Want to Win? Wear Black. Or Red. Or not Blue.

Stop me if you've heard this before:

(I'll continue because I know you haven't heard this before because you don't read my blog. How did you get here?)

Blue Teams Don't Win.


Glossary: 

Blue Teams: NHL clubs whose uniforms are predominantly blue.

Win: Win the Stanley Cup

Don't: They don't do it.

"Hey, wait a minute," you say. "That collage of jubilant neck-beards doesn't include anything before 1995. Which was right after the Rangers won. Which was right after the Oilers and Islanders won a whole bunch. Which was only a couple of decades after the Maple Leafs won. You're cherry-picking your data!".

Never mind. Apparently, their jerseys were grey.

Okay, I concede, it's not that blue teams CAN'T win. They just don't. At least, not anymore. Probably because you can't have teams loaded with superstars like you could back when there were only six teams and no salary cap. 

As soon as the Original Six era ended, blue teams went on a 12-year Stanley Cup drought. Then the Islanders got a bunch of superstars and won a bunch of Stanley Cups. Then the Oilers got a larger bunch of better superstars and won a larger bunch of Stanley Cups. Then the Rangers stole a bunch of their superstars, added some superstars of their own, and (barely) defeated a ragtag group of misfits to end a 54-year drought. 

Pictured: The Canucks top defenseman that year. Again, the Rangers almost lost with Messier, Leetch, Graves, and Richter.

But that was the end of the Blue era. The next teams to load-up on superstars would be the Red Wings and the Avalanche (and the Stars, to a lesser extent). Then the Devils said, "hey, you know how nobody plays defense because it's boring and would completely ruin the entertainment aspect of the sport? Let's not care." So they stopped caring, started playing defense, and they won the Stanley Cup a few times as well.

Then NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said: "No more loading-up on superstars or playing defense."

"Screw you." Replied everyone else, especially the rich teams.

Nobody won the Stanley Cup that year (2005) because Gary Bettman cancelled it.

"Okay fine." said everyone else. Since then (2006), teams have only been allowed to spend up to a certain amount on player salaries. This means that teams can only afford a certain number of superstars. So from then on, even the best team was only a little better than every other team. Teams still played defense, but the players weren't allowed to give each other concussions anymore.

But then a weird thing happened. Even though there were no more dominant teams, blue teams kept losing. This was especially weird because there were a lot of them. Of the 30 teams, an average of 11 of them wore blue each season. A blue team winning the Stanley Cup should have been as likely as you winning a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Twelve years later, and the red/black streak still hasn't ended. That's less-likely than you playing twelve rounds of Rock-Paper-Scissors and not winning once. And has that ever happened to you?!

Because I'm a nerd, I actually calculated how unlikely it is that you would see a streak of 22-consecutive fails in a string of 90 iterations with a 33% chance of success. 316:1.

So then "Why?", I ask, stroking my beard, sipping my latte, in a philosophical affectation.

Oh look, here are a bunch of scientific studies that you aren't going to read, but you may click on only to verify that, yes, they are a bunch of scientific studies and not just pop-science junk.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23917700
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02640410701736244
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/stop-on-red-a-monkey-study-suggests-that-the-effects-of-color-lie-deep-in-evolution.html#.WUIZUGgrJ1s
https://news.dartmouth.edu/news/2011/09/dartmouth-researcher-finds-monkeys-leery-color-red
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/6097954/Why-teams-in-red-win-more.html

Okay, that last one was pop-science junk. But since you didn't read them anyway, I'll sum them up:

Wear Red = Win

When you control for athleticism and skill, red and black teams are at a psychological advantage over blue teams. And since the induction of the salary cap, athleticism and skill are being controlled for.

So if you're the manager of an NHL team and you don't want to be at a psychological disadvantage, call a marketing meeting and change your team colours. 

The Problem with the Hart Trophy

Welcome to my bi-annual blog entry – where I share my thoughts when I have a problem with the NHL that nobody else is talking about.

You know what problem nobody seems to be talking about? The fact that there isn’t a clear consensus on who’s supposed to be awarded the Hart Memorial Trophy.

