Pennants
The other day David Staples had an item on his blog about a new stat: the error. It’s a good article and asks some interesting questions. I believe this sort of analysis will become commonplace eventually and all we’re really missing is a group of people in each of the NHL cities who can come together in a PROJECT SCORESHEET style universe and begin uncovering specific things (like errors, range factor, outlet pass percentage, etc) and measuring their impact on the game (and revealing which things are important to wins and which things seem to be and are not. Baseball reduced the value of the stolen base by a tremendous amount after statistical analysis suggested that anyone stealing below 80% was having a negative impact on expected runs).
While we’re trying to make things right about our game, I would like to suggest we alter our view of the Stanley Cup champions and the teams that lose in the finals. For many decades now baseball has managed to elevate “pennant winners” from both leagues to the level of greatness. While losing the World Series must hurt like hell, winning the AL or NL pennant has tremendous value each season for fans and players.
I believe that the NHL should adopt such a position for the Western and Eastern conference champions each season. Before expansion in 1967, there were only 6 teams so getting your name on the Stanley was a lot easier than it is now with 30 teams. I’m not saying it was easy, but from 1928-1967 there are extremely few Norm Ullmans (guys who had terrific, borderline HOF careers without winning the Stanley) and since then there are several Norm Ullmans retiring each season.
Mark Howe didn’t win the Stanley. Big freaking deal. He was IN THE FINALS in 1985 and 1987 but his lack of a ring is probably the main reason Howe isn’t in the Hall. Was it harder to win the Stanley Cup in 1987 than it was in 1967? Logic and common sense say yes.
If so, then imo it is reasonable to give special “weight” to teams that lost in the finals from 1968-2007. By the way, this gives no special edge to the Oilers, who have a terrific record once they get to the finals (5 of 7). I think it gives franchises like Chicago, New York, Boston and Philadelphia a more accurate picture of the last 40 seasons. Here’s the list of teams and how many “pennants” they’ve won since 67-68:
- Montreal (11): ’68, ’69, ’71, ’73, ’76-’79, ’86, ’89, ’93
- Boston (7): ’70, ’72, ’74, ’77, ’78, ’88, ’90
- Edmonton (7): ’83, ’84, ’85, ’87, ’88, ’90, ’06
- Philadephia (7): ’74, ’75, ’76, ’80, ’85, ’87, ’97
- New York Islanders (5): ’80, ’81, ’82, ’83, ’84
- Dallas (4): ’81, ’91, ’99, ’00
- Detroit (4): ’95, ’97, ’98, ’02
- New Jersey (4): ’95, ’00, ’01, ’03
- Calgary (3): ’86, ’89, ’04
- Chicago (3): ’71, ’73, ’92
- New York Rangers (3): ’72, ’79, ’94
- St. Louis (3): ’68, ’69, ’70
- Anaheim (2): ’03, ’07
- Buffalo (2): ’75, ’99
- Carolina (2): ’02, ’06
- Colorado (2): ’96, ’01
- Pittsburgh (2): ’91, ’92
- Vancouver (2): ’82, ’94
- Florida (1): ’96
- Los Angeles (1): ’93
- Ottawa (1): ’07
- Tampa Bay (1): ’04
- Washington (1): ’98
- Columbus
- Minnesota
- Phoenix
- San Jose
- Toronto
- Atlanta
- Nashville
Some interesting things. TBay is the only team to win the pennant AND the Stanley in their only time to the finals, and the only teams to win multiple pennants and not win the Stanley are Vancouver, Buffalo, St. Louis and Chicago. The weakest pennant winner was probably Vancouver 1982, but they also had a strong 1994 pennant winner.
Looking at NHL history this way gives life to some outstanding teams, like Boston in the 1970s and Philadelphia in the 1980s.
It also draws attention to two of the strongest teams I can remember, the 1972 New York Rangers and the 1971-73 Chicago Blackhawks. It also tells us that Toronto is on an historic run that would/could have had a nice ending in 1993.
Also, Ryan Smyth is among the fine players on those teams listed above. This system catches the Norm Ullmans, which seems only fair since the NHL has so many retiring each season.
Columbus
Minnesota
Phoenix
San Jose
Toronto
Atlanta
Nashville
too funny!
Great post LT and one I agree with whole heartedly.
Another reason why I would be a bitter bitter man if I were a Leafs’ fan. One thing to be without a Stanley in forty years. They are one of fifteen. Its another entirely to be one of seven to not even get to the Final. And of those only Phoenix and San Jose have really been around long enough to be in the same ballpark, imo.
Brutal.
The ’71 and ’73 Hawks. Sigh.
Nice post … never quite thought of the conference/pennant winner like that. It does give ‘props’ to some great teams that don’t have the Stanley(s) to show for their efforts.
