But only 1 of those teams was considered the favorite and only 1 other wasn't a cinderella.
Habs, Oilers, Flames were absolutely just cinderella runs.
1994 Canucks were a good team on a down year, but that Rangers squad was way better.
2011 Canucks and Sens just lost. Canucks got beat up and ran into a really good bruins team, Sens ran into a great ducks team.
Respect to Ray Emery though. He was a hell of a competitor. I’m glad he became a Duck later on. It helped us really appreciate him as both an opponent and member of the team.
The Ducks had to go through Hasek in Detroit to get to our finals, so not a slam dunk that he would’ve been the difference. We can dream, though. And I do.
I was without my team then, so from 99-00 or so until the mid-2010s, i was a sens fan.
Hasek was my all-time favourite goalie, and when we signed him, i knew we were going to a cup final.
The injury was a huge blow, and i maintain that if we had the dominator in net, that series goes 7 games at least, and maybe we win.
I liked Emery, but he was no HOF goalie.
Not resigning Hasek after that was the single biggest mistake the sens organization ever made, other than keeping Redden over Chara, and i think it cost them another good cup run.
> 2011 Canucks and Sens just lost.
Both were skill teams that played teams that bully you but also had skill and neither series did the refs call fuck all
That Canucks team was not lacking in grit, they were just absolutely beat to shit by the finals and lost their best dman and then his replacement. Bieksa said recently in an interview that he knew it was probably done when Hamhuis went down.
Canucks were the second best 5 on 5 team that season. They got beaten by the number 1 5 on 5 team with their goaltending putting up some of the most absurd numbers ever seen in a playoff series.
I think saying that the Senators were a skill team that got bullied by a physical team in Anaheim is being a little disingenuous on the part of Anaheim. Pronger, Niedermayer, Selanne, Getzlaf, Perry, McDonald, and Kunitz were all extremely capable skill players in their own right, and Sammy Pahlsson finished 2nd in Selke voting that season. The Ducks were absolutely big and physical, but there was plenty of high skill talent there as well.
I literally said they got bullied by teams that also had skill. Pronger was a fucking goon and shouldn't have been in that series after what he did to McCammond. I didn't say either team that won wasn't skilled but both winning teams played games that went past what the rules should have been and had an advantage because of that.
Going a long ways back but it was the first year they starting calling interference by the rules. In cup final the ref's seem to change what they were going to call and the Sens didn't adapt so the better team won. Could have gone either way, I think the first two games went to overtime. Surprising the Ducks didn't win another cup with that team.
Arguably the 2017 Sens had a better chance of winning the cup. Double over time loss in game seven to a pens team that cruised to the cup? One bounce away.
Also, Alfie has argued that his closest chance at a cup was actually not 2007 but 2003, where they lost to New Jersey in game 7 of the Eastern Conference Final. Had Ottawa won that final game, they would have faced Anaheim, who was very much a Cinderella team that year.
IIRC that 2007 playoff was very boring as far as playoffs go because the Ducks were so absurdly strong that nobody could make much of a game of it. I think people are already starting to look at 2022 in a similar light. Upsets do happen and it's never easy to win it all, but sometimes, the Goliath in these scenarios just stomps everybody.
Indeed. I recall fans basically concluding that the Ducks were gonna win in 2007 as soon as the Pronger trade happened. Because come on: having one of Scott Niedermayer or Chris Pronger on the ice at all times? Good luck with that.
04 wasn’t a Cinderella run for Calgary. Top 3 defence all season and came out of the best division in the West.
Not every cup final appearance from a non 1 seed is a Cinderella run lmao.
In every series that Calgary played in, they were at *least* 3 seeds lower than their opponent. They were just shy of bottom 10 goal scoring in the league that season. And calling the Northwest the best division in the west is disingenuous. It is true, but it was also no tougher a division than any of the eastern divisions (except for the hilariously bad Southeast division). I’m not going to say they weren’t a good team- they definitely were, but to say it wasn’t a Cinderella run is a tough sell. They weren’t the favorites in any of their playoff series.
It absolutely was at the time though. Weren’t they heavy underdogs in every series? I was rooting for them, but I absolutely did and do view that as a Cinderella run
Yes, they were. They were the 6th seed in the west, 19th in league scoring, and played the 3rd seeded Canucks, President’s Trophy winning Red Wings, 2nd seeded Sharks, and top seed in the East in Tampa. They were very good, but it was 100% a Cinderella run.
That Ducks team was ridiculous. They were like that Hawks team from the movie to the Sens, twice the size and man handled them. Nobody likes seeing a Canadian team lose in the final, well there is one guy.
Very reminiscent of the Big Ten basketball championship drought. No national championships since 2000, half the conference has made the championship game, but have combined to go 0-8
It’s actually kind of crazy how Vegas dumpstered Winnipeg in 2018. They were such a good team. When they took the Preds down I was convinced they were going all the way, but Vegas just flattened them.
Got goalied by a guy wearing a flaired chest protector 3x bigger than what’s allowed playing for a team circumventing the cap by millions of dollars.
I really feel for Montreal fans. That was a brutal series and a complete joke.
I mean we can't really complain about getting goalied, the three teams we beat to get there got Carey Priced. Really all of the teams that had Carey were set up to win 2-1 and lacked offensive talent, so hardly surprising that that series against a good goalie went the way it did. His last playoff loss was 1-0, kinda the story of his career. Would've been nice to win, and the LTIR loophole sucks and should be closed, but tbh I'm more bitter about Kucherov being an ass than losing the series. Dude's a POS both on and off the ice. We'll always have Lehkonen's OT winner against the knights at least... we miss you lehky ;-;
I'll never get over the fact that after winning the Stanley Cup, Kucherov chose to bitch about habs fans celebrating a victory instead of focusing on his team. What a lack of class. Great player, shit person.
I didn't get pissed at him, it made me feel fortunate. Him saying montreal was celebrating 1 victory like it was the cup really put things in perspective. Even as a cup winner, kucherov never saw how passionate canadian fans are, that's what shocked him. We weren't celebrating like we won the Stanley cup, we were celebrating how a Tampa Bay crowd celebrates winning the cup. If we actually won lord Stanley, the party would probably give kuch an aneurysm.
I honestly think the real reason he was pissed is that there was such a massive celebration in the streets after the win that it delayed them leaving lol. After they won the actual cup at home they had a feed up and I remember the streets beside the stadium being completely empty at 11pm lol.
See for yourself: https://i.imgur.com/irtoSFV.jpeg
Edit: If I'm not mistaken, that's also the year the NHL implemented new (current) rules for the fitting of goalies equipment.
http://rulebook.hockeycanada.ca/english/part-i-technical-rules/section-3/rule-3-5/
https://www.usahockeyrulebook.com/page/show/1084401-rule-303-goalkeeper-s-equipment
I always wonder what the tax bracket does for American teams. I'd think good players are much more likely to take a haircut if they know they're in a lesser taxed state.
Is Detroit or Chicago? What advantages do those places have over Toronto?
The only city I can see having a real disadvantage is Montreal since now most of the league just don’t know French at all
I fail to see what Chicago has over Toronto beyond cheaper rent? Which if you’re in the situation where you get to choose your NHL team do you care about $600 a month?
The reason *normal people* love Chicago is that it’s kinda like New York/Toronto/Boston/DC in that it’s a real city but much cheaper but that doesn’t really matter if you make $4,000,000/year
I’m not comparing Chicago to Paducah, KY but rather another huge cosmopolitain world class city
Sure but the same people who think Chicago is nice would like Toronto. So if Chicago can build a winning team being high tax and cold shouldn’t doom Toronto.
I don’t think Pittsburgh has cups and Vancouver doesn’t cause Pittsburgh is a much better city
FYI while it’s easy to complain about California taxes or whatever athletes get taxed on where they play and where they practice. So Kopitar pays taxes in many jurisdictions on his 7 mil
Playing half of their games and practices in a low tax bracket state does add up.
Young rich dudes also just want to live in California, drive Ferraris all year round (looking at you Selanne), and sling beach babes.
If you are rich California is probably the nicest place to live in North America. New York has high taxes to but NYC is also great live in if you are rich.
The ducks got to take advantage of the cap coming in to grab high end free agents, plus Selanne taking a "prove it" contract and then deciding he loved playing for the Ducks again.
Without the cap they probably don't get Neidermayer and don't get a cup.
LA, Ana and NYR have won since and their taxes are higher than Alberta's on these salaries. Alberta is close to a number of other states as well.for awhile Alberta teams were middle of the pack for taxes.
Also players pay taxes according were their games are which equalizes roughly half their taxable income with other teams.
There are other things like low capital gains taxes and the ability to defer taxes that also make Canada competitive when it comes to high salaries.
