Was Mike Gillis Better than Burke and Nonis?

One of the benefits to being a Canucks fan in Ottawa is the ability to follow my team from outside the Vancouver Media Bubble (VMB). The VMB, perpetuated mainly by The Province newspaper and Sportsnet Pacific, is the machine that dictates the opinions that Canuck fans are required to uphold.

I’ve followed the Canucks for 17 seasons, though the first 13 were from within the VMB. During that time, all of my opinions (unbeknownst to me) were refined by the VMB. I maintained that Vancouver was “The Goalie Graveyard”, even though the Canucks didn’t go through significantly more goalies than 80% of the other teams. I referred to the Sedins as “The Sisters” until it became unfashionable in 2006. I was excited about Luc Bourdon in 2005, then I forgot about him when he was written -off as just another draft bust three years later, then after he died I lamented on how our future stud-defenseman was taken from us too soon and vehemently denied that I had ever called him a bust. Just like everyone else.

But leaving Vancouver and breaking free from the groupthink of local fans has left me with a revelation: We’re friggin idiots devoid of long-term memory, patience, realistic assessment of our own players, or awareness of other teams.

Being outside of Vancouver for almost the entire duration of Mike Gillis’ tenure and seeing the rise and fall of the organization under his guidance without the VMB bias has left me with a much different perspective than those inside the VMB.

Which one am I supposed to hate today?

VMB Perception:

Brian Burke constructed a competitive team that was enhanced by his successor, Dave Nonis. Mike Gillis inherited the players they had acquired, idly reclined in his director’s chair, and watched the team develop into excellence while neglecting to add muscle to a skill-based team. After a few seasons, his laziness caught-up to him and the Canucks crashed, missing the playoffs.

Outside VMB Perception:

Dave Nonis inherited a team constructed by Brian Burke, stole Luongo from an insane Mike Keenan, then shuffled around draft picks and minor-leaguers until the Canucks missed the playoffs at which point Mike Gillis was hired. Gillis aggressively pursued free agents and traded draft picks and prospects for supporting players for three years until the Canucks won back-to-back President’s Trophies and came within a game of the Stanley Cup. He was awarded GM of the Year in 2011 for his efforts, but succumbed to over-conservation of assets after a bad goaltending controversy and an ineffective coaching change.

This isn’t meant to be a defense of Mike Gillis, but in all fairness, he does deserve some defense. Let’s give an honest assessment of Gillis compared to Burke and Nonis:

Drafting:

Brian Burke: Bryan Allen (4^th Overall); Jarkko Ruutu (68^th Overall); Daniel Sedin (2^nd Overall); Henrik Sedin (3^rd Overall); Nathan Smith (23^rd Overall); RJ Umberger (16^th Overall); Kevin Bieksa (151^st Overall); Ryan Kesler (23^rd Overall);

Dave Nonis: Cory Schneider (26^th Overall); Alex Edler (91^st Overall); Jannik Hansen (287^th Overall); Luc Bourdon (10^th Overall); Mason Raymond (51^st Overall); Michael Grabner (14^th Overall); Patrick White (25^th Overall);

Mike Gillis: Cody Hodgson (10^th Overall); Jordan Schroeder (22^nd Overall); Nicklas Jensen (29^th Overall); Frank Corrado (150^th Overall); Brendan Gaunce (26^th Overall); Bo Horvat (9^th Overall); Hunter Shinkaruk (24^th Overall);

Burke's Best Draft Trade

 Burke drafted marginally well. Bryan Allen (4^th overall) was a mild bust, but the 1998 draft was very hit-or-miss, so Burke could have done much worse. Obviously winning the Sedins (2^nd & 3^rd overall) makes him seem like the heavy favourite, but that had more to do with his shrewd trading ability to acquire the 2^nd and 3^rd overall picks. Nathan Smith (23^rd overall) was a bust, and RJ Umberger (16^th overall) was a decent selection who was later traded away for a rental player. In 2003, Burke drafted Ryan Kesler (23^rd overall). On one hand, you can make the argument that the 2003 first round was so talent-laden that Burke could’ve thrown a dart and still ended up with Mike Richards or Corey Perry. On the other hand, he was under pressure to draft the local boy, Jeff Tambellini. His only late-round success was Kevin Bieksa (151^st overall).

I couldn't find Cory Schneider's Draft-Day photo. So here's some guy.

In four years, Nonis’ first round selections were Cory Schneider (26^th overall), Luc Bourdon (10^th overall), Michael Grabner (14^th overall), and Patrick White (25^th overall). What’s notable about all four selections is that they required years to develop. Grabner and Schneider didn’t become full-time NHLers until they were 23 and 24, respectively. Patrick White never developed. Luc Bourdon passed on before reaching his potential, but based on where he was at age 21, he realistically would have topped-out as a decent third-pairing defenseman. However, Nonis did manage to find some diamonds in the rough with Alex Edler (91^st overall), Jannik Hansen (287^th overall) and Mason Raymond (51^st overall).

