Is Finland a Top 3 Hockey Nation
- Thread starter Cawz
- Start date
Say whaaaat?
Look, genius.....
I rank Sweden ahead of Finland because they have a recent gold. Even though they have only 2 medals (2 finishes in top 3 out of 6 tournaments) against Finland's 5 medals and 5/6 finishes in top 3. I still rank Sweden ahead of us. So that just goes to show you that I do not value the bronze THAT high, a recent gold medal does matter much more, so I would rank Sweden ahead despite the fact Finland has more than twice the top 3 finishes).
USA and Finland are tied with 2 second place finishes, but Finland has 3 bronze medals more, and leads in head to head games. Finland has finished in the top 3 5 out of 6 times, USA only twice. USA has 6th and 8th place finishes during this time. Finland is CLEARLY BETTER. There's no debate there.
Russia has 1 silver (from a long time ago, 1998) and 1 bronze against Finland's 4 medals and runner up in world cup. Finland is ahead in head to head games and has often eliminated Russia out of the tournament. This is not even remotely close.
So what are you arguing?
AND you're basically ridiculing anyone who attempts to supplement their opinion by qualitatively assessing teams and their performances as they put teams in some kind of order. Put IIHF points in a blender and 'nuff said, right?
White night, your quest continues.
Yes I ridicule people who come into these threads with a set opinion based on their personal feelings, and then instead of saying "I just personally feel this way and rank them like this" they go on trying to cherry pick facts, try to skew results and fail doing so.
I've told you already, there is NO WAY you can statistically place Finland anywhere but 2-3. There is NOTHING results wise that would justify putting USA or Russia anywhere near either Sweden or Finland. So IF you have to justify your opinion, just state that it is feelings based, it's your prerogative to have this feeling and nobody can fault you for that. But statistically, there is no way you can bend the results to fit your agenda. Results are crystal clear. Finland is better in the number of medals, the amount of wins in the final rounds, head to head games, games against top 7, and games in total in best on best tournaments since the NHL olympic era started.
There is just NOTHING backing your opinion up, so don't try. Just state it's your feeling, and you have every right to have that feeling. It's just not based on anything real, that's all.
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
Yeah, and as most people outside of Finland are saying, we don't agree with you, and there's far more than just opinion supporting that (your selective ignorance coupled with tunnel vision is, indeed, impressive). An entire world of collective bias in the face of Finnish logic, right?
Never fails to amuse.
Maybe I have to re-post some tunnel vision for you:Yeah, and as most people outside of Finland are saying, we don't agree with you, and there's far more than just opinion supporting that (your selective ignorance coupled with tunnel vision is, indeed, impressive). An entire world of collective bias in the face of Finnish logic, right?
Never fails to amuse.
In all simplicity, can you please explain how Finland is not top 3? I don't get how you can call us biased, when we are leaning to the facts, but you and some others ignore the facts and go with fantasy instead.A table showing the success of the Big 7 countries against each other in the best vs best tournaments since 1998:
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
Feel free to "keep it simple, stupid" as the saying goes. All you've shown by re-posting that table there is that there's very little separating Finland from Russia in terms of "results", so anyone who considered the strength and size of their talent pools, and the amount/level of hockey being played domestically, should be excused from ranking Russia on equal (if not higher) footing than Finland. With Canada and Sweden being "obvious" front-runners, and considering the US's contribution to the biggest and best league in the world, you're still just presenting your opinion in a way that suits you best.
This may come as a surprise, but no one without a vested interesting in Finland's reputation would be content with a level of examination that would also conclude that there are 15 players better than Sidney Crosby right now because that many players have more points since the last Olympics. "Results", right?
hitmen19
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2013
- 823
- 1
winning the bronze is sometimes just winning two games , but I guess that's the way these tournaments are set up
Case in point
1998 nagano Olympics
Finland lost to Russia 4-1 and Czech's 4-3 in prelims, but beat Kazakhstan like everyone else did.
Then this is the one game you basically need to win to get to the bronze game,which is the quarters game. They beat Sweden 2-1
Then in semifinals they got smoked 7-4 to Russia.
So finland won 1 game basically and lost 3 but are all of a sudden in the bronze medal game. Really they are playing in a game to decide who is third best by beating one team?
Yeah, I know, they beat Canada to win the bronze, but no offense to Finland, but no one in Canada cared that you won that game. For Canada it was gold or who cares.
In Salt lake city, Belarus lost all prelim games, won 1 game to upset Sweden in quarters and, and then lost in semi's. Again I know that is the way the tournament is set up, but really, Belarus winning one game is playing for the bronze as the third best team all tournament because Salo let one goal in off the melon?
I know the fins will disagree, but that is why I don't put much stock in the bronze medal. I give the fins so much credit for Torino, I wish the could have shut the door on an awesome tournament they had, and the silver was well deserved. But the bronzes, I just don't think they are all that well much of an accomplishment.
Case in point
1998 nagano Olympics
Finland lost to Russia 4-1 and Czech's 4-3 in prelims, but beat Kazakhstan like everyone else did.
