When Will The USA Be The Country To Beat? (EDIT: Not just for WJHC)

[SOLR]

You can't be serious, the Swiss have what, 5 legit NHLers? I get that they underperformed in Sochi but they're still easily better than Switzerland, it's hard to put them ahead of Finland seeing how well they've performed at the Olympics but still, the Czech team is much better on paper.

I'm talking about development vs. results in tournaments, it is my opinion on the hard trends. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, when its after the top 5 teams it is harder to judge. Players in the NHL, draft picks, etc are often misguiding measures. The Swiss system has really picked in numbers, quality and top end in the last 10 years to a point where there is debate to be had about who's going to produce more in the next 10 years. I think there are some good arguments that Swiss and Denmark are rapidly going up in the rankings and that the Czech-Slovak area while still producing, might not have a good momentum at all. There is a lot of economics at play here imo.

 

[SOLR]

As for the suggestion that there is a surge of African-Americans in the sport, and that Seth Jones is the evidence, his is probably the most anecdotal case. By all accounts, his father was an NBA player in Denver and Dallas, and while living in Denver, his dad became friends with Joe Sakic of the Avalanche. According to the story, Sakic personally taught Jones to play hockey. When they moved to the Dallas area, Jones pursued his interest by enrolling in a hockey program. He will be a great player, but there is no real evidence of a wave of African-American hockey players who do not have the same advantages.

I wasn't suggesting there is surge coming from the US, there is small one in Canada(We are seeing the 3rd generation). I'm hoping Seth Jones becomes a star so that US African-American youth can have an example to follow. This could really change hockey rapidly in the US.

 

[Yakushev72]

No, it clearly goes to show that with limited preparation time and just a few games to be played, even a team that is vastly outgunned in terms of talent can attain results similar to a team with vastly better players. Finland plays very well in tournaments, and their players deserve lots of credit for that, but they are not an exceptionally talented team by any stretch of the imagination. It's laughable to suggest that a country like Finland is producing players anywhere near what Canada is doing in terms of "skill". In goaltending? Absolutely. In the future? Possible, who knows. Right now? No, and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Same for Sweden, though they are certainly much closer. Russia is also doing a better job than Finland at producing players, for whatever it's worth.

To avoid "spin", let's write down the top ten forwards, top five defencemen and top three goaltenders from Canada and Finland. If Canada is producing quantity instead of quality and Finland is quite comparable, this exercise should show it. I'll do Canada.

Forwards: Crosby, Tavares, Stamkos, Getzlaf, Giroux, Seguin, Toews, Benn, Perry, Bergeron

Defencemen: Weber, Subban, Keith, Doughty, Giordano

Goaltenders: Price, Luongo, Holtby

Can't wait to see the comparable Finnish players. Somehow, I'm quite confident that you aren't going to bother writing them down.



Russia always Canada very well, no question there. Using Olympic results since the NHL started participating is laughable though. Russia is 1-1-0 against Canada in the Olympics. Switzerland is 1-0-1, and thus is even closer to Canada using that method. 2 games is a meaningless sample.

I'll give you the whole quote again, since you strategically left part out: "Russia produces a roughly comparable number of elite forwards when adjusting for participation, and is starting to do well with goaltenders, but lags massively behind Canada in defencemen even after any adjustment a person could make." Russia does certainly lag behind massively in defencemen. Take any list of the top defencemen in the world, and plenty of them are Canadian. Weber, Doughty, Keith, Subban, Letang, Giordano, Pietrangelo and so on. You could make a case that Canada has more than half of the world's ten best defencemen. Russia? Obviously not close. Russia's defencemen are pathetic at this time, for reasons that I do not fully understand.

I don't follow either Finnish or NHL hockey all that closely, so I don't even know if I could name 10 Finnish forwards. But I do watch them play against each other, on ice, in the real World instead of fantasy matchups. Reputation and stats are worthless at that point - the only thing that matters is what you do when you strap the skates on and play, and what can be plainly observed is the basis for my earlier comments.

As I look at your lists, I will acknowledge that Crosby and Stamkos are better than any Finnish forwards currently active, and I think Weber and Doughty are better than any Finnish defensemen. After that, I see equality and parity as it plays out on the ice. Some of the guys that you list, like Tavares, Giroux, Seguin, Benn, Bergeron, etc., may have been along for the ride on some international championship teams (I'm sure that you are referring to the last two Olympics, in the case of Bergeron and Getzlaf), or may rack up a lot of points night-to-night in the NHL with pucks bouncing in off skates against Edmonton and Buffalo, but when they hit the ice in the Olympics of other international competition, do not distinguish or separate themselves from their Finnish, Swedish or even Russian opponents.