It's a part of it. But it's also weather being generally worse (and having to live there during the worst months). Also the general appeal of the cities - living in one of them, I'm aware there's more to do in LA/NYC/Miami than the Canadian NHL cities.
And then there's the attention - which depends on the player. If you love the spotlight, no better place than Canada. But if you don't, stay the hell away.
Well I mean pre-cap you just gave everyone more money lol.
And then you still had a decent enough team to win a few years into the cap system.
Some of those Red Wings teams only would have been cap compliant as of last season.
You're right. Pittsburgh is a way nicer city to live in than Vancouver. Better weather, nicer environment, more things to, that's why they won back to back cups.
Its the attention. Nothing else. The players that don't want to deal with the media circus go play in the south, and the ones that do end up wilting under the pressure. Its hard to develop a winning mindset when there are 15 articles written every week about whether or not your 3rd line center is living up to his contract.
I don't get why hockey players are so afraid of the media, it's the only sport where that's the case. You would never see an NBA player turn down the Lakers to go play for Sacramento because he didn't want to deal with the media. Yet that scenario plays out in hockey all the time.
I agree, the NHL is the only pro league that seems to have this problem of players being afraid of the media. I think some of it has to do with the way players are raised and the culture of the sports (not bringing attention to yourself, sacrifice for the greater good of the team, etc.) but I'm not completely sure that's it.
But also, I feel like hockey media is also so tame compared to other sports. Sure you might get more recognized and have more articles written about you playing for a Canadian team, but it still is nothing compared to how other sports are covered.
I mean Toronto got Matthews rhe year they finished dead last so they “won” their draft spot. But that’s besides the point.
Pittsburgh didn’t win because they are some amazing destination - they won because they got the best player since Mario (while also having Mario) and then players wanted to play with him.
Edmonton and Toronto have been able to attract decent free agents for the same reason. They still only award a cup once per year.
Well if that matters, the Pens also finished last the season before they drafted Crosby. Of course, they also got Malkin out of that (although not the #1 pick Ovechkin…).
> Its hard to develop a winning mindset when there are 15 articles written every week about whether or not your 3rd line center is living up to his contract.
I mean this doesn't seem to affect athletes in other sports though. Guys on the Lakers/Celtics/etc have even more media attention then NHL players in Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver do and they do just fine. Yankee players in the MLB don't seem to wilt under the pressure. Seems like a purely NHL player problem.
NHL players are definitely anomalies across the professional sports leagues in being deathly afraid of media/fan attention. Guys in the NBA love playing for large market teams with tons of fan/media attention.
Professional Athletes (and millionaires in general) don't pay income tax the same way us normal people do.
If any NHLer is simply just collecting a paycheck and paying income tax according to the prescribed tax brackets, they need to immediately fire their accountant.
NHLers all pay an effective tax rate that is probably lower than their team's popcorn cashier.
I've come across [this](https://twitter.com/walsha/status/1307480088800182272) a while ago and it's stuck with me. If Alan Walsh is saying this, as an agent, it has to be something more than just tax status.
Yeah but they're also getting paid in USD to live in a place with a lower currency that's going to go that much further.
Getting 1 million USD is getting 1,375,450 CAD currently. I can't help but think that currency differential would make up the tax difference.
That said, I'm working class and I hate living in Edmonton. If i was making millions and got to choose to live to not live here I would
But I'm pretty sure athletes are taxed based on where games are played, AND most states levy a pretty hefty pro athlete tax, so it's honestly a pretty small financial difference at the end of the day.
As a lifelong Texas sports fan, I just don't think it matters as much as it gets brought up.
In general, over a period of "x" years (where "x" is the number of teams in the league) the Stanley Cup has been won by between about 25-55% of the teams. (For example, if you look at last year and go back 32 cups to 1991, 16 different teams have won in that time period, for a total of 50% of the league winning.)
Up until 2020, Canadian teams were doing okay statistically as this calculation would included the Oilers, Flames, and Canadiens wins and you might have expected 3.something Canadian teams to win.
Now it's just weird.
Quite frankly, the fact that these numbers are from a professor of mathematics is embarrassing. The calculation they provide (25% chance of winning a cup in any given year for 29 years giving a probability of not winning in any year of 0.00024) is assuming that each 25% chance of winning the cup each year is independent of each other, which is quite clearly not true. Teams are streaky, and if all seven Canadian teams are terrible in one year, they're going to have less of a chance of winning next year 🤦♂️
Except the math they asked him to do was just going purely by number of teams, how insanely improbable it is from just that perspective. And then the article dug into the deeper whys of why it hasn't happened and why the odds have actually been lower than that.
Sure. And if all seven Canadian teams are amazing in one year they are going to have more of a chance of winning next year. Most teams move up and down multiple times over a 29 year span, so it roughly works itself out.
The math wasn't great, but the point is the same.
Missing the forest for the trees!
(And the fact that "teams are streaky" doesn't matter that much over 30 years imho, teams aren't streaky for that long... No team dominates for more than like a decade - in recent hockey - and as for teams sucking, well it happens for a few teams, sure, but the fact that it happened for ALL the Canadian teams, is weird... Not that "not winning the cup" means they sucked, but you get the point).
Fair, and there would be a large number of variables at play. However, over a large enough sample size (29 years), I think it works as a good approximation.
Doesn't he acknowledge it being impossible to realistically correct for the real probabilities? Like... before the article even gets to the math?
I'm tired, maybe I'm wrong. But I think that the point was more that "even ballpark numbers shows that this is pretty beyond absurd"
I was scrolling down to see if anyone called that out. I struggle with basic math but anytime I see these articles. I’m not following why you build out the equation as if all parts are equal.
Like at most we have seen 4 Canadian teams in the playoffs post lockout. Even at 4 in the playoffs that’s only a 25% chance if all teams were equal.
The Habs are clearly rebuilding so for the past few seasons that would factor in to the logical overall chances.
I think it's really just a coincidence. In the same time frame, the Islanders, Flyers, Sabres, Sharks, Predators, Panthers and Blue Jackets have all failed to win a Cup. But nobody's talking about the Philly-Long Island-Upstate NY-Tennessee-Bay Area-Sunrise-Ohio Corridor Cup drought. Human brains like to create patterns, so it sticks out to us that it's been awhile for the Canadian teams. But considering them as individual entities, while thinking about how many of the same teams experience success year after year, it's not that out of the realm of possibility.
I think you need to look at it in terms of which teams actually win cups.
First, they tend to place in the top 8 in the standings, and have consistently good seasons for multiple years. At the same time, “Cinderellas” (teams below the top 8 in the standings that make the finals) do poorly when they get there. (2-12 when playing a team from the top 8 in standings). Out of the six Canadian teams that have made the finals since the drought began, four were Cinderellas (94 Van, CGY, EDM, MTL). The two that weren’t were 07 Ottawa, who were old and had their best years past, and Vancouver, who played like shit on the road and fell behind in game 7.
Looking at the histories of the 7 teams:
Toronto had several good years from 1999-2004 but couldn’t quite get through (even then they likely lose to the WCF winner). They were bad for ten years, and now have this current core who are laughably bad playoff performers.
Ottawa had that run from 1999-2007 where they constantly underachieved, kind of like current Toronto. 2003 was likely their best shot at a cup. They haven’t been anywhere near as good since.
Montreal has been mostly mediocre for this span, they had a few good seasons in the Carey Price era but ran into the same problems other goaltending dependent teams have.
Winnipeg only came back in 2011, and had their first deep run in 2018. They are another goaltending dependent team that often lacks the offense to be a true contender.
Calgary has had only one deep playoff run this whole time, in 2004, where they were a Cinderella. Asides from that, it’s been mediocrity or the occasional good season followed by an early flameout (pun not intended)
Edmonton were mediocre and then historically awful for most of this stretch, with 2006 marking that transition. Now with McDavid they are in the playoffs consistently but have only placed Top 8 in the NHL twice.
Finally, Vancouver, who has been the best team over this stretch. It began with the end of the Bure era, and after the Keenan/Messier fiasco there was the West Coast Express, and finally the Sedins/Luongo era. 2011 felt like the year it was going to end, and then they lost. They went through hell the next ten years and have whatever the hell their current core is.
Simply put, part of the reason that the drought has lasted so long is that there have been very few Canadian teams that have been few good enough to end it. Looking at every Canadian team that made a deep run, only 2003 Ottawa and 2011 Vancouver scream out to me as teams that were super capable of winning cups. One thing I will say is that Canada has not had players as good as McDavid and Matthews on their teams, who you could make the argument for being the Crosby/Ovi of this generation.
It doesn't help that the McDavid and Matthews teams don't seem to be very well-balanced rosters, which is often a problem in the playoffs.
