Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

VAN_FAN_MATT

Quite An Interesting Article Regarding The Canucks, The Presidents Trophy + Cup Winning Track Record (Worth The Read)

39 posts in this topic

This was posted a day after the Canucks playoff elimination last month, on Hockey Blog In Canada.

Hockey Blog in Canada - blogspot

Posted by Teebz at 11:58 PM Monday, 23 April, 2012

With the Los Angeles Kings ousting the Vancouver Canucks, another President's Trophy winner will be watching a team that finished below them in the standings hoist the Stanley Cup as NHL Champions this spring. Los Angeles played extremely well, limiting the Canucks chances while capitalizing on their own chances, and the Canucks were sent home for the second year in a row with nothing to show for all their regular season success. If the playoffs are the culmination of all the hard work a team puts in over the course of an 82-game season, there is a bitter taste when a President's Trophy team walks down the hallway to the dressing room for the final time in a season without bringing the Stanley Cup with them.

It's not like Vancouver is the only team to have been ousted as the top team in the NHL's regular season. Since the introduction of the President's Trophy for the 1986-87 season, only seven teams who have won the President's Trophy have gone on to capture the Stanley Cup. If you're keeping score at home, that's seven teams in twenty-six attempts - a .269 winning percentage. That's not such a good winning percentage when you're looking at the team that had the most success in the regular season against all other teams. But, as stated above, the playoffs are a different beast.

In terms of making it to the Stanley Cup Final, there have been seven teams that have won the Silver Chalice, but three other President's Trophy-winning teams that have lost in the final. That's a .385 winning percentage - slightly better than a 3-in-8 chance of appearing in the Stanley Cup Final. While any of the sixteen teams that start the playoffs would take that chance of appearing in the Stanley Cup Final, the best regular season team would probably scoff at that percentage and take their chances. After all, five of every eight President's Trophy-winning teams would be on the losing end of that winning percentage.

Where it gets scary for the President's Trophy-winning team is in the opening round of the playoffs. The NHL's best regular-season team has taken a first-round exit six times since the introduction of the trophy, giving the best regular-season team only a .769 winning percentage against the eighth-seed in its conference. While that would be a great winning percentage in the regular season, there is a 1-in-4 chance that the best team in the NHL will be heading home after the first-round of the playoffs, and I guarantee you that any eighth-seeded team would be salivating at those odds.

Where I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into these proceedings is here. The President's Trophy winning-team, if they survive the first-round of the playoffs, should be your Stanley Cup favorite once the field has been reduced to eight teams. Again, they have won the Stanley Cup seven times as the undisputed favorite going into the playoffs, and the track record of the second-best team in the NHL shows that the favorites hold a heavy advantage as long as they get to the second-round. Of the 26 teams that finished second-overall in the NHL, only three have won the Stanley Cup. In fact, no other team ranked in the top-ten of the NHL's overall regular season standings is better than that, so it proves that if a President's Trophy team can get out of the first round, their chances of winning the Stanley Cup go up significantly.

The Chicago Blackhawks won the President's Trophy in 1991, but were eliminated in the opening round of the playoffs by an upstart Minnesota North Stars squad. Chicago finished 38 points ahead of their division-rivals, but were sent home after a 4-2 series loss. Jeremy Roenick had led the Blackhawks to their best finish in years only to be golfing a mere two weeks later.

"It was a great feeling at the end of the season because we knew we had such a great team and we rolled through the regular season," Roenick told Dan Rosen of NHL.com in 2009. "We thought that we had it in the bag and, because of that feeling, we took a team that was playing well in Minnesota for granted. We just got spanked.

"I remember going off the ice at the old Met Center and getting hit with a hot dog bun and having a beer thrown at me. It was a big kick in the face after such a great season. I'll never forget that feeling."

Maybe it takes the experience of losing as the President's Trophy winner to know that there are still sixteen wins needed for immortality. Of the six President's Trophy-winning teams that won the Stanley Cup, five of those teams won the Stanley Cup after winning their second President's Trophy. Only the Detroit Red Wings have an asterisk beside their name as they won it on their third President's Trophy-winning season. And since 1986-87, Detroit is only team to have won the Stanley Cup twice as the President's Trophy-winning team, doing so again on their sixth try as the top regular-season team in 2007-08. In fact, the last two President's Trophy-winning teams to win the Stanley Cup are none other than the 2001-02 Red Wings and the 2007-08 Red Wings.

Only one - last year's Vancouver Canucks - have made it to the Stanley Cup Final, and four of the last ten President's Trophy-winning teams have gone home after the first-round of the playoffs. The "upset" of the best regular-season team is becoming more common in today's game than it ever has been in the past, and three President's Trophy winners in the last four years have been ousted in the first round. Ouch.

