| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
 Posted - 06/24/2010 : 12:17:07
|
The NHL appears to enjoy better parity than ever. This is great for competitive value in the league. Any one team can beat another team on any given night.
Another fact (and benefit of better league parity) is that teams who finish low in the standings have a real opportunity to turn things around, and within a reasonable period of time. It was just five seasons ago (2003-2004 season) when Washington, Chicago and Pittsburgh finished 28th, 29th and 30th. Fast forward to today and two of these teams have now won cups, and the other team just won the President's Trophy with the most points in the 2009-2010 season.
Another measuring stick for league parity is the goals for/against differential. In the 70's and 80's and 90's, there were teams with significant differences between goals scored and goals scored against.
The following are the all-time leaders in the plus category:
Montreal: +216 (1976-77 season)
Boston: +192 (1970-71 season)
Montreal: +176 (1977-78 season)
The all-time leaders in the negative category are as follows:
Washington: -265 (1974-75 season)
San Jose: -196 (1992-93 season)
Ottawa: -193 (1992-93 season)
We haven't seen numbers like this in a long time, and on both sides (+ or -) of this category.
With league parity, we've probably seen the last of team dynasties. The Habs, Islanders and Oilers (pretty much all in a row) will probably remain the last of the dynasty teams. And this is probably good for the league, and for most fans too! Yes, it's great to have dynasties when it's your favourite hockey team, but not so much for the lesser teams. After all, when all is equal, the "odds" of winning a cup are 1 in 30. This means the average team will win a cup for their city 2-3 times in a fan's lifetime! That's a long time to wait, and there's not much of a likelihood that we will see a decrease in the number of NHL teams.
|
|
|
leafsfan_101
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1530 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2010 : 13:14:46
|
This was a very good post, I enjoyed it. While I think it a stretch to say that a each team will win 2-3 times in person's lifetime, I do agree that dynasties are over and done with. It does add great excitement to the game, when any given team can win. It provides great storylines as well, which was evidenced by this past year.
Again, the Stanley Cup fact is a bit off, but overall I think you are right. |
 |
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2010 : 14:24:01
|
@Leafsfan_101
I don't believe he was saying that each team WILL win the Cup 2-3 times, per lifetime. Just that, the averages and numbers work out to be that, each team would win the cup 2-3 times per each persons average life span.
Of course, it doesn't work like that. Some teams will win the Cup more than others, some teams not at all.
I have not done the math, so I'm unsure if his math is even correct. But, I am assuming he just means that the averages say each team should win 2-3 times. Not saying, that they most certainly will.
Irvine/prez. |
Edited by - irvine on 06/24/2010 17:09:17 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2010 : 16:41:53
|
Parity?? Seriously??
If you would like to look at a league that has Parity, look to the NFL. The NHL system of OTL points so significantly twist the actual standing is twisted. Points for and against means absolutely nothing. The only thing that indicates is that the games are closer than they were before. But the bad teams still lose and the good teams still will.
Consider this, of the 32 NFL team, 20 of them were .500 or better. Even more indicative of parity is that 24 of the 32 teams(or 75% of the entire league) was within 2 games of .500 or better.
Compare that to the NHL, where only 14 of the 30 teams (including OTL) were actually over .500. Barely 60% of the NHL were at .500 or at least 4 games from .500.
Although the bad teams to have an opportunity to get better in the NHL if they draft well, good teams have a very difficult time staying good. You can easily say that in the past 5 years teams like Chicago, Washington, Chicago, finished dead last and won the Cup(or clsoe to it). However, you also have to consider the team who have gotten to the finals in those past 5 years as well and notice how many have missed the playoffs very quickly afterwards(Edmonton, Calgary, Tampa Bay, Carolina, Ottawa, Anaheim).
More importantly, the teams in the middle stay in the middle. Consider a team like Calgary or Minnesota who have been average for the past 6ish seasons and will stay average as they only get middle of the road draft picks to rebuild from.
Ultimately, the reasons why the NHL can not find the parity that the NFL has is twofold. True Revenue sharing and contract release. The NHL claims to have revenue sharing but it's a pro-rated system. The NFL runs their operations like a true corportation and franchise where all the profit goes into the same pot and gets evenly divided to the 32 teams. This way, the smaller market teams have the same ability to compete on the as the large market teams.
More importantly, the NFL has the ability to release a player from their contract at any time. There are still Cap hits and a certain amount of guaranteed money, but if a player is not working out, he is released and it's done.