The results support my contentions. For example, in Sochi, the Finns stood stride by stride with all of the Canadians that you mentioned until overtime. One stroke of the stick might have eliminated Canada from competition. Its not like the USA in Olympic basketball, where not only do they always win every single game, but they win by 50 or 60 point margins. That is testimony to the talent and depth of the US in basketball, but Canada is not even in the same universe when it comes to talent and depth by comparison.

What I don't understand is why Canada doesn't separate itself from the rest of the World the same way that the US does in basketball?

 

[Atas2000]

I wonder how much canada would have dominated that wjc if we didn't have so many playing In the nhl. If America was catching up it would be loosing +4 people a year in the nhl also not just 1 maybe two.

Oh like in the lockout WJC where Canada had all it's stars and... failed to medal?

 

[Get North]

I don't follow either Finnish or NHL hockey all that closely, so I don't even know if I could name 10 Finnish forwards. But I do watch them play against each other, on ice, in the real World instead of fantasy matchups. Reputation and stats are worthless at that point - the only thing that matters is what you do when you strap the skates on and play, and what can be plainly observed is the basis for my earlier comments.

As I look at your lists, I will acknowledge that Crosby and Stamkos are better than any Finnish forwards currently active, and I think Weber and Doughty are better than any Finnish defensemen. After that, I see equality and parity as it plays out on the ice. Some of the guys that you list, like Tavares, Giroux, Seguin, Benn, Bergeron, etc., may have been along for the ride on some international championship teams (I'm sure that you are referring to the last two Olympics, in the case of Bergeron and Getzlaf), or may rack up a lot of points night-to-night in the NHL with pucks bouncing in off skates against Edmonton and Buffalo, but when they hit the ice in the Olympics of other international competition, do not distinguish or separate themselves from their Finnish, Swedish or even Russian opponents.

The results support my contentions. For example, in Sochi, the Finns stood stride by stride with all of the Canadians that you mentioned until overtime. One stroke of the stick might have eliminated Canada from competition. Its not like the USA in Olympic basketball, where not only do they always win every single game, but they win by 50 or 60 point margins. That is testimony to the talent and depth of the US in basketball, but Canada is not even in the same universe when it comes to talent and depth by comparison.

What I don't understand is why Canada doesn't separate itself from the rest of the World the same way that the US does in basketball?

Yeah, ok buddy. Just look at the point totals in the NHL where we have more games to look at instead of 7-8 game tournaments. The Finnish player with most points in the NHL is at #96, there's only like 4-5 Russian players in the top 100 for points, Swedes have around 9 in the top 100 for points. The Canadians are the majority and 1-2-3 for points in the NHL are all Canadians.

There was no American in the top 10 PPG at the 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup. That means nothing, just like what your argument is. So stop wasting your and other's time with your ridiculous arguments based on 1 game of Canada vs Finland or the 2014 Sochi Tournament. Canada separated itself from other countries when they continually produce many superstars every year. It was on display at the 2014 Olympics when they dominated every team. Hockey is also more competitive than Basketball, I'm not an expert on Basketball though. USA also has more money than Canada so maybe that's why they are more dominating in basketball (so you say) than Canada in hockey?

 

[Yakushev72]

Yeah, ok buddy. Just look at the point totals in the NHL where we have more games to look at instead of 7-8 game tournaments. The Finnish player with most points in the NHL is at #96, there's only like 4-5 Russian players in the top 100 for points, Swedes have around 9 in the top 100 for points. The Canadians are the majority and 1-2-3 for points in the NHL are all Canadians.

There was no American in the top 10 PPG at the 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup. That means nothing, just like what your argument is. So stop wasting your and other's time with your ridiculous arguments based on 1 game of Canada vs Finland or the 2014 Sochi Tournament. Canada separated itself from other countries when they continually produce many superstars every year. It was on display at the 2014 Olympics when they dominated every team. Hockey is also more competitive than Basketball, I'm not an expert on Basketball though. USA also has more money than Canada so maybe that's why they are more dominating in basketball (so you say) than Canada in hockey?

