Is Finland a Top 3 Hockey Nation

[psycho_dad*]

I didnt expand anything for option 1. I used all the best on best. I'm not shifting it to a certain tournament to suit my opinion like you are. I'm using best on best, and it falls within the 20 year span that you designated.

And I told you time and time again that it's fine. It just doesn't make your argument any better, Finland still dominates. So what's your point?

I dont believe the Czechs played in the finals 3 time, did they? The US did. So unless the Czechs did as well, why would you consider them ahead of the US? That makes zero sense.

Their gold is more recent. But really, I put almost no emphasis on anything before 2000. It does not really represent recent years. Finland certainly had some players already in the 1998 team, but still those results are very far from today.

Do you understand Option 1? All time best on best. No shifting of timelines. Is that clear to you.

If you wanted to do all time best on best then you'd have to go count all Canada Cups as well but of course this is completely pointless since it has absolutely nothing to do with todays situation.

So if you are talking about right now, you can only look at the last 2 Olympic games, in which the US finished higher. Unless you consider 2 bronzes better than one silver, but I sure dont.

I can only look at last 2 olympic games? Why? I can easily look at all of them. Finland had a lot of returning players from 2006, I find that to be a very current result. I have constantly kept referring to Sweden being ahead of Finland because of a recent gold medal (2006). If that is taken away then Sweden drops.

If you looked at the very limited and cherry picked time limit of only last two olympics, Finland and USA would be tied. USA with 2nd and 4th place finishes and Finland with 2x 3rd. What does the USA finishes average to? Even goal differential head to head is even. So what would be the tie breaker? World championships? IIHF ranking? Sounds good to me...lol


Anyway, there is absolutely no reason not to include results from the whole NHL olympics era (and you can count that 1996 in there if that floats your boat). It shows consistency and gives a bigger sample size. Results are clearly in Finland's favour.

Funny thing is, any way you cherry pick, you can't find a way to put the U.S ahead. No results support it. When we don't cherry pick and just include them all, the picture is clear.

Stop trying to argue results, just say "it's my misguided opinion and I'll stick to it because reality doesn't matter to me"

 

[Cawz]

And I told you time and time again that it's fine. It just doesn't make your argument any better, Finland still dominates. So what's your point?



Their gold is more recent. But really, I put almost no emphasis on anything before 2000. It does not really represent recent years. Finland certainly had some players already in the 1998 team, but still those results are very far from today.



If you wanted to do all time best on best then you'd have to go count all Canada Cups as well but of course this is completely pointless since it has absolutely nothing to do with todays situation.



I can only look at last 2 olympic games? Why? I can easily look at all of them. Finland had a lot of returning players from 2006, I find that to be a very current result. I have constantly kept referring to Sweden being ahead of Finland because of a recent gold medal (2006). If that is taken away then Sweden drops.

If you looked at the very limited and cherry picked time limit of only last two olympics, Finland and USA would be tied. USA with 2nd and 4th place finishes and Finland with 2x 3rd. What does the USA finishes average to? Even goal differential head to head is even. So what would be the tie breaker? World championships? IIHF ranking? Sounds good to me...lol


Anyway, there is absolutely no reason not to include results from the whole NHL olympics era (and you can count that 1996 in there if that floats your boat). It shows consistency and gives a bigger sample size. Results are clearly in Finland's favour.

Funny thing is, any way you cherry pick, you can't find a way to put the U.S ahead. No results support it. When we don't cherry pick and just include them all, the picture is clear.

Stop trying to argue results, just say "it's my misguided opinion and I'll stick to it because reality doesn't matter to me"

On your first point, you said Finland still dominates. How can you consider worse results dominating? I think you fail to understand the meaning. US won a tournament and got 2nd twice. Please clarify how Finland dominated that.

Your "tied" comment is funny. Who averages finishes? It always goes to the team with the best medal.

Your "no emphasis before 2000" is also funny. So 14 years ago is relevant but 15 isn't? 10 years ago is history. Hell, 5 years ago isn't really relevant. How many players were returning for Finland from 2006? US is a totally different team, so that's why I didn't include it. Do you not understand this? You are comparing players that are not on the team and trying to pass if off as current. Please tell me you understand this. Please tell me you understand the different between players on team USA and players no longer on team USA, or explain to me why players no longer on the team should be included in the current analysis.

