Is Finland a Top 3 Hockey Nation

[Davebo*]

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.

He picked nothing - look to 'psycho_dad' and his reasoning why Finland is top 3, for that specific time frame. Then again - he's been moving the goalposts to suit his argument, so good luck following that train of logic!

Nothing has changed my mind - Finland came 3rd in this tournament, but I still have 4th or 5th in the world.

 

[Yakushev72]

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...

Russians had a problem with an American referee disallowing the winning goal late in the 3rd period of their game. Sweden had a problem with a Canadian official working the Gold Medal game, while Sweden was denied the opportunity to have equal representation. In that respect, the Olympics are not best on best, because there is unfair and unequal competition.

 

[psycho_dad*]

He picked nothing - look to 'psycho_dad' and his reasoning why Finland is top 3, for that specific time frame. Then again - he's been moving the goalposts to suit his argument, so good luck following that train of logic!

Nothing has changed my mind - Finland came 3rd in this tournament, but I still have 4th or 5th in the world.

I've been going by the NHL olympics era the whole time, I have not shifted goalpost at all. Cawz wanted to add 1996, it's alright with me. Personally I'd draw the line at 2000, but it doesn't matter to me really...result is still the same. The only way to get USA ahead is to pick only 2002 and 2010 olympics and leave the rest out

 

[Cawz]

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.

Ha ha, so you admit that you use a different ranking than IOC and everyone else on the planet except for the US media. So I guess thats where we are different. I agree with how every other country ranks it. Your 1000 bronze comment is kind of pointless though, since Finland doesnt have 1000 bronze. Using a hyperbole to try to prove your point only shows that your argument doesnt have enough merit to stand on its own.

So if you use the way IOC and the rest of the planet rank it, US is ahead historically or recently, which ever you choose. If you go against the way its typically officially ranked by everyone, it looks better for Finland. So yeah, no wonder you rank it that way. At least that part is clearer

 

[Cawz]

I've been going by the NHL olympics era the whole time, I have not shifted goalpost at all. Cawz wanted to add 1996, it's alright with me. Personally I'd draw the line at 2000, but it doesn't matter to me really...result is still the same. The only way to get USA ahead is to pick only 2002 and 2010 olympics and leave the rest out

I wanted to add 1996?!? You said Finland has been the 3rd best for the 20 years. 1996 in within the last 20 years, is it not. Do you need me to quote your contradictions again?

 

[Cawz]

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.

Well, the other poster said Olympics are not best on best due to the refs, so maybe you should take it up with him.

What exactly did I ignore? Please feel free to specify and I will address for you.

 

[psycho_dad*]

Ha ha, so you admit that you use a different ranking than IOC and everyone else on the planet except for the US media. So I guess thats where we are different. I agree with how every other country ranks it. Your 1000 bronze comment is kind of pointless though, since Finland doesnt have 1000 bronze. Using a hyperbole to try to prove your point only shows that your argument doesnt have enough merit to stand on its own.

Are you disagreeing with my hyperbole? Would the ranking you suggest not favor one silver medal over 1000 bronze medals? 10 000 bronze medals? Would it not? you answer me that.

That is how that sort of ranking of medals work. You have one gold in the olympics, and any country that does not have a gold medal is somehow below you in the rankings whether they have 200 silver medals.

Now if anyone asked me if that sort of ranking is realistic representation, I would have to say absolutely not.

 

[psycho_dad*]

I wanted to add 1996?!? You said Finland has been the 3rd best for the 20 years. 1996 in within the last 20 years, is it not. Do you need me to quote your contradictions again?

The original idea in this thread is since best on best olympics, that would be starting from 1998. But I have no problem with 20,15 or 10 years. 1998 was just a good starting point because it was the first best on best olympics, that's all. I also think it's too old of a tournament to represent today, like I said.

 

[Cawz]

Are you disagreeing with my hyperbole? Would the ranking you suggest not favor one silver medal over 1000 bronze medals? 10 000 bronze medals? Would it not? you answer me that.

That is how that sort of ranking of medals work. You have one gold in the olympics, and any country that does not have a gold medal is somehow below you in the rankings whether they have 200 silver medals.

Now if anyone asked me if that sort of ranking is realistic representation, I would have to say absolutely not.

How would I rank it? I'd see a country that sucks so bad that they cant get above 3rd place in 1000 attempts. So yeah, I would agree with the IOC because that country was not able to match the other country's success in 1000 attempts. But its such a silly agrument that has no basis in reality. C'mon.

Lets be realistic now. If a country had two bronze and another country had one silver, would you agree with how the IOC ranks it, or agree with how the US media ranks it? Your turn. Answer me that.

