Canucks Young Guns

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
UWSaint
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by UWSaint » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:00 am

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:03 pm
32 teams is plenty. The league is watered down enough already.
The first sentence is largely a normative claim.

The second sentence is an objective claim (though without a baseline). And it seems to me to be false.

The eye test suggests to me that the players today are better than they were 40 years ago. A lot of this is easily explainable: the increased discipline and professionalism of the athletes, the huge improvements in development programs, the internationalization of the sport (from the NHL perspective), and the advancements in equipment.

But let's go past the eye test with easily explainable rationales. (I did this about 15 years ago on Canucks Central when it was hosted by rivals (is that right?) and again about the time of the Central migration to Canucks Corner (can't recall which board)). Let's get mathy and seize on a constant: the number of Canadian players in the NHL.

In 1980, according to Elite Prospects, 82.2% of the league was Canadians. 21 teams, lets assume for simplicity that each year there were 25 players per team (which is low, I am sure, but the only issue in this analysis is whether the number of players who play per team has meaningfully changed in 40 years). That's 432 Canadians playing in the league.

Obviously, the end of the Cold War opened up the floodgates to Russians, other soviet republics, and the Eastern bloc. With it came an infusion of Russians, Czechs, and Slovaks so that in 2000, these players made for 18.6% of the league's players. (In 1990, the number of Russians were negligible, though we all knew that from the 70s until collapse the USSR produced elite players and Canada was the USSR's only peer). This infusion in the 1990s couples nicely with the NHL's expansion to San Jose, Tampa, Ottawa, Miami, and Anaheim (early 90s) and then later Nashville, Atlanta, Minnesota, and Columbus at the end of the century.

In part because of the big money available in Russia's oligarchy and in part because of higher cultural costs to being in North America (as compared to, say, Swedes, who are by this time universally english speakers b/c of swedish education reinforced by english speaking media and entertainment), the former soviet and eastern bloc contributions to the NHL would decline after that apex. But it would be more that made up for by significant growth and improvement in Swedish hockey, Finnish hockey, and *dramatic* improvement in USA hockey with the creation of the USNTDP, the development of the USHL as a real juniors league, the abandonment of high school hockey for elite players, and, yes, the expanded interest in the sport that coupled NHL early 90s expansion.

By 2017, only 45.9% of NHL players were Canadians. 32 teams. Assuming 25 players per team, the number of Canadians in the league *declined*, and not by just a little. Using the 25 player per team estimate, there were 367 players in the league. (One might say its more accurate to assume an average of 30 players per team per season, but that does nothing to the point being illustrated).

In 1980, the 430th best Canadian player was in the NHL. Today, that player is not.

To argue the league is watered down is to make at least one of two claims -- one, Canadians are, in absolute terms, worse at hockey than they used to be. Two, that the league was already watered down in 1980.

The first claim isn't all that plausible given that while Canadian hockey has declined in relative terms, it is also far more professionalized. To be sure, perhaps fewer people are playing because of the costs associated with the sport. But Canada's population has also increased by 50% during this period. And those costs of participation? They are going up everywhere. And it was the USSR that dominated the world juniors in 1970s, were the best teams in the 1980s. It was the 1990s and 2000s that saw Canada dominate juniors, before the past decade where juniors success has been spread among the top 5 (Canada, USA, Russia, Sweden, Finland). The point is that in 2010, when Canadians made up 52.8% of a 30 team NHL (396 players under the 25 player per team assumption), Canada was riding historic WJC successes and those were the ages players on 2010 NHL teams.

To the second claim -- the NHL was already watered down in 1980 -- I don't know what it means to be "ideal". Of course if we spread out today's NHL players across 24 teams -- getting rid of all of the 4th liners in the league (presuming an even distribution today of all 4th liners), and all of the 6-7 defensemen (and sending many #5s to the press box), and basically all the crap starting goalies, the quality of play will improve. This is especially so given that the market suggests that there isn't a ton of difference between 4th liners and tweeners in terms of contributions to wins and losses. But that's not an interesting observation. To claim something is watered down, we still need to pick a point in time that the water supposedly got added. (And lest you accuse me of cherry picking, in 1990, when there were still 21 teams in the league, USA hockey was starting its upswing, and european scouting was a regular part of an NHL franchise, Canadians made up 74% of the league, 389 players under my 25 per team assumption -- still greater than the number today).

