Good stuff, well written. I have always said this, and thus my nickname...but i digress. The franchise has been a winner in my mind since 2001. Most years since then we have made the playoffs, and with only 8 of 15 doing so, that is pretty cool. Now, the counter argument:
If we lose in the 3rd round, then obviously the team that beats us has 100% chance to be in the cup finals and 50% chance to win cup
If we lose in the 2nd round, the team that beats us has a 50% chance to be in the cup finals and a 25% shot at the cup
If we lose in the 1st round, the team that beats us has a 25% chance to be in the cup finals.
So while it is good to know we get beat by the cup winners most years, recently as a great example, the grain of salt is that once a team makes even the third round, they have a one in four shot at the cup, so its not out of the ordinary for most 'winning teams' to be beaten by the eventual cup winners...3/7ths of the teams in a conference are beaten by the cup winners every year.
Hmm.. Interesting point. But I would argue that those odds actually support the statistical significance of the current "run". With the exception of 94 and 2011, in which the team that beat us had a 100% chance of winning the Cup, all of the Canucks' losses in the past 18 years have been in the first two rounds. That's either a 12.5% or 25% chance each year for the team Vancouver lost to. But the actual success rate is nowhere near that. With the 100% chance from those two years, you'd expect the actual rate to be a little inflated, but not as high at 73%.