I couldn't find Cory Schneider's Trade-Day photo, so here's Bo.

In six seasons, Gillis only had two draft picks higher than 22^nd. One was Cody Hodgson (10^th overall) and the other was Bo Horvat (9^th overall). Similar to how Burke was under pressure to draft Tambellini, Gillis was under pressure to draft Kelowna’s Kyle Beach over Hodgson. Regardless of how disappointed you are with the Hodgson-for-Kassian trade, Kassian remains miles ahead of Beach. As for Horvat, Brendan Gaunce, and Hunter Shinkaruk, we’ll have to wait until at least 2015-2017 to properly cross-compare them to Nonis’ draft picks. So far, Gillis’ only the late-round selection to develop has been Frank Corrado (150^th overall).

Verdict:

I give this one to Nonis as he drafted five full-time NHLers in four years. Burke only drafted seven in six years (even with three top-5 overall picks). Gillis’ picks haven’t developed yet, but so far he has only two in six seasons.

Trading:

Brian Burke:

One of Burke’s first challenges as GM was dealing with the Pavel Bure situation (wow, that was a long time ago). The trade was a win for the Panthers, but Burke pulled a decent package in return, including Ed Jovanovski. His second challenge was finding a goalie, and that didn’t go so well. Kevin Weekes was part of the Bure package, and was later re-packaged for Felix Potvin who didn’t work out either. The best he could do was acquire Dan Cloutier for Adrian Aucoin and a 2^nd round pick and then Alex Auld for a couple more picks. Cloutier was actually an above-average goaltender during the regular season, but his legacy was overshadowed by an inability to replicate his success in the playoffs.

His playoff save percentage is right behind Corey Hirsch and Troy Gamble.

His crowning achievement was negotiating the trade that brought both Sedins to Vancouver, though flipping an inconsequential draft pick for Trevor Linden carried emotional significance. His last good trade was Peter Schaefer for Sami Salo, then he spent two years shuffling around draft picks and minor players. His most significant acquisition in that timespan was Marek Malik, just to give an idea as to how much he had stopped trying.

The greatest tragedy is that he played the majority of his career pre-shootout. 

Dave Nonis:

Let’s get this out of the way early: Nonis completely robbed the Florida Panthers of Roberto Luongo. The trade was so obviously lopsided that Mike Keenan was fired as Panthers GM immediately afterwards. However, Nonis’ inability to negotiate even one other marginally advantageous trade suggests that the Luongo deal was just a final ‘screw-you’ to the Panthers ownership from Keenan. In four years, Nonis’ second-best trade was a mid-round pick for Taylor Pyatt. Sure, he managed to get a 2^nd round draft pick for Brent Sopel, but he would later trade that pick ALONG WITH a 4^th round pick for…Brent Sopel. He literally threw away a 4^th round pick just to put Brent Sopel on another team for six months. And just for some salt in the wound, that 2^nd round pick turned out to be Wayne Simmonds.

Brent Sopel: So ugly that Dave Nonis gave up Wayne Simmonds just to get rid of him for six months.

Mike Gillis:

On the negative, Gillis never made any outstanding trades. His best trade was two nobodies for Christian Ehrhoff, but that was mostly just a salary dump for San Jose. On the positive, Gillis was very good at finding rental players. Burke threw away RJ Umberger for Martin Rucinsky and then later a 2^nd round pick for Drake Berehowsky. Nonis’ best trade-deadline move was losing a 2^nd round pick for Bryan Smolinski. But Gillis was able to find useful players at the trade deadline like Chris Higgins and Maxim Lapierre, and they only cost a 3^rd round pick and a minor leaguer each.

Verdict:

All three GMs did little-to-nothing towards the end of their respective tenures. Burke wins the Best Trade Award for the Sedins, Nonis wins the Biggest Steal Award for Luongo, and Gillis deserves credit for bringing in Higgins and Lapierre at the deadline, but looking over their entire rap sheet, I’d give it to Burke, with Gillis as runner-up, though none of these GMs was particularly strong.

Signings:

Brian Burke:

In six seasons, Burke only signed four free-agents who played more than a handful of games. Those four: Murray Baron, Harry York, Andrew Cassels, and Magnus Arvedson. They combined for 8 points in 30 playoff games.

Erik Karlsson recently passed him for 2nd on all-time scoring for the Ottawa Senators among Swedes.

Dave Nonis:

He signed Willie Mitchell, a feat which singlehandedly beats Burke. But he didn’t do much beyond that. His other notable signings include Jan Bulis (the namesake of the Pass it to Bulis blog), Rory Fitzpatrick (who was almost jokingly voted into an all-star game), Jeff "Bra-Barian" Cowan, and Curtis "Sandman" Sanford (Luongo’s longest-serving backup). In short, Nonis signed a lot of players who are famous for something other than being good hockey players.

Looking back, we were probably pretty bored.

