Olympics: Team China 2022 Olympics

[Rabid Ranger]

Any team with sufficient prep time is a threat, particularly with under-strength opposition.

I can see the stamps now.

I would say that is true. That said, I would be pretty disappointed if this iteration of Team USA loses to China. Even though they are young overall there is a ton more talent. I guess we'll see.

 

[FiLe]

So, four five players on this roster were granted an exemption despite not fulfilling the IIHF's naturalization rules: Parker Foo, Ty Schultz, Denis Osipov, Ethan Werek and Jeremy Smith. The first two had not represented another country before and thus were applicable to the two-year rule, but have only played a full season and a half in a Chinese club, while the latter three had represented Russia, Canada and USA in junior tournaments and thus should have been applicable to the four-year rule, but were granted an exemption with merely two and a half seasons of play.

If you ask me, granting an exemption for the first two is fine, as they're falling only a couple of months short. But the federation should have told the Chinese to get bent in the case of Osipov, Werek and Smith. Do they even have Chinese heritage?

 

[SoundAndFury]

If you ask me, granting an exemption for the first two is fine, as they're falling only a couple of months short. But the federation should have told the Chinese to get bent in the case of Werek and Smith. Do they even have Chinese heritage?

For me, it's the other way around. At least the latter two showed some commitment to the program. Half of the guys on the team don't have any Chinese heritage so not like it makes the difference. If anything, I prefer this Kunlun project to be what it is: some fake team representing China. No this heritage and alias fluff.

 

[FiLe]

Half of the guys on the team don't have any Chinese heritage so not like it makes the difference.

Sure, one could always debate if the present naturalization rules can be too easily exploited - as China has evidently done here - and should some adjustments be made, but the very first thing the IIHF should still do is respect those present rules. There is no other reason for allowing Smith than letting them have a goalie that's hopefully worth something and prevents them from losing every game by double digits. But if they can't get a goalie like that by respecting the present rules, tough luck for them.

And, of course, no matter how blatantly the two-year rule is exploited, China isn't getting any closer to the top by poaching other countries' scrubs.

 

[iginlafan77]

So, four players on this roster were granted an exemption despite not fulfilling the IIHF's naturalization rules: Parker Foo, Ty Schultz, Ethan Werek and Jeremy Smith. The first two had not represented another country before and thus were applicable to the two-year rule, but have only played a full season and a half in a Chinese club, while the latter two had represented Canada and USA in junior tournaments and thus should have been applicable to the four-year rule, but were granted an exemption with merely two and a half seasons of play.

If you ask me, granting an exemption for the first two is fine, as they're falling only a couple of months short. But the federation should have told the Chinese to get bent in the case of Werek and Smith. Do they even have Chinese heritage?

Osipov also would not be eligible without an exemption. Played at a U18 for Russia and has only 3 Chinese seasons (with a single game in Romania in the middle)

 

[FiLe]

Osipov also would not be eligible without an exemption.

Right. Missed him. And I'm of the same opinion regarding him as I am of the other two four-year cases - at least one more season required before exemption.

 

[Namejs]

The team that has 14 losses in a row in the KHL has 1 in 3 chance to win a game in the Olympics? What am I missing?

It's not that they are unlucky or something, they have 7 pro-level forwards. It's not the team that played most of the KHL season. 1 in 3 chance to take someone to OT maybe.

The implied odds of PRC winning against the US according to bookies is 1 in 10. The rest is basic probability theory if we assume their chances are similar vs. Germany, vs. Canada and vs. their quali opponent.

The probability of them all winning vs. China is a little over 65%, so the probability of China winning at least one game is roughly 1 in 3.

 

[garbageteam]

The only tiniest silver lining to this neutered Olympics with: no NHL players, held in an utterly corrupt and totalitarian regime with little regard for human rights, and the total joke of an eligibility process for the Chinese team is maybe they will be broadcasting this domestically in China now that 15-0 beatdowns are highly unlikely now and that there will be some Chinese fans of hockey coming out of this. But maybe like the North Koreans they'll still only show it on TV if they happen to win/OTL a game

Wonder if there is any trickle down effect at all to the Chinese team going forward. Currently in the Div IIA, if a few of these players go on to normally play for them at the WHCs maybe they can be an elevator team between Div IB-Div IA.

