Cup Success Measured Against Field Size

[Canadiens1958]

I think the closest we could possibly come to "objectively" measuring a team's strength would be to factor in their winning percentage for the season over/under 0.500, and then calculate it against their base-probability of success.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that you are advocating for O6 teams that saw great success, and taking the position that their chance of winning the cup was not 5x greater than a single team in modern day 30-team NHL.

That would have the opposite effect of what you're hoping to show though. A team like the '59 Habs, who were a powerhouse, had an extremely high chance of success, given their situation (roster, chemistry, previous success). What that really means is, them winning the Cup that year, is less of an accomplishment for them, than it would be for a lesser team in the league, to have overcome the Habs.

That's how the math would flesh out, when you start to inject things like "team strength" into the equation.

Not the issue. Approach the question from the standpoint of team efficiencies / inefficiencies.

Two examples.

Six team NHL,O6 era, first half of the era Chicago was the most inefficient team. Built a small but productive junior feeder team/farm system. Acquired players from the top and better teams plus management as well as coaches. Won the 1961 SC beating the Canadiens. But failed to repeat since they did not get rid of inefficient ownership that promptly weakened the team by unloading players.

Expansion Las Vegas. Blank unused page,no carryover bagage.
Hired an excellent coach - Florida inefficiency. Drafted 1 player from each team, getting talent that was either misused or available due tomismanaged salary caps. Filtered out the less desirable and we are waiting toread the final chapter.

 

[Tweed]

Not the issue. Approach the question from the standpoint of team efficiencies / inefficiencies.

Two examples.

Six team NHL,O6 era, first half of the era Chicago was the most inefficient team. Built a small but productive junior feeder team/farm system. Acquired players from the top and better teams plus management as well as coaches. Won the 1961 SC beating the Canadiens. But failed to repeat since they did not get rid of inefficient ownership that promptly weakened the team by unloading players.

Expansion Las Vegas. Blank unused page,no carryover bagage.
Hired an excellent coach - Florida inefficiency. Drafted 1 player from each team, getting talent that was either misused or available due tomismanaged salary caps. Filtered out the less desirable and we are waiting toread the final chapter.

My response was purely a brainstorm on how best to include some kind of "objective" measurement of team strength as a way of determining a team's probability of success. There really is no absolutely perfect way of doing that.

Once you start examining "perceived" efficiencies/inefficiencies... you're introducing subjectivity into the equation... and then the results of the math will be entirely open to debate.

For your example, we'll never know (empirically) if Gerrard was a detriment to Florida or not. For all we know, VGK could have run the table on the regular season if they had hired somebody else. It's all "judgement calls" once we start to do that sort of thing.

And to further your point, I would say that just because a team finished 0.750 winning %, doesn't necessarily mean they have the same roster going into the next season, and it would be inaccurate to try and represent that team's probability of success by some modifier derived from that 0.750 Win%. A perfect example would be the '62 Hawks, as opposed to the '17 Penguins.

 

[Canadiens1958]

True, in the context of "stronger teams beat weaker teams, more often than not"... and therefore will succeed more often in a Best-of-7 format than they would in a Best-of-1 format.

But not true, in the context of "both teams have an equal chance of winning, based purely on the format". There's not one thing that favours one team over another, in either format. Both teams have an equal chance of succeeding in a Best-of-1, as they do in a Best-of-7.

To the rest of your point, I think this video addresses most of it:



And then when we factor in things like how much change is induced either by a cap system, or roster makeup... we're able to start to identify why some teams in some sports are able to perform repeats. For example, the Pens repeat last year was almost certainly a byproduct of their ability to keep nearly their entire championship roster intact, which consisted of many of their premier players in their prime, on contracts that were conducive to additional managerial decision-making opportunities for improvement and/or compensation of weaknesses (Fleury in for Murray, Hainsey in for Letang, addition of Guentzel).

Additional reading: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.05976.pdf

6.1. Summary. We propose a modied Bayesian state-space framework that can
be used to estimate both time-varying strength and variance parameters in order to
better understand the underlying randomness in competitive organizations. We apply
this model to the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB.

Our first finding relates to the relative equivalence of the four leagues. At a single
point in time, team strength estimates diverge substantially more in the NBA and
NFL than in the NHL and MLB. In the latter two leagues, contests between two
randomly chosen teams are closer to a coin-flip, in which each team has a reasonable
shot at winning.