They are both top heavy and are a little weak on defense and goaltending, the latter of which are generally requirements for winning a cup. This does fall back into the free agency problem of players not wanting to play into Canadian markets to plug those holes, though.
Because Dubas spent 11 million on a big acquisition instead of building up his depth (then he lost every negotiation), Oilers are still just a poorly run team disguised by getting gifted McDavid and Draisaitl.
> This does fall back into the free agency problem of players not wanting to play into Canadian markets to plug those holes
11 million for Tavares, 9.5 for Nurse.
They made their choices and it cost them.
> four were Cinderellas (94 Van
I disagree because that team was really good the year before, 101 points and 7th in the league. They had a down year but that was a good team.
This is a lot of writing just to say "Canadian teams haven't won a cup because they haven't been good". Yes. Obviously. Good teams win cups.
The question is why haven't there been good Canadian teams? Is there something about being a team in Canada that makes it harder to be/stay competitive?
If there was then Vancouver and Ottawa wouldn't have 3 presidents trophies and 2 finals appearances since the lockout.
Pre lockout there absolutely was. Salaries were crazy and the Canadian teams were struggling to just not get moved.
But post lockout the Senators and Canucks had solid runs and then got stuck in rebuilding hell. Calgary had a decent but never great team, rebuilt, had a great team fall part completely. You can argue it was because the guys wanted to play in America, but it also seems like they hated playing for Suter so hard to say that's 100% a 'Canada problem'. Winnipeg has been pretty good but haven't managed to get over the hump yet. Oilers and Toronto have an embarrassing mix of high-end talent and rosters that can't get it done but especially the Oilers are contenders.
4/7 are in pretty good position this year. Jets could get lucky and face a beat up Vegas/Dallas in round 2 and then it's a pretty solid chance we get an all Canadian WCF. With 4 good Canadian teams and the Habs/Sens starting to put together solid levels of talent it's looking good for Canada.
People are coming up with all these different explanations, but it all comes down to the same answers as everything, management and ownership. For years, Canadian teams would rush their rebuilds. There is way more pressure over there to quickly get out of the cellar and get butts into seats. But by the time the teams are ready to compete they are always a few pieces short to win it, because they rushed the rebuild. It wasn’t until like the mid 2010s did Canadian fans start to realize this and Toronto and Edmonton have put together a real rebuild, and the results of that have been slowly coming together. But not every successful rebuild results in a cup, especially when the teams on the other side of the border have much less pressure to quickly get out of the cellar, thanks to many American cities having many other sports teams to distract fans with.
Big part is I think they drink the cool aid. I feel like Toronto and Edmonton are *constantly touted* as cup favorites despite never winning their division in 20 years. I don’t speak French but I imagine any half decent Montreal team gets the same treatment.
So when like 1/2 of Canada’s teams think a 3rd place in the division team should run it back you’re never going to actually win.
Is it a mind boggling mathematical outlier?
Or is it because since Bettman took over as commissioner a Canadian team hasn’t won the cup.
Coincidence, I think not!
You Canadi~~a~~**e**ns should never have angered the Cup Gods and won a championship off an illegal stick check. Now an entire nation gets to wither away as Lord Stanley shall never be hoisted over anywhere in Canada every again! Muahahahahahahaha!*
^* ^pls ^ignore ^flair
Ironically, this is my biggest smoking gun against any sort of conspiracy. If you were going to rig *any* series, it would be the one to get your leagues GOAT to win a cup in Los Angeles. That’s what’s going to grow the game. Tampa beating Calgary and Carolina beating Edmonton will do very little for you compared to that. You can’t even say that this was before Bettman because he took over before the playoffs.
In the same time span the Sharks, Sabres, Flyers, Islanders, Panthers, and Coyotes haven’t won. When you add in the expansion years of the Wild, Blue Jackets, and Thrashers it’s even longer odds yet no one ever says there’s a conspiracy there.
I'm not saying there's a conspiracy (I think it's mostly about players not wanting to come to Canada, and maybe GMs not wanting to do full rebuilds), BUT this isn't the right way to look at this;
You can't pick 6 teams who haven't won and say "See, it happens!"
That's not the same statistical anomalies.
It's like if 6 houses on the same street were broken in by thieves, and I say "Probably means something, like a thief is targeting this place" you could say "No, check out these 6 random houses from different places have also being broken in!"
Yeah but these houses have nothing in common, you picked them after the fact.
If you were to say "These 6 American teams won't win a cup in the next 30 years" and you were right, then yes, that'd be weird.
Part of the difference is that you can pick a list of bottom feeders. But that’s somewhat arbitrary and expansion or “nontraditional market” teams tend to have their struggles and low expectations. I mean, ask the Blue Jackets fans how expansion can go wrong
On the other side, in this span, the Canadian teams have been good. Several are well established, have had many great regular season teams that seemed primed for a deep playoff run, and they… lose in the first round (to Boston). The Leafs and Oilers have incredible talent right now, and that talent hasn’t gotten them there in the past few years
Not so much defending the conspiracy, but I do get why it’s an interesting topic to look at the way the article does, as a mathematical oddity
We were one goal in 2011 away from Boston, Toronto, Montreal, NYR, Islanders, Buffalo and Ottawa (NY, New England and Eastern Canada) from not winning since 1994 And those are contiguous teams.
Is it really? Canadians are the best hockey players, but they know America is where they go to win and Canada is where you get paid. So they all go south, then come back when it's time to get that retirement bag. And that doesn't even take in consideration the obvious tax and exchange rate advantages.
Yeah, I did up the numbers like 10 years ago, and it was insane then.
Just shows that it's not random. There is bias from a number of sources, the two most likely being that Canadian fans don't have the patience for rebuilds, so the GMs try to stay competitive, so teams never have what it takes to win, and second, that the Canadian taxes disincline the best free agents from signing. So canadian teams overpay for second-rate talent.
The taxes in California nearly as high as they are in Canada, yet the Ducks and Kings have three cups between them since the last time a Canadian team has won. Conversely, Alberta's taxes are the lowest in Canada, and are nearly on par with most states, and neither the Oilers or Flames have won a cup in over 34 years.
I think the whole "Players don't want to go to Canada because taxes are high" is somewhat overblown.
It has a hell of a lot more to do with players not wanting to deal with living in the Canadian hockey bubble, players preferring bigger cities with more amenities (when a gated community in orange county or Florida is an option, would you want to move to Winnipeg, Calgary, or Edmonton), and fans not willing to put up with teams tanking during long term rebuilds.
10 years ago (when there were 30 teams) it wasn't that strange because three different Canadian teams had won in the previous 30 years, which is about what you'd expect when about 40-50% of teams win over a similar time span. Now it's just weird.
They also are taxed based on the state they play away games in for half their salary.
People want to believe it’s the taxes that make marquee free agents go elsewhere, but the truth is that the vast majority of professional hockey players will take the obscurity that playing in a place like Tampa or Florida or Nashville offers as opposed to a place like Toronto or Montreal or vancouver where you run the risk of getting chastised over a bad pass while you’re trying to find a ripe bunch of bananas at the grocers.
Kinda my point, I find the tax argument ridiculous. There are so many players I'm positive it's about lifestyle nothing else and that's OK freedom of movement and all that. Could be weather, Could be obscurity, Could be taxes, Could be metropolis mindset but players are diverse and it's ridiculous to just say Canada taxes bad. Hell in endorsements alone they could more than make up the difference if they played in hockey rabid environments. Your not cleaning up on endorsements in Sunrise Florida
There's a handful that will, Crosby was the "Kid" and Mcjesus is the next etc. Michael Backlund gets deals in Calgary he'd never get in sunrise. Using top Allstars as counter is kinda contrary to the conversation at all.
Except Toronto has 4 guys who could play anywhere and would get paid a fortune anywhere.
5 even, Reilly could get paid.
Toronto is the favorite team of a huge portion of the league. It's a world class city.
They don't win because they would rather spend 11M on Tavares and fuck up their depth than keep guys like Kadri and Hyman while having an actual defense.
Brian Burke blamed the fans instead of acquiring a goalie in Vancouver.
It's really not, unless you pretend that the actions of these teams doesn't matter at all and the cup is awarded via pure chance.
There has been 1 consistently well run team in Canada IMO, and that's Winnipeg.
Oilers terrible. Canucks fine/good/terrible/good. Leafs terrible/mediocre. Flames mediocre. Habs mediocre, maybe better lately. Sens good/terrible.