In looking at Vancouver's early exit this season, it seems they may be following Detroit's path of winning President's Trophies and Stanley Cups. In 1995, Detroit was the best team in the regular season to claim their first President's Trophy, only to lose in the Stanley Cup Final to the New Jersey Devils. In 1996, the Red Wings rose to the top in the NHL once more during the regular season, but bowed out in the Conference Final to Colorado in the playoffs. Six years later, the Red Wings captured both trophies after downing the Carolina Hurricanes in the Stanley Cup Final.

Vancouver captured the President's Trophy last season as the NHL's top team before eventually losing in the Stanley Cup Final to the Boston Bruins. This season, the Canucks returned to the top of the mountain before being ousted by the Los Angeles Kings in the first-round of the playoffs. If the Canucks are following Detroit's map, are Vancouver fans willing to wait another six years for their team to capture both trophies? In fact, I'm positive that the fans would take a Stanley Cup over another President's Trophy any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

However, Los Angeles moves on to play St. Louis. Vancouver goes home to watch on TV. Such is life for the NHL's President Trophy-winning team.

Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red Wings won President's trophies recently with the euro approach.

But it was gutsy efforts that ultimately won the same group the cups.

Doesn't matter what nationality the guys are. It's the gutsy efforts. And the ever-constant teams' commitment to winning.

Imo Gillis being extended another four years is an indication of our commitment to winning. I think we'll eventually do it. Or rename ourselves The Millionaire's in order to claim that 100yr old cup. Bang!

TOML

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OF course there will be more non President trophy winners to win the Stanley cup then teams that won both in the same year, who doesn`t know that one, however the 1st place team, still represents the highest percentage of teams to win the Stanley cup.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ This.

I'd rather be 7 in 26 ratio than one of the 15 other teams competing for the 19 remaining wins.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just throwing this out there, but to have a 30% chance of winning the cup is a lot better odds than pretty much all the other teams in the playoffs would have. Is that not true?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 6 more years till we win a cup... crap. This teams core is too soft in the top 6 and won't get far until that is addressed. If Sedins are kept on this team, most likely, we should really try and make it work with splitting them up.

Booth Sedin (Power Forward like a Malone)

Sedin Kesler Burrows

Higgins ..... Hansen

Malhotra? Lappy Kassian

having Sedins and Burrows on the same line might work against the Oilers or smaller teams but they'll get beaten up on bigger teams like LA, Boston, Blues, Preds, Yotes ect. You could use that as a shake up to the team but Gillis would still have to trade for a legit top 6 PW, not easy and we'd still need a #1 D man and not easy to do.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats are fun to analyze, maybe there is room to cultivate strategy from them? But mostly its just fun.

Ironiclly, until 4 or 5 games to go in the season I really did not see the Canucks as pushing for the Presidents trophy. It sort of fell in their lap with teams falling down and a gracious schedule down the stretch.

The chatter was the Canucks were both experimenting for (coaches) and reserving themselves (emotionally at the very least) for the play off's. The number of times I heard "a long run" in the playoff's had my hopes up against observing a team that seemed more to be going through the motions. Yes Danny & Kesler were injured, but boy was game One a let down in comparison to the highly charged atmosphere and hit filled game to start last year against Chicago!

It was NOT the same commitment, I don't think the stats on Presidents trophies had much to do with it. Some seemed to take for granted we would win. Our player moves for the year did not work out. They my still, but Kassian, Booth, Bitz, & Pahlsson all had no impact and the plethora of 4th line fill tryout players provided nothing either against L.A. Trading a productive player for a prospect seemed to deflate the team at the deadline & we went onto a San Jose like disinterested loosing streak just after. We were only pulled back into a mode of competing by individual efforts of guys like Burrows & responding to situations in unfriendly rinks. But the level of compete was never up to the task of the Cup!

So we may as well have the Presidents trophy to convince ourselves there is hope. In the meantime, I hope Mikey and his new contract are studying Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, this years winner & Detroit > what they did the year BEFORE they won the cup. Arming themselves with a Norris guy, young legs, some muscle and a few veterans who would give their left nut for a cup!

This was posted a day after the Canucks playoff elimination last month, on Hockey Blog In Canada.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you're keeping score at home, that's seven teams in twenty-six attempts - a .269 winning percentage. That's not such a good winning percentage when you're looking at the team that had the most success in the regular season against all other teams."

Why is it so difficult for people to understand the following:

President's Trophy = 26.92%

Versus Randomly Chosen Rank = 1/16 = 6.25%

Your odds of winning are therefore 4.3x the expected average via a randomly chosen rank!