Couldn’t find the Leafs for a minute … then I reminded myself to look down, waaay down. ha ha.
And speaking of ‘pennants’, I have always wondered if its common practice for all teams to raise a banner for winning their division? Sometimes I wonder if its really necessary for the Oil to have those banners in the rafters. Although, its nice to see so many up there.
I laughed when I saw the error idea, since it’s considered a completely useless stat by sabermetricians. I imagine it would be useless in hockey for many of the same reasons.
I’d be interested in knowing why sabr believes errors are worthless, Andy. Do you mean offensively? Defensively? In regard to ERA?
Interesting statement, that is new to me.
Weird, I was just reading the same article. Anyway, I have been involved in coaching football for several years. One of the common things done with game film is to break down each play and give each player either a +, 0 or -. I think that simply giving a player an error doesn’t allow for the positive impact a player has on the game. I coach my players to try and get pluses on each play rather than to avoid minuses.
Lowetide said…
I’d be interested in knowing why sabr believes errors are worthless, Andy. Do you mean offensively? Defensively? In regard to ERA?
Interesting statement, that is new to me.
I just know the Coles’ notes version of the answer – basically, it’s easy to have few errors if you never get to any balls in the first place.
Obviously, the argument is a lot more nuanced than that, but I think that covers the general idea. I can definitely corroborate Andy’s remark that errors are considered poor indicators of fielding performance amongst the sabermetric crowd.
RQ: Ah, gotcha. I certainly agree with that, range factor is a much better indicator of defensive ability than errors.
Great idea! The Conference Championship should be given its deserved value.
In Sweden, the winner of the Elite Series is said to have won SM Gold (SM is Swedish Masterskap – championship). Along with the trophy, there are no gold medals (although, it has become common place to receive gold painted helmets instead of those awful hats that are common place in N.America) but instead the championship series is seen in a similar gold & silver light as the Olympics.
Might this dilute the value of the Stanley Cup final? I doubt it. I recall the Oil rightly refusing to “overly celebrate” the Campbell Conference trophy in ’06. It should be lauded to win 12 playoff games/3 series, but it is the 16th win that means the most.
That said though, us Canadians do love be on the podium and win an Olympic medal regardless of the colour. Shouldn’t that argument also hold true for a NHL season?
There most certainly is room to celebrate a “silver medalist” and rightly recognize the team’s and individual’s acheivements in such hollowed halls as the HHOF.
LT, RiversQ has it right. An error will punish a player who was good enough to get close enough to a ball to make an outstanding play, while not punishing the plodding mule who never even gets near the ball. As such, it is a very poor indicator of a player’s true defensive value.
I can’t even look at Staples’ error criterion without cringing. It would be completely subjective, and assuredly of less value than the +/- stat he’s trying to replace.
I don’t know, Andy, it may have some value. I’ve often wondered if it might be an idea to have 5 people “score” a hockey game (you’d have to have it on tape to review) and list off things like “unforced errors by defensemen leaving their zone” or “turnovers at the opposition blueline that result in a GA or exceptional scoring chance.”
Errors might be the wrong wording, perhaps it needs to be more specific. However, the idea of measuring things not yet measured is a strong one imo.
God you guys! How many chances do positional players get in Baseball.
Not 100%. An error in baseball is a metric of a players chances. my favorite is the catcher who runs to first to cover the possibility of an erant throw to first. considering the number of times catchers do that in a year how often do the get the chance. How often do they create an error.
And chances is an improper measure because of the varience in a players range.
In hockey you are positionally expected to cover or be involved in the system 100%. Your chances for error is there during your full shift. And 5 seconds after if you do an improper change. Examples used in discussions on the inacuracy of the +/- on this blog.
Simplistic anaylsis but not going to get into the Baseball positional periferal that affects chance.
I really like the concept of error for players in hockey.
An elite fielder will get to the ball and not make an error. I agree range factor is more important, but to say errors are useless stats seems, to this closet sabermetrician, heretical. No such thing as a useless stat.
***
Nice work on the pennant winners, LT. I’m so old I remember the days when winning the regular season championship — then the Prince of Wales Trophy — was considered important, indeed a pennant of a sort, and a team that could win the “double” was a true powerhouse. Stanley was the bigger deal, but not the only one.
For a few years the league let the concept completely die — imagine, an 80-game schedule whose SOLE purpose was to qualify 16 out of 21 teams for the playoffs (and to make a little money, I guess). Finally in the mid-80s the President’s Trophy was created to fill the void. Alas, it still gets very little attention compared to what it really should IMO. It takes an outstanding team to finish atop the standings after six months of hockey in any era.
Trivia question #1. Which team was the first to win the President’s Trophy?