Mike Gillis:

This is where Gillis shined. As a former player agent, he was seen as a GM who could attract talent in the free-agent market where Burke and Nonis failed. And that view, initially at least, turned out to be accurate. In only his first two seasons, Gillis would sign free agents who would go on to play more games with the organization than every single free agent signed by Burke and Nonis combined. Those signings include Dan Hamhuis, Manny Malhotra, Raffi Torres, Mikael Samuelsson, Tanner Glass, Pavol Demitra, Chris Tanev, and Darcy Hordichuk. Even omitting his offer sheet to David Backes, or his success in landing Mats Sundin, Gillis is the clear winner here. Unfortunately, his only notable signing in his final four years was Jason Garrison.

Watching Sundin score the shootout-winning goal against the Leafs made every penny of his contract worth it.

Verdict:

No GM owns a category like Gillis owns free agency.

Goalie Controversy

The biggest knock against Gillis was his handling of the goaltender controversy. Here’s how that came about:

1. He had a franchise goalie.
2. He signed the franchise goalie to a franchise contract.
3. A second franchise goalie developed within the organization.

You’re in that situation. What do you do?

1. Trade your franchise goalie and keep the young goalie, or
2. Trade your young goalie and keep the franchise goalie?

You choose (1):

Other GMs are aware that you’re desperate to move one of your goalies. They point-out that they would also be required to take on a massive contract, and that goalies have not fetched a high return on the trade market for the past 10 years. You do not receive any good trade offers.

You choose (2):

Other GMs are sceptical of your asking price for a young goalie who has not played much at the NHL level. You must either trade the goalie for very little, or else play him at your franchise goalie’s expense to give him NHL exposure and boost his trade value.

Obviously, Gillis’ only choice was B, and that’s what caused the “goalie controversy” despite there being no personal hostility between Luongo and Schneider. The “controversy” was completely manufactured by the VMB. Look around the NHL at other teams who have two good goalies: Anaheim, St. Louis, Los Angeles. Do these teams have “goalie controversies”? No, they just have two good goalies, and they play in a hockey market where the media isn’t going to pretend that it’s anything more than that.

Final Word:

And now Jim Benning is the team’s GM. Here’s a question: Why is it that when Mike Gillis trades away Roberto Luongo for a bottom six player and a goaltending prospect, he’s a moron, but when Jim Benning trades away Jason Garrison with a pick and prospect for a bottom six player, he’s a shrewd businessman looking to shed salary while getting rid of a player who wasn’t fitting into the organization? Sure, he saved some cap space, but then he spent it on Ryan Miller who hasn’t been good in 4 years, and has recently posted similar stats to young up-and-comer Eddie Lack! Based on the trajectories of their careers, Lack should be the better goalie by next year. So why are we giving 18 million dollars to a guy who may soon be our second-best goalie?!

It was time for Gillis to go. But we’re soon going to realize that we took him for granted. 

Sham Sharron is a Sham

If you haven't heard, there's an article going around Canuck Land about the uselessness of Ron Delorme and his scouting staff. If you haven’t read it at Canucks Army, I’ll give you the breakdown:

Ron Delorme, the Canuck’s Chief of Amateur Scouting, is so bad at his job that any nitwit with access to basic statistics could make better draft selections. By simply selecting the CHL’s highest-scoring forward available, the team could have drafted Justin Williams instead of Nathan Smith, P.A. Parenteau rather than Konstantin Mikhailov, Matt Stajan over Kirill Koltsov, and Claude Giroux (!) over Michael Grabner.

Ultimately, the article summarizes, the Canucks have missed out on almost 1000 extra goals in over 4000 extra man games (and counting) by relying on Ron Delorme’s scouting staff (and unnecessarily paying their salaries).

Frequent readers of my blog will know that I relish finding simple formulas that outperform raw intuition. In fact, both of them shared the article on my Facebook wall.

Needless to say, other Canuck fans are deliriously giddy over this newfound gem, practically begging to hand-deliver the news to Jim Benning’s front door. And initially, so was I. But then I discovered a problem.

It’s bullshit.

And even though I love a simple formula that outperforms intuition, it doesn’t apply when the formula is bullshit.

Oh sure, it may look airtight to the amateur armchair GM. But when you look below the surface, you'll see that you need to predict the future in order to make use out of the method. Like any poor indicator, it uses information that would not be available to the GM at the time of the draft pick. And any method that relies on not-yet-available information is only effective in 20/20 hindsight.

If you believe that the Sham Sharron method is simply picking the next-available CHL forward who scored the most points in his draft-eligible year, then you failed to read the fine print. 

Here’s how the method actually works:

1. Look at a given Canucks draft-pick, and all of the players chosen after that draft-pick, but before their next draft-pick.
   
2. Only look at the CHL forwards.
   
3. Select the player with the highest-scoring draft year FROM AMONG THOSE WHO WERE SELECTED BEFORE THEIR NEXT PICK.
   

So in the above illustration, it looks pretty simple. Of the 15 forwards who were drafted between 24^th and 60^th, Mike Richards was the highest scoring forward. Sham would therefore select him. Except that there’s one easily overlooked problem: When Sham goes to make his selection, the draft board looks like this:

Sham, the uneducated intern, has no idea who the other teams are going to select before his next pick. For all he knows, any one of those teams might select Corey Locke (who led the CHL in scoring with 151 points). 