Then this is the one game you basically need to win to get to the bronze game,which is the quarters game. They beat Sweden 2-1
Then in semifinals they got smoked 7-4 to Russia.
So finland won 1 game basically and lost 3 but are all of a sudden in the bronze medal game. Really they are playing in a game to decide who is third best by beating one team?
Yeah, I know, they beat Canada to win the bronze, but no offense to Finland, but no one in Canada cared that you won that game. For Canada it was gold or who cares.
In Salt lake city, Belarus lost all prelim games, won 1 game to upset Sweden in quarters and, and then lost in semi's. Again I know that is the way the tournament is set up, but really, Belarus winning one game is playing for the bronze as the third best team all tournament because Salo let one goal in off the melon?
I know the fins will disagree, but that is why I don't put much stock in the bronze medal. I give the fins so much credit for Torino, I wish the could have shut the door on an awesome tournament they had, and the silver was well deserved. But the bronzes, I just don't think they are all that well much of an accomplishment.
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
Exactly the qualitative side I'm talking about that the quantitative side takes an overly willing blind eye to.
Correct, absolutely. Best-of-one tournaments are more or less a crapshoot.
However, it seemingly took Finland winning yet another bronze for some folks to realize this. Before the tournament an overwhelming majority of the posters were all about paper rankings and very much deemed the teams falling outside the top-4 on paper as ones with no chance. Including the poster quoted.
Funny how the "correct" arguments are only placed on table when it's convenient. It's the very kind of religious fervor psycho_dad is on a crusade against. The facts supporting ones own views are embraced, and all of the other kind simply dismissed.
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
You have certainly described the fervor with which he's carrying out his crusade. Results: yes. Thinking: no. Wine and bread was produced, forget about how!
I s'pose both sides could be given some extra credit for consistency. Kind of.
Is that a royal "we"? Yes, you don't agree with me, which is fine.
No, there really isn't.
Yes, you can come up with all kinds of criteria that support your opinion, but results do not support you in any way what so ever.
You can say that they have an unfair advantage because blue and white is the best color combination
You can say that teams should be ranked based on how many "nen" ending surnames they have and who ever has the most is the worst.
You can argue that NHL points of the players of the team are more important than the actual results on the ice when national teams play a tournament or head to head game.
You can argue that because you know the players better, they must then be better and form a better team.
You can justify your view any ****ing way you like, it's still based on complete bias and opinion, your own system of giving more weight to criteria that is completely outside the games, the actual competition.
But with results and success, Finland is clearly above Russia and USA, that is something you can't deny. The only thing you can do is downplay the importance of results and facts, and emphasize things that matter absolutely nothing when the teams step on the ice.
I just find it absolutely ridiculous to try and rank sports teams with anything other than results, when you have results available. If sports leagues, tournaments and events were decided by how you see this world, there would never be any need to actually play a single game or have a competition.
If results do not matter, there is no need for finding out who is the best in actual games, we can just go by popularity contest, majority vote. But you know what, this is not american idol, there is no "text to vote for the winner". The games are played on the ice, and Finland has proven over a long period of time that they belong in either 2nd or 3rd in the world right now.
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
The "royal we" means the vast majority of those without any particular attachment to the country in question, which seems fine for everyone except those with a particular attachment to the country in question.
You occasionally pop out from months of posting inactivity for a few weeks of this same pro-Finland crusade after an international tournament and it amuses "us" greatly.
There's so much variance in such a small sample that we could still assume Finland has been overachieving so far based on their inferior player material. Their true place is probably around 4-5.
Nice to see losers excuses. It doesn't matter why they lost, they lost. Lack of skill, lack of will, which ever....losers lose and winners win. Not that I buy lack of will at all as an excuse, I actually watched the game. Sulander stood on his head and Canada had 39 shots. Canadian goalie allowed some bad goals.
Do you remember (lol, you weren't even born yet I bet) that in Nagano the group stage was actually not "best on best", NHL teams still had a game on the day the hockey started in Nagano. In medal rounds everyone had their top dogs for sure.
The excuses are pathetic.
Yes, so since there is so much variance and USA and Russia have done considerably worse than Finland, we can assume their true places are somewhere like 9th and 10th behind Switzerland and Germany, teams that have done considerably worse than USA and Russia so far.
The "royal we" means the vast majority of those without any particular attachment to the country in question, which seems fine for everyone except those with a particular attachment to the country in question.
You occasionally pop out from months of posting inactivity for a few weeks of this same pro-Finland crusade after an international tournament and it amuses "us" greatly.
Thank you for proving my point once again. You can't argue facts, all you have is a logical fallacies that you keep repeating. Circular reasoning and appeal to popularity are your tools of trade.
And then you try to divert the conversation from the actual topic to me, or to the other people who oppose your view.
This is basically like beating a dead horse. I have shown you the results, the facts. So have others. You claim that your personal opinion, your criteria and your interpretation of the poll results are more important than those results of actual hockey games and tournaments. With made up criteria, anyone could place any team at any spot they want. Canada behind Botswana, if you will. So I'm done with your ridiculousness, facts are facts and if they don't change your fantasy then so be it. Keep fighting against reality.
lol @ True Place.