US won a tournament in the historical analysis and US won a silver in the recent analysis. That's more than what Finland won in those time frames. That's a fact. You cant dispute that. You have your misguided opinions that Finland "dominated", where I'm showing you actual results that Finland hasn't reached. You have to actually win something before you can talk like that.

Edit: I think what this comes down to is you don't understand how they score ranking with medals. One silver is ahead of 2 bronze. Go look at the official Olympic rankings. That's how its scored. That's how I consider it. Both US and Finland are close, but US wins in both options I mentioned based on how ranking is done. They don't average things (I really have to laugh at the fact that that was your argument...)

 

[cryssarn]

Are you actually questioning putting value on an 18 year old tournament winner when you said you were looking at the last 20 years?

As I said previously, you have 3 choices:

1. Look at the history of best on best, which goes back to 96 - USA ranks above in my opinion because they actually won a tournament and played for the final three times.

2. Look at the recent history with some current players, which only includes the last two olympics - USA ranks above since they played in a final.

3. Pick some random timeframe in between to suit your agenda - debatebale, depending on what random timeframe you pick

I choose either 1 or 2. You seem to choose 3.

If only more Finns were reasonable like you. Some of the other guys here are being very insulting to people disagreeing with their opinions, and it makes people from your country look bad.

His agenda? You chose 96 to fit yours. If it would not have been a USA win there, you would never have brought it in.
"Reasonable like you"? Because he agree with you? Come on. It's already been said that USA have the better names, but not the results right now. What I'm pretty much hearing from this is "USA have a silver in the two recent Olympics. That beats 2 bronze, and the only reason USA did not take a bronze this year is because they did not care." Well, in that case "not caring" cost them the 3rd Place. I'm sorry, but that's just results. It's a close call.
But there is no doubt that USA great young players, and have been in a upward trend for the last 5 years. Finlands development don't look bad, but not as good as USA. USA will be top 2 pretty soon

 

[psycho_dad*]

On your first point, you said Finland still dominates. How can you consider worse results dominating? I think you fail to understand the meaning. US won a tournament and got 2nd twice. Please clarify how Finland dominated that.

Your "tied" comment is funny. Who averages finishes? It always goes to the team with the best medal.

Your "no emphasis before 2000" is also funny. So 14 years ago is relevant but 15 isn't? 10 years ago is history. Hell, 5 years ago isn't really relevant. How many players were returning for Finland from 2006? US is a totally different team, so that's why I didn't include it. Do you not understand this? You are comparing players that are not on the team and trying to pass if off as current. Please tell me you understand this. Please tell me you understand the different between players on team USA and players no longer on team USA, or explain to me why players no longer on the team should be included in the current analysis.

US won a tournament in the historical analysis and US won a silver in the recent analysis. That's more than what Finland won in those time frames. That's a fact. You cant dispute that. You have your misguided opinions that Finland "dominated", where I'm showing you actual results that Finland hasn't reached. You have to actually win something before you can talk like that.

Edit: I think what this comes down to is you don't understand how they score ranking with medals. One silver is ahead of 2 bronze. Go look at the official Olympic rankings. That's how its scored. That's how I consider it. Both US and Finland are close, but US wins in both options I mentioned based on how ranking is done. They don't average things (I really have to laugh at the fact that that was your argument...)

What on gods green earth are you blabbering about now? How who ranks the medals? Yes 2nd placd finish is bettdr than 3rd and 3rd is better than 4th. Average finish for both in last two games is 3rd.Usa was better by one in vancouver, finland was better by one in sochi. They amou t to the same. If you really want to argue this currsnt resukts idea, then current result is 5-0 finland. Is that what you want, or how about we cherry pick and leave sochi and torino out completely and just look at Vancouver because then you would have a leg to stand on lol

 

[psycho_dad*]

Historical analysis goes to finland, recent tournament goes to finland, so how about you pick a few somewhere from the middle to support your absurd view?

 

[Noma]

If some NHL team played in the Conference finals five times in the last six years, wouldn't you consider it a top-three team in the league despite it didn't win the Cup in any of those years?

 

[TR99]

Well the NHL playoffs are a completely different thing as there you actually have to win 4 games vs the same opponent in order to proceed to the next round.

In Olympics for top countries all you have to do to get to the medal rounds is basically to win one game after you have dealt with the lesser hockey countries. That causes a massive variance in the results so we shouldn't be making any conclusions yet based on the sample.