While some of other ranks may win more than 26.90% of the playoffs (I'm not sure, but unlikely given that 1 rank has already taken 26.9% of the 100% pool), it's still ridiculous to think that winning the president's trophy means you are in a bad position! All it can show is that it doesn't guarantee a cup win, because your chances of winning are only about 1 out of every 4 president's trophy wins.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Splitting the Twins, after many years, may be part of the answer? I thought Burrows being rotated onto our 2knd and third lines helped get us back on track after our trade deadline let down. The real problem with the Twins is not that they are soft, but they are small. So is Burrows. So we are vulnerable more than soft! Just adding a beefy RW capable of playing with them would counterbalance match up problems. But is that amazing guy available?

I argued against splitting these guys for years. Before their prime is done we should be using their amazing skills on different lines. It would be so much easier to craft lines that have size speed and talent on every line. Hank has shown he can help any guy score, wouldn't Booth & Kess score sooo much more with Danny passing and finishing with them? They could be our first line and Hank could score at will against 2knd calibre matchups with Burrows and Higgins or add Kassian for size?

Danny/Kess/Booth

Burrows/Hank/Higgins

Kassian/Lapierre/Hansen

?/?/?

Wouldnt we compete & match up so much better with Kesler, a big / fast physical centre dominating teams on the top line? And it wouldn't it be entirely logical to play our best goal scoring winger and passer with Kesler. If we are to win Kesler has to step up and make this his team, not the Sedin's!

Hey, it would be much easier to find depth players than a RW who could play up to the calibre of the Sedin's.

So 6 more years till we win a cup... crap. This teams core is too soft in the top 6 and won't get far until that is addressed. If Sedins are kept on this team, most likely, we should really try and make it work with splitting them up.

Booth Sedin (Power Forward like a Malone)

Sedin Kesler Burrows

Higgins ..... Hansen

Malhotra? Lappy Kassian

having Sedins and Burrows on the same line might work against the Oilers or smaller teams but they'll get beaten up on bigger teams like LA, Boston, Blues, Preds, Yotes ect. You could use that as a shake up to the team but Gillis would still have to trade for a legit top 6 PW, not easy and we'd still need a #1 D man and not easy to do.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a blatant appeal to the unintelligent.

Odds of exiting in the first round for the other 15 teams: 1 in 2

Odds of winning the cup for the other 16 teams: 1 in 16

Who wants a 7 in 26 (27%) chance when you can have a 1 in 16 (6%) chance? DOH!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a difference between chances and historical statistics. These numbers have no bearing on a teams chances of winning 16 games in the post season. It's not like they are rolling dice with more sixes on them as opposed to other teams.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it so difficult for people to understand the following:

President's Trophy = 26.92%

Versus Randomly Chosen Rank = 1/16 = 6.25%

Your odds of winning are therefore 4.3x the expected average via a randomly chosen rank!

While some of other ranks may win more than 26.90% of the playoffs (I'm not sure, but unlikely given that 1 rank has already taken 26.9% of the 100% pool), it's still ridiculous to think that winning the president's trophy means you are in a bad position! All it can show is that it doesn't guarantee a cup win, because your chances of winning are only about 1 out of every 4 president's trophy wins.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who think that because the President's Trophy winners go on to win the cup an impressive 28% of the time that this means the 2nd through 16th seeded teams have a 4.8% chance of winning the cup or that randomly out of 16 teams, they have a 6.25% chance of winning, you're wrong. If you were to roll a 15 sided dice this would be the case, but not if you're looking at the historical figures over the past 25 years the President's Trophy has been awarded.

In fact, since the President's Trophy was awarded in 1985/86, no teams ranked 10th or lower (overall) have won the cup. So immediately this, historically, gives any team ranked 10th or lower in points a 0% chance of winning the cup. The 1st through 9th seeded teams are as follows:

1st: 7 teams = 28% Stanley Cup Winners

2nd: 2 teams = 8% Stanley Cup Winners

3rd: 3 teams = 12% Stanley Cup Winners

4th: 4 = 16%

5th: 2 = 8%

6th: 2= 8%

7th: 3 = 12%

8th: 1 = 4%

9th: 1 = 4%

People may talk about the "curse", however, it's quite clear the team that finishes the season tops in points are, statistically, the clear favourites to take home the Cup. Interestingly, the 4th placed team has the next best odds at 16%.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, since the President's Trophy was awarded in 1985/86, no teams ranked 10th or lower (overall) have won the cup. So immediately this, historically, gives any team ranked 10th or lower in points a 0% chance of winning the cup. The 1st through 9th seeded teams are as follows:

1st: 7 teams = 28% Stanley Cup Winners

2nd: 2 teams = 8% Stanley Cup Winners

3rd: 3 teams = 12% Stanley Cup Winners

4th: 4 = 16%

5th: 2 = 8%

6th: 2= 8%

7th: 3 = 12%

8th: 1 = 4%

9th: 1 = 4%

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was posted a day after the Canucks playoff elimination last month, on Hockey Blog In Canada.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.