What does" inferior player material" mean? and more importantly what does it have to do with this thread?
If evaluating the capabilities of a team is the goal, then the value of individual commodities when stripped down to single pieces is irrelevant because the total value can be greater or less than the sum of its parts.
Ovechkin can score 60 goals a year in the NHL but if he doesn't help Russia win then his name on the jersey shouldn't make any difference when evaluation national teams.. right broskie?
hitmen19
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2013
- 823
- 1
Sorry, the whole hockey world outside of finland gave them no chance of winning. They had the 5th 6th best odds for winning by all betting houses. Sweden was third at 6-1, usa was 8-1, then finland was 20-1. If people thought that finland would win one of these every 20 times, they would have bet it down, but guess what they stayed at that level on par with what the Czechs and swiss were and not what the usa and Russians were. Ok, that is betting houses.
now lets go with posters on here from all countries. Not one neutral fan from any country picked finland to win. Go ahead and look through all the predictions, and no, not everyone just picked their own team to win. Many Canadians picked other teams, and many other people picked Canada, but no one picked finland
Experts on tv and magazines, not one prediction for finland to win, but the other top 4 all had varying levels of support, and some did pick the usa and Russia to win.
and guess what, finland didn't win, have never won, so I guess everyone was correct. The fact they won bronze had no bearing on whether they had a chance to win gold. they were closer to finishing 4-5 then they were to gold.
so please don't say certain people gave them no chance, the whole hockey world gave them no chance
Feel free to "keep it simple, stupid" as the saying goes. All you've shown by re-posting that table there is that there's very little separating Finland from Russia in terms of "results", so anyone who considered the strength and size of their talent pools, and the amount/level of hockey being played domestically, should be excused from ranking Russia on equal (if not higher) footing than Finland. With Canada and Sweden being "obvious" front-runners, and considering the US's contribution to the biggest and best league in the world, you're still just presenting your opinion in a way that suits you best.
This may come as a surprise, but no one without a vested interesting in Finland's reputation would be content with a level of examination that would also conclude that there are 15 players better than Sidney Crosby right now because that many players have more points since the last Olympics. "Results", right?
Again no facts, just opinions and rambling about qualitative assessment. Finland is closer to Sweden on that point scale than Russia, why not point that out while you're at it? Those numbers prove a trend, you would be better off arguing that we need a larger sample size, but as it is now we can draw conclusions.
"you're still just presenting your opinion in a way that suits you best."
WHAT THE ****? Seriously, what is wrong with you? How can numbers be his opinion? Jesus, you are hopeless.
How do you figure? Please explain how that is even possible. Seeing as they took Canada to OT, and lost a tight match vs Sweden with 1 goal, then beat the USA 5-0, how were they closer to 4th and 5th than 1st? Elaborate please.
Not true at all, most people will based on a roster make betting predictions, but I've heard the "you never know with Finland, they could go all the way" comment many times. Something which you will not hear being said about many other of the top nations.
More logical fallacies to try and prove something that has nothing to do with ranking.
It does not matter what bookies thought (you need to learn about how odds are calculated, public opinion has a lot to do with it....they make money by giving ****** return for the publics favourites, because the public will still play their personal favourites no matter what the true odds should be). It does not matter what public thought. People are ignorant. You are appealing to popularity to prove your stance, but the publics OPINION does not weigh at all when you actually have results. If you did not have results of these tournaments and individual games, then this would have to become a popularity contest, a general vote. But since we DO have actual results from a long stretch, opinion and popularity matter none.
You go ask any Canadian on the street who are the #2 and #3 after Canada and most people will say USA and Russia. You give them the facts, and they will mostly change their mind, but as it is now....most of them just simply do not know the facts. They remember the games against USA and Russia, the media has always played up these big rivals of Canada, overrated them. They have not reached nearly the kind of success in the best on best tournaments as Finland or Sweden have, and yet people legitimately think they have. Until they are proven wrong. I know this from living in Canada and talking hockey with people. The only difference is, I hang out with grown ups, adults. When they are faced with facts, they usually recognize them and change their minds. This does not seem to happen in HFboards. Wonder why...
hitmen19
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2013
- 823
- 1
how do I figure? easy, they didn't win, and have NEVER won a best on best. Wow, you lost a couple of close games. So did Latvia, does that mean they are better then the teams that lost by more???
Of course finland can go all the way, the same way like the usa 80's miracle on ice team did, but in finlands case, the miracle hasn't happened yet.
So, it's like a historical thing and for example the Czechs are better because of 1998 and Russians because of the Soviet victory in 1981 Canada Cup? How long can you retain the status or is it enough that it's once won, however long ago?
Hmm, why not just use that table of the matches between the big nations since 1998? Like actual games? They can also be weighed in favour of more recent competitions if you prefer or using only elimination matches - I think we would be among the top three in each case... But that's just of course only the matches themselves and not like something subjective.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Prospect Info: David Reinbacher - Get Well Soon Edition- Latest: Grate n Colorful Oz
-