 

[Cawz]

The original idea in this thread is since best on best olympics, that would be starting from 1998. But I have no problem with 20,15 or 10 years. 1998 was just a good starting point because it was the first best on best olympics, that's all. I also think it's too old of a tournament to represent today, like I said.

Ah, so the original idea was to use 16 years and Olympics. Good thing you didnt say you were looking at 20 years but only including the World Cup that Finland had success... oh wait a minute...

Yes, results quite clearly show that in the last 20 years. Canada is #1, Sweden is #2, Finland is #3.

The more interesting question is which one takes the 4th spot....USA or Russia?

I think USA takes the 4th spot with 2 silver medals and being a semi-finalist in the 2004 world cup.

Russia only has a silver and bronze from olympics since the best on best started.


Finland has 4 medals out of 5 olympics (1 silver, 3 bronze) and was a finalist in 2004 world cup. So really, the 3rd is not in question.

Notice how you said 20 years, yet only included Finlands World Cup silver and didnt mention USA's win in that time frame? Hmmm...

 

[An Argument For]

Russians had a problem with an American referee disallowing the winning goal late in the 3rd period of their game. Sweden had a problem with a Canadian official working the Gold Medal game, while Sweden was denied the opportunity to have equal representation. In that respect, the Olympics are not best on best, because there is unfair and unequal competition.

No referee disallowed a goal. The goal was disallowed because it was clearly illegal based on the IIHF rulebook. This was not a case of personal discretion, it wasn't a penalty to be disputed, they went to video replay and the goal was illegal. The only problem that the Russians can have is with the rulebook.

There wasn't one Canadian ref, there were 4. The refs were picked in advance of the Olympics, before finalist had been determined IIRC, and the reason Canadian refs were picked is because Canada produces the largest number of high quality refs, just like it produces the highest number of high quality players. I think 16 of the 22 NHL refs are Canadian and rest are American. These guys were among the best NHL refs and have proven they could keep up and referee NHL caliber players. Were there any penalties in that game that you found suspect?

 

[psycho_dad*]

Ah, so the original idea was to use 16 years and Olympics. Good thing you didnt say you were looking at 20 years but only including the World Cup that Finland had success... oh wait a minute...

Notice how you said 20 years, yet only included Finlands World Cup silver and didnt mention USA's win in that time frame? Hmmm...

Yup, Finland's world cup second place was in 2004, it's not ancient history so I did not forget about that. Seriously, I did not even count 20 years back, but like I have pointed out to you time and time again, 1996 world cup changes absolutely nothing when it comes to this ranking.

 

[psycho_dad*]

How would I rank it? I'd see a country that sucks so bad that they cant get above 3rd place in 1000 attempts. So yeah, I would agree with the IOC because that country was not able to match the other country's success in 1000 attempts. But its such a silly agrument that has no basis in reality. C'mon.

So say a guy from Greece wins a gold in some ski cross event, and austria has 20 silver medals from downhill and all kinds of other events, you'd say that Greece is better because of that 1 gold? Ok.....well then we just have to agree to disagree.

Lets be realistic now. If a country had two bronze and another country had one silver, would you agree with how the IOC ranks it, or agree with how the US media ranks it? Your turn. Answer me that.

I'd think the value of those two bronzes are at least the same as one silver, they would have to be from two different events.

But we are talking hockey now. USA's 2nd and 4th place finishes give them the average of 3rd in the last two olympics. Finland has been 3rd both times so their average is obviously the same. Finland has two medals and USA has 1, but the value of them at least to me is the same. We've gone over this a few times already, I don't know what's with the repetition?

You like cherry picking, doesn't it stop you at all that you have to cherry pick to even bring them even? If you're all about the current ranking, go by the last result. If you're about finding out who has been the better one since the best on best really started, then count the tournaments everyone else does. You know....the relevant ones. You need a bigger sample size to have some sort of a trend. Keep denying, keep cherry picking...you're only lying to yourself which is the worst kind of deception since you KNOW you're in the wrong and you still keep at it for some unknown reason.

There is no way to statistically prove USA ahead of Finland, it's already been established. You're trying to come up with your personal criteria to bend statistics your way, and it doesn't work either.

Just say "it's my opinion" and we're all good. You can keep your misguided opinion but you can't change the facts.

 

[An Argument For]

So say a guy from Greece wins a gold in some ski cross event, and austria has 20 silver medals from downhill and all kinds of other events, you'd say that Greece is better because of that 1 gold? Ok.....well then we just have to agree to disagree.



I'd think the value of those two bronzes are at least the same as one silver, they would have to be from two different events.