Would you draft this guy over Ryan Kesler?

Unless Sham has a crystal ball, he has no idea that Locke will go unselected until the 113^th pick. At this point in the draft, an uneducated moron like Sham might believe that Locke has a good chance of being selected in the near future. Following his formula, he should therefore draft Locke over Mike Richards (or Ryan Kesler, Corey Perry, Shea Weber, or Patrice Bergeron). Corey Locke, in case you’ve never heard of him, would play a grand total of 9 NHL games, assisting on a single goal by Nick Foligno during a stint with the Senators. For those keeping track, that’s 645 games, 391 points, and one Selke Trophy fewer than Delorme’s preference - Ryan Kesler. Suddenly, the New York Rangers aren’t the only team that busted in the 2003 first round.

Hugh Jessiman, better known by his nickname, "Oops".

If you’re curious as to Sham’s 1^st round picks in every other year:

On the surface, it may not seem like Sham does too poorly in comparison with the Canucks’ actual picks. Although he scores only half the points, he does so without any salary and still picking the better player almost half of the time.

But when you look below the surface, you realize something terrible: Not only is Sham completely neglecting defense and goaltending, but all of his forwards are one-dimensional scorers! Ryan Kesler ALONE is more valuable than every one of Sham’s picks COMBINED!

And let’s not forget that the article conveniently applies Sham’s method beginning in 2000 as opposed to one year earlier. What would Sham have done if he had been hired in 1999?

I’m no Ron Delorme fan, but he's at least worth a positive number.

---EDIT---

After I posted this, it was brought to my attention that the Sham Sharron method chooses players based on their scoring numbers at age 17 which isn't necessarily the year that they're draft eligible. I humbly re-did some calculations, and discovered ANOTHER problem: SHAM FUDGED SOME NUMBERS!

Justin Williams, for example, may have scored 83 points in his draft eligible season, but he was 18 years old at the time. He was born in October 1981, so he would have turned 17 at the start of the 1998-99 season in which he scored a measly 12 points in 47 games. Nathan Smith, by comparison, scored 49 points at 17-years-old and 90 points at 18-years-old.

The Churko Formula's 2nd Round Predictions

The Churko Formula guarantees a correct prediction for at least 8/15 series. So the fact that it's only 4/8 thus far means that it must go at least 4/7 over the next three rounds. Hang onto your seats and get ready for some wild predictions, because for the first time since its implementation, we're going WAY off the map.

Atlantic Division Finals

Prediction: Canadiens in 6

The Formula predicted both to lose in the 1st round. Between this year and last year, the Canadiens have been the only Formula-proof team in the league, so maybe this will be a miscalculation as well. My intuition wants to go with Boston, but that was true in the Stanley Cup Finals last year too. Don't worry - Montreal has to lose either this round or next round.

If They Win...

They'd lose to Pittsburgh, but could beat New York. If they could manage to get to the Finals, they'd have a 50/50 shot at winning depending on who they play.

If They Lose...

Boston is unstoppable...unless they face Anaheim in the Finals.

Metro Division Finals

Prediction: Penguins in 7

Unlike the Atlantic Division, the Formula predicted both of these teams to win. It should be a close series that possibly goes to seven games, but if it does, the home-ice advantage will tip the scales in Pittsburgh's favour.

If They Win...

They'd go on to beat Montreal or else lose to Boston. If they make it to the Finals, they'll win the Stanley Cup.

If They Lose...

New York will lose in the next round anyway.

Central Division Finals

Prediction: Wild in 6

Easily the most Wild prediction of the round, but Chicago only managed one regulation win against Minnesota in the regular season. The Formula predicted Minnesota to lose and Chicago to win in the first round, so it seems strange that it should suddenly favour Minnesota, but that's how the Formula works - it's all about who you play.

If They Win...

They'd probably lose to Anaheim, but in the event that they face the Kings, they could make it to the Finals...and then definitely lose.

If They Lose...

Chicago will probably make another run to the Finals. And then probably lose unless they're playing Montreal.

Pacific Division Finals

Prediction: Ducks in 5

Just like the Central Division, it's a team that was predicted to lose versus a team that was predicted to win, but now it's the former who's predicted to win. 

If They Win...

They'd beat Minnesota, but in the event that Chicago gets through, they'd probably be taken out. I'd say they're a 50-50 shot to make the Finals, and then a 50-50 shot to win in the Finals. 

If They Lose...

LA would go down to either Chicago or Minnesota...but if they made the finals, they'd have a 50-50 chance.

The Churko Formula's Guide to the 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Last year, I published The Churko Formula, a method of picking the winners of playoff series based off of season series. To my knowledge, it’s the only method that’s guaranteed to pick a winner more than 50% of the time, or in the case of last season, 87% of the time.