Do those two things in the NHL and you will see true parity too. What you see today is an illusion of parity because of rewarding failure(OTL points) and a draft system that promotes change but not consistency. |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2010 : 17:23:23
|
I do agree with you Beans, about most.
But when we compare the NHL & NFL, especially with the actual standings/points system, along with winning percentages.
We have to look at the huge difference in games played, too.
The NFL play far fewer games in the regular season, than the NHL does. Although percentiles will be the same when doing the math, by using each franchises respected number of games, we have to really think about those amount of games.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
FLYING -V
Top Prospect
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2010 : 19:33:37
|
Beans I would hardly call the NFL a model of parity the NHL should shoot for. I mean, as you pointed out in your article, quite a few finalists have dropped out of contention in recent years. While in the NFL, teams like the colts and the pats and the eagles compete in the super bowl year after year. And teams like the lions and raiders and dolphins spend years at the bottom before finally working their way back in. Then look at the NHL, in the five years since the lockout, only the panthers and leafs have yet to make an appearance.
I agree that the nhl's point system is flawed, but I believe the NHL is far more competitive than the NFL . I mean, when was the last time an NHL team went winless throughout an entire season? Never! There's so many .500 teams in the NFL because it's virtually guaranteed win night against the lions or the rams. While in the NHL as the old addage goes, anybody beats anybody on any given night. Walk into a Vegas casino, see if they'll give you 40-1 odds on a hockey game. It'll never happen, while in the NFL,it happens all the time. Anyways, the point I'm trying to make Is that while parity in the NHL isn't as perfect as Gary bettman (spit) makes it out to be, I dont think the NFL s really a target we should shoot for.
Ps. Beans, why don't you try mentioning the words " contract release" to the nhlpa ?
Ps.
Its not worth winning if you cant win big! |
|
|
|
leafsfan_101
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1530 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2010 : 21:05:12
|
Beans, your ideaology is slightly flawed. What Irvine and Flying-V said are very true, not to say that you are competely incorrect, but close. Ohh, and btw Flying, the Eagles are not perennial SuperBowl contenders. I wish that they were, I pray to God that they win a SuperBowl soon, but they haven't been in one since 2004. I am a tried and true Eagles fan since I was young, so when they get a Superbowl I will be the first one in Canada to go crazy.
Anyways, the argument towards smaller schedules holds true. It is much easier to have a winning record in a 16 game regular season than it is in an 82 game regular season. Also, the teams in the NHL have an opportunity to get better through the draft. That is not the case in the NFL, as there are 22 starters, and usually the draft does not go as far to helping your squad as the NHL draft does. Teams like Oakland continue to be bad (but that could just be because of Al Davis), and teams like Indy continue to be good. Look at Indy, a good quarterback will keep you a contender for a long time (unless his name is Carson Palmer). A bad quarterback (JaMarcus Russel anyone?) will hinder you. Same with Half Backs, Centers, and Linebackers. There are power positions in the NFL, and because there are so many good ones, there are more good records to show for it. Still, however, this all goes back to that 16 game regular season.
And I don't know the full policy on NHL revenue sharing, but I would think that it is the same as the NFL's. One thing the NFL has going for it that other teams don't is a solid fan base. Even terrible teams like Detroit have fans showing up. They still make money off of gate-receipts. The NHL has a big problem in that department, as teams in the Sun Belt and in places like Atlanta have attendance issues. That also goes a long way towards revenue sharing.
Lastly, releasing a player in the NFL is much more tough than in the NHL, so I don't know where that fact came from. In thew NFL, whn you release a player his salary hit is always counted against your cap. You cannot send him down anywhere, you pay him. If it is a capped season (next season in the NFL is uncapped) than teams face cap penalties to go along with the Cap hit. In this uncapped season, you have seen many more releases, such as Brian Westbrook, LaDanian Tomlinson, and Thomas Jones. They don't face any cap penalties because of the uncapped season, so they are released.
I see what you're saying, but at the same time I disagree. NHL parity is amongst the best. The NFL may have a work stoppage after this season comming up, and one of the reasons is because the NFL wants the league to structure itself more like the NHL. NHL parity is probably the best there is right now! |
|
|
|
Rambo2305
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
546 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2010 : 06:04:40
|
Parity? Not quite there yet...and considering the cap went up to just under $60M this year, and will probably continue to increase, means we will be back to the days of the rich teams getting better, poor teams getting worse. Sorry to say.