Photocred: usatoday.com

The Hart is easily the most prestigious trophy among those awarded to individual players. And each year members of the Professional Hockey Writers’ Association vote on who wins it. But before we get into the criteria, let’s differentiate between two important concepts: (1) Player of the Year, and (2) Most Valuable Player.

Player of the Year: The best overall player. If you could return to the beginning of the season, and sign any player to a one-year-contract, knowing in advance how he would perform, and money was not an issue, who would you sign? That player is, in your opinion, the Player of the Year.

Most Valuable Player (MVP): The player most responsible for his team’s success. Which team would have been that much worse-off without a specific player’s presence this past season? That specific player is, in your opinion, the MVP.

Is Connor McDavid the best player in the NHL yet? Maybe not, but the Oilers are substantially better with him than without him. Drew Doughty is arguably a better defenseman than Erik Karlsson, but Karlsson pushes the Senators further up the standings than Doughty does the Kings. Sergei Bobrovsky may not be the best goalie in the NHL, but where would the Blue Jackets be without him?

McDavid, Karlsson, and Bobrovsky are therefore, in my humble opinion, candidates for MVP, even if they’re not quite Player of the Year calibre.

So to which of the two, MVP or Player of the Year, is the Hart Trophy awarded?

Patrick Kane, last year’s winner of the Hart, was easily the best player in the NHL, winning the scoring title by a mile. But was he the most valuable to his team? I believe that the Chicago Blackhawks would’ve been just fine, permitted that they retained the services of Jonathan Toews, Marian Hossa, and Duncan Keith. So from an MVP perspective, Kane should not have won.

But on the other hand, Jose Theodore, who won the Hart in 2002, was not the best player in the NHL. However, the Montreal Canadiens would have been substantially worse-off had it not been for his outstanding play. So from an MVP perspective, he was the correct winner.

Evidently the Hart Trophy itself can’t decide whether it’s awarded to the Player of the Year or MVP.

So then which should it be: Player of the Year or MVP?

MVP seems to have a fairly airtight case as it’s written right there in the trophy’s definition: “[The Hart Trophy] is awarded annually to the "player judged most valuable to his team" in the National Hockey League”.

But that presents a problem. If the Hart Trophy is for the MVP, then what about the Player of the Year? Isn’t it a greater accomplishment to be the best player in the NHL? Is it fair that Patrick Kane misses out on the top individual award because he happens to have talented teammates? It isn’t Kane’s fault that he plays for a great organization, so why should he lose votes to a lesser player on an otherwise-crap team?

The letter of the trophy may say MVP. But the spirit of the trophy suggests Player of the Year. And those who vote seem to differ as to which they subscribe. I’m reluctant to suggest adding new trophies, but hey, if the Oscars can honor both Best Picture and Best Director (the winner of one tends to be the runner-up in the other), then maybe the NHL should add a Player of the Year to compliment the MVP.

Ranking the Best-Drafting NHL Teams Since 2000

It’s Draft Day! Or as my adorable wife once misheard me, Giraffe Day!

Pictured: My future daughter, every Draft Day.

In celebration of the NHL Giraffe, I have written a long-neck of a post in which I (using data) rank all of the teams in the NHL from worst to best on their drafting ability since 2000.

By drafting ability, I mean that I will be answering the following question:

If a player was drafted by [Team X] between 2000 and 2014, what is the likelihood that he would eventually become a full-time NHL player?

You may be surprised to find that the ability to draft future NHL-players doesn’t correlate to team success. Boston and Chicago both scored surprisingly low, whereas Toronto and Carolina are in the top-10. But when you consider that Boston drafted Andrew Raycroft and Toronto drafted Tuukka Rask, you see that a team who drafts well can still sabotage themselves through an inability to retain good prospects.

Method for Ranking:

Step 1) Add up the total number of man-games played by draftees of each NHL team, regardless of whether they went on to play for the team that drafted them.

Step 2) Weight each draft year according to recency. Obviously, players drafted in the year 2000 have had a larger opportunity to accumulate man-games. Therefore, if we don’t place weight on more recent years, then a team who drafted very well from 2000-2002 will have accumulated many more man-games than a team who drafted very well from 2009-2011. As an example, a player drafted in the year 2001 who’s played 500 NHL games is equivalent to a player drafted in 2006 who’s played 257 games. This gives us the team’s “Weighted Drafted Man-Games”.