 

[Sabane]

Well the NHL playoffs are a completely different thing as there you actually have to win 4 games vs the same opponent in order to proceed to the next round.

In Olympics for top countries all you have to do to get to the medal rounds is basically to win one game after you have dealt with the lesser hockey countries. That causes a massive variance in the results so we shouldn't be making any conclusions yet based on the sample.

You're right. For example Russia didn't win any and USA only won Russia.

 

[Cawz]

His agenda? You chose 96 to fit yours.... It's a close call.

I picked 96 because it was best on best. Is there some reason why it should not be included but every other best on best tournament since included? I went back and included the original World Cup and the original Olympics with pros. It shouldn’t be that difficult to understand, is it? But I do agree its close. I’m not the one foolishly saying “dominated” like someone else on here…

What on gods green earth are you blabbering about now? How who ranks the medals? Yes 2nd placd finish is bettdr than 3rd and 3rd is better than 4th. Average finish for both in last two games is 3rd.Usa was better by one in vancouver, finland was better by one in sochi. They amou t to the same.

Well, the fact that you average finishes out sort of explains why you don’t understand. Do you think the IOC averages out finishes for their Olympic rankings? Nobody does that. But if that’s what you have to do make your argument work, then have at er. But if you look at the results based on how the actual rankings are done by the IOC, the US comes out on top. You cant argue that.

Historical analysis goes to finland, recent tournament goes to finland, so how about you pick a few somewhere from the middle to support your absurd view?

I pretty clearly outlined outlined how that is not the case. I even put it in list form for easier reading for you. Rebutting that simply repeating yourself with no backup isn’t much of a rebuttal.

 

[Yakushev72]

I picked 96 because it was best on best. Is there some reason why it should not be included but every other best on best tournament since included? I went back and included the original World Cup and the original Olympics with pros. It shouldn’t be that difficult to understand, is it? But I do agree its close. I’m not the one foolishly saying “dominated†like someone else on here…
Well, the fact that you average finishes out sort of explains why you don’t understand. Do you think the IOC averages out finishes for their Olympic rankings? Nobody does that. But if that’s what you have to do make your argument work, then have at er. But if you look at the results based on how the actual rankings are done by the IOC, the US comes out on top. You cant argue that.

I pretty clearly outlined outlined how that is not the case. I even put it in list form for easier reading for you. Rebutting that simply repeating yourself with no backup isn’t much of a rebuttal.

How is it possible that there is even a debate over the obvious fact that Finland is a top-3 hockey power. They scored a decisive win over Russia and blew out Team USA in the Olympics. They blew out Team Canada and Team Russia, and had a decisive win over Sweden, to win Gold at the World Junior Championships. But they're still not in the top 3? If Rask hadn't gotten sick for the Semis game against Sweden, they might have won a Gold Medal at the Olympics. There's nothing to see here, folks, let's move along!

 

[An Argument For]

Well the NHL playoffs are a completely different thing as there you actually have to win 4 games vs the same opponent in order to proceed to the next round.

In Olympics for top countries all you have to do to get to the medal rounds is basically to win one game after you have dealt with the lesser hockey countries. That causes a massive variance in the results so we shouldn't be making any conclusions yet based on the sample.

So we can't make any conclusions based on the results of best on best tournaments?

I assume we can't draw any conclusions based on the World Championships which would have a larger sample sized but is dicredited because it isn't best on best?

So then what is the basis for ranking hockey nations or is it an exercise in futility?

 

[Yakushev72]

I picked 96 because it was best on best. Is there some reason why it should not be included but every other best on best tournament since included? I went back and included the original World Cup and the original Olympics with pros. It shouldn’t be that difficult to understand, is it? But I do agree its close. I’m not the one foolishly saying “dominated†like someone else on here…
Well, the fact that you average finishes out sort of explains why you don’t understand. Do you think the IOC averages out finishes for their Olympic rankings? Nobody does that. But if that’s what you have to do make your argument work, then have at er. But if you look at the results based on how the actual rankings are done by the IOC, the US comes out on top. You cant argue that.

I pretty clearly outlined outlined how that is not the case. I even put it in list form for easier reading for you. Rebutting that simply repeating yourself with no backup isn’t much of a rebuttal.