Because I’m not in any hockey pool this year, I don’t mind tipping my hand early and sharing my predictions. If I’m right, it only adds to my credibility, yeah?

Boston Bruins – 1st Eastern Conference

Won Season Series: Tampa Bay, Columbus, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh

Lost Season Series: Detroit, Montreal

Prediction: Possible first-round exit; otherwise good chance at Stanley Cup

This has the potential to be the upset of the year as there’s a 74% chance that they’ll face the Red Wings, who beat them 3 out of 4 times during the regular season. But in the 26% chance of event that they’ll face Columbus or Philadelphia, it should be a clean shot to the Finals for the Bruins.

Pittsburgh Penguins – 2nd Eastern Conference

Won Season Series: Tampa Bay, Columbus

Lost Season Series: Boston, Philadelphia

Tied Season Series: Detroit, Montreal, New York

Prediction: Stanley Cup Favourites

Pittsburgh should be safe, especially since they have a 63% chance of facing Columbus who they beat 5 out of 5 times (all in regulation). There is, however, an 11% chance of facing the Flyers in the first round who beat them 4 out of 5 times. But given that that’s a slim chance, and Boston has moderate-to-good odds of falling in the first two rounds, Pittsburgh is pretty far down my likeliness-to-choke-o-meter.

Tampa Bay Lightning – 2nd Atlantic Division

Won Season Series: Montreal, New York, Philadelphia, Detroit

Lost Season Series: Boston, Pittsburgh, Columbus

Prediction: Eliminated somewhere between 2nd Round & Stanley Cup Finals

There’s still the possibility that Tampa Bay will drop down to 3rd in the division, but they’ll face Montreal either way. The two teams split shootout victories, but Tampa Bay won both non-shootout games, which is what counts. If The Churko Formula is especially accurate, Tampa Bay should be a dark-horse favourite, provided that Boston and Pittsburgh get knocked out early.

Montreal Canadiens – 3rd Atlantic Division

Won Season Series: Boston

Lost Season Series: Tampa Bay, Philadelphia

Tied Season Series: Pittsburgh, Columbus, Detroit, New York

Prediction: Eliminated 1st Round; otherwise Eastern Finals

They technically have one more series-deciding game against the Rangers, but given the slim chance that they’ll actually face them, I’m not bothering to wait for the result. In the event of a tied season series, the edge goes to home-ice advantage, and Montreal would have home-ice advantage against most teams. Unfortunately, they’d have to defy my formula to get past the Lightning, then defy everyone else to get past Boston, then defy both to get past Pittsburgh.

New York Rangers – 2nd Metro Division

Won Season Series: Columbus, Detroit

Lost Season Series: Boston, Tampa Bay

Tied Season Series: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Montreal

Prediction: Eliminated in 2nd Round

Statistics show that home-ice advantage is a better prediction of victory in a tied season series than a won season series. Bearing that in mind, New York should be one of the safest first-round bets. They have an 83% chance of facing Philadelphia, and a 17% chance of facing Columbus, neither of whom are favoured by The Churko Formula. They’ll have to beat some major odds to avoid Pittsburgh or Boston in later rounds, but winning the East isn’t impossible for the Rangers.

Philadelphia Flyers – 3rd Metro Division

Won Season Series: Pittsburgh, Montreal, Detroit

Lost Season Series: Boston, Tampa Bay, Columbus

Tied Season Series: New York

Prediction: Eliminated in 1st Round 

They have an 83% chance of facing New York who they likely wouldn’t beat, an 11% of facing Boston who they likely wouldn’t beat, and a 6% chance of facing Pittsburgh who they could beat. But then even if they defeated Pittsburgh, they’d probably lose to either New York or Columbus in the second round, and even if they defiantly won, they’d likely have Boston or Tampa Bay waiting for them in the Eastern Finals. Let’s put it this way: If Philadelphia wins the East, I’ll stop talking about the Churko Formula. Deal?

Columbus Blue Jackets – 1st Wild Card

Won Season Series: Tampa Bay, Philadelphia, Detroit

Lost Season Series: Boston, Pittsburgh, New York

Tied Season Series: Montreal

Prediction: Eliminated in 1st Round

There are actually a fair number of teams that Columbus could beat. And depending on the last two days of the regular season, there are several teams that Columbus might face in the first round. There’s a 63% chance that they play Pittsburgh, a 20% chance that they play Boston, and a 17% chance that they play New York, so…um…okay fine, Columbus is going to lose right away.

Detroit Red Wings – 2nd Wild Card

Won Season Series: Boston

Lost Season Series: Tampa Bay, New York, Philadelphia, Columbus

Tied Season Series: Pittsburgh, Montreal

Prediction: Eliminated in 2nd Round

Well, they've only won a single season series so I guess…wait, they beat THE BRUINS?! And they’re probably going to play the Bruins in the first round?! Alright, I guess Detroit is just here to slay the dragon and then peace out in the second round. Thanks for potentially making the eastern playoffs more exciting, Motor City. We should invite you more often.