But we are talking hockey now. USA's 2nd and 4th place finishes give them the average of 3rd in the last two olympics. Finland has been 3rd both times so their average is obviously the same. Finland has two medals and USA has 1, but the value of them at least to me is the same. We've gone over this a few times already, I don't know what's with the repetition?

You like cherry picking, doesn't it stop you at all that you have to cherry pick to even bring them even? If you're all about the current ranking, go by the last result. If you're about finding out who has been the better one since the best on best really started, then count the tournaments everyone else does. You know....the relevant ones. You need a bigger sample size to have some sort of a trend. Keep denying, keep cherry picking...you're only lying to yourself which is the worst kind of deception since you KNOW you're in the wrong and you still keep at it for some unknown reason.

There is no way to statistically prove USA ahead of Finland, it's already been established. You're trying to come up with your personal criteria to bend statistics your way, and it doesn't work either.

Just say "it's my opinion" and we're all good. You can keep your misguided opinion but you can't change the facts.

In all honesty.. Greece won an event. They were the absolute best in the world. Austria just had 20 glorified losers.

 

[hammerwielder]

No way is Finland top 3. Not even top 4. Finland is a solid 5th in the world in terms of skill/talent/depth.

Hey, you rank above the Czech Republic, which is saying something.

Canada, Sweden, Russia, USA are your clear top 4. Finland has the best goaltending in the world but no superstar forwards or d-men (Selanne at 43 is the best forward they have and Timmonen the best d-man). Finland punches above its weight as a team thanks to good coaching and good defensive play but from a skill standpoint it does not belong in the top 4. Not buying the WC medal count, sorry.

Finland's top scorer in the NHL, Jokinen (Jussi), is 52nd. An Austrian, a Slovenian, a Dane and a Norwegian are ahead of him. Finland's top scoring defenceman, a 19 year old, is 36th among d-men. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

 

[psycho_dad*]

No way is Finland top 3. Not even top 4. Finland is a solid 5th in the world in terms of skill/talent/depth.

Hey, you rank above the Czech Republic, which is saying something.

Canada, Sweden, Russia, USA are your clear top 4. Finland has the best goaltending in the world but no superstar forwards or d-men (Selanne at 43 is the best forward they have and Timmonen the best d-man). Finland punches above its weight as a team thanks to good coaching and good defensive play but from a skill standpoint it does not belong in the top 4. Not buying the WC medal count, sorry.

Finland's top scorer in the NHL, Jokinen (Jussi), is 52nd. An Austrian, a Slovenian, a Dane and a Norwegian are ahead of him. Finland's top scoring defenceman (and best Olympic d-man), a 19 year old, is 36th among d-men. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Results wise (in best on best tournaments, not WC like you indicated) Finland is clearly 3rd.

But yeah if you want to go with your assessment of skills and based on NHL points, yeah that's fine. It's opinion after all, based on your own criteria.

I care about the results, Finland is quite easily the 3rd, so that's how I rank them. By the performance on the ice in best on best tournaments and head to head games with USA and Russia.

 

[Lempo]

No way is Finland top 3. Not even top 4. Finland is a solid 5th in the world in terms of skill/talent/depth.

Hey, you rank above the Czech Republic, which is saying something.

Canada, Sweden, Russia, USA are your clear top 4. Finland has the best goaltending in the world but no superstar forwards or d-men (Selanne at 43 is the best forward they have and Timmonen the best d-man). Finland punches above its weight as a team thanks to good coaching and good defensive play but from a skill standpoint it does not belong in the top 4. Not buying the WC medal count, sorry.

Finland's top scorer in the NHL, Jokinen (Jussi), is 52nd. An Austrian, a Slovenian, a Dane and a Norwegian are ahead of him. Finland's top scoring defenceman, a 19 year old, is 36th among d-men. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

There is an element of funniness in ranking someone in a team sport based on individual skills and numbers and somewhat disregarding the team sport elements from the assessment. But fair enough.

Though about ranking them according to their NHL stats solely one could argue, and do, at Anaheim board , that the players are misused/underused in NHL. Some Finnish players were producing in the Olympics above their NHL standings when given responsibility, but it's harder to do it from bottom 6 minutes, or, God forbid, the AHL. Young Barkov seems to be somewhat a star in Florida, the Pens fans seemed a bit confused whether to root for US or Olli Maatta in the bronze game and I don't think there are people longing after Leo Komarov just because of his good looks.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

3? No.

Olli Maatta just turned them into the top nation in the world!!!

 

[Lempo]

Hey wait. Do the North Americans in an NHL forum want to rank USA 3rd or even 2nd because NHL is the highest-ranking league in the world and there being lots of Americans making it to NHL must logically mean that they have so plenty of skill with plenty of depth that they really must come right after the uncontested #1, Canada?

