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

[Forsy]

2011 - Boston Bruins (7th Pts)

2010 - Chicago Blackhawks (3rd Pts)

2009 - Pittsburgh Penguins (8th Pts)

2008 - Detroit Red Wings (Pres)

2007 - Anaheim Ducks (4th Pts)

2006 - Carolina Hurricanes (4th Pts)

2004 - Tampa Bay Lightning (2nd Pts)

2003 - New Jersey Devils (4th Pts)

2002 - Detroit Red Wings (Pres)

2001 - Colorado Avalanche (Pres)

2000 - New Jersey Devils (4th Pts)

1999 - Dallas Stars (Pres)

1998 - Detroit Red Wings (3rd Pts)

1997 - Detroit Red Wings (5th Pts)

1996 - Colorado Avalanche (2nd Pts)

1995 - Detroit Red Wings (9th Pts)

1994 - New York Rangers (Pres)

1993 - Montreal Canadiens (6th Pts)

1992 - Pittsburgh Penguins (6th Pts)

1991 - Pittsburgh Penguins (7th Pts)

1990 - Edmonton Oilers (5th Pts)

1989 - Calgary Flames (Pres)

1988 - Edmonton Oilers (3rd Pts)

1987 - Edmonton Oilers (Pres)

1986 - Montreal Canadiens (7th Pts)

1985 - Edmonton Oilers (2nd Pts)

In Summation:

1st/Pres = 7/26 = 26.92%

2nd = 3/26 = 11.54%

3rd = 3/26 = 11.54%

4th = 4/26 = 15.38%

5th = 2/26 = 7.69%

6th = 2/26 = 7.69%

7th = 3/26 = 11.54%

8th = 1/26 = 3.85%

9th = 1/26 = 3.85%

10th = 0/26 = 0.00%

11th = 0/26 = 0.00%

12th = 0/26 = 0.00%

13th = 0/26 = 0.00%

14th = 0/26 = 0.00%

15th = 0/26 = 0.00%

16th = 0/26 = 0.00%

Looking at the past 26 seasons, the President’s trophy winner has 1.75x better chance than the next most common winner (4^th), has >2x the chances of 2nd/3rd/7th, >3x the chances of 5th/6th, and >7x the chances of 8th/9th! In addition, 10th or worse has no chance, supposedly.

In the end, all that crap doesn't matter, because the actual conclusion is that rank doesn't matter much anymore, and every team is very close to each other, and that how the games are played dictates what happens in the playoffs.

But what really matters is that we’re being fed with retarded media math.

[Forsy]

Someone do how far each president's trophy winner goes into the playoffs (1, 2, 3, 4 rounds) :D

[MoneypuckOverlord]

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%.

[Forsy]

Either the 11th or the 13th ranked team is going to the cup. This should be interesting.Other than that, relax. People are using the collective average for the other 15 teams to make a point.

[AnInconvenienceBrah]

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.

[Merci]

Henrik played his best hockey ever against LA.

This summer of a 1st round exit will give them more rest they have had in half a decade,

[mj vic]

It's going to be a long summer....

[Canuck Surfer]

What you are saying is conventional logic, nothing wrong with it!

Booth & Burrows have been playing on their off wing far more than not. Higgins & Raymond routinely as well. They are all left wingers. Hansen is the only natural right winger in our top 9, even our top wing prospect Jensen is a left side guy. Its one reason the Kassian trade probably got MG's hormones running over like Winnie the Pooh at a honey pot.

My point was in splitting the Twins, whichever one ended up with Kesler (and I agree, clearly Danny made the most sense) was going to be the "first line." It would have our #1 & #2 goal scorers and would therefore draw the key defensive match up. I suggest Booth not Burrows, to load up the athleticism and size on that line. No longer would our first line get pushed off the puck & be rendered ineffective, nor be useless when the other team got the puck.

I suppose it could depend on the match up?

I also liked two puck winners & diggers on Hanks line in Burrows and Higgins. The hustle and grit would be smashing, they might never be without the puck? It also still leaves Burrows, one familiar player for Hank to mix, match and dangle with! I think both lines become more more physical and competitive!

Ultimately it will be nice when RW Kassian arrives..., and we should still re-sign Bitz if we can!

Well I'm trying to keep guys on their best side they play on. Danny is a left winger so play him with Kesler, Burrows has played well with both Kesler and Danny on the right side and Kesler played well with Danny so that would make up a line where each plays their strongest side. Booth plays much better on the left side so put him with Hank who is a play maker centre and Booth is a scoring power forward, we'd want a right side PF scorer for this line as well. Your 3rd line has Kassian playing the left side when he is a right side guy as well as Hansen. The problem with your line up is that it's playing too many guys on their off side and is a mess. If your splitting up the Sedins this line up makes much more sense

Booth Sedin .....

Sedin Kesler Burrows

Higgins Schroeder Hansen

Weise Lappy Kassian

if Kassian is ready he'd be a great fit for the top line, not that he'd be a impact player but the type of game he plays a mean s o b with size, grit, skill and a right handed guy. This keeps the lefties in Booth Sedin and Higgins on their side and the righties in Hansen and Kassian on their side, although Burrows is a lefty he plays better on the right side, so it keeps him on his strongest side. This gives our top 6 a different look and feel and more balanced. Or load up the top line

Sedin Sedin Kesler

Booth Schroeder Burrows

Higgins .............. Hansen

Weise Lappy Kassian

again keeping players in their strongest position and with players that help them, although Schroeder is a long shot he is a play maker centre and could set Booth up who is a power forward scorer, Burrows has a great shot and can bring grit and draw attention. If you keep the Sedins together we need size, grit, toughness and skill there, Burrows with the Twins is just bad news with how much the West has and is changing to.

[gordfish]

I can't beleive someone has posted this drivel again. AGAIN!

As has been pointed out, the odds are still clearly in favour of the team that wins the President's Trophy.

The Canucks didn't lose to LA because of fate or a freaking curse. They lost because, they weren't prepared to pay the price this year.

[CANUCKLELION]

Bottom line is, winning the Presidents Choice Trophy means squat. It is not an indicator that can be relied on for how a team will do in the playoffs.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the post season is a totally different animal than the regular season.

[AnInconvenienceBrah]

I can't beleive someone has posted this drivel again. AGAIN!

As has been pointed out, the odds are still clearly in favour of the team that wins the President's Trophy.

The Canucks didn't lose to LA because of fate or a freaking curse. They lost because, they weren't prepared to pay the price this year.

[rain]

Can somebody ban

[MashedBananas]

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%.

[BenSurgeon]

Lets hope the Canucks don't become another San Jose, Washington or Ottawa. Great regular season teams but could never win the big one.

Stats can be misleading and you can interpt them anyway you like.

[Dogbyte]

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.

[disisdayear]

Bottom line is, winning the Presidents Choice Trophy means squat. It is not an indicator that can be relied on for how a team will do in the playoffs.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the post season is a totally different animal than the regular season.

[OnlyCanucks]

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.

[OnlyCanucks]

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%.

[Hockey Fever]

Another 6 years ? Try 60.