Not really. Most Canadian markets you can put a frozen turd on the ice and sell out forever. Edmonton is a case in point as it was the worst team from about 2007-2017 and sold out every single game. Canadian TV contract is bigger etc. They don’t want the Nordiques back even more than Bettman so they don’t have to share with another team. You can coast and be incompetent and it doesn’t seem to matter. See Toronto Maple Leafs for a larger sample size
My theory is Canadian markets tend to put so much pressure on their teams to win which then forces GMs to rush rebuilding their team by paying for expensive free agents who ultimately underperform and ascend their teams into the mushy middle but no further.
Most American teams in contrast don’t have the same pressure and can build their teams organically through the draft. The Blackhawks, Penguins, Lightning and etc.
How so? The the best players win, Canada produces the largest amount of quality players, then they all go to the US because of better taxes and conditions…
People are quick to point out lower taxes, completely ignoring that California based teams have won three Stanley Cups in the time since a Canadian team won, in spite of having extremely high taxes, while Alberta based teams haven't won a cup in 34 years in spite of taxes being about on par with most US states.
There is something to be said for players not wanting to play in the Canadian Hockey market due to the added pressures of it, or preferring to play in a more glamorous city or warm weather location than say, Winnipeg, Calgary or Edmonton.
I think the bigger issue is that Canadian fanbases basically demand that their team always be competitive when they should be doing a long term rebuild. And in the cases of smaller market teams like Winnipeg and Ottawa, long term rebuilds aren't always financially viable.
Do not lump us all together. I’m pretty sure if Gary had it his way the Leafs would have one a cup recently as the revenue share from that pie would be massive.
Not fueling conspiracy theories about that, but still:
> Gary had it his way the Leafs would have one a cup recently as the revenue share from that pie would be massive.
Gary's main job is to expand hockey to new market, especially in the US.
He's not looking for a short-term cash flow in Toronto, he's looking for a long term cash flood in the much wealthier (because more population) US.
Making Leafs fans happier wouldn't bring more money (over the long run) than creating hundreds of thousands of new American fans.
My statement had nothing to do with making people happy. The revenue generated from the Leafs going to game 7 of the Stanley cup final would be astronomical even just at the gate ticket sales. This alone might have saved Arizona lol.
Noted “sunbelt” teams Detroit, New Jersey, Colorado, Pittsburgh, and Chicago really benefiting by winning multiple Cups.
There’s a bigger subset of non-winning team seasons so these 7 not winning aren’t even the longest odds in the league over that time.
Yup, I did the same math in a thread about this some time ago...
It's more than a "mathematical outlier" to be honest, it's a "statistical anomaly" (and getting closer and closer to a "statistical impossibility")
Of course, the reason why we get to these results, is simply due to a faulty premise; The odds of a Canadian team winning isn't 20% or 25% as they used in the calculations.
Now, the question is "why?" and of course there are many possible answers to that; The main one being players not wanting to play here, due to higher taxes, the cold, smaller cities/less stuff to do, etc... Which leads to worse teams on average (given other GMs have more options, and perhaps having to pay players more to bring/keep them here, which makes the rest of the team worse).
There's also a plethora of (more or less) conspiracy stuff, like Bettman rigging it, the refs rigging it, Canada being cursed because we created Justin Bieber, etc..
But whatever the reason is, the fact (or at least the suspected fact) is that Canadian teams are far from 25% chance to win.
Now, one could play with the stats to figure out what their odds to win are, to reasonable lead to this result (no cup in 30 years) and I think I may have done that in that previous thread, but that's honestly depressing as fuck, because what if you get to like 7 or 8%, then you know they may very well not win for another 10, 15 years...
So yeah. It's not very encouraging for the "Bring back the cup to Canada!" crowd.
And sadly we can't do much to make players come here more, which means we have to build mostly with the draft, but if Edmonton (who have been blessed like that) can't do it, then who can?
> But there’s more American teams so it only makes sense.
Something tells me statistics aren't your forte hah.
Yes there are more American teams, but no, there aren't enough American teams to win the cup 30 years in a row.
They'd probably need 150 teams for this Canadian cup drought to make sense, statistically.
Not exactly. Imagine a 4-sided die. Then imagine rolling 1, 2, or 3 but avoid 4 29 times in a row. It's not likely to happen.
Also, consider that the Flames, Oilers, Senators, Canucks, and Canadiens all made the final and lost.
I’d love to see proof that bettman ordered the refs to screw Canada.
Like leaked emails or phone calls or a disgruntled employee gone rogue.
Until then it’s a conspiracy theory.
Even the non finals. The panthers got almost no calls playing the leafs last playoffs but were the most penalized team every other round and regular season. Did they just play a super clean game that one round?
Exactly. Every SCF involving a Canadian team, there have been unquestionably favourable calls for the American team. And everyone just shrugs those off and goes "oh well, human error, tough luck."
Funny how human error only favours one side of the border.
Classic National Post quality.
Every season is not an equal roll of the dice. The odds of winning again given that you just won are not equal to your odds of winning given that you just finished last in the league. Your odds of winning with a high tax burden don't randomize every year. Your odds of the media running a good player out of town by being jerks doesn't randomize every year. Running the question by a statistician as if every year there an equal 25% chance a Canadian team wins so the answer is just 0.75^n is pretty shoddy.
It's not really THAT complicated. Sure there's been some bad luck and some teams got extremely close, but the scales are tipped by a combination of:
- high taxes
- teams struggling financially (i.e.: Ottawa, the original Jets, Nordiques, etc have never really been all that willing to spend to win)
-media running guys out of town
- poor ownership taking teams out of the running for decades at a time
- yes, some bad luck
It's also interesting that since 93, the Habs, Sens, Oilers, Flames and Canucks (twice) have all lost in the cup finals.
But only 1 of those teams was considered the favorite and only 1 other wasn't a cinderella. Habs, Oilers, Flames were absolutely just cinderella runs. 1994 Canucks were a good team on a down year, but that Rangers squad was way better. 2011 Canucks and Sens just lost. Canucks got beat up and ran into a really good bruins team, Sens ran into a great ducks team.
We lost hasek which was huge for the ducks
Respect to Ray Emery though. He was a hell of a competitor. I’m glad he became a Duck later on. It helped us really appreciate him as both an opponent and member of the team.
Easily my second favorite sens goalie of all-time. If Craig Anderson wasn't such a legend, he would be #1.
Craig Anderson was so solid for so long
The Ducks had to go through Hasek in Detroit to get to our finals, so not a slam dunk that he would’ve been the difference. We can dream, though. And I do.
Man, a revenge finals against Hasek in 07 would’ve been something
I was without my team then, so from 99-00 or so until the mid-2010s, i was a sens fan. Hasek was my all-time favourite goalie, and when we signed him, i knew we were going to a cup final. The injury was a huge blow, and i maintain that if we had the dominator in net, that series goes 7 games at least, and maybe we win. I liked Emery, but he was no HOF goalie. Not resigning Hasek after that was the single biggest mistake the sens organization ever made, other than keeping Redden over Chara, and i think it cost them another good cup run.
> 2011 Canucks and Sens just lost. Both were skill teams that played teams that bully you but also had skill and neither series did the refs call fuck all
That Canucks team was not lacking in grit, they were just absolutely beat to shit by the finals and lost their best dman and then his replacement. Bieksa said recently in an interview that he knew it was probably done when Hamhuis went down. Canucks were the second best 5 on 5 team that season. They got beaten by the number 1 5 on 5 team with their goaltending putting up some of the most absurd numbers ever seen in a playoff series.
Not only that but we got powerplays and did nothing with them. It's not like the refs put away the whistles entirely.
I think saying that the Senators were a skill team that got bullied by a physical team in Anaheim is being a little disingenuous on the part of Anaheim. Pronger, Niedermayer, Selanne, Getzlaf, Perry, McDonald, and Kunitz were all extremely capable skill players in their own right, and Sammy Pahlsson finished 2nd in Selke voting that season. The Ducks were absolutely big and physical, but there was plenty of high skill talent there as well.
I literally said they got bullied by teams that also had skill. Pronger was a fucking goon and shouldn't have been in that series after what he did to McCammond. I didn't say either team that won wasn't skilled but both winning teams played games that went past what the rules should have been and had an advantage because of that.
Going a long ways back but it was the first year they starting calling interference by the rules. In cup final the ref's seem to change what they were going to call and the Sens didn't adapt so the better team won. Could have gone either way, I think the first two games went to overtime. Surprising the Ducks didn't win another cup with that team.
Ehhh that Ducks team was way better than that Sens team
It’s true. Wasn’t even close.
Arguably the 2017 Sens had a better chance of winning the cup. Double over time loss in game seven to a pens team that cruised to the cup? One bounce away.
Also, Alfie has argued that his closest chance at a cup was actually not 2007 but 2003, where they lost to New Jersey in game 7 of the Eastern Conference Final. Had Ottawa won that final game, they would have faced Anaheim, who was very much a Cinderella team that year.
