tor, Phi
STAGE 2 Ott, Vanc, TBay, Bos
STAGE 3 Atl, Nash, Cal, Mtl, Edm, Clb, Phx
STAGE $ NYR, Wash, Pit

We think that the way to win a cup the first time is to create a team with a $60mil payroll like Tor, Phi, or Det. But it isnt. Its to create a team with a $40mil payroll like Tamp, Ott, Vanc, SJ, Cal.

Its not equality that makes the system fair, its equality of opportunity. Since rich teams really have no advantage by spending their way to developing a winner, there is equality of opportunity. As fans, i thought we would want that. Finda system that respects and works in coordination with the natural team building cycle.
The "once you win a championship you can raise your salary mass" theory is just that, a theory. If the Flames win the Cup, do you really think they will be able to raise their salary mass? I don't think so. Also, Tampa Bay has a limited ability to increase their payroll as well, even if they win.

Dallas, Toronto, Philadelphia and Detroit have built their teams with dollars. (especially Toronto) They have success because they're rich.

In your argumentation, you seem to forget that salaries have grown up steadily the past years, it hasn't always been at the level it's at right now. Also, it's a fairly new model, and I doubt you can establish any kind of cycle, since there's no certainty that what worked over the past 10 years will work for the next 10 years, even with the current CBA. Scouting for most teams was lacking, now it's a priority for everyone, including the richer teams. Also, RFA salaries are increasing steadily, which means that teams won't be able to keep the tight 10% increase going.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
05-30-2004, 12:30 AM
  #69
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Every Canadian team is making money!
Montreal isn't making money.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
05-30-2004, 12:49 AM
  #70
futurcorerock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 6,435
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to futurcorerock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman
Yes, but the idea that spending more doesn't give a team an advantage is silly IMO. Of course spending more helps. Just because a team doesn't spend its money wisely all of the time doesn't mean that the act of spending more doesn't give them an extra opportunity over a team who can't spend that money.
Ofcoursse it is, because of the fact that most teams who spend more do have more success. Again hes just proving that the more you pay for a team is just added chance of succes, not the definitive proof

futurcorerock is offline  
Old
05-30-2004, 01:08 AM
  #71
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
In terms of expense and stage of team building cycle:
STAGE 1 Dal, Det, Col, NJ, Tor, Phi
STAGE 2 Ott, Vanc, TBay, Bos
STAGE 3 Atl, Nash, Cal, Mtl, Edm, Clb, Phx
STAGE $ NYR, Wash, Pit
The problem is, not all teams have the same possible cycle. Your Detroit's and Colorado's have a cycle of 1, 1, 1, maybe 2, 2, then back to 1, 1. They simply don't fall to the 4 or 3 stage. Your Vancouver's and Ottawa's go 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, then likely back to 3, 3 again. They can't afford to ever reach Stage 1. A team like Pittsburgh is pretty much locked into 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4 until something radical happens.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
05-30-2004, 01:42 AM
  #72
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
. A team like Pittsburgh is pretty much locked into 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4 until something radical happens.
a big part of the problem in PIT is that when the team was making lots of money, the owner didnt invest any of it into a new arena. If he had built a new arena, like VAN for example, they would have revenue streams to compete with most teams in the league.

why should we save PIT at the expense on a season. PIT is well on its way to recovery without a new CBA.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
05-30-2004, 03:50 AM
  #73
Ironchef Chris Wok*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Red Sox Nation
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Ironchef Chris Wok*
You know, you could simply remove Expansion teams from the "correlation study" because you consider them a "confounder".

Ironchef Chris Wok* is offline  
Old
05-30-2004, 04:12 AM
  #74
rye&ginger
Registered User
 
rye&ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,156
vCash: 500
Do this correlation and you will see the problem witht he current system.

Only EIGHT of the 30 teams have made the playoffs the past 4 years. Is that a reasonable period of stability for a team?

Small market teams build, are good for a year or 2, lose their players due to financial constraints, and are crap again.

rye&ginger is offline  
Old
05-30-2004, 10:17 AM
  #75
futurcorerock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 6,435
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to futurcorerock
Quote:
Originally Posted by rye&ginger
Do this correlation and you will see the problem witht he current system.

Only EIGHT of the 30 teams have made the playoffs the past 4 years. Is that a reasonable period of stability for a team?

Small market teams build, are good for a year or 2, lose their players due to financial constraints, and are crap again.
Thats not entirely true. The Ottawa Senators are minimal spenders. They represent a team that defeats the mold set for it.

I think some of those teams you are making reference to are ones who have had good seasons and made the playoffs only to fall in the early rounds. Much of the time these teams are still building from within. Edmonton come to mind. Give them a few more years and some wise decision-making from their GM, and they might be doing some damage. Eric Brewer really does scare me

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are alot more small-market teams in the NHL than large-market. When you have so many teams with a payroll that may be similar, ofcourse you're going to have overlap into the playoffs. There isnt a distinct cutoff of playoff teams and non-playoff teams. So each year you'll have teams bowing in and out of the playoffs. Montreal's absence last year was just a bad season for them.. A team like Tampa Bay was able to capitalize on their fault and move into a playoff position. The Islanders as well have been consistently in the lower seeds. in '02 the Hurricanes made their great run. I mean its tough to say theres instability. Each year a few teams will have bad seasons and other teams who are up and coming will capitalize. There is by no means an instability in this, just that about 22 teams in the NHL end up being fairly equally matched with eachother and some of the little things can make all the difference. A 'hot' goaltender, a breakout winger or center, defense doing its job, its all in the lure of hockey when a team comes in and has a great year.

Nowadays most teams are on level playing field. This is very good because now the success of the team can begin to revert back to the players playing the game, and not the business deals behind bringing them in. I mean, hockey is all about the players, riiiiiight?

I think the argument would be valid if say, Colorado, Detroit hadnt made the playoffs a year or two in this aforementioned 4-year span. That would scare me

futurcorerock is offline  
Closed Thread

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 09:06 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.