You are using an invalid comparison. In the NHL, most games are played between teams (e.g., Edmonton, Buffalo, Arizona, etc.) of a quality level far below that of national teams from Sweden, Finland, Czech, and even Slovakia and Russia. You can't judge an international team by how many goals they score against Austria and Bulgaria - you have to judge them by what they do against Sweden and Russia. How many goals Tyler Seguin might score bouncing off the skates of some 4th line NHL player has nothing at all to do with what would happen if he is up against top international competition from the teams that have excellent programs, like those named above.

Finland, for example, is famous for its defensive system. That's why all of Canada's 'A' players managed only one goal in regulation against Finland in Sochi. But then again, Canada managed only 3 goals against Norway, ultimately winning by what some Canadian posters might term a "massive" 3-1 margin. Canada had one really dominant performance in Sochi against Austria, the tournament's worst team, plus a pretty one-sided performance in the GMG against a depleted and dispirited Swedish team.

My comments about American basketball came about as a result of Canadian claims of "massive differences" in the quality of Canadian players in comparison to Europeans. In Olympic basketball, there is no question about total domination - the only question is how badly does the US want to humiliate the other team? Canada, on the other hand, despite similar differences in player population and resource allocation with the rest of the World, has to fight and scrape and hope the puck bounces right for them to win a tournament. Why is that?

Your argument about NHL scoring stats is also flawed, since European players make up only about 25% of the player population. So when you further subdivide them into their component countries, and then measure them against the top 100, you will get a distorted picture measuring the worth and impact of the players. For example, the last I checked, Russians made up about 3% of the NHL population, but accounted for 30% of the top 10 goal scorers. There used to be closer to 100 Russians in the NHL, but NHL stopped drafting Russians when the KHL came into being. And what happens to your argument that the reason Canada loses in the WHC is that they don't send qualified players when you say at the same time that Canadians in the NHL are far better than their European counterparts?

.

 

[Get North]

You are using an invalid comparison. In the NHL, most games are played between teams (e.g., Edmonton, Buffalo, Arizona, etc.) of a quality level far below that of national teams from Sweden, Finland, Czech, and even Slovakia and Russia. You can't judge an international team by how many goals they score against Austria and Bulgaria - you have to judge them by what they do against Sweden and Russia. How many goals Tyler Seguin might score bouncing off the skates of some 4th line NHL player has nothing at all to do with what would happen if he is up against top international competition from the teams that have excellent programs, like those named above.

Finland, for example, is famous for its defensive system. That's why all of Canada's 'A' players managed only one goal in regulation against Finland in Sochi. But then again, Canada managed only 3 goals against Norway, ultimately winning by what some Canadian posters might term a "massive" 3-1 margin. Canada had one really dominant performance in Sochi against Austria, the tournament's worst team, plus a pretty one-sided performance in the GMG against a depleted and dispirited Swedish team.

My comments about American basketball came about as a result of Canadian claims of "massive differences" in the quality of Canadian players in comparison to Europeans. In Olympic basketball, there is no question about total domination - the only question is how badly does the US want to humiliate the other team? Canada, on the other hand, despite similar differences in player population and resource allocation with the rest of the World, has to fight and scrape and hope the puck bounces right for them to win a tournament. Why is that?

Your argument about NHL scoring stats is also flawed, since European players make up only about 25% of the player population. So when you further subdivide them into their component countries, and then measure them against the top 100, you will get a distorted picture measuring the worth and impact of the players. For example, the last I checked, Russians made up about 3% of the NHL population, but accounted for 30% of the top 10 goal scorers. There used to be closer to 100 Russians in the NHL, but NHL stopped drafting Russians when the KHL came into being. And what happens to your argument that the reason Canada loses in the WHC is that they don't send qualified players when you say at the same time that Canadians in the NHL are far better than their European counterparts?

.

The top players don't play only against Edmonton, Buffalo, and Arizona. Every player plays the same teams. Just like the Olympics, if one guy perform well against Austria I would be concerned. International competition is such a sort sample size, every 4 years? Some players have trouble adjusting or play better on bigger ice, some players might be sick during the tournament, so many variables that international competition just isn't a big enough sample size. Crosby wasn't the leading point scorer but that shouldn't mean anything. Canada didn't score many goals but they shutout both USA and Sweden, their final games. They played perfect defence out there.