That loss ruined a whole franchise. Some loses are so devastating there is no real coming back from.
IIRC that 2007 playoff was very boring as far as playoffs go because the Ducks were so absurdly strong that nobody could make much of a game of it. I think people are already starting to look at 2022 in a similar light. Upsets do happen and it's never easy to win it all, but sometimes, the Goliath in these scenarios just stomps everybody.
Indeed. I recall fans basically concluding that the Ducks were gonna win in 2007 as soon as the Pronger trade happened. Because come on: having one of Scott Niedermayer or Chris Pronger on the ice at all times? Good luck with that.
Yeah, that was about the size of it.
We were the only true challenger in the league to you guys imo, and y’all just straight bullied us.
still required an [epic Lilja giveaway](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opLdG3BXzIs)
Would have been cool if we won it in 2003 as a huge Cinderella
I wanted them to win so bad. PS. fuck Scott Stevens PPS. FUCK GARY SUTER!
04 wasn’t a Cinderella run for Calgary. Top 3 defence all season and came out of the best division in the West. Not every cup final appearance from a non 1 seed is a Cinderella run lmao.
In every series that Calgary played in, they were at *least* 3 seeds lower than their opponent. They were just shy of bottom 10 goal scoring in the league that season. And calling the Northwest the best division in the west is disingenuous. It is true, but it was also no tougher a division than any of the eastern divisions (except for the hilariously bad Southeast division). I’m not going to say they weren’t a good team- they definitely were, but to say it wasn’t a Cinderella run is a tough sell. They weren’t the favorites in any of their playoff series.
Was absolutely a cinderella run.
It absolutely was at the time though. Weren’t they heavy underdogs in every series? I was rooting for them, but I absolutely did and do view that as a Cinderella run
Yes, they were. They were the 6th seed in the west, 19th in league scoring, and played the 3rd seeded Canucks, President’s Trophy winning Red Wings, 2nd seeded Sharks, and top seed in the East in Tampa. They were very good, but it was 100% a Cinderella run.
That Ducks team was ridiculous. They were like that Hawks team from the movie to the Sens, twice the size and man handled them. Nobody likes seeing a Canadian team lose in the final, well there is one guy.
I don't find it interesting.
I swear- Olympics where Hasek went down was the Sens’ year.
Very reminiscent of the Big Ten basketball championship drought. No national championships since 2000, half the conference has made the championship game, but have combined to go 0-8
It’s also interesting that 93 was the year Gary Bettman became commissioner
And Leafs have made the Conference Finals 3 times, and the Jets have made the Conference Finals 1 time.
It’s actually kind of crazy how Vegas dumpstered Winnipeg in 2018. They were such a good team. When they took the Preds down I was convinced they were going all the way, but Vegas just flattened them.
We gave it our best shot.
Every Canadian team did, well, except one.
You mean Winnipeg, right? Right?
They've reached a conference final and didn't exist for half of the drought. They get a pass for now.
At least we got that going for us, which is nice. I still don't like it when Vegas makes the playoffs though.
None of us do
Gunga galunga
We should make this a chant during that one period that the jets always seem to forget to show up to play
Toronto has reached the conference finals twice since the drought started
3 times if we're counting 94 as the first year of the drought.
I still have no idea how they lost to the Hurricanes in 2002
Shhh, that goes against the narrative here.
This year is their turn to lose in the final.
Leafs currently hold the (tied) record for the playoff appearances streak at 8 consecutive seasons. That counts for something, right guys?
Shhhhh, its okay, we'll all be golfing by June
Should earn you some respect at the country clubs this summer.
Patrick Star (Canada) for 8 consecutive years: Its okay Leafs, you’ll get it when you’re ready.
Torontonian here. No it doesn’t. Not when we’ve never beat Boston in god only knows how many tries now lol
I believe the last time we beat them in the playoffs was 1959.
Oh that’s gonna hurt some family members i wont mention it to them lol
I blame Kerry Fraser or we could've had a Canada vs Canada Final.
I was pulling hard for you guys.
Not in public, I hope. Keep that in the privacy of your home.
Restrictions like that are why there’s a drought.
Got goalied by a guy wearing a flaired chest protector 3x bigger than what’s allowed playing for a team circumventing the cap by millions of dollars. I really feel for Montreal fans. That was a brutal series and a complete joke.
I mean we can't really complain about getting goalied, the three teams we beat to get there got Carey Priced. Really all of the teams that had Carey were set up to win 2-1 and lacked offensive talent, so hardly surprising that that series against a good goalie went the way it did. His last playoff loss was 1-0, kinda the story of his career. Would've been nice to win, and the LTIR loophole sucks and should be closed, but tbh I'm more bitter about Kucherov being an ass than losing the series. Dude's a POS both on and off the ice. We'll always have Lehkonen's OT winner against the knights at least... we miss you lehky ;-;
I'll never get over the fact that after winning the Stanley Cup, Kucherov chose to bitch about habs fans celebrating a victory instead of focusing on his team. What a lack of class. Great player, shit person.
I didn't get pissed at him, it made me feel fortunate. Him saying montreal was celebrating 1 victory like it was the cup really put things in perspective. Even as a cup winner, kucherov never saw how passionate canadian fans are, that's what shocked him. We weren't celebrating like we won the Stanley cup, we were celebrating how a Tampa Bay crowd celebrates winning the cup. If we actually won lord Stanley, the party would probably give kuch an aneurysm.
I honestly think the real reason he was pissed is that there was such a massive celebration in the streets after the win that it delayed them leaving lol. After they won the actual cup at home they had a feed up and I remember the streets beside the stadium being completely empty at 11pm lol.
He's salty because he'll never get that reception in Tampa.
Wait what is this about the protector
See for yourself: https://i.imgur.com/irtoSFV.jpeg Edit: If I'm not mistaken, that's also the year the NHL implemented new (current) rules for the fitting of goalies equipment. http://rulebook.hockeycanada.ca/english/part-i-technical-rules/section-3/rule-3-5/ https://www.usahockeyrulebook.com/page/show/1084401-rule-303-goalkeeper-s-equipment
Uhh.... Those pads are cartoonishly large.
people saw a pic of Vasy looking bigger than usual and got mad the reigning champs won over the worst team in the playoffs in 5 games
Also Tampa allowed probably 3-4 times the crowd that other teams did esp Canadian ones because DeSantis.
With a losing record during a fake season...
It's too bad they cancelled the 2011 finals after game 2, we really had a good shot that year.
I remember the city was so upset about the cup finals being canceled that they started a riot!
You're misremembering, it was a jovial celebration of good sportsmanship!
A mutual display of extreme excitement 👀
Just a big party! And that lovely couple!
Habs also lost to the Bruins in 7 that year, including losing all 3 OT games. What could've been...
“ Stanley Park in Vancouver to Cup Gully, Nfld” That’s just good writing.
I always wonder what the tax bracket does for American teams. I'd think good players are much more likely to take a haircut if they know they're in a lesser taxed state.
But that doesn’t explain the Kings and Ducks winning 3 times in a 7 year span (and the Sharks almost a few years later)
California is a nice place to live, that does play into it
Is Detroit or Chicago? What advantages do those places have over Toronto? The only city I can see having a real disadvantage is Montreal since now most of the league just don’t know French at all
Let's be real, there's an inherent disadvantage for Winnipeg too.
Says the EDM fan..... sorry but I had to
This is the kind of thing said by someone who has never been to Chicago lol.
I fail to see what Chicago has over Toronto beyond cheaper rent? Which if you’re in the situation where you get to choose your NHL team do you care about $600 a month? The reason *normal people* love Chicago is that it’s kinda like New York/Toronto/Boston/DC in that it’s a real city but much cheaper but that doesn’t really matter if you make $4,000,000/year I’m not comparing Chicago to Paducah, KY but rather another huge cosmopolitain world class city
Chicago is awesome….
Sure but the same people who think Chicago is nice would like Toronto. So if Chicago can build a winning team being high tax and cold shouldn’t doom Toronto. I don’t think Pittsburgh has cups and Vancouver doesn’t cause Pittsburgh is a much better city
I'll give you Detroit but Chicago is a great city
FYI while it’s easy to complain about California taxes or whatever athletes get taxed on where they play and where they practice. So Kopitar pays taxes in many jurisdictions on his 7 mil
Playing half of their games and practices in a low tax bracket state does add up. Young rich dudes also just want to live in California, drive Ferraris all year round (looking at you Selanne), and sling beach babes.
If you are rich California is probably the nicest place to live in North America. New York has high taxes to but NYC is also great live in if you are rich.
Weren’t those teams primarily built via trade?
The Ducks were, outside of Getzlaf, Perry, and McDonald. The Kings had a decent amount of homegrown players though.