Anaheim Ducks – 1st Western Conference

Won Season Series: St. Louis, Los Angeles, Minnesota

Lost Season Series: Chicago, Dallas

Tied Season Series: San Jose, Colorado* (*with one more game)

Prediction: Eliminated in 1st or 3rd round 

Everyone should pay attention to their game Sunday against Colorado, as that puts them into a very interesting situation. If they win, they’ll have a first-round date with Dallas who beat them in the season series. If they lose, they’ll have a chance of playing Minnesota instead, but only if they lose their game tonight against LA. It’s hard to imagine Anaheim dropping both, but it may be in their best interests to do so. Let’s say they do. They would play Minnesota in the first round (and probably win), then either Los Angeles or San Jose in the second round (and probably win), but then probably either Colorado or Chicago who will both have beat them in the regular season. Either way, Anaheim’s not going to the Finals, at least not according to MY formula.

Colorado Avalanche – 2nd Western Conference

Won Season Series: San Jose, Chicago, Dallas, Minnesota

Lost Season Series: St. Louis

Tied Season Series: Anaheim* (*with one more game), Los Angeles

Prediction: Eliminated in 2nd Round or Stanley Cup Finals

The Avalanche are guaranteed to have the Churko Advantage (I just made that up, and I’m keeping it) in the first round. As long as they stay ahead of St. Louis (73% likelihood), they can take out a wildcard team, let the Blackhawks take care of the Blues, and then punch-out the Blackhawks. The most likely winners of the Pacific Division will either be Anaheim or (as I explain later, surprisingly) Dallas. Colorado could beat Dallas, but Anaheim? The season series will be determined on Sunday, though as mentioned above, Anaheim may lose the game strategically (but probably not). In the 27% chance that Colorado falls behind St. Louis, they’ll have no way to avoid the Blues and will bow-out in the second round. But amazingly, The Churko Formula predicts these guys as having the best chances of winning the west.

St. Louis Blues – 2nd Central Division

Won Season Series: Colorado, Minnesota

Lost Season Series: Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Jose, Chicago, Dallas

Prediction: Eliminated in 1st or 3rd round

For such a good team, the Blues have lost a surprisingly large number of season series matchups. Depending on how Sunday goes, there’s a 27% chance that St. Louis will recover from their losing streak and lock the top spot in the Central. If that’s the case, they can take out Minnesota and then probably Colorado, but even then, they’ll be stonewalled in the Western Finals. In the much more likely event that they face Chicago right away, they’ll probably be knocked out in the first round.

Chicago Blackhawks – 3rd Central Division

Won Season Series: Anaheim, St. Louis, San Jose, Los Angeles, Dallas

Lost Season Series: Colorado, Minnesota

Prediction: Eliminated 1st, 2nd, or 4th round (they're a hard team to predict)

They’re the exact opposite of St. Louis. St. Louis can only beat Colorado and Minnesota, and Chicago can only beat everyone else. What does that mean for the defending Stanley Cup Champions? They’ll probably lose to Colorado in one of the first two rounds (they lost 4 of 5 to the Avalanche during the season), but if they use take advantage of all of their extra playoff experience (which is probable), they could be an exception to the rule and win the West.

San Jose Sharks – 2nd Pacific Division

Won Season Series: St. Louis, Minnesota, Dallas

Lost Season Series: Los Angeles, Colorado, Chicago

Tied Season Series: Anaheim

Prediction: Eliminated in 1st round

Not much to this. They’ll lose to Los Angeles. If not, they’ll lose to Anaheim. If not, they’ll lose to Chicago or Colorado. If not, they’ll lose to Boston or Pittsburgh. If not, then I guess I look like the world’s biggest jackass.

Los Angeles Kings – 3rd Pacific Division

Won Season Series: St. Louis, San Jose

Lost Season Series: Anaheim, Chicago, Minnesota, Dallas

Tied Season Series: Colorado

Prediction: Eliminated in 2nd round

Again, pretty cut-and-dry. They should beat San Jose then lose in the second round, or eventually.

Minnesota Wild – 1st Wild Card

Won Season Series: Chicago, Los Angeles

Lost Season Series: Anaheim, Colorado, St. Louis, San Jose

Tied Season Series: Dallas

Prediction: Eliminated in 1st round

Impressively, the Wild have the Churko Advantage (heh) over recent champions Chicago and Los Angeles as well as Dallas. Unfortunately, they have no chance of playing any of them in the first round, so it should be a short post-season return for Minnesota.

Dallas Stars – 2nd Wild Card

Won Season Series: Anaheim, St. Louis, Los Angeles

Lost Season Series: Colorado, Chicago, San Jose

Tied Season Series: Minnesota

Prediction: Eliminated in 1st or 3rd round.