Not gunna lie, miss the days of my filthy rich Buds loading up on deadline day :D lol but within a few years, teams struggling to meet the minimum salary will be back in the cellar and the powerhouse teams will become the franchises that can afford to overpay and meet the cap limit. Hell, most of em would be willing to pay the penalties for crossing in a few years. |
|
|
|
FLYING -V
Top Prospect
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2010 : 10:27:00
|
Leafs fan , the eagles might not be contending right now, but between 2002-2009 they played in 5 NFC championship games, five in seven seasons! That is why I included them with the colts and pats. Though to be honest I'm more of a CFL guy. Go esks!
Its not worth winning if you cant win big! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2010 : 11:26:06
|
I was not intending on starting a debate of the NFL vs the NHL. I was simply stating an opinion.
I know there are far fewer games in the NFL and that that provides a key difference. I also realize that teams such as the Pats and Colts have been good for a very long time. However, NFL teams are not forced to get weaker or stronger based on the league system. It is based on their GM, their owner, their coaches, and their players. I also know(although I am not expert) that a released NFL player does not his the cap. A certain amount of his remaining salary goes to a penalty but he is off the cap. 2ndly, the issue of who is paying what for penalties is completel moot as every NFL team has the same profit. The NHL's profit sharing system is the richest teams giving some of their profits to the poorest teams, but it's not sharing. Every NFL teams puts their profits into the pool and it gets re-split 32 even ways.
I also realize that the NHL team will never go Oh-for in the season. However, is a team like Edmonton winning 27 out of 80 games in the NHL.
Finally, my point is this. The NFL has parity(IMO) in that the teams compete. Nearly every NFL team(with the exception of the bottom 2-3 team) is competative with every other team in the NHL. Sure some are stronger than others but the gaps between most of the teams is tight. The NHL does not have parity in that there are 10 super strong teams, 10 weak teams, and 10 average teams just about every year.
This is not parity. It is an illusion of parity based on OTL points. |
|
|
|
FLYING -V
Top Prospect
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2010 : 15:11:26
|
Beans, you can't honestly compare the oilers to the winless 09 lions. Mathematically, 27 wins in an NHL season translates to roughly 5 wins in NFL season. A mark which eight NFL were either at or below this season. If eight NHL teams finished with 27 or fewer wins there'd be riots in the streets, children being sacrificed to the hockey gods! While in the NFL, it's business as usual.
On the other hand, indianapolis' 14 wins theoretically tranlate into just over seventy wins in an 82 game NHL scheduele. And they're not the only NFL team that, mathematically, would put up similarily ridiculous win totals over an 82 game stretch.
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that each year in the NFL there are teams that barely ever lose and teams that barely ever win. A bad team like st Louis or Detroit has absolutely no chance of beating powerhouses like Indy and new england. While in the NHL, you see bottom feeders pick up wins against the league's top teams all the time.
Beans, I agree that otl points mangle the league's standings and make things look a lot better than they truly are, but the parity in the NHL is far better than parity in the NFL , due in large part to the differances between the sports
Its not worth winning if you cant win big! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2010 : 18:11:37
|
Yes Flying V, Mathmatically and conceptually you are correct.
However, you are missing my point on what parity is to me. There will always be good and bad teams. However, in the NFL, there are 2-4 horrible teams at the most each year and 2-4 brillient teams. That leave 24+ of the teams in the NFL that are very close to one another.
The NHL, on the other hand, has 10ish teams that are horrible, 10ish teams that are brilliant, leaving about 10 teams in middle that are close to one another.
Ultimately, parity has nothing to do with the peaks or valleys. It's the height of those peaks, the depth of the valleys, and most importantly, the distance(or lack there of) between the 2. |
|
|
|
leafsfan_101
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1530 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2010 : 20:27:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by FLYING -V
Leafs fan , the eagles might not be contending right now, but between 2002-2009 they played in 5 NFC championship games, five in seven seasons! That is why I included them with the colts and pats. Though to be honest I'm more of a CFL guy. Go esks!
Its not worth winning if you cant win big!
I know, they were dominant but could never get that Superbowl :( |
|
|
|
FLYING -V
Top Prospect
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2010 : 21:55:52
|
Beans I don't know where you get your NFL stats from, but I highly recomend you double check. Try more along the lines of 8-9 bad teams and similar figures concerning the good ones. Besides, the point I'm trying to make is that in the NHL, the " horrible" ( again, I doubt your total of 10) teams still compete with the great ones and often can come away victorious. Something you will virtually never see in the NFL.