Step 3) Find the average number of NHL games played by draftees in each round of each year, dividing the first round into Top 10, 11-20, and Bottom 10. A second-round pick is usually more likely to produce a future NHL player than a third-round pick. And nothing is more valuable than a top-10 pick. Certain rounds in certain years produce hardly any NHL players – you were lucky if you got anything out of a 5^th-round pick in 2006, for example. This assigns value to each draft pick. The most valuable picks were: Top-10 in 2003, Top-10 in 2006, and 11-20 in 2003.

Step 4) Add up the number of draft picks in each round in each year for each team, and multiply each pick by its value calculated in step 3. This gives us the team’s “Expected Drafted Man-Games”.

Step 5) Divide the number calculated in step 2 (Weighted Drafted Man-Games) by the number calculated in step 4 (Expected Drafted Man-Games) to get, what I unimaginatively call, the “Drafting Percentage”. This is the number that unequivocally (not really) rates each team’s drafting performance.

And yes, I am aware that this method is an oversimplification that disregards extraneous variables such as career-ending injuries, deaths, whether or not a player is a goaltender, and the difference between a superstar forward and a depth defenseman. But every team has a few of those, and over the course of 14 years, it should even-out, right?

You know what, drafting is largely a crap-shoot anyway so let’s just break out the popcorn, shut-off our critical-thinking lobes, and see who scored the best and worst in Churkovision’s Drafting Percentage:

Part 1: The Ten Underachievers

30. Arizona Coyotes

2003 produced the most bountiful crop of future NHL players in league history. And yet, the Coyotes couldn’t squeeze a single NHL game out of any of their eight draft picks, which if you look at the amount of players available, should be impossible. They traded away their 11^th overall pick, which would be used on Jeff Carter, to acquire Daymond Langkow.

Their best year was easily 2005 with Martin Hanzal and Keith Yandle, followed by 2004 when they drafted Blake Wheeler and Daniel Winnik. If those are considered your very best years, then you're in trouble. Third-pairing defensemen Michael Stone and Connor Murphy are the only full-time NHL players they’ve drafted outside of the top-10 since 2005.

29. Vancouver Canucks

As a Canucks fan, I’m loathe to concede this, but the numbers don’t lie.

Between 2000 and 2009, they struck-out completely in four different draft years (2000, 2002, 2007, and 2009). No other team has failed to draft a single full-time NHLer in so many seasons. And that’s not even considering 2010, which is highly unlikely to produce anyone either, or 2012 which is resting squarely on Brendan Gaunce.

To be fair, Vancouver has had a very low number of quality draft positions (only the Red Wings have had worse). But their draft picks since 2000 have only played a total of roughly 4200 games - the lowest in the league, by far. Almost 1000 games lower than the 29th-placed Coyotes. When you have the 2nd-lowest number of quality draft picks, you can't afford to have the 2nd-lowest drafting percentage. 

28. New Jersey Devils

The good news for the Devils is that they’ve drafted fairly well considering the bad number of draft picks they’ve carried in recent years. The bad news is that they’ve been at-best good, but never great. Between 2001 and 2008, they were lucky to ever draft more than one full-time NHL player in a year, occasionally missing altogether. Their best year was when they drafted Travis Zajac, if that gives you a hint as to how low their ceiling is.

New Jersey doesn’t miss the playoffs much, so they tend to draft lower which hurts their opportunities. But after the Canucks and Coyotes, the Devils have the fewest number of man-games among their draft picks.

27. Winnipeg Jets/Atlanta Thrashers

Similar to the Devils, they’ve made some decent selections in recent years. Unlike the Devils, they don’t have the playoff appearances to excuse their sub-par performance.  

2002 was the only year that can really be considered “good”, using their first three selections on Kari Lehtonen, Jim Slater, and Patrick Dwyer who are all still in the NHL. Since then, they’ve mostly dabbled in mediocrity, not finding much outside of the top-10.

Unlike the previous teams on this list, this franchise has managed to find enough future NHL players to maintain a steady stream of in-house talent. But also unlike the previous teams, they’ve never had a good season, and thus, should have drafted much better.