No Canada Cups or World Cups qualify as best on best because they are privately owned and operated tournaments that do not conform to international rules of equal competition. Starting in 1984, Alan Eagleson, who owned all rights and revenues associated with the Canada Cup, decreed that no European referee would be allowed to work a Medal Round game involving Canada. In the World Cup, it was determined that all games involving Canada and the United States would be played as home games in Canada and the United States, except when Canada played the United States, which would be played in Canada.

For example, what if the NHL decided that all Stanley Cup final games would be played in the home arena of one of the teams, and that all of the final series games would be refereed by employees of the home team? Would that be best on best?

 

[psycho_dad*]

So then what is the basis for ranking hockey nations or is it an exercise in futility?

Well, I'm not him but I have a pretty good idea now what he's driving at....

We should rank them based on individual games where USA was the winner, and also based on username TR99's subjective view on how much value does a more recognizable name and better NHL statistics have in the ranking of national teams.

 

[ThatAvsGamer]

I'd say top four. Finland has claimed the spot over Russia. I'd go:

1. Canada
2. USA/Sweden
3. Sweden/USA
4. Finland

 

[TR99]

So then what is the basis for ranking hockey nations or is it an exercise in futility?

Yeah, it pretty much is. The tournament format is such that it's pretty much just entertainment for the masses.

 

[psycho_dad*]

I picked 96 because it was best on best. Is there some reason why it should not be included but every other best on best tournament since included?

It is from so far away that it bears absolutely no meaning to today, none of the players playing at that time are active anymore other than Selanne and Jagr...I think.


So the hockey world has completely changed since then. Pretty much the same thing with 1998.

Well, the fact that you average finishes out sort of explains why you don’t understand. Do you think the IOC averages out finishes for their Olympic rankings? Nobody does that. But if that’s what you have to do make your argument work, then have at er. But if you look at the results based on how the actual rankings are done by the IOC, the US comes out on top. You cant argue that.

What? Where? So, you're saying that if you get to pick and choose a very small sample size and use a system where 1 silver medal would top 1000 bronze medals, then you can get USA ahead in your opinion. Who does that? Who counts medal totals over "better medals"....well, pretty much only USA

They're the only country in the world who counts medal totals and doesn't rank Gold at the Olympics. In the US, if you win 2 gold and 5 bronze NBC is going to put you on top of the medal table, ahead of a country that wins 6 Gold. This gold or nothing argument has been applied specifically to hockey apparently.

But definitely, two 3rd place finishes are just as valuable as 2nd and 4th. Have you not been arguing that it's "gold or bust"? A lot of people here have been saying it doesn't matter if it's 2nd or 10th. I don't agree with that. There is ONE winner, the rest get a ranking from 2nd to 14th or whatever the number of teams in the tournament. 2nd place is better than 3rd, 3rd is better than 4th. Not rocket science.

I pretty clearly outlined outlined how that is not the case. I even put it in list form for easier reading for you. Rebutting that simply repeating yourself with no backup isn’t much of a rebuttal.

Yes you outlined your own opinion how your cherry picked time frames should be interpreted to USA's favour.

You include -96, it doesn't change anything, just gives USA a 1st place finish a long time ago. Finland still has way more top 3 finishes and still beats USA in head to head, points against top 7 and total points. It doesn't change the facts at all and definitely have no bearing on how things are in the current era. There are two dinosaurs left from that era who still play, the hockey world has changed a lot since.

Using this artificial "just recently" idea of yours either puts them dead even, or if you really go with recent results then it just further solidifies their rankings....Finland 3rd, USA 4th because that's what happened last week so it's the most current situation.

So currently, or in the long run, Finland is ahead. Why have you not suggested to just use 2002 and 2010 while you're trying to manipulate stats to your advantage with no concern to intellectual integrity? Then you'd get USA ahead. A free hint...

 

[psycho_dad*]

Yeah, it pretty much is. The tournament format is such that it's pretty much just entertainment for the masses.

Yeah so lets not use the actual results from the sports events, lets invent our own criteria and make up our personal fantasy rankings instead, because THAT is so much more accurate

 

[cryssarn]

I picked 96 because it was best on best. Is there some reason why it should not be included but every other best on best tournament since included? I went back and included the original World Cup and the original Olympics with pros. It shouldn’t be that difficult to understand, is it?