Because there are some extra steps for the Europeans to make it there whereas to the Americans it is their national hockey league... so to speak.

 

[cryssarn]

No way is Finland top 3. Not even top 4. Finland is a solid 5th in the world in terms of skill/talent/depth.

Hey, you rank above the Czech Republic, which is saying something.

Canada, Sweden, Russia, USA are your clear top 4. Finland has the best goaltending in the world but no superstar forwards or d-men (Selanne at 43 is the best forward they have and Timmonen the best d-man). Finland punches above its weight as a team thanks to good coaching and good defensive play but from a skill standpoint it does not belong in the top 4. Not buying the WC medal count, sorry.

Finland's top scorer in the NHL, Jokinen (Jussi), is 52nd. An Austrian, a Slovenian, a Dane and a Norwegian are ahead of him. Finland's top scoring defenceman, a 19 year old, is 36th among d-men. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Good for us that games are not played on paper then. I agree that they have less depth and so on. But that's not how it's played. Just look at Ovi, Malkin and Russia in the Olympics. Great players, but have not been competing for a medal since 2002. In 1980, USA did not have a gold medal on paper....but look what they did. That game against Soviet is awesome.
The game is NOT played on paper

 

[Yakushev72]

No referee disallowed a goal. The goal was disallowed because it was clearly illegal based on the IIHF rulebook. This was not a case of personal discretion, it wasn't a penalty to be disputed, they went to video replay and the goal was illegal. The only problem that the Russians can have is with the rulebook.

There wasn't one Canadian ref, there were 4. The refs were picked in advance of the Olympics, before finalist had been determined IIRC, and the reason Canadian refs were picked is because Canada produces the largest number of high quality refs, just like it produces the highest number of high quality players. I think 16 of the 22 NHL refs are Canadian and rest are American. These guys were among the best NHL refs and have proven they could keep up and referee NHL caliber players. Were there any penalties in that game that you found suspect?

I understand the politics of this, and I don't dispute that the NHL holds the power to call the shots. But I don't in any way buy the argument that Canadian and American referees should be allowed to work games in which Canada and the United States are participants just because nearly all NHL referees are Canadians and Americans, and they have been proclaimed by the NHL to be uniquely qualified to work the games.

What basis can you offer to show that NHL referees are better qualified to work the games than KHL refs? When the USA played Russia, there was an American referee, but no Russian ref. The argument most often used by NHL proponents is "NHL refs are best qualified to work these games because other NHL employees say they are." What objective basis do you have to show that that is true? In my view, the reason KHL refs don't work the important games is that, for the NHL, they are the competition, and the NHL can use its leverage to keep them out.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

The game is NOT played on paper

But the concept of "hockey nation" HAS to be on at least some level, because not all the players that contribute to the equation get the chance to play internationally, let alone play enough times in enough combinations, to make the results of games "obviously" statistically demonstrative of the entire country's absolute "strength". And still... the prevailing impression is that the results most often represent an "over-achievement" (the basis of which we continue to argue). It would seem as though opinion remains completely divided as to how much credit Finland actually gets for rallying so well and so often after losing the "right" game - given that we're apparently "expected" to recognize Finland as the de facto #3 on the "obvious" basis of their tournament results as a starting point.

 

[67Cup]

No, but they rank first on the gutsy scale.

Also, they are number one on the overachievers' list. I love to watch them play.

 

[cryssarn]

But the concept of "hockey nation" HAS to be on at least some level, because not all the players that contribute to the equation get the chance to play internationally, let alone play enough times in enough combinations, to make the results of games "obviously" statistically demonstrative of the entire country's absolute "strength". And still... the prevailing impression is that the results most often represent an "over-achievement" (the basis of which we continue to argue). It would seem as though opinion remains completely divided as to how much credit Finland actually gets for rallying so well and so often after losing the "right" game - given that we're apparently "expected" to recognize Finland as the de facto #3 on the "obvious" basis of their tournament results as a starting point.

At some levels, yes. But you still can't rank a team on how the players usually do in their other team. The best thing you can measure on paper is depth. USA have a better depth, yes. BUT in the end, it's the results who matter the most. In depth, they are not #3 no. In results and spirit, they are. How can consistent results be over-achieving? Is it because the other players is skating around going "We have better depth etc, so I don't really have to try"? I find that pretty hard to believe.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

How can consistent results be over-achieving?

What's their record in the preliminary round robin and elimination stages like versus their record in medal games again? And between Olympics, what has Finland done to raise expectations for their results vs the other competing nations?

Those would be angles to consider, for sure (on top of the "on paper" stuff, of course).