I don't get your whole "Canada spends so much more money on hockey than anyone else." I don't know how much they put in or how much others put in, Canada isn't the richest country in the world compared to the United States who can probably put in more money than Canada for hockey without it being a problem.

The best Russians play in the NHL (3-4 of them). Canada sends a D team. I don't get what your point is though.

 

[Yakushev72]

The top players don't play only against Edmonton, Buffalo, and Arizona. Every player plays the same teams. Just like the Olympics, if one guy perform well against Austria I would be concerned. International competition is such a sort sample size, every 4 years? Some players have trouble adjusting or play better on bigger ice, some players might be sick during the tournament, so many variables that international competition just isn't a big enough sample size. Crosby wasn't the leading point scorer but that shouldn't mean anything. Canada didn't score many goals but they shutout both USA and Sweden, their final games. They played perfect defence out there.

I don't get your whole "Canada spends so much more money on hockey than anyone else." I don't know how much they put in or how much others put in, Canada isn't the richest country in the world compared to the United States who can probably put in more money than Canada for hockey without it being a problem.

The best Russians play in the NHL (3-4 of them). Canada sends a D team. I don't get what your point is though.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? On the one hand, you offer a statistical analysis to show that Finns and Swedes and Russians are far down the charts in the NHL, and then you turn around and say Canada can't win because they only send a "D team" to the WHC (of course, Canada never sends a D team - they send a few Olympic candidates, plus the remaining players just below the Olympic level, but certainly not out of the discussion for the Canadian Olympic team - let's get serious). If there are hundreds of Canadians in the NHL that are better than the closest Europeans, shouldn't a D team be more than good enough to win?

And aren't international tournaments a far better sample size to judge international competition than an 82-game NHL season? In an 82-game NHL season, at least 80% the games are against lesser competition than what you come up against in the WHC. Also, there are so many games that many of them lack the intensity and effort - they're just going through the motions until they can get back on the plane and fly across continent! By contrast, in the WHC or Olympics, victory or defeat is on the line in every game! Jack Slater mentioned Tyler Seguin and Jamie Benn as A Teamers who rack up a lot of points over the long season, but I notice that Dallas failed to make the playoffs. So much for statistics.

The discussion was never about Canada having won the last 2 Olympics, but whether the wins reflect a level of massive domination, as some Canadian posters argue. My point is that the record shows that there are wins, but no evidence at all of domination. And yes, you would think there should be much more evidence of dominance, USA basketball-style, but there isn't.

 

[Get North]

Aren't you contradicting yourself? On the one hand, you offer a statistical analysis to show that Finns and Swedes and Russians are far down the charts in the NHL, and then you turn around and say Canada can't win because they only send a "D team" to the WHC (of course, Canada never sends a D team - they send a few Olympic candidates, plus the remaining players just below the Olympic level, but certainly not out of the discussion for the Canadian Olympic team - let's get serious). If there are hundreds of Canadians in the NHL that are better than the closest Europeans, shouldn't a D team be more than good enough to win?

And aren't international tournaments a far better sample size to judge international competition than an 82-game NHL season? In an 82-game NHL season, at least 80% the games are against lesser competition than what you come up against in the WHC. Also, there are so many games that many of them lack the intensity and effort - they're just going through the motions until they can get back on the plane and fly across continent! By contrast, in the WHC or Olympics, victory or defeat is on the line in every game! Jack Slater mentioned Tyler Seguin and Jamie Benn as A Teamers who rack up a lot of points over the long season, but I notice that Dallas failed to make the playoffs. So much for statistics.

The discussion was never about Canada having won the last 2 Olympics, but whether the wins reflect a level of massive domination, as some Canadian posters argue. My point is that the record shows that there are wins, but no evidence at all of domination. And yes, you would think there should be much more evidence of dominance, USA basketball-style, but there isn't.

Look at the team Canada sent last year and Russia sent. Russia had Malkin and Ovechkin. Canada had Huberdeau, Turris, MacKinnon (rookie), Kadri, and a whole bunch of 3rd/4th liners in Ward, Read, Chimera, Brouwer, Burrows. Gubranson, Coburn, Garrison, Bieksa are some pretty slow defencemen. Europe has their star players go to the WHC, the top Canadians don't usually care. Not one player from Canada's 2014 team was close to making the Olympic team or even thought about to make it.