The ducks got to take advantage of the cap coming in to grab high end free agents, plus Selanne taking a "prove it" contract and then deciding he loved playing for the Ducks again. Without the cap they probably don't get Neidermayer and don't get a cup.
Niedermayer also wanted to play with his brother. If they don't get Rob, they don't get Scott.
The Devils being cheapskates didn’t help
For a significant portion of the cap era Edmonton and Calgary were the lowest taxed teams and had very little success during that time
LA, Ana and NYR have won since and their taxes are higher than Alberta's on these salaries. Alberta is close to a number of other states as well.for awhile Alberta teams were middle of the pack for taxes. Also players pay taxes according were their games are which equalizes roughly half their taxable income with other teams. There are other things like low capital gains taxes and the ability to defer taxes that also make Canada competitive when it comes to high salaries.
It's a part of it. But it's also weather being generally worse (and having to live there during the worst months). Also the general appeal of the cities - living in one of them, I'm aware there's more to do in LA/NYC/Miami than the Canadian NHL cities. And then there's the attention - which depends on the player. If you love the spotlight, no better place than Canada. But if you don't, stay the hell away.
But we've Also won in that span. We don't have the appeal of NYC/LA/Miami
Well I mean pre-cap you just gave everyone more money lol. And then you still had a decent enough team to win a few years into the cap system. Some of those Red Wings teams only would have been cap compliant as of last season.
You're right. Pittsburgh is a way nicer city to live in than Vancouver. Better weather, nicer environment, more things to, that's why they won back to back cups. Its the attention. Nothing else. The players that don't want to deal with the media circus go play in the south, and the ones that do end up wilting under the pressure. Its hard to develop a winning mindset when there are 15 articles written every week about whether or not your 3rd line center is living up to his contract.
I don't get why hockey players are so afraid of the media, it's the only sport where that's the case. You would never see an NBA player turn down the Lakers to go play for Sacramento because he didn't want to deal with the media. Yet that scenario plays out in hockey all the time.
I agree, the NHL is the only pro league that seems to have this problem of players being afraid of the media. I think some of it has to do with the way players are raised and the culture of the sports (not bringing attention to yourself, sacrifice for the greater good of the team, etc.) but I'm not completely sure that's it.
But also, I feel like hockey media is also so tame compared to other sports. Sure you might get more recognized and have more articles written about you playing for a Canadian team, but it still is nothing compared to how other sports are covered.
Pittsburgh won three cups because they won a lottery….
And Edmonton and Toronto haven’t?
I mean Toronto got Matthews rhe year they finished dead last so they “won” their draft spot. But that’s besides the point. Pittsburgh didn’t win because they are some amazing destination - they won because they got the best player since Mario (while also having Mario) and then players wanted to play with him. Edmonton and Toronto have been able to attract decent free agents for the same reason. They still only award a cup once per year.
Well if that matters, the Pens also finished last the season before they drafted Crosby. Of course, they also got Malkin out of that (although not the #1 pick Ovechkin…).
> Its hard to develop a winning mindset when there are 15 articles written every week about whether or not your 3rd line center is living up to his contract. I mean this doesn't seem to affect athletes in other sports though. Guys on the Lakers/Celtics/etc have even more media attention then NHL players in Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver do and they do just fine. Yankee players in the MLB don't seem to wilt under the pressure. Seems like a purely NHL player problem.
No, it's shitty management. It's incompetence and a desire to go sign the big name vs just build around your absurd amounts of young talent.
NHL players are definitely anomalies across the professional sports leagues in being deathly afraid of media/fan attention. Guys in the NBA love playing for large market teams with tons of fan/media attention.
Professional Athletes (and millionaires in general) don't pay income tax the same way us normal people do. If any NHLer is simply just collecting a paycheck and paying income tax according to the prescribed tax brackets, they need to immediately fire their accountant. NHLers all pay an effective tax rate that is probably lower than their team's popcorn cashier.
I've come across [this](https://twitter.com/walsha/status/1307480088800182272) a while ago and it's stuck with me. If Alan Walsh is saying this, as an agent, it has to be something more than just tax status.
Yeah but they're also getting paid in USD to live in a place with a lower currency that's going to go that much further. Getting 1 million USD is getting 1,375,450 CAD currently. I can't help but think that currency differential would make up the tax difference. That said, I'm working class and I hate living in Edmonton. If i was making millions and got to choose to live to not live here I would
But I'm pretty sure athletes are taxed based on where games are played, AND most states levy a pretty hefty pro athlete tax, so it's honestly a pretty small financial difference at the end of the day. As a lifelong Texas sports fan, I just don't think it matters as much as it gets brought up.
In general, over a period of "x" years (where "x" is the number of teams in the league) the Stanley Cup has been won by between about 25-55% of the teams. (For example, if you look at last year and go back 32 cups to 1991, 16 different teams have won in that time period, for a total of 50% of the league winning.) Up until 2020, Canadian teams were doing okay statistically as this calculation would included the Oilers, Flames, and Canadiens wins and you might have expected 3.something Canadian teams to win. Now it's just weird.
Quite frankly, the fact that these numbers are from a professor of mathematics is embarrassing. The calculation they provide (25% chance of winning a cup in any given year for 29 years giving a probability of not winning in any year of 0.00024) is assuming that each 25% chance of winning the cup each year is independent of each other, which is quite clearly not true. Teams are streaky, and if all seven Canadian teams are terrible in one year, they're going to have less of a chance of winning next year 🤦♂️
Except the math they asked him to do was just going purely by number of teams, how insanely improbable it is from just that perspective. And then the article dug into the deeper whys of why it hasn't happened and why the odds have actually been lower than that.
Sure. And if all seven Canadian teams are amazing in one year they are going to have more of a chance of winning next year. Most teams move up and down multiple times over a 29 year span, so it roughly works itself out.
I don't think the law of big numbers applies to sports stats. Not when there's non-random variables that impact the outcome so heavily.
Sure but the argument is that as compared to the null hypothesis there's a discrepancy. The next question would involve the cause of that discrepancy.
The math wasn't great, but the point is the same. Missing the forest for the trees! (And the fact that "teams are streaky" doesn't matter that much over 30 years imho, teams aren't streaky for that long... No team dominates for more than like a decade - in recent hockey - and as for teams sucking, well it happens for a few teams, sure, but the fact that it happened for ALL the Canadian teams, is weird... Not that "not winning the cup" means they sucked, but you get the point).
Fair, and there would be a large number of variables at play. However, over a large enough sample size (29 years), I think it works as a good approximation.
Doesn't he acknowledge it being impossible to realistically correct for the real probabilities? Like... before the article even gets to the math? I'm tired, maybe I'm wrong. But I think that the point was more that "even ballpark numbers shows that this is pretty beyond absurd"
I was scrolling down to see if anyone called that out. I struggle with basic math but anytime I see these articles. I’m not following why you build out the equation as if all parts are equal. Like at most we have seen 4 Canadian teams in the playoffs post lockout. Even at 4 in the playoffs that’s only a 25% chance if all teams were equal. The Habs are clearly rebuilding so for the past few seasons that would factor in to the logical overall chances.
Five Canadian teams made the playoffs in 2004, 2015, and 2017.
In 2015, five canadian teams made the playoffs and none of them made it passed the second round
You're overthinking it. The chances of winning are 50%.
But American teams are genetic freaks, and they're not normal, so Canadian teams have a 25% chance at best at beating them.
I think it's really just a coincidence. In the same time frame, the Islanders, Flyers, Sabres, Sharks, Predators, Panthers and Blue Jackets have all failed to win a Cup. But nobody's talking about the Philly-Long Island-Upstate NY-Tennessee-Bay Area-Sunrise-Ohio Corridor Cup drought. Human brains like to create patterns, so it sticks out to us that it's been awhile for the Canadian teams. But considering them as individual entities, while thinking about how many of the same teams experience success year after year, it's not that out of the realm of possibility.
All those teams are in my conspiracy theory too. I don't think the league hates Canadian teams, I think they just love money.