Bottom line -- the NHL is not watered down. That doesn't answer the question of whether the league should expand. It does answer the argument that the league shouldn't expand because the quality of play is getting worse due to talent dilution.

Source for nationalities: https://www.bardown.com/fascinating-nhl ... s-1.894809
Hono_rary Canadian

User avatar
UWSaint
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by UWSaint » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:14 am

micky107 wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:54 am
Recent article on where an NHL franchise could happen. I don't agree with the final analysis but the read is decent;

https://www.sportsinsider.com/next-city ... ting-odds/

My own opinion is Quebec City will support a team; A winning team, only. C-
Atlanta? What is this, three strikes? :crazy: D
Saskatchewan or The Maritimes? Cute idea but; D
Portland is my idea of an almost for sure success. B+. In about 6 to 7 years.
Southern Ontario? Only if it's a relocation from Ottawa.
San Diego? Watch out for low flying aircraft. And, Hey Pedro? Pass the puck!
Just saying, where else would they draw fans from. LA? Ever tried that? Yikes. D
Houston? Would take a few years but ya, quite likely work. C+

Regardless; Never more than 32 teams, at least looking 15-20 years ahead.

The Admission Fees, the league loves. Whats the one after Seattle, a billion?
Relocation may be ugly but is that not a better choice under present some circumstances ?
There are very few big markets that the NHL isn't in. Houston and Atlanta are by far the biggest, and I think it would have a high chance of success in Houston. Atlanta really is a weird city like LA that isn't weird about its sports teams. (Not just the Flames and Thrashers, but even the Braves with a national media mogul owning the franchise!). And we've seen the movie; not sure why it ends differently this time.

After that, you are looking at mid-sized markets or adding a new team into an existing market. For mid-sized markets, the ideal American market is one in which there isn't an NBA team directly competing. Its why I would be timid about Portland, and completely skeptical of cities not on the list (Cleveland, Milwaukee, Charlotte, for example). Its also why Columbus was a perfect choice and why Seattle makes sense now (Seattle also makes sense because it is the 11th wealthiest US metropolitan area judged by GDP -- it could probably support basketball and hockey just fine). Austin might be a reasonable market to explore, as would Kansas City.

As for existing markets, I would think Toronto (or suburbs) is a logical choice. I know that one is competing against a behemoth brand, but second fiddle to the Maple Leaves is probably still a better bet than going where no one has gone before and shaky underlying demographics in terms of dollars and native hockey fans. And the best part about another team in the Toronto metro area is they are sure to win the Cup before the Leaves....
Hono_rary Canadian

User avatar
rikster
MVP
MVP
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:41 am

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by rikster » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:19 am

UWSaint wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:00 am
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:03 pm
32 teams is plenty. The league is watered down enough already.
The first sentence is largely a normative claim.

The second sentence is an objective claim (though without a baseline). And it seems to me to be false.

The eye test suggests to me that the players today are better than they were 40 years ago. A lot of this is easily explainable: the increased discipline and professionalism of the athletes, the huge improvements in development programs, the internationalization of the sport (from the NHL perspective), and the advancements in equipment.

But let's go past the eye test with easily explainable rationales. (I did this about 15 years ago on Canucks Central when it was hosted by rivals (is that right?) and again about the time of the Central migration to Canucks Corner (can't recall which board)). Let's get mathy and seize on a constant: the number of Canadian players in the NHL.

In 1980, according to Elite Prospects, 82.2% of the league was Canadians. 21 teams, lets assume for simplicity that each year there were 25 players per team (which is low, I am sure, but the only issue in this analysis is whether the number of players who play per team has meaningfully changed in 40 years). That's 432 Canadians playing in the league.