26. Chicago Blackhawks

I know. I didn’t think they’d score this low, either. After all, they drafted THREE future Hall-of-Famers in only six years. But hear me out.

They had 9 draft picks that were 14^th overall or higher between 2000 and 2008. In addition to Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane, those picks also include Pavel Vorobiev, Mikhael Yakubov, Cam Barker, Jack Skille, and Kyle Beach. On the whole, Chicago was more likely to whiff than score on a high draft pick. The Blackhawks are the Babe Ruth of drafting - a lot of homeruns, but also a lot of strikeouts. 

In fact, Chicago has had the highest quality/quantity draft picks since 2000. Not only did they consistently draft high, but they hoarded draft picks. They drafted 76 players from 2000 to 2005 (the league average is 52). Only 16 of those picks ever became full-time players, but they included Duncan Keith, Dave Bolland, Dustin Byfuglien, Corey Crawford, Troy Brouwer, and Bryan Bickell.

And they’re still at it. Since 2009, they’ve drafted 8-11 players each year, despite there being only 7 rounds. That strategy has allowed them to find Brandon Saad, Andrew Shaw, and Markus Kruger amidst a long list of also-rans. Let this be a lesson against trading away draft picks like Halloween candy (*cough* Vancouver). If you can’t draft well, then you can make up for it by drafting plentifully.

25.  Florida Panthers

Remember that lesson that I mentioned in the last paragraph? The one about hoarding draft picks? Scratch that. It apparently only works for Chicago.

Florida has hoarded almost as many draft picks as Chicago, and has drafted almost as many future NHL players, at a slightly-higher success rate. The problem is that while Chicago wound-up with Toews and Kane, Florida’s premiere picks were Jay Bouwmeester, Stephen Weiss, and Nathan Horton. Their later-round picks were Greg Campbell, Tanner Glass, David Booth, Lukas Krajicek, and several other players who would later be traded to the Canucks.

It’s mostly been a case of bad luck. Bouwmeester, Weiss, and Horton weren’t significantly worse than any other highly-rated prospects available at the time. Horton could’ve been Thomas Vanek, and Weiss could’ve been Mikko Koivu, but would the Panthers have been significantly better? Probably not.

Their fortunes could still change. They’ve had 42 draft picks 2010-2014, and another nine this year. Since then, they’ve had four picks in the top-3 overall. Could one of them develop into a Toews or a Kane? Maybe, but this is the Panthers that we’re talking about.

24. Boston Bruins

Oh come on! Bergeron! Krejci! Lucic! Marchand! (…Kessel…!)

I’ll admit, I had to double-check my numbers here because it didn’t seem right. Boston is perceived as a team that drafts very well, so why don’t the numbers support it?

The answer is that the Bruins drafting success was heavily concentrated in three seasons that happened 9-12 years ago, which resulted in all those draft picks simultaneously reaching their prime. Almost all of their good picks came in 2003, 2004, and 2006. But their success is heavily buoyed by poor drafting in every other year. They don’t get any points for Tyler Seguin and Dougie Hamilton who were handed to them on a silver platter (sorry Leaf fans). Outside of those two, and anything in 2003/04/06, their most notable draft pick has been either Joe Colbourne or Vladimir Sobotka.

23. New York Rangers

If you give a couple of mulligans to the Rangers, they’ve actually drafted pretty well. They’re usually good for at least two full-time NHL players each draft. However, there is one glaring hole in their record that is dragging them down hard.

When you don’t draft a single good player in the “Everybody Gets an All-Star Fest” of 2003, you don’t get to be high on this list. Only the Coyotes drafted worse, and that was because their first pick was 77^th overall.

Outside of 2003, they’ve been a mostly middle-of-the-pack team with a good mix of hits and misses.

22. Philadelphia Flyers

To their credit, the bar is set pretty low because they don’t miss the playoffs very often. Since 2000 (actually 1997), they’ve only had 5 draft picks higher than 17^th overall and they've been mostly good (Joni Pitkanen, Jeff Carter, JVR, Sean Couturier, and Samuel Morin).

To their detriment, they’re one of only five teams whose draft picks have totalled less than 7000 man games. To their further detriment, most of their drafting success is fading into history. Aside from Couturier, they haven’t had a good draft pick in seven years.