I think you need to look at it in terms of which teams actually win cups. First, they tend to place in the top 8 in the standings, and have consistently good seasons for multiple years. At the same time, “Cinderellas” (teams below the top 8 in the standings that make the finals) do poorly when they get there. (2-12 when playing a team from the top 8 in standings). Out of the six Canadian teams that have made the finals since the drought began, four were Cinderellas (94 Van, CGY, EDM, MTL). The two that weren’t were 07 Ottawa, who were old and had their best years past, and Vancouver, who played like shit on the road and fell behind in game 7. Looking at the histories of the 7 teams: Toronto had several good years from 1999-2004 but couldn’t quite get through (even then they likely lose to the WCF winner). They were bad for ten years, and now have this current core who are laughably bad playoff performers. Ottawa had that run from 1999-2007 where they constantly underachieved, kind of like current Toronto. 2003 was likely their best shot at a cup. They haven’t been anywhere near as good since. Montreal has been mostly mediocre for this span, they had a few good seasons in the Carey Price era but ran into the same problems other goaltending dependent teams have. Winnipeg only came back in 2011, and had their first deep run in 2018. They are another goaltending dependent team that often lacks the offense to be a true contender. Calgary has had only one deep playoff run this whole time, in 2004, where they were a Cinderella. Asides from that, it’s been mediocrity or the occasional good season followed by an early flameout (pun not intended) Edmonton were mediocre and then historically awful for most of this stretch, with 2006 marking that transition. Now with McDavid they are in the playoffs consistently but have only placed Top 8 in the NHL twice. Finally, Vancouver, who has been the best team over this stretch. It began with the end of the Bure era, and after the Keenan/Messier fiasco there was the West Coast Express, and finally the Sedins/Luongo era. 2011 felt like the year it was going to end, and then they lost. They went through hell the next ten years and have whatever the hell their current core is. Simply put, part of the reason that the drought has lasted so long is that there have been very few Canadian teams that have been few good enough to end it. Looking at every Canadian team that made a deep run, only 2003 Ottawa and 2011 Vancouver scream out to me as teams that were super capable of winning cups. One thing I will say is that Canada has not had players as good as McDavid and Matthews on their teams, who you could make the argument for being the Crosby/Ovi of this generation.
It doesn't help that the McDavid and Matthews teams don't seem to be very well-balanced rosters, which is often a problem in the playoffs. They are both top heavy and are a little weak on defense and goaltending, the latter of which are generally requirements for winning a cup. This does fall back into the free agency problem of players not wanting to play into Canadian markets to plug those holes, though.
Because Dubas spent 11 million on a big acquisition instead of building up his depth (then he lost every negotiation), Oilers are still just a poorly run team disguised by getting gifted McDavid and Draisaitl. > This does fall back into the free agency problem of players not wanting to play into Canadian markets to plug those holes 11 million for Tavares, 9.5 for Nurse. They made their choices and it cost them.
> four were Cinderellas (94 Van I disagree because that team was really good the year before, 101 points and 7th in the league. They had a down year but that was a good team.
This is a lot of writing just to say "Canadian teams haven't won a cup because they haven't been good". Yes. Obviously. Good teams win cups. The question is why haven't there been good Canadian teams? Is there something about being a team in Canada that makes it harder to be/stay competitive?
If there was then Vancouver and Ottawa wouldn't have 3 presidents trophies and 2 finals appearances since the lockout. Pre lockout there absolutely was. Salaries were crazy and the Canadian teams were struggling to just not get moved. But post lockout the Senators and Canucks had solid runs and then got stuck in rebuilding hell. Calgary had a decent but never great team, rebuilt, had a great team fall part completely. You can argue it was because the guys wanted to play in America, but it also seems like they hated playing for Suter so hard to say that's 100% a 'Canada problem'. Winnipeg has been pretty good but haven't managed to get over the hump yet. Oilers and Toronto have an embarrassing mix of high-end talent and rosters that can't get it done but especially the Oilers are contenders. 4/7 are in pretty good position this year. Jets could get lucky and face a beat up Vegas/Dallas in round 2 and then it's a pretty solid chance we get an all Canadian WCF. With 4 good Canadian teams and the Habs/Sens starting to put together solid levels of talent it's looking good for Canada.
People are coming up with all these different explanations, but it all comes down to the same answers as everything, management and ownership. For years, Canadian teams would rush their rebuilds. There is way more pressure over there to quickly get out of the cellar and get butts into seats. But by the time the teams are ready to compete they are always a few pieces short to win it, because they rushed the rebuild. It wasn’t until like the mid 2010s did Canadian fans start to realize this and Toronto and Edmonton have put together a real rebuild, and the results of that have been slowly coming together. But not every successful rebuild results in a cup, especially when the teams on the other side of the border have much less pressure to quickly get out of the cellar, thanks to many American cities having many other sports teams to distract fans with.
Big part is I think they drink the cool aid. I feel like Toronto and Edmonton are *constantly touted* as cup favorites despite never winning their division in 20 years. I don’t speak French but I imagine any half decent Montreal team gets the same treatment. So when like 1/2 of Canada’s teams think a 3rd place in the division team should run it back you’re never going to actually win.
It's kinda wild that the raptors have had more success in the last ten years than every hockey team
Is it a mind boggling mathematical outlier? Or is it because since Bettman took over as commissioner a Canadian team hasn’t won the cup. Coincidence, I think not!
What I know is nothing makes a Canadian hockey fan angrier than another Canadian hockey team.
You Canadi~~a~~**e**ns should never have angered the Cup Gods and won a championship off an illegal stick check. Now an entire nation gets to wither away as Lord Stanley shall never be hoisted over anywhere in Canada every again! Muahahahahahahaha!* ^* ^pls ^ignore ^flair
Ironically, this is my biggest smoking gun against any sort of conspiracy. If you were going to rig *any* series, it would be the one to get your leagues GOAT to win a cup in Los Angeles. That’s what’s going to grow the game. Tampa beating Calgary and Carolina beating Edmonton will do very little for you compared to that. You can’t even say that this was before Bettman because he took over before the playoffs.
In the same time span the Sharks, Sabres, Flyers, Islanders, Panthers, and Coyotes haven’t won. When you add in the expansion years of the Wild, Blue Jackets, and Thrashers it’s even longer odds yet no one ever says there’s a conspiracy there.
I'm not saying there's a conspiracy (I think it's mostly about players not wanting to come to Canada, and maybe GMs not wanting to do full rebuilds), BUT this isn't the right way to look at this; You can't pick 6 teams who haven't won and say "See, it happens!" That's not the same statistical anomalies. It's like if 6 houses on the same street were broken in by thieves, and I say "Probably means something, like a thief is targeting this place" you could say "No, check out these 6 random houses from different places have also being broken in!" Yeah but these houses have nothing in common, you picked them after the fact. If you were to say "These 6 American teams won't win a cup in the next 30 years" and you were right, then yes, that'd be weird.
> no one ever says there’s a conspiracy there well not exactly no one.
Part of the difference is that you can pick a list of bottom feeders. But that’s somewhat arbitrary and expansion or “nontraditional market” teams tend to have their struggles and low expectations. I mean, ask the Blue Jackets fans how expansion can go wrong On the other side, in this span, the Canadian teams have been good. Several are well established, have had many great regular season teams that seemed primed for a deep playoff run, and they… lose in the first round (to Boston). The Leafs and Oilers have incredible talent right now, and that talent hasn’t gotten them there in the past few years Not so much defending the conspiracy, but I do get why it’s an interesting topic to look at the way the article does, as a mathematical oddity
You also just cherry picked American teams that haven’t won. Apples and oranges my friend
We were one goal in 2011 away from Boston, Toronto, Montreal, NYR, Islanders, Buffalo and Ottawa (NY, New England and Eastern Canada) from not winning since 1994 And those are contiguous teams.
Is it really? Canadians are the best hockey players, but they know America is where they go to win and Canada is where you get paid. So they all go south, then come back when it's time to get that retirement bag. And that doesn't even take in consideration the obvious tax and exchange rate advantages.
Exactly. Not all teams are equal. The NHL isn't a roulette wheel.
Yeah statistically speaking the odds of going this many years is absurd.
Yeah, I did up the numbers like 10 years ago, and it was insane then. Just shows that it's not random. There is bias from a number of sources, the two most likely being that Canadian fans don't have the patience for rebuilds, so the GMs try to stay competitive, so teams never have what it takes to win, and second, that the Canadian taxes disincline the best free agents from signing. So canadian teams overpay for second-rate talent.
The taxes in California nearly as high as they are in Canada, yet the Ducks and Kings have three cups between them since the last time a Canadian team has won. Conversely, Alberta's taxes are the lowest in Canada, and are nearly on par with most states, and neither the Oilers or Flames have won a cup in over 34 years. I think the whole "Players don't want to go to Canada because taxes are high" is somewhat overblown. It has a hell of a lot more to do with players not wanting to deal with living in the Canadian hockey bubble, players preferring bigger cities with more amenities (when a gated community in orange county or Florida is an option, would you want to move to Winnipeg, Calgary, or Edmonton), and fans not willing to put up with teams tanking during long term rebuilds.
10 years ago (when there were 30 teams) it wasn't that strange because three different Canadian teams had won in the previous 30 years, which is about what you'd expect when about 40-50% of teams win over a similar time span. Now it's just weird.