Its not worth winning if you cant win big! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2010 : 20:59:51
|
Flying V, you are too stuck on the numbers to see the point. The point is that each year, the vast majority of the NFL teams compete with every other team in the league. The NHL, on the other hand, has a far more clear separation between the good teams and the bad teams. I'm not talking about the best vs the worst. I am talking about the huge group in the middle of the NFL compared to a far smaller group of teams in the middle of the NHL.
If you do want to speak numbers, you may want to re-check your stats. 5 teams in the NFL last season won fewer than 5 games and 23 of the 32 teams were within 1 game of .500 and 20 teams at .500 or higher.
The NHL, on the other hand, had just 14 teams with .500 or better.
The NFL has More than 1/2 their teams(60% in fact) better than .500 where the NHL has less then 1/2 their teams able to play .500.
The definition of "Parity" in sports is an equal playing field for all participants, specifically with regard to financial issues. Do you really think this is the case in the NHL compared to the NFL?? If you do, there is literally nothing I can say to change your opinion. The numbers are right there. There are more 'average' NFL teams than their are NHL teams.
On a final note, let me leave you with something that will completely twist your cap back.
If you took all shoot out wins and loses and transfered them to ties as they would have been before the lock out, there are only 6 teams in the NHL this past season with 42 or more 'legitimate' wins and 20 teams with 42 or more losses.
|
|
|
|
FLYING -V
Top Prospect
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2010 : 11:04:24
|
Beans,beans, beans. It is you who isn't seeing the point. Yes, in the NFL there are a good many teams who compete with one another and are on a level playing field. However what I am trying to say to you is that there are a good many who are not competitif, which is not the case in the NFL. Ok I 'll break it down statistically( which is necessary, otherwise this discussion becomes just about opinion. ). This season, the NFL had 10 teams with 10 or more wins ( a number I chose because it translates to roughly 50 wins in an NHL season). At the same time there were 9 teams with six or fewer wins( mathematically translating to 30 NHL wins) Now only two of these teams succeeded in defeating a 10-6 or better team, throughout the course of the entire. You say that the vast majority of NFL teams compete with each other, but if 9 of the teams have virtually no shot at beating 10 of the other teams, I beg to differ.
Then look a the NHL, because I really don't have time to pour through the 82 game schedules of the ten worst teams in the league, i'll stick with the bottom two: The leafs and the oilers. Hands down the two worst teams in the NHL this season. Yet, both of them were able to pick up wins against the big guns. The oilers, while registering only 27 wins, were still able to come up victorious against seven of the eight western conference playoff teams. Beating some of them multiple times. While the leafs, were able to beat all eight eastern conference playoff teams, including registering multiple wins againstthe president's trophy champion Washington capitals. Let's see the rams or the lions compare.
And beans, I don't see the relevance of your last little, "cap twister", seeing as while you may find the shootout misleading, it is a part of the game now, get used to it.
Its not worth winning if you cant win big! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2010 : 09:50:47
|
Well, I guess there is nothing I can say to sway a mind. Ultimately, if you can not see that only 6 of the 30 NHL teams would have a winning record without the shoot out, there is nothing else to say. You can say the numbers anyway you want for the NFL. Bottom line is that the majority of the teams are at or above .500.
Regardless of the shooting being part of the game or not, the point is relative. The fact of the matter is that most NHL teams win a reasonable enough number of games on a shootouts to make it relevant. Rules or not. If a tie basketball game was decided on a game of HORSE, a baseball game was decided on a home run derby, or a football game was decided longest punt I would say the same thing. The ultimate difference between the leagues today is that NHL rewards futility which gives the illusion of parity.
If you see that illusion, that's fine. To each their own. However, I refuse to agree that the NHL has parity when only 6 of their 30 teams can win more than 1/2 their games without the shootout, the draft system promotes change, and the teams do not have the ability to share in revenues or release contract.
That's not parity. I am not arguing if the system is the right one or not. I am simply saying it is not a system that promotes parity.
Beans, out. |
|
|
|
FLYING -V
Top Prospect
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2010 : 15:54:34
|
Ok beans, good talk. I hope one day you see the parity in the NHL , that you seem to believe exists in the NFL. In the meantime , I am satisfied with the system as is.
Its not worth winning if you cant win big! |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
League Parity 
