Jump to content
Canucks Community
Sign in to follow this  
Rindiculous

Mike Gillis Interview on TSN 1040 Part 2

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, tas said:

it would be remarkable if it wasn't completely meaningless. 17 of the 24 cups since bettman took over were won by 6 teams. 

which, looking back at the history of the league, is pretty standard.........in the 70's and 80's, you had teams winning 3 and 4 times in a row

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tas said:

the thing is, separating the 7 canadian teams that haven't won it from the 11 american teams that also haven't won it is drawing an arbitrary, imaginary line.

 

13/31 teams have won the cup since '94. the canadian teams just so happen to fall into the 18 that haven't. 

How is it arbitrary when it is exactly what people's "conspiracy" arguments are based on? Those 7 team are based in Canada, the others in the US. I fail to see how that is an imaginary line.

 

And the difference between the 11 US teams that haven't won and the 7 Canadian teams that haven't, is that 45.8% of US teams haven't won, while the # is 100% for Canadian teams. So the question is, what was the chance of all 7 Canadian teams falling into that group of 18.

Edited by 'NucK™

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~30 teams in the league on average during the period being discussed.

 

13 teams have won the cup.

 

The chance that an American team is the winner is 76.67%.

 

Therefore, the chance of all 13 winners being American teams is 3.16%.

 

This takes into account that recurring winners are common. The probability that no Canadian team wins over a stretch of 24 cups is 0.17% (this does not take into account that recurring winners are a common occurrence). 

 

Please correct me if my math is wrong!

Edited by 'NucK™
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 'NucK™ said:

~30 teams in the league on average during the period being discussed.

 

13 teams have won the cup.

 

The chance that an American team is the winner is 76.67%.

 

Therefore, the chance of all 13 winners being American teams is 3.16%.

 

This takes into account that recurring winners are common. The probability that no Canadian team wins over a stretch of 24 cups is 0.17% (this does not take into account that recurring winners are a common occurrence). 

 

Please correct me if my math is wrong!

The only thing that's wrong is it's not a simple lottery chance. All teams don't have an equal chance ruling math out. It actually requires building a winner. Which can't be mathematically given odds. For a decade the Avs and Wings dominated the west. They also had the two highest payrolls in the west. Funny how that math worked. How many times in that time period has a Canadian team even been in the contender conversation? That is a better indicator of why a Canadian team hasn't won than a simplification of math based on the number of teams. Even the Calgary and Edmonton cups runs were both Cinderella runs. Neither team was in the contender conversation through the season, nevermind for several seasons to actually increase their odds. Cinderella teams typically need to win in that one opportunity before turning back into the pumpkins they actually are.

 

What are the odds of the Leafs and Oilers absolutely sucking for over a decade? Is there math to calculate it or is it simply poor management decisions? That's why simplified math can't be applied. It's not a lottery to win where the odds are even for everybody. It's building a team that's an actual contender. Even then to win the cup "the odds are" you need to be a contender for several years to win a cup because there is always at minimum five other strong contenders in any given year.

 

Even being a legit contender for five years guarantees nothing. It doesn't even give you high odds. So here's the math: if you can build an actual contender, and keep it an actual contender for five years, You have a 1 in 6 chance of actually winning the cup. Less than 20%. But then there's also the variable you can't calculate - those teams that aren't true contenders that simply get hot at the right time. Upsets happen every year and can't be mathematically predicted. But few of those actually lead to a Cinderella cup run, nevermind an actual cup victory.

 

Your math would only be a true representation of the odds if all teams were created equal. They're not.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Let's give 1040 a fair shake. They had Laurence Gilman on a number of times and he was great, insightful radio. 1040 used to have any/every decent interview there was in this market. SN650 has provided an alternative, which is great. I even won tickets to Jim Jefferies when he was in town and I've been entered into their NYE in NYC draw. But when it comes down to it, the only differences between the 2 radio stations is 1040 has more commercials and the 650 hosts are glass half full fan boys. Where as 1040 hosts are more TMZ/Tabloid. I'm happy to listen to either though. The more Canucks talk, the better!

Meh...  I can't get over the 1040 hosts and how often they would take small things and try and create something out of nothing.  

 

They were THE leaders when it came to bad mouthing Luongo in this market.  None of the fans were talking about it until 1040 spent years constantly saying "Luongo should be replaced by Schneider" and then followed it up with "Luongo has got to go in favour of Eddie Lack".  

 

David Pratt and Matt Sekeres are clowns and that's most of their lineup.  I spent years listening to 1040 before I decided that enough is enough.  

 

650 has been much better then 1040 ever was in my opinion.  

 

Between 2006 and 2014 when I stopped listening to 1040, I don't recall 1040 having regular interviews with our AHL coaches and talking to scouts about our prospects.  650 does it on an ongoing basis and doesn't sensationalize anything other then EP40.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine a management group with Gillis as President, Gilman as GM, and Benning as Head Scout/Assistsnt GM...

 

If we had Benning level scouting back in the Gillis days we could have had a Cup or two.

Edited by Provost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Let's give 1040 a fair shake. They had Laurence Gilman on a number of times and he was great, insightful radio. 1040 used to have any/every decent interview there was in this market. SN650 has provided an alternative, which is great. I even won tickets to Jim Jefferies when he was in town and I've been entered into their NYE in NYC draw. But when it comes down to it, the only differences between the 2 radio stations is 1040 has more commercials and the 650 hosts are glass half full fan boys. Where as 1040 hosts are more TMZ/Tabloid. I'm happy to listen to either though. The more Canucks talk, the better!

 

I give them a fair shake.  I did for years.  1040 was something I had to continuously TOLERATE in order to listen to Canucks content.  The station was a mismanaged joke.

 

Remember when they acquired a second station (1410) and then on BOTH STATIONS started piping in ESPN radio (on one) and FOX Sports (on the other) starting at like 6 pm instead of putting original content on either station?

 

That's completely ignoring the continuously escalating proportion of advertising to content, the worthlessness of much of the content (who Pratt would and wouldn't sleep with, DTMZ, etc) and the fact that they would let anybody, including proven financial SCAMS, advertise on their station...

 

I'll give them credit for the occasional good piece of content, like this one, when it crosses my path.  But 1040 became a complete bastardization of what the SportsPage guys tried to create on the radio many years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×