Haha, no way buddy. International competition is like an all-star game. This is where you become wrong, Tavares will get about 11-12 minutes because he plays on the 4th line of Canada. He has to adjust to that, he has less minutes to produce offence and he doesn't get any PP time. All of the Canadian players are stars in the NHL but they all can't get the same opportunities to produce. Some aren't supposed to score goals and have different roles. A team like Norway or Austria isn't better than teams like Arizona, Buffalo. There's more to a team than two superstars, the defence in Dallas is weak and the goaltending is inconsistent. Crosby got kicked out of the playoffs, so much for statistics.

You brought up the USA-basketball vs Canada-hockey. USA probably puts in more money in basketball than Canada since they have more money.

 

[Jablkon]

I do not exactly know what is the issue here,however some posted arguments do not really reflect all aspects of hockey.For example saying that Finland is competitive just because of system or practise time is far from reality.1. you can not win WC without addittion of 4-8 NHlers who also do not have much time to practise with the team.Others are in KHL which also does not automatically let players to go to any tourney. 2.in fact the biggest difference is ice size....the argument with longterm camps would work for Latvia or partly for Swiss,but for Finnland??? Did they have more prep. time in OG? You guys already forget diff. types of hockey schools? in case of Finland I still see typical signs of their play and I always get what I expect from them.....so when you put these "invisible" Nhlers together and let them play their hockey, it "surprisingly" works...

 

[Yakushev72]

Look at the team Canada sent last year and Russia sent. Russia had Malkin and Ovechkin. Canada had Huberdeau, Turris, MacKinnon (rookie), Kadri, and a whole bunch of 3rd/4th liners in Ward, Read, Chimera, Brouwer, Burrows. Gubranson, Coburn, Garrison, Bieksa are some pretty slow defencemen. Europe has their star players go to the WHC, the top Canadians don't usually care. Not one player from Canada's 2014 team was close to making the Olympic team or even thought about to make it.

Haha, no way buddy. International competition is like an all-star game. This is where you become wrong, Tavares will get about 11-12 minutes because he plays on the 4th line of Canada. He has to adjust to that, he has less minutes to produce offence and he doesn't get any PP time. All of the Canadian players are stars in the NHL but they all can't get the same opportunities to produce. Some aren't supposed to score goals and have different roles. A team like Norway or Austria isn't better than teams like Arizona, Buffalo. There's more to a team than two superstars, the defence in Dallas is weak and the goaltending is inconsistent. Crosby got kicked out of the playoffs, so much for statistics.

You brought up the USA-basketball vs Canada-hockey. USA probably puts in more money in basketball than Canada since they have more money.

Russia had Malkin, Ovechkin, Kulemin, Anisimov and Bobrovsky from the NHL, and all the rest of the team came from the KHL. Ovechkin sustained a bad injury against Germany that limited his ability to contribute for the rest of the tournament, and Malkin was only available for the last 3 games. The top scorers and best players in the championship run were from the KHL.

I specifically said that teams like Finland and Sweden national teams are considerably better than all but the top 2 or 3 NHL teams, but I never suggested that Belgium or Austria could beat the Edmonton Oilers (although I wouldn't be surprised if they did).

 

[Get North]

Russia had Malkin, Ovechkin, Kulemin, Anisimov and Bobrovsky from the NHL, and all the rest of the team came from the KHL. Ovechkin sustained a bad injury against Germany that limited his ability to contribute for the rest of the tournament, and Malkin was only available for the last 3 games. The top scorers and best players in the championship run were from the KHL.

I specifically said that teams like Finland and Sweden national teams are considerably better than all but the top 2 or 3 NHL teams, but I never suggested that Belgium or Austria could beat the Edmonton Oilers (although I wouldn't be surprised if they did).

Well they don't show up in the Olympics so it seems like they are just feeding off weaker teams in the WHC and can't rise up to the Olympics.

I'm just saying that if a guy like Tavares is playing against Austria or Norway in the Olympics, it's actually worse competition than a team like Edmonton and Buffalo. You're saying he's getting his points from weak teams like Edmonton when teams like Austria in the Olympics are even weaker.

 

[Rob]

I wish Johnny Gaudreau was Canadian.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

For example, in Sochi, the Finns stood stride by stride with all of the Canadians that you mentioned until overtime. One stroke of the stick might have eliminated Canada from competition.

It was a preliminary round game.

 

[daver]

If it hasn't happened yet, likely never unless Canada drops back into the pack which seems unlikely given hockey's prominence in Canadian culture.