Obviously, the end of the Cold War opened up the floodgates to Russians, other soviet republics, and the Eastern bloc. With it came an infusion of Russians, Czechs, and Slovaks so that in 2000, these players made for 18.6% of the league's players. (In 1990, the number of Russians were negligible, though we all knew that from the 70s until collapse the USSR produced elite players and Canada was the USSR's only peer). This infusion in the 1990s couples nicely with the NHL's expansion to San Jose, Tampa, Ottawa, Miami, and Anaheim (early 90s) and then later Nashville, Atlanta, Minnesota, and Columbus at the end of the century.

In part because of the big money available in Russia's oligarchy and in part because of higher cultural costs to being in North America (as compared to, say, Swedes, who are by this time universally english speakers b/c of swedish education reinforced by english speaking media and entertainment), the former soviet and eastern bloc contributions to the NHL would decline after that apex. But it would be more that made up for by significant growth and improvement in Swedish hockey, Finnish hockey, and *dramatic* improvement in USA hockey with the creation of the USNTDP, the development of the USHL as a real juniors league, the abandonment of high school hockey for elite players, and, yes, the expanded interest in the sport that coupled NHL early 90s expansion.

By 2017, only 45.9% of NHL players were Canadians. 32 teams. Assuming 25 players per team, the number of Canadians in the league *declined*, and not by just a little. Using the 25 player per team estimate, there were 367 players in the league. (One might say its more accurate to assume an average of 30 players per team per season, but that does nothing to the point being illustrated).

In 1980, the 430th best Canadian player was in the NHL. Today, that player is not.

To argue the league is watered down is to make at least one of two claims -- one, Canadians are, in absolute terms, worse at hockey than they used to be. Two, that the league was already watered down in 1980.

The first claim isn't all that plausible given that while Canadian hockey has declined in relative terms, it is also far more professionalized. To be sure, perhaps fewer people are playing because of the costs associated with the sport. But Canada's population has also increased by 50% during this period. And those costs of participation? They are going up everywhere. And it was the USSR that dominated the world juniors in 1970s, were the best teams in the 1980s. It was the 1990s and 2000s that saw Canada dominate juniors, before the past decade where juniors success has been spread among the top 5 (Canada, USA, Russia, Sweden, Finland). The point is that in 2010, when Canadians made up 52.8% of a 30 team NHL (396 players under the 25 player per team assumption), Canada was riding historic WJC successes and those were the ages players on 2010 NHL teams.

To the second claim -- the NHL was already watered down in 1980 -- I don't know what it means to be "ideal". Of course if we spread out today's NHL players across 24 teams -- getting rid of all of the 4th liners in the league (presuming an even distribution today of all 4th liners), and all of the 6-7 defensemen (and sending many #5s to the press box), and basically all the crap starting goalies, the quality of play will improve. This is especially so given that the market suggests that there isn't a ton of difference between 4th liners and tweeners in terms of contributions to wins and losses. But that's not an interesting observation. To claim something is watered down, we still need to pick a point in time that the water supposedly got added. (And lest you accuse me of cherry picking, in 1990, when there were still 21 teams in the league, USA hockey was starting its upswing, and european scouting was a regular part of an NHL franchise, Canadians made up 74% of the league, 389 players under my 25 per team assumption -- still greater than the number today).

Bottom line -- the NHL is not watered down. That doesn't answer the question of whether the league should expand. It does answer the argument that the league shouldn't expand because the quality of play is getting worse due to talent dilution.

Source for nationalities: https://www.bardown.com/fascinating-nhl ... s-1.894809
NIcely laid out...

Prior to the NHL expanding into the southern US markets, a committee led by Brian Burke was tasked to determine if there was sufficient talent to fill the rosters of the expansion teams...

Having sufficient talent available to fill those rosters was a condition of expansion...

Filling rosters with talent is not a concern, I'm a bit surprised that you didn't touch on the Vegas expansion...

A brand new team with cast offs from the other teams makes it to the Cup finals in its first year and you still have those who worry about a dilution of talent around the league...

lol

Take care....

User avatar
UWSaint
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by UWSaint » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:42 am

rikster wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:19 am
Filling rosters with talent is not a concern, I'm a bit surprised that you didn't touch on the Vegas expansion...

