3 replies to this topic

[DJ MC]

http://fivethirtyeig...he-stanley-cup/

 

Lots (and lots, and even more lots) of good information and numbers and everything you would expect from Nate Silver, but this is what he believes is the issue:

 

First, bad luck is a major component. Even after accounting for the fact that Canadian teams have rarely been among the league’s best in recent years, you would still have expected Canada to pick up at least a couple of Stanley Cups at some point.

 

Second, the N.H.L.’s economic structure changed at an unfavorable time for Canada. During the first half of the 20-year drought, the league allowed teams to spend freely, but Canadian teams were hampered by the weak Canadian dollar. Since 2005, the Canadian dollar has recovered substantially, and Canadian teams are now turning large profits. But they are limited in their capacity to invest those profits in superior players because the league has instituted a hard salary cap.

 

Third, there is almost certainly a shortage of N.H.L. teams in Canada relative to the demand for hockey there and the revenues that Canada contributes to the league. Teams in nontraditional hockey markets like Raleigh, N.C., Tampa, Fla., and Anaheim, Calif., have won Stanley Cups since 1993, but without doing especially well financially. So have the Colorado Avalanche, who relocated from Quebec City in 1995-96. Had the distribution of N.H.L. teams more closely matched fan interest in the sport across the United States and Canada, Canada would have more teams in the league and – very probably – at least one Stanley Cup championship.

 

Finally, and related to the excess demand for hockey in Canada, Canadian teams routinely sell out their arenas at high ticket prices — whether or not they are any good. This may reduce their incentive to compete.

[PatrickDougherty]

Hey DJMC,

 

I'm a little late to this party but I read this article a few months ago and didn't like Silver's research methods. I disagree that Google searches for "N.H.L." is a good proxy for fanhood of certain areas. He failed to include searches for local team names, "NHL," "hockey," and tons of other terms that would add to the estimated number of fans in an area. In fact, I would argue that real hockey fans are the least likely group to search "N.H.L." Silver also failed to explain whether he used any search modifiers like quotation marks that change the way Google ranks its indexed pages. Or, at the very least, he neglected to tell readers these pretty important facts.

 

He also operated under the assumption that number of fans translates into competent ownership and management, available players, players signed, on-ice play. What I mean to say is that sometimes the most popular, wealthiest teams fail to win for long stretches for a variety of reasons, including the effects of a short series.

 

That being said, I tend to agree with his conclusion and really like it for its simplicity. Having more teams in Canada would produce more champions in Canada simply as a function of opportunity! Thanks for sharing & I'm glad someone else saw this article when it came out.

[BSLMikeLowe]

I've always believed the issue with the Canadian dollar in the 90's-early 2000's was a huge problem for those franchises, and is why several moved. Good point by Silver about how now that the Canadian teams have more cash the salary structure prevents them from investing it in better players, even if we can't say for sure the will to do it is there. Finally, I'd say it comes down to simple odds too. For most of the drought, only 1/5 of the league's teams were based in Canada.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Both the Canucks and Senators had legitimately great teams in the last decade or so but couldn't get it done.