Funny how the first ever western “Wild Card” teams would literally be the Wild and the Stars (who are from the wild west). Just thought I’d point that out. Speaking of wild, the Stars have an 80% chance of facing the Ducks, who they beat in the season series. If they win, they’ll probably play the Kings, who they also beat in the season series. In short, the Stars are my dark horse favourite to go to the Western Finals.

The Stanley Cup Finals

My favorite teams to win the East: Pittsburgh, Boston, Tampa Bay

My favorite teams to win the West: Colorado, Chicago, Anaheim

Boston could beat Chicago or Colorado
Pittsburgh could beat any of them
Tampa Bay could beat Chicago

My Prediction: Pittsburgh over Colorado

The Value of Playoff Experience

Pictured: Not Luongo or Schneider.
His mouth may be smiling but his eyes are filled with terror.

My beloved Canucks recently traded away a goalie with 65 games of playoff experience in exchange for Jacob Markstrom...who has played in exactly zero playoff games. Markstrom will play backup to Eddie Lack...who has also played zero playoff games. Pulling out my abacus and doing some simple calculations, I deduce that the Canucks now have two goalies who combine for the same amount of NHL postseason experience as my left shoe! 

So what exactly was Mike Gillis thinking?

To assess this trade, we need to examine what post-season experience is actually worth in evaluating goalies. How poorly does the average goaltender play in his first NHL game compared to his tenth? Or twentieth? How long does it take before the jitters wear off?

Recent Stanley Cup Champion, Corey Crawford, needed four playoff games to earn his first win. Henrik Lundqvist couldn’t get his save percentage above .875 until his fifth game. In a best-of-seven playoff format, four or five games could mean an entire season.

There are 30 active goaltenders in the NHL who have started at least five playoff games. Among those 30, only 11 won their playoff debut, the most recent being Michal Neuvirth in 2011.

So how many games does the average goalie need to notch his first playoff win? Surprisingly, it’s only 1.96. In other words, most goalies are able to win at least one of their first two games. Bear in mind that we’re looking exclusively at goalies who have started at least five playoff games, so we’re taking an elite sample. But in playoff games, these elite goalies are predominantly playing against other elite goalies, so the average winning percentage should stay close to 50% (it’s actually 52%).

Alright, so given that the average elite goaltender wins 52% of the time, how does that percentage vary given the number of playoff games he’s previously played?

Looking at the chart, it seems that goalies begin just above-average and then steadily improve over their first thirty games before suddenly crashing at the 31-35 mark. 

The 30th Game Cold-Streak

It’s a strange phenomenon, but on-the-whole, goalies seem to play consistently well in games 25-29 (winning 53-76% of their games), then consistently poor in games 30-35 (winning only 35-52%), then back to above-average in games 36-41 (winning 54-69%). 

Get this: Henrik Lundqvist, Roberto Luongo, Jonathan Quick, Ryan Miller, Nikolai Khabibulin, and Antti Niemi combined for an impressive 21-9 record in games 25-29 of their respective playoff careers (6 goalies times 5 games each), but then dropped to an ice-cold 11-25 record in games 30-35 before upswinging to 20-15 in games 36-41.

What is it about playing in your 30^th playoff game that makes you hit a six-game cold streak? Even the great Martin Brodeur lost three straight beginning with his 30^th playoff game before winning 9 in a row afterwards.

More importantly, which goalies are likely to reach their 30^th game this year? Carey Price is probably the only one (he’s played 26 thus far). But then again, he’s lost 10 of his last 14 playoff games, so maybe he just hit his slump early.

The Phoenix Coyotes are my favourite dark-horse playoff team this year, not only because they wear the right colours, but also because they’ve held their ownagainst the Sharks and Blues during the regular season. And if you need another reason to fear Phoenix: Mike Smith is heading into his prime playoff games, but he’s still distant enough from his 30^th.

Another statistic to consider is save percentage. Because we’re in elite company, the average playoff save percentage is .912. Does that fluctuate with experience?

This graph is a little more erratic, but has an overall positive trend for the first 40-45 games before a dramatic drop-off (presumably due to aging).

Between these two charts, it’s fairly safe to say that a goalie’s performance peaks around his 40^th career playoff start. Let’s see…which goalies are coming up on their 40^th game?

…Corey Crawford (36) and Tuukka Rask (35)…well, that’s just great. Oh well, at least those two are peaking when the Canucks won’t even be around. Oh hey, I forgot about the Canucks!

So did the Canucks really get ripped off by gaining a goalie with zero games of experience while losing another with 65 games?

Nah, I think this one will pay off. 

Blue Teams Finish Last

            “Okay guys, we’ve got our team name, we’ve got our logo, now we just need to pick our team colours. Dave?”

            “I like red. It’s the colour of blood and war. It’ll inspire our team to battle for glory!”

            “Interesting. Jim?”

“Black, so we can strike fear into the hearts of corruption and injustice…and our opponents.”

“Cool. I especially like the raspy voice. Greg?”

“We should go with yellow. It’ll be cheaper to give away free t-shirts on fan appreciation nights.”