 

[PanniniClaus]

The only tiniest silver lining to this neutered Olympics with: no NHL players, held in an utterly corrupt and totalitarian regime with little regard for human rights, and the total joke of an eligibility process for the Chinese team is maybe they will be broadcasting this domestically in China now that 15-0 beatdowns are highly unlikely now and that there will be some Chinese fans of hockey coming out of this. But maybe like the North Koreans they'll still only show it on TV if they happen to win/OTL a game

Wonder if there is any trickle down effect at all to the Chinese team going forward. Currently in the Div IIA, if a few of these players go on to normally play for them at the WHCs maybe they can be an elevator team between Div IB-Div IA.

Be interesting to see who stays with the cause in the future WC's.

 

[Albatros]

I don't think there's much incentive to stay for lower level World Championship tournaments. Besides even with a couple of these players they won't be anywhere near Division I A quality.

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

Delete

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

Be interesting to see who stays with the cause in the future WC's.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Let's play guess the player: Jieke Kailiaosi

 

[Albatros]

Let's play guess the player: Jieke Kailiaosi

 

[vorky]

 

[ellja3]

The implied odds of PRC winning against the US according to bookies is 1 in 10. The rest is basic probability theory if we assume their chances are similar vs. Germany, vs. Canada and vs. their quali opponent.

The probability of them all winning vs. China is a little over 65%, so the probability of China winning at least one game is roughly 1 in 3.

I am ready to be humiliated and proven wrong, but math doesn't work that way, to my mind. Otherwise, if you have 1/100 odds and play 100 games, you have 99/100 - that is - almost guaranteed chance of winning a game. Uhm, no. Each game is an isolated event. It's called gambler's fallacy. Losing 50 games (in my scenario) doesn't make you more likely to win Game51, if compared to Game1. But once again, it's been a while since I studied this thing.

 

[iginlafan77]

I am ready to be humiliated and proven wrong, but math doesn't work that way, to my mind. Otherwise, if you have 1/100 odds and play 100 games, you have 99/100 - that is - almost guaranteed chance of winning a game. Uhm, no. Each game is an isolated event. It's called gambler's fallacy. Losing 50 games (in my scenario) doesn't make you more likely to win Game51, if compared to Game1. But once again, it's been a while since I studied this thing.

Youre saying two different things here. You're correct that the outcome of each game doesn't change the chances of winning the following games.

But your math is wrong. The odds of a 99/100 chance happening 100 times in a row is actually just 36% (0.99^100)

 

[ellja3]

Youre saying two different things here. You're correct that the outcome of each game doesn't change the chances of winning the following games.

But your math is wrong. The odds of a 99/100 chance happening 100 times in a row is actually just 36% (0.99^100)

Thanks for correcting me, appreciated.

 

[Namejs]

I am ready to be humiliated and proven wrong, but math doesn't work that way, to my mind. Otherwise, if you have 1/100 odds and play 100 games, you have 99/100 - that is - almost guaranteed chance of winning a game. Uhm, no. Each game is an isolated event. It's called gambler's fallacy. Losing 50 games (in my scenario) doesn't make you more likely to win Game51, if compared to Game1. But once again, it's been a while since I studied this thing.

I think this is called the Dunning-Kruger effect

 

[ellja3]

I think this is called the Dunning-Kruger effect

Yeah, well, no need to be edgy; as I wrote above - I was glad to be corrected & refreshed my probability theory knowledge from 10 years ago. I guess if you don't use it, you lose it.

 

[Namejs]

Yeah, well, no need to be edgy; as I wrote above - I was glad to be corrected & refreshed my probability theory knowledge from 10 years ago. I guess if you don't use it, you lose it.

It's perfectly fine not to know a single thing about probability theory.

But don't call someone's reasoning fallacious without having any knowledge on the subject. That's just dumb.

 

[ellja3]

It's perfectly fine not to know a single thing about probability theory.

But don't call someone's reasoning fallacious without having any knowledge on the subject. That's just dumb.

I put, like, 3 words in the opening sentence that I might be wrong, and nowhere did I call you dumb. You claiming I have 0 knowledge on the topic, tho, is another story.

Anyway, back to topic.

I don't like the precedent that this sets. "This" being the exceptions. Anyway, IOC is gonna IOC. Let's see what the tournament brings.

 

[Lartsaman]

They still haven´t revealed their jerseys?

 

[FiLe]

Anyway, IOC is gonna IOC.

It's not the IOC, but the IIHF. The federations governing the sport set the eligibility rules (and grant the exceptions). This is why they're not universal across all Olympic sports.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Some more details on the team: Eleven Canadians among China's first-ever men's hockey roster - TSN.ca