Hockey is Canada, Canada is hockey.

 

[Pominville Knows]

USA is in another universe in basketball becouse its a sport that is huge there, cant really compare Canada in hockey when they have 1/10th the population that the USA have. Surely Canada is bordering on being in another world in hockey then everyone else, but other countries very finest are of course at least competitive with them, not like the USA in basketball. More and more NBA players are from outside the US nowadays tough, and the Olympic final in 2012 was very entertaining for sure even though the outcome was not very surprising.

If hockey become as big in the US that basketball is, in terms of participants, then they since long will have become dominant in that sport too.

 

[Erikfromfin]

With all the emphasis on forwards in this thread lets not forget for example the Finns dominate the most important position in hockey, goaltending. Czech had Hasek, Sweden Lundqvist etc it doesnt always require Crosby in your team to be best but might be the guy between the pipes.

 

[therealdeal]

Finland, for example, is famous for its defensive system. That's why all of Canada's 'A' players managed only one goal in regulation against Finland in Sochi. But then again, Canada managed only 3 goals against Norway, ultimately winning by what some Canadian posters might term a "massive" 3-1 margin. Canada had one really dominant performance in Sochi against Austria, the tournament's worst team, plus a pretty one-sided performance in the GMG against a depleted and dispirited Swedish team.

.

Well this is an extremely dishonest take of the games this year in Sochi. Why are you using only one criterion for judging a game? I can tell you why, because it fits a false narrative that you're trying to create.

If you want to judge a game look at shots for, shots against, puck possession time, scoring opportunities for and against, defensive zone penalties taken, offensive zone penalties taken, neutral zone turnovers, neutral zone steals, etc. Sure, Canada failed to get a lot of goals, but if you actually analyze all the games that they played in, it was total domination in almost every measurable category.

And the reason Canada wasn't as depleted as Sweden in the gold medal game is because Canada has a far greater depth of talent. We didn't need to rely on one center that was (I personally believe totally unfairly) taken out of the game.

 

[Yakushev72]

Well this is an extremely dishonest take of the games this year in Sochi. Why are you using only one criterion for judging a game? I can tell you why, because it fits a false narrative that you're trying to create.

If you want to judge a game look at shots for, shots against, puck possession time, scoring opportunities for and against, defensive zone penalties taken, offensive zone penalties taken, neutral zone turnovers, neutral zone steals, etc. Sure, Canada failed to get a lot of goals, but if you actually analyze all the games that they played in, it was total domination in almost every measurable category.

And the reason Canada wasn't as depleted as Sweden in the gold medal game is because Canada has a far greater depth of talent. We didn't need to rely on one center that was (I personally believe totally unfairly) taken out of the game.

There are only 3 accurate measurements for the flow of a hockey game - the final score, shots on goal, and save percentage. All of that other stuff is subjective (how is a "scoring opportunity" defined, how do you put qualitative measurement into "time in the offensive zone?" etc.).

Canada played against 3 top-tier teams in Sochi: Finland, the USA and Sweden. The final scores were CAN-FIN 2-1 (OT); CAN-USA 1-0; and CAN-SWE 3-0. Shots on goal were CAN-FIN 27-15; CAN-USA 37-31; and CAN-SWE 36-24. I have already said that CAN-SWE was relatively one-sided, but overall, both final score and shots on goal statistics suggest that Canada may have deserved to win those games, but that they were clearly close and competitive and not even suggesting anything close to domination. I'll let others measure "time in the locker room" or "time spent skating forward and backward across the blue lines."

 

[therealdeal]

There are only 3 accurate measurements for the flow of a hockey game - the final score, shots on goal, and save percentage. All of that other stuff is subjective (how is a "scoring opportunity" defined, how do you put qualitative measurement into "time in the offensive zone?" etc.).

Canada played against 3 top-tier teams in Sochi: Finland, the USA and Sweden. The final scores were CAN-FIN 2-1 (OT); CAN-USA 1-0; and CAN-SWE 3-0. Shots on goal were CAN-FIN 27-15; CAN-USA 37-31; and CAN-SWE 36-24. I have already said that CAN-SWE was relatively one-sided, but overall, both final score and shots on goal statistics suggest that Canada may have deserved to win those games, but that they were clearly close and competitive and not even suggesting anything close to domination. I'll let others measure "time in the locker room" or "time spent skating forward and backward across the blue lines."