“That’s my favourite so far. Alright, let’s discuss our options until we come to a consensus.”

(5 hours later)

“(Sigh) Okay guys, for the sake of unity, let’s just go with blue. Would everyone be satisfied with blue?”

“Sure. Okay. Fine.”

Ahh...the sweet hue of compromise.

It’s no surprise that at any given time, roughly a third of the teams in the NHL wear blue as their primary colour. Blue, after all, is the favourite colour of more than half of US adults. What is a surprise however, is how rare it is to see any of those teams hoist a Cup. Here’s a collage of the last 18 Stanley Cup Champions going back to 1995.

Aside from the trim in the Colorado and Tampa Bay uniforms, that picture is devoid of the colour blue (unless you count the Canucks jerseys behind Zdeno Chara's massive grinning head). So what the heck is going on?

            But before we get to that, WAIT, it gets even weirder! Even if you look at the losing team in the Stanley Cup Finals, there are only three teams going back to 1984:

The 2011 Vancouver Canucks, The 2006 Edmonton Oilers, and the 1998 Washington Capitals are the only blue teams to appear in the Stanley Cup Finals since 1994.

             Theoretically, with one third of the teams wearing primarily blue, we should expect to see a blue-jerseyed Stanley Cup Champion every three years. But in reality, you’re worse-off wearing blue than you are being from Canada. No wonder teams like Toronto and Vancouver are so championship-starved. The Canucks have only been to the Finals three times, and only once wearing blue. The ever-blue Leafs haven’t even seen the Finals since 1967.

            Quick, name some teams that seem to be perpetually above-average or better. Are they also perpetually red?

Pictured: Winners

Okay, the Chicago Blackhawks only recently became good after many seasons of being awful, but I needed a fourth team to symmetrize the image.

Time for some NHL trivia. Which team has the longest current Stanley Cup drought?

Hint: Formerly known as the Toronto Blueshirts

Which team has the longest all-time Stanley Cup drought?

Hint: Colloquially known as the Broadway Blueshirts 

Which is the oldest team to have never won a Stanley Cup?

Hint: They have the word "Blue" right in their name!

Which two teams are tied for the second-oldest?

Da-ba-dee-da-ba-daa.

Which was the last team to make their first post-season appearance?

Hint: They're still waiting for that first post-season win.

The San Jose Sharks are a team that’s never terrible, but can never seem to go all the way. Maybe it’s because they’re always kind-of blue, kind-of not. The Penguins dabbled into baby-blue territory, but then Crosby got hurt so they presumably decided not to tempt the Hockey Gods further and returned to black. The Florida Panthers and Nashville Predators both went blue for a couple of seasons recently, but then decided that they didn't need to inhibit themselves further.

On second thought, I like our odds better with mustard yellow.

            Is there any rhyme or reason to the overarching inferiority of blue teams, or is red just a lucky colour? According to an article by Ben Leach of The Telegraph, a study by sports psychologists at the University of Munster revealed that in contact sports, teams wearing red are victorious 5-10% more frequently. Norbert Hagemann, the leader of the study, commented, "If one competitor is strong and the other weak, it won't change the outcome of the fight. But the closer the levels, the easier it is for the colour to tip the scales".

            Why is red linked to success? It could be that the colour red is a stimulant that imbalances the opposing teams mentality. Blue, on the other hand, is a relaxant (which is it’s a popular “favourite” colour). Or perhaps being surrounded by red jerseys pregame energizes the team wearing that colour.

            Since 1995, the average blue-coloured team has a 1.6% chance of making it to the finals compared to a 5% chance for the average red-coloured team, and a 4% chance for the average black-coloured team.

            Now maybe you’re thinking that I, as a Canucks fan, am trying to make excuses for my team’s lack of success.

1)      Shut up.

2)      My argument goes for all blue teams.

Or maybe you’re thinking that I’m cherry-picking examples to support a weak argument. How do I explain the success of the 1980s New York Islanders and Edmonton Oilers?

Notice that the Munster study concluded that a blue uniform won’t inhibit a clearly stronger competitor. And the New York Islanders and Edmonton Oilers were hardly flukes in the 80s; they were dynasties loaded with superstars. They could’ve worn pink leotards and blown away the competition.

So if you want to see team success, forget about all the subtle roster changes and coaching. Just ditch the stupid blue uniforms. I don’t know why 90% of teams choose either blue, red, or black. The Anaheim Ducks looked fine in eggplant and jade until they switched to black and…won a Stanley Cup the following season…okay, bad example.

Even Teemu looks dorky in those colours.

Remember those horrible Canucks jerseys from the 80s that everyone likes to make fun of?

 

Harold Snepsts and Darcy Rota accept the award for Most Overachieving Team Ever

Say what you will – they were designed by a sports psychologist for the purpose of intimidation, and what happened? They somehow made it to the Finals with a team of nobodies. I rest my case, thank you very much.

Now excuse me as I watch youtube videos until the image of Mark Messier in a pink leotard vacates my mind.

You're welcome.