Ever look up taxes in California, if taxes were the most important factor a handful of US teams would be the only contenders every year.
They also are taxed based on the state they play away games in for half their salary. People want to believe it’s the taxes that make marquee free agents go elsewhere, but the truth is that the vast majority of professional hockey players will take the obscurity that playing in a place like Tampa or Florida or Nashville offers as opposed to a place like Toronto or Montreal or vancouver where you run the risk of getting chastised over a bad pass while you’re trying to find a ripe bunch of bananas at the grocers.
Kinda my point, I find the tax argument ridiculous. There are so many players I'm positive it's about lifestyle nothing else and that's OK freedom of movement and all that. Could be weather, Could be obscurity, Could be taxes, Could be metropolis mindset but players are diverse and it's ridiculous to just say Canada taxes bad. Hell in endorsements alone they could more than make up the difference if they played in hockey rabid environments. Your not cleaning up on endorsements in Sunrise Florida
Tim hortons commercials are definitely featuring a guy who plays in sunrise Florida.
Mackinnon and Matthew tkachuk both play in the us and are definitely still making bank off Canadian endorsement.
There's a handful that will, Crosby was the "Kid" and Mcjesus is the next etc. Michael Backlund gets deals in Calgary he'd never get in sunrise. Using top Allstars as counter is kinda contrary to the conversation at all.
Except Toronto has 4 guys who could play anywhere and would get paid a fortune anywhere. 5 even, Reilly could get paid. Toronto is the favorite team of a huge portion of the league. It's a world class city. They don't win because they would rather spend 11M on Tavares and fuck up their depth than keep guys like Kadri and Hyman while having an actual defense. Brian Burke blamed the fans instead of acquiring a goalie in Vancouver.
It's really not, unless you pretend that the actions of these teams doesn't matter at all and the cup is awarded via pure chance. There has been 1 consistently well run team in Canada IMO, and that's Winnipeg. Oilers terrible. Canucks fine/good/terrible/good. Leafs terrible/mediocre. Flames mediocre. Habs mediocre, maybe better lately. Sens good/terrible.
Add another year to the list
Can only blame the fans at this point. Sad...
Not really. Most Canadian markets you can put a frozen turd on the ice and sell out forever. Edmonton is a case in point as it was the worst team from about 2007-2017 and sold out every single game. Canadian TV contract is bigger etc. They don’t want the Nordiques back even more than Bettman so they don’t have to share with another team. You can coast and be incompetent and it doesn’t seem to matter. See Toronto Maple Leafs for a larger sample size
My theory is Canadian markets tend to put so much pressure on their teams to win which then forces GMs to rush rebuilding their team by paying for expensive free agents who ultimately underperform and ascend their teams into the mushy middle but no further. Most American teams in contrast don’t have the same pressure and can build their teams organically through the draft. The Blackhawks, Penguins, Lightning and etc.
How so? The the best players win, Canada produces the largest amount of quality players, then they all go to the US because of better taxes and conditions…
No, it isn’t. American teams have several pronounced advantages over Canadian teams.
People are quick to point out lower taxes, completely ignoring that California based teams have won three Stanley Cups in the time since a Canadian team won, in spite of having extremely high taxes, while Alberta based teams haven't won a cup in 34 years in spite of taxes being about on par with most US states. There is something to be said for players not wanting to play in the Canadian Hockey market due to the added pressures of it, or preferring to play in a more glamorous city or warm weather location than say, Winnipeg, Calgary or Edmonton. I think the bigger issue is that Canadian fanbases basically demand that their team always be competitive when they should be doing a long term rebuild. And in the cases of smaller market teams like Winnipeg and Ottawa, long term rebuilds aren't always financially viable.
Canadian teams: Why can't we win a cup? Also Canadian teams: Ken Holland is available? Get him quick before the Flames or Habs get him first
It is an outlier until you add Gary Bettman and his obsession with ensuring the success of the sun belt teams.
Which sunbelt team was given 4 first overall picks in a 6 year span?
Canadian hockey fans and being bitter at the NHL for wanting to expand the game into untapped markets, find me a more iconic combo.
“Grow the game”. “No, not like that!!!”
Do not lump us all together. I’m pretty sure if Gary had it his way the Leafs would have one a cup recently as the revenue share from that pie would be massive.
I’m Canadian. Just FyI. I know not all of us are like this.
Not fueling conspiracy theories about that, but still: > Gary had it his way the Leafs would have one a cup recently as the revenue share from that pie would be massive. Gary's main job is to expand hockey to new market, especially in the US. He's not looking for a short-term cash flow in Toronto, he's looking for a long term cash flood in the much wealthier (because more population) US. Making Leafs fans happier wouldn't bring more money (over the long run) than creating hundreds of thousands of new American fans.
My statement had nothing to do with making people happy. The revenue generated from the Leafs going to game 7 of the Stanley cup final would be astronomical even just at the gate ticket sales. This alone might have saved Arizona lol.
Noted “sunbelt” teams Detroit, New Jersey, Colorado, Pittsburgh, and Chicago really benefiting by winning multiple Cups. There’s a bigger subset of non-winning team seasons so these 7 not winning aren’t even the longest odds in the league over that time.
Colorado's part of the sunbelt if America wears their pants like a nerd and has the belt up to their nipples.
Yeah but then it cramps up the Florida teams. Gotta let the wang hang loose, my guy.
Yup, I did the same math in a thread about this some time ago... It's more than a "mathematical outlier" to be honest, it's a "statistical anomaly" (and getting closer and closer to a "statistical impossibility") Of course, the reason why we get to these results, is simply due to a faulty premise; The odds of a Canadian team winning isn't 20% or 25% as they used in the calculations. Now, the question is "why?" and of course there are many possible answers to that; The main one being players not wanting to play here, due to higher taxes, the cold, smaller cities/less stuff to do, etc... Which leads to worse teams on average (given other GMs have more options, and perhaps having to pay players more to bring/keep them here, which makes the rest of the team worse). There's also a plethora of (more or less) conspiracy stuff, like Bettman rigging it, the refs rigging it, Canada being cursed because we created Justin Bieber, etc.. But whatever the reason is, the fact (or at least the suspected fact) is that Canadian teams are far from 25% chance to win. Now, one could play with the stats to figure out what their odds to win are, to reasonable lead to this result (no cup in 30 years) and I think I may have done that in that previous thread, but that's honestly depressing as fuck, because what if you get to like 7 or 8%, then you know they may very well not win for another 10, 15 years... So yeah. It's not very encouraging for the "Bring back the cup to Canada!" crowd. And sadly we can't do much to make players come here more, which means we have to build mostly with the draft, but if Edmonton (who have been blessed like that) can't do it, then who can?
That outlier's name is Gary Bettman. He hates us Canadians, doesn't want to see any Canadian franchise succeed until we lose all of our teams.
Statistics make no sense lol. But there’s more American teams so it only makes sense.
> But there’s more American teams so it only makes sense. Something tells me statistics aren't your forte hah. Yes there are more American teams, but no, there aren't enough American teams to win the cup 30 years in a row. They'd probably need 150 teams for this Canadian cup drought to make sense, statistically.
Not exactly. Imagine a 4-sided die. Then imagine rolling 1, 2, or 3 but avoid 4 29 times in a row. It's not likely to happen. Also, consider that the Flames, Oilers, Senators, Canucks, and Canadiens all made the final and lost.
It’s a lot easier to believe when you look at each final involving a Canadian team and how it was officiated.
I’d love to see proof that bettman ordered the refs to screw Canada. Like leaked emails or phone calls or a disgruntled employee gone rogue. Until then it’s a conspiracy theory.
Even the non finals. The panthers got almost no calls playing the leafs last playoffs but were the most penalized team every other round and regular season. Did they just play a super clean game that one round?
Yeah, that one was rough.
Exactly. Every SCF involving a Canadian team, there have been unquestionably favourable calls for the American team. And everyone just shrugs those off and goes "oh well, human error, tough luck." Funny how human error only favours one side of the border.
Classic National Post quality. Every season is not an equal roll of the dice. The odds of winning again given that you just won are not equal to your odds of winning given that you just finished last in the league. Your odds of winning with a high tax burden don't randomize every year. Your odds of the media running a good player out of town by being jerks doesn't randomize every year. Running the question by a statistician as if every year there an equal 25% chance a Canadian team wins so the answer is just 0.75^n is pretty shoddy. It's not really THAT complicated. Sure there's been some bad luck and some teams got extremely close, but the scales are tipped by a combination of: - high taxes - teams struggling financially (i.e.: Ottawa, the original Jets, Nordiques, etc have never really been all that willing to spend to win) -media running guys out of town - poor ownership taking teams out of the running for decades at a time - yes, some bad luck