Actually the criterion that I used are excellent measures in determining a teams ability to win games across meaningful sample sizes. Just because you don't consider them important doesn't mean anything. Furthermore, a game that goes to overtime and a team can only muster 15 shots means that they were dominated.

 

[Yakushev72]

Actually the criterion that I used are excellent measures in determining a teams ability to win games across meaningful sample sizes. Just because you don't consider them important doesn't mean anything. Furthermore, a game that goes to overtime and a team can only muster 15 shots means that they were dominated.

Yours is a perfect demonstration of why terms like terms like "dominated" are so often ridiculous in the context of the real World! By your standards of definition, Russia totally dominated Finland in the QF at Sochi, outshooting them 37-19. A point of trivia, by your terms, is that Finland actually won the game, 3-1, and eliminated Russia from the medal round. But that is an irrelevant bit of trivia that shouldn't cloud the real issue of who won the shots on goal (SOG) battle and who had the largest number of territorial incursions.

Canada is just lucky that they didn't face Russia in Sochi by your standards, given the fact that Russia's SOG margin over Finland was 18 goals, whereas Canada's was only 12. I think you would agree that the Russians would have mopped the floor with Canada! Now, the people who follow Finland will argue that the Finns employ a defensive collapsing and counterattacking system that generates wins, but rarely huge SOG totals. But the final score is only irrelevant trivia, after all.

 

[Beau Knows]

These comparisons to basketball don't really work. Hockey is a sport that involves a ton of luck by definition, basketball doesn't. Canada won the last 2 Olympic tournaments, the last one in dominating defensive fashion.

Hockey scores are 2-1 or 3-2 rather than 102-90, that alone makes luck a larger factor in hockey. Lebron can play half the game and have the ball much of that time, hockey players (other than goalies) don't have that kind of effect on the game.

Comparing the USAs domination in basketball to Canada's in hockey is extremely difficult because of how different the 2 sports are.

 

[daver]

There are only 3 accurate measurements for the flow of a hockey game - the final score, shots on goal, and save percentage. All of that other stuff is subjective (how is a "scoring opportunity" defined, how do you put qualitative measurement into "time in the offensive zone?" etc.)."

Are you talking about if you didn't actually watch the games? Only someone with an agenda would say Canada did not dominate those games. IMO, their game against the US was their best one in the NHL-era Olympic despite the score and SOG.

 

[therealdeal]

Yours is a perfect demonstration of why terms like terms like "dominated" are so often ridiculous in the context of the real World! By your standards of definition, Russia totally dominated Finland in the QF at Sochi, outshooting them 37-19. A point of trivia, by your terms, is that Finland actually won the game, 3-1, and eliminated Russia from the medal round. But that is an irrelevant bit of trivia that shouldn't cloud the real issue of who won the shots on goal (SOG) battle and who had the largest number of territorial incursions.

Canada is just lucky that they didn't face Russia in Sochi by your standards, given the fact that Russia's SOG margin over Finland was 18 goals, whereas Canada's was only 12. I think you would agree that the Russians would have mopped the floor with Canada! Now, the people who follow Finland will argue that the Finns employ a defensive collapsing and counterattacking system that generates wins, but rarely huge SOG totals. But the final score is only irrelevant trivia, after all.

Well, the score doesn't necessarily indicate the way the game goes. It only indicates how many goals each team scores. It does determine who won the game, but it doesn't determine how well either team played, or give you any indication of how the game went. The criteria that I brought up does all that.

No, there is nothing in my standards that suggests anything about following the transitive law.

 

[DethOfDragnz]

Not so sure If it will get to that. I think it's already shifted to Canada and the USA being the 2 dominant hockey nations and Russia falling down to 3rd spot. Russia has around 140 million people and are a rich first world nation. Still despite that, and having hardcore hockey fans, Canada has still fought them tooth and nail over the years and beat them a number of times at many tournaments. Half the USA is never going to care about hockey. Half the USA gets very little to no winter and hockey is just not part of the culture. Hockey has become more popular in the USA from the 90s to now but I never seeing it have the popularity of other sports and I don't see them being number 1 that dominate over and over like say the USSR did at the Olympics and WHC for a couple decades. USA should be proud of how far they have come from the 80s and earlier the USA was looked at as push overs in hockey. No one sees them that way anymore. They are legit contenders now at just about every tournament.