Trivia question #2: Which team was the first to win the President’s Trophy-Stanley Cup “double”?
Because the first place winner has to beat the whole league, not simply the half of it that produced the beaten finalist, to me it’s an even better indicator that reveals who the strong clubs were. Especially when the same team wins both, as is not possible with the pennant winners.
To consider the first overall team as the regular season champion regardless of what or even whether silverware was awarded is a useful tool in evaluating the dynasties. For example, since 1995 the Red Wings and Devils have won three Stanley Cups each. But the Red Wings have also copped 5 President’s Trophies, the Devils none. Can there be any question about which has been the more dominant team?
Jump back a half century to the last Red Wings dynasty, and you’ll find an impressive run of 4 Cups in 6 years. But even more impressive was their 7 consecutive Prince of Wales Trophies, which reveals how truly extraordinary that team was.
Trivia answer #1: Edmonton Oilers, 1985-86.
Trivia answer #2: Edmonton Oilers, 1986-87.
In the second case the Oilers gained home ice advantage in the finals by virtue of having finished ahead of Philadelphia in the President’s Trophy race, and won Game 7 in Northlands Coliseum with one of the greatest performances in team history.
An elite fielder will get to the ball and not make an error.
A smart fielder won’t bother, and he’ll win a Gold Glove at season’s end.
For example, since 1995 the Red Wings and Devils have won three Stanley Cups each. But the Red Wings have also copped 5 President’s Trophies, the Devils none. Can there be any question about which has been the more dominant team?
As it so happens, I think that the Wings is the right answer. That said, I don’t think that you can ignore the effect of schedule here – my hazy recollection is that the numbers suggest that the East was the stronger conference for much of that time.
I don’t think that you can ignore the effect of schedule here – my hazy recollection is that the numbers suggest that the East was the stronger conference for much of that time.
Good point, MC, the (mentally) unbalanced schedule means you often wind up choosing between apples and oranges for not just first place, but eighth.
Of course the exact same considerations must apply to the pennant winners, one of the two will come from a weaker conference every year. At least in the case of the President’s Trophy there is a decent probability that the best team in the league will actually get it.
I remember all too well when the powers that run the league used that strength-of-competition argument to ridiculous extremes. The 1983-84 Oilers finished first overall with 119 points, fifteen(15) points ahead of the second place team, and yet had to start the Stanley Cup Finals on the road with home ice disadvantage (a 2-3-2 format) because the east was deemed to be the stronger conference. Fortunately, the Oilers jammed it up their asses by splitting on the Island and then sweeping in Edmonton. They did the exact same thing the next year, after which the 2-3-2 format was mysteriously abandoned.
I’ve been wondering about this one for years – literally. (Since at least 2004, in fact.)
“Pennants” are as good a measure as any other, I guess – I agree, Cup wins is insufficient. Are conference wins enough? I never did decide.
I think a President’s Trophy should count for more than a Conference win though – there’s only one PT a year, just like the Stanley, but there’s two conference champs every season.
a片,a片,a片,a片,a片,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,色情,色情,色情,色情,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,微風成人,微風成人,微風成人,微風成人,色情,色情,色情,色情,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,色情,色情,色情,色情,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,情色,情色,情色,情色,打卡鐘,跳蛋,持久液,色情網站,黃金回收,借錢,植牙,牙醫,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情,h漫,情色,sex,黃金價格,黃金,黃金買賣,黃金存摺,鑽石價格,鑽石回收,鑽石買賣,當舖,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友,情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室,打卡鐘,火鍋吃到飽,創業加盟,賺錢,吃到飽麻辣鍋
a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女視訊,聊天室,美女視訊
成人網站,成人影片,av女優,h漫,成人網站,成人電影,a片,色情,成人影片,色情,成人電影,色情,h漫,成人影片,成人電影,免費A片,色情,成人電影,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人網站,情趣用品,免費A片,成人網站,色情,a片,成人影片,情色,免費A片,微風成人,情色,成人影片,微風成人,av女優
成人網站,色情網站,av女優,色情,成人網站,成人影片,成人電影,av女優,a片,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,av女優
色情,h漫,sex,情色,a片,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情
h漫,sex,情色,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友
情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室
美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室
成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,成人電影,h漫,成人電影,色情,成人影片,色情,免費A片,成人影片,免費A片,情色,微風成人
美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室
美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室
a片,成人網站,av女優,h漫,成人影片,免費a片,情趣用品,色情,微風成人,情色,sex,成人電影,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,成人網站,情色,情趣用品,色情,sex,免費a片,h漫,av女優,成人影片,a片,微風成人,成人電影聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,成人電影,成人網站,情色,情趣用品,色情,sex,免費a片,h漫,av女優,成人影片,a片,微風成人,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