Interesting but just another version of an old classic song like "Goodnight Irene" sung by a modern singer.

Basically the ongoing discussion between the mathematical model and the game on the field.

Fully appreciate and understand both.

Overlooked is the fact that leagues and competitors have tried to manipulate competition to draw revenues from the ticket sales, ears and eyeballs almost from the start.

Prime example is the NFL where indoor stadiums are not mandatory. Look at the results in the playoffs for warm weather teams playing outdoors in the cold weather north come playoff time.

Why Are Dome Teams Struggling Outdoors? | Football Insiders | NFL Rumors And Football News

 

[Tweed]

Prime example is the NFL where indoor stadiums are not mandatory. Look at the results in the playoffs for warm weather teams playing outdoors in the cold weather north come playoff time.

Why Are Dome Teams Struggling Outdoors? | Football Insiders | NFL Rumors And Football News

Good read. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I can't imagine being used to nice calm weather, and then having to perform at peak levels during inclement weather, on the biggest stage.

 

[Canadiens1958]

My response was purely a brainstorm on how best to include some kind of "objective" measurement of team strength as a way of determining a team's probability of success. There really is no absolutely perfect way of doing that.

Once you start examining "perceived" efficiencies/inefficiencies... you're introducing subjectivity into the equation... and then the results of the math will be entirely open to debate.

For your example, we'll never know (empirically) if Gerrard was a detriment to Florida or not. For all we know, VGK could have run the table on the regular season if they had hired somebody else. It's all "judgement calls" once we start to do that sort of thing.

And to further your point, I would say that just because a team finished 0.750 winning %, doesn't necessarily mean they have the same roster going into the next season, and it would be inaccurate to try and represent that team's probability of success by some modifier derived from that 0.750 Win%. A perfect example would be the '62 Hawks, as opposed to the '17 Penguins.

Appreciate brainstorming. That is why I introduced efficiencies / inefficiences. Did the hole the easy way - from the top,not the bottom.

Gerard Gallant has had success improving everywhere he went, junior, assistant with Montreal, Florida, Vegas. One of the few coaches who can actually coach offensive hockey.

Basic problem is that the mathematical models inevitably lack complete data. Superficial references to Salary Cap, etc are just that. Yet no one has looked at the key numbers. Roster churn or turnover from season to season, injury rates, player age distribution within a team/league. Repeating or winning in a junior or midget league with a 3-5 year window vs NHL.

Abstract probability models are just the starting point not the final answer.

 

[Doctor No]

Abstract probability models are just the starting point not the final answer.

And subjective methods are not the final answer, either.

Both are appropriate in combination, and both are useful.

 

[Tweed]

And subjective methods are not the final answer, either.

Both are appropriate in combination, and both are useful.

Yeah, they are two different things, really. I was far more comfortable doing the math for something that I could show to be factual. I think it would be a monumental task to try and assess each team's strength, year by year... and then extrapolate any kind of conclusions from there. Although, it would be a far more interesting thing to discuss, than what I did.

 

[Canadiens1958]

And subjective methods are not the final answer, either.

Both are appropriate in combination, and both are useful.

Agreed. As more data becomes available producing discussion understanding gets closer.

 

[Doctor No]

One of the problems is that when people "do it all the subjective way" is that everyone's going to have a different opinion on the results.

Which makes it impossible to get a consensus on the results, and allows everyone to continue thinking like they thought before any work was done. Some people prefer it this way.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Another way to look at it was that when Montreal, Detroit and Toronto were winning Stanley Cups in the 40's, 50's and 60's, it was the same as a season-long Canada Cup every year. To me, it's pretty darn impressive to win against that level of competition for an entire season.

 

[Thenameless]

I think we're looking at it through a slightly different lens...you're looking at it from a "insert an also-ran" perspective. I'm looking at it from a "I'm a 100-point team, get out of my way" perspective.

This is where the incorrectness sort of begins. From a mathematical standpoint, all teams "should" be equal. It's certainly harder to win in a 100 team league than say a 2 team league - I'm pretty sure we can agree to that. After a hundred years, both teams in a 2 team league will have won multiple championships, even if the results are lopsided. After a hundred years, it would be outlandish to think that every team in a 100 team league would have won a championship - it would mean that every team won exactly once. This should make it clearer from a mathematical point.