A tournament that happened 18 years ago? What do they have to do with the results in todays hockey. There is only a handful of those players that still actually play. I'll buy that you go back a decade, but since that would leave out 2002 ( kinda unfair ), then 12 years is ok. Even a decade is too far tbh.
Now if USA would have taken their silver this year....no doubt that they are number 2. But that's not the case now

 

[Cawz]

It is from so far away that it bears absolutely no meaning to today, none of the players playing at that time are active anymore other than Selanne and Jagr...I think.


So the hockey world has completely changed since then. Pretty much the same thing with 1998.



What? Where? So, you're saying that if you get to pick and choose a very small sample size and use a system where 1 silver medal would top 1000 bronze medals, then you can get USA ahead in your opinion. Who does that? Who counts medal totals over "better medals"....well, pretty much only USA



But definitely, two 3rd place finishes are just as valuable as 2nd and 4th. Have you not been arguing that it's "gold or bust"? A lot of people here have been saying it doesn't matter if it's 2nd or 10th. I don't agree with that. There is ONE winner, the rest get a ranking from 2nd to 14th or whatever the number of teams in the tournament. 2nd place is better than 3rd, 3rd is better than 4th. Not rocket science.




Yes you outlined your own opinion how your cherry picked time frames should be interpreted to USA's favour.

You include -96, it doesn't change anything, just gives USA a 1st place finish a long time ago. Finland still has way more top 3 finishes and still beats USA in head to head, points against top 7 and total points. It doesn't change the facts at all and definitely have no bearing on how things are in the current era. There are two dinosaurs left from that era who still play, the hockey world has changed a lot since.

Using this artificial "just recently" idea of yours either puts them dead even, or if you really go with recent results then it just further solidifies their rankings....Finland 3rd, USA 4th because that's what happened last week so it's the most current situation.

So currently, or in the long run, Finland is ahead. Why have you not suggested to just use 2002 and 2010 while you're trying to manipulate stats to your advantage with no concern to intellectual integrity? Then you'd get USA ahead. A free hint...

The only place where two 3rd place finishes are just as valuable as 2nd and 4th is in the US where they rank things differently, probably because they seem to get lots of bronzes and want to make it look better than it is (sound familiar).

Do you agree or disagree that the way the IOC and the rest of the world looks at it is that the country with one silver is ahead of the country with two bronze.

 

[Cawz]

A tournament that happened 18 years ago? What do they have to do with the results in todays hockey.

Not alot. If you read back a few pages, its been explained.

 

[Cawz]

No Canada Cups or World Cups qualify as best on best because they are privately owned and operated tournaments that do not conform to international rules of equal competition. Starting in 1984, Alan Eagleson, who owned all rights and revenues associated with the Canada Cup, decreed that no European referee would be allowed to work a Medal Round game involving Canada. In the World Cup, it was determined that all games involving Canada and the United States would be played as home games in Canada and the United States, except when Canada played the United States, which would be played in Canada.

For example, what if the NHL decided that all Stanley Cup final games would be played in the home arena of one of the teams, and that all of the final series games would be refereed by employees of the home team? Would that be best on best?

Canadian refs worked the Olympics as well, so based on your theory, thats not best on best either. So I guess all we have left to go on is... um...

 

[cryssarn]

Not alot. If you read back a few pages, its been explained.

Yes. You picked that year because it was the first best on best. Still have nothing to do with the result of the last decade.

 

[psycho_dad*]

Do you agree or disagree that the way the IOC and the rest of the world looks at it is that the country with one silver is ahead of the country with two bronze.

I agree, they would rank 1 silver over 1000 bronze medals in the rankings, of course that's not fair at all but that is how it's marked. Silver is better than bronze. By one. When it comes to hockey, the difference between silver and bronze is...well, both teams will have to win the same amount of medal round games, but the winner of silver medal wins a more meaningful game.

2nd and 4th are completely equal to two 3rd. Even though you get two medals instead of one with the bronzes. Had USA placed 7th or something, then you could not really say they are tied for the last two either, because their recent tournament would have been such a failure, but 4th is pretty good.

Anyway, historically or recently, which ever you choose...Finland is ahead.

 

[psycho_dad*]

Canadian refs worked the Olympics as well, so based on your theory, thats not best on best either. So I guess all we have left to go on is... um...

Olympics had a ref from both NA and europe. 2 refs. I'm sure you knew this though, but you have a way of ignoring certain things to try and make a point.

 

[Exarz]

Yes, I think the top 6 in the Olympics is a fair ranking