A brand new team with cast offs from the other teams makes it to the Cup finals in its first year and you still have those who worry about a dilution of talent around the league...

lol

Take care....
Great point.
Hono_rary Canadian

ESQ
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2314
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by ESQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:51 pm

UWSaint wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:00 am
Let's get mathy
Image

User avatar
Uncle dans leg
CC Legend
Posts: 7247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by Uncle dans leg » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:00 pm

UWSaint wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:00 am
Let's get math-onw-y
:wow:
nobody focks...with the jesus

User avatar
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7956
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by micky107 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:04 pm

Uncle dans leg wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:00 pm
UWSaint wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:00 am
Let's get math-onw-y
:wow:
Image
"evolution"

User avatar
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7956
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by micky107 » Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:25 am

.
Totally missed this; Jett Woo isn't a warrier anymore, he's a hitman.
https://calgarysun.com/sports/hockey/hi ... n-siepmann
Or a Canuck. 8-)
"evolution"

User avatar
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7956
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by micky107 » Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:43 am

.
"Olli is doing really well, patience will be needed after his injury. But, he is on track and should be ready by camp."
Markus Lehto on Olli Juolevi.
Listen live:

https://twitter.com/Sportsnet650/status ... 2%3Fs%3D21

I think this may be one the more interesting things to see in camp. If he does well and makes his way to the big club by say; After the
X-mas break, that could set up interesting TD moves.
"evolution"

User avatar
Lancer
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2283
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:41 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by Lancer » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:46 am

micky107 wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:25 am
.
Totally missed this; Jett Woo isn't a warrier anymore, he's a hitman.
https://calgarysun.com/sports/hockey/hi ... n-siepmann
Or a Canuck. 8-)
Unless Calgary's rep for developing NHL players has improved since Virtanen was there, I can imagine Benning's team trying every which way to avoid him playing there. Calgary hasn't exactly been churning out the impact NHLers since the days of Ladd and Getzlaf - over 10 years ago. Half the reason they kept Virtanen with the big club before the kid was ready - they didn't want him wasting a year in Calgary.
Love the Sport. Love the Team.

Hate the League.

User avatar
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7956
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by micky107 » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:13 pm

Hoglander impresses Canucks in development camp
Forward looks to follow in footsteps of Sedins, Pettersson, make quick transition to NHL
by Kevin Woodley / NHL.com Correspondent
July 18th, 2019
https://www.nhl.com/news/nils-hoglander ... -308273482
"evolution"

User avatar
Cherry Picker
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:56 am

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by Cherry Picker » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:42 pm

What’s with Pettersson and Hoglander juggling and riding unicycles.
Is this an NHL thing now? Are they going to have a unicycle-juggle-off?
We are all Jim Benning.

User avatar
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7956
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by micky107 » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:18 pm

Cherry Picker wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:42 pm
What’s with Pettersson and Hoglander juggling and riding unicycles.
Is this an NHL thing now? Are they going to have a unicycle-juggle-off?
If that's what ends up replacing the Sedins soccer routine, we may have something to worry about.
Applying visuals to that statement is tempting but I shall refrain. ;)
"evolution"

User avatar
Cherry Picker
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:56 am

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by Cherry Picker » Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:40 pm

I’m not sure adding Ferland to the team was wise if the pregame warm up routine is changing to unicycle-juggle-offs. :wow:
We are all Jim Benning.

User avatar
Per
CC Legend
Posts: 4245
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: Canucks Young Guns

Post by Per » Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:42 pm

rikster wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:46 am

They're looking on the wrong continent....

The question is will the NHL get there first just like they did in Vegas, or will the NFL be the first to bring an entirely new revenue stream to its coffers?...

https://thehockeywriters.com/the-real-n ... in-europe/

Take care...
The NFL??? :crazy:

Don’t think that’s possible. There is virtually no interest in Europe for the product they market... :lol:
Hockey and basketball could work, but hardly anyone in Europe cares for the weird North American version of rugby.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.

Post Reply