They had a strong 2003, even by 2003 standards (drafting Carter and Mike Richards in the first round), but outside of that, it’s rare for them to draft two good players in one year.

21. Tampa Bay Lightning

It’s funny how tides can change so quickly. If we were analyzing the best drafting teams from 2000 to 2010, Tampa Bay would be in last place. But thanks to their huge turnaround since 2007, they’re in…tenth-last place. Okay, maybe tides don’t change that quickly.

Still though, the improvement in their selections has been astronomical. From 1999 until 2006, their only pick that spent any significant time in the NHL was Paul Ranger. Since then, they’ve found a useful mid-round player almost every year, including Ondrej Palat and Nikita Kucherov both in 2011.

Oh and by the way, they didn’t get anyone good out of the 2003 draft either. Then they won the 2004 Stanley Cup anyway. Why do teams invest in scouting again?

Part 2: The Ten Average Teams

There are only so many ways to articulate an average team, so I won't go into much detail in this section. But just in case you're curious as to what teams are in this area: 

20. St. Louis Blues

Average number of opportunities; below average number of successes.

19. Minnesota Wild

Fairly good number of opportunities; average number of successes.

18. Pittsburgh Penguins

Average number of opportunities; slightly below average number of successes.

17. Calgary Flames

Bad habit of trading-away second-round draft picks gives them below-average number of opportunities. Below average number of successes.

16. Dallas Stars

Low number of opportunities; lower number of successes.

15. Los Angeles Kings

Very high number of opportunities; fairly high number of successes.

14. New York Islanders

Moderate number of opportunities; slightly lower number of successes.

13. Edmonton Oilers

High number of opportunities; high number of successes

I’m actually going to comment a little more on the Oilers, because they have a reputation of drafting poorly. I was fairly surprised that they scored this highly, but the numbers don’t lie. They actually have a fairly good record on their early picks, and not only because they tend to be first overall. Prior to 2004, they drafted a good number of late-round bloomers as well.

They’re one of the few teams that finds at least one full-time NHL player every single season. Their worst drafting years were 2001 and 2004, and even then they found Ales Hemsky and Devan Dubnyk, respectively. They haven’t drafted particularly well, but they haven’t been bad.

12. Washington Capitals

High number of opportunities, high number of successes

11. Nashville Predators

High number of opportunities, high number of successes

Part 3: The Ten Overachievers

10. Detroit Red Wings

The Red Wings are the opposite of the Lightning. If this were exclusively 2000-2010, Detroit would be in first place. But ever since Steve Yzerman left, the sands have been shifting, thus confirming that he is, in fact, a wizard.

Last year the Red Wings drafted Dylan Larkin 15^th overall. He was their first draft pick higher than 19^th since (scrolls for a very long time) 1991. The Red Wings have a huge handicap when it comes to drafting, is what I’m saying. They don’t get premiere players served to them on a platter.

If the Red Wings had an average scouting staff, their picks would have totaled 5500 man-games since 2000, which is a full 1000 games fewer than the next-lowest team, Vancouver. Instead, their picks have totaled 6300 man-games, which is still really low, but good enough to give them the 10^th best draft quotient.

However, they can’t rest on their laurels. It’s been eight years since they’ve drafted two useful players in one year. Tomas Holmstrom, Henrik Zetterberg and Pavel Datsyuk were all drafted in the last century. Detroit can’t afford to slip much further.

9. Columbus Blue Jackets

The Blue Jackets have only made the playoffs once, and they’ve been disciplined in retaining their draft picks, so they don’t get any sympathy points like Detroit or Vancouver. But would you believe that their draft picks are ranked 2^nd in man-games? Columbus drafts a surprisingly large number of future major leaguers.   

Granted, many of them are bottom-six depth players, but they also have a few stars such as Jakub Voracek, Steve Mason, Ryan Johansen, and of course, Rick Nash. They’ve never had a particularly bad drafting year, but that’s their biggest problem – their good picks are too spread out.

Essentially, they’re the anti-Bruins. The Bruins drafted a few good players all at the same time and won a Stanley Cup. The Blue Jackets drafted a lot of good players over many years and are stuck in mediocrity.  

8. Toronto Maple Leafs