However, I also agree with your point that not all teams in the real world are equal. So if you do get a bit of a standout like the recent LA, Pittsburgh, and Chicago teams then it's easier to beat up on a watered down league, as opposed to having to face each other every other night like you would in a 6 team league.

I think that the truth lies somewhere in between, but definitely tilts toward "the more teams is harder" argument, because of the demonstrated math involved.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Respectfully, I think the scenario and its potential solution becomes obfuscated by extreme scenarios "2-team" and "100-team" leagues, for instance. That doesn't serve to illustrate any relevant point but, collaterally, tries to influence things back to equal/clean math (meaning, everything is equal and perfect, and therefore everything is easy to calculate). I think if we stick with reality and real terms, we have a better chance of figuring it out.

In a detached thread, Doctor No ran some simulator (Clams Casino, or some such) and it showed that the alpha teams performed better (albeit slightly) in the bigger division because there were more fish to feast on...the average teams were more greatly affected by the greater number of teams...ugh, that's a horrific sentence fragment...in other words, if you're an average team, you want less teams to compete with because you can't control your own destiny anyway because you stink...if you're good, you want more teams to beat up on. Mathematically and practically, that makes a lot of sense to me...

 

[Doctor No]

One of my favorite (perhaps my favorite) Seinfeld episode was the backwards one where they were going to India for the wedding. At the end/beginning of the episode we find out that George's stomachache was preceded by him ordering "Clams Casino" from the coffee shop because it said "chef recommends" on the menu.

 

[Michael Farkas]

"hmmm...tastes a little funky..."

- "Oh, I'm sure it's fine."

 

[Tweed]

Just a quick thing for perspective... if each team starts on equal ground*, at the beginning of each season:

The odds of winning 5 cups in a row in a 6 team league is 1 in 7,776
The odds of winning 5 cups in a row in a 31 team league is 1 in 28,629,151**

*Have to build their entire roster for the year, from scratch.
**Ignoring divisional mis-alignments.

This is where the "talent pool" and "level of talent" arguments breakdown:

We know for certain that it was a lot easier to keep a team together back in the old days, than it is now. I don't think anybody would dispute that.

It's also a lot easier to collect the cream-of-the-crop talent, all into a single roster, in a 6 team league, than it is in a 31 team league. Obviously.

(We also know that the difference between the best player and the worst player in the league, back in the day, was greater than the difference between the best and worst players today. I mean the history forum guys argue using this very point as evidence all the time, when stating that Gretzky/Orr/Howe were GOAT.)

When you combine the fact that it's easier to retain more of the better players, for longer in a 6 team league, you have a much greater chance of 5-peating than 1-in-7,7776. That's why we see a 5-peat in first 60 years in the league, when the math shows that it should only happen "once every 8,000 seasons". The proof's right there in the pudding.

I think people don't realize just how much more difficult it is to win the cup today, than it was back then... let alone repeat.

 

[Rick Kehoe]

Just a quick thing for perspective... if each all team starts on equal ground*, at the beginning of each season:

The odds of winning 5 cups in a row in a 6 team league is 1 in 7,776
The odds of winning 5 cups in a row in a 31 team league is 1 in 28,629,151**

*Have to build their entire roster for the year, from scratch.
**Ignoring divisional mis-alignments.

This is where the "talent pool" and "level of talent" arguments breakdown:

We know for certain that it was a lot easier to keep a team together back in the old days, than it is now. I don't think anybody would dispute that.

It's also a lot easier to collect the cream-of-the-crop talent, all into a single roster, in a 6 team league, than it is in a 31 team league. Obviously.

(We also know that the difference between the best player and the worst player in the league, back in the day, was greater than the difference between the best and worst players today. I mean the history forum guys argue using this very point as evidence all the time, when stating that Gretzky/Orr/Howe were GOAT.)

When you combine the fact that it's easier to retain more of the better players, for longer in a 6 team league, you have a much greater chance of 5-peating than 1-in-7,7776. That's why we see a 5-peat in first 60 years in the league, when the math shows that it should only happen "once every 8,000 seasons". The proof's right there in the pudding.

I think people don't realize just how much more difficult it is to win the cup today, than it was back then... let alone repeat.

The added playoff rounds make it more difficult as well, plus the impact of the international players. Back in the Original Six era, it was a higher percentage of North American players, especially from Canada. The Eastern European talent which didn't have a chance to play in the NHL for decades has made a huge impact. Many more teams today, but that's offset by the population increase, and the talent available from around the globe.

 

[Tweed]

The added playoff rounds make it more difficult as well, plus the impact of the international players. Back in the Original Six era, it was a higher percentage of North American players, especially from Canada. The Eastern European talent which didn't have a chance to play in the NHL for decades has made a huge impact. Many more teams today, but that's offset by the population increase, and the talent available from around the globe.

The added playoff rounds are factored into the math I showed. It's true what you say about the NA vs Euro Talent pool, but it doesn't affect the math in any way, since all teams are, and were, drawing from the same pool, whatever pool that may be, regardless of era.

Edit: It'd be a different story (and math) if one team had access to a talent pool that other teams didn't. For example, Montreal and Quebec-born players. I've read a couple articles that (attempt to?) debunk the Habs' French Territorial Rights story, however.

 

[Doctor No]

I've read a couple articles that (attempt to?) debunk the Habs' French Territorial Rights story, however.

I recommend this one:
https://sihrhockey.org/__a/public/column.cfm?cid=3&aid=361

 

[Canadiens1958]

I recommend this one:
https://sihrhockey.org/__a/public/column.cfm?cid=3&aid=361

Inadequate. The following paints a much clearer picture.

Historical Hockey Stats & Trivia: The Sponsorship System - The Pre-Expansion NHL's Monopsony on Players

The A,B,C forms arrived on the scene in 1945, Liam Maguire's "belief" is thus in error. He never documents his belief.

The basics of the A,B,C forms were such that the NHL teams were limited to the number of C-Forms but their affiliates could also sign players. The indy AHL teams - Cleveland, also were players in the hunt for players.

The French Canadian fallacy is basically urban legend created backwards from Sam Pollock getting the rights to Rejean Houle and Marc Tardif in the last pre open era Amateur Draft.

Edit: The article cited has a few minor flaws. CAHA was not concerned with hockey from Novice on up.1945 organized hockey started at the Bantam level. Also the real danger was the ability of two of the teams Toronto and Montreal through their affiliates tying up more than just the 300 players.

 

[Doctor No]

My apologies that you didn't enjoy the link.

 

[Tweed]

I recommend this one:
https://sihrhockey.org/__a/public/column.cfm?cid=3&aid=361

Alright cool, I'll give it a read when I get a chance. Thanks!

 

[Tweed]

Inadequate. The following paints a much clearer picture.

Historical Hockey Stats & Trivia: The Sponsorship System - The Pre-Expansion NHL's Monopsony on Players

The A,B,C forms arrived on the scene in 1945, Liam Maguire's "belief" is thus in error. He never documents his belief.

The basics of the A,B,C forms were such that the NHL teams were limited to the number of C-Forms but their affiliates could also sign players. The indy AHL teams - Cleveland, also were players in the hunt for players.

The French Canadian fallacy is basically urban legend created backwards from Sam Pollock getting the rights to Rejean Houle and Marc Tardif in the last pre open era Amateur Draft.

Edit: The article cited has a few minor flaws. CAHA was not concerned with hockey from Novice on up.1945 organized hockey started at the Bantam level. Also the real danger was the ability of two of the teams Toronto and Montreal through their affiliates tying up more than just the 300 players.

I'll check this one out too. (Y) Thx!

 

[Tweed]

I think this was the one that I read awhile back: The myth of Habs' territorial rights

 

[Canadiens1958]

August 2017 NHL betting line for the 2018 SC:

Odds to win the 2018 Stanley Cup

Seems that the 31 NHL teams were not viewed as "equal".

 

[Name Nameless]

August 2017 NHL betting line for the 2018 SC:

Odds to win the 2018 Stanley Cup

Seems that the 31 NHL teams were not viewed as "equal".

If you think they should be penalized for being better, you are IMHO begging the question or something. I jump in here just to say I don't see the point with that.

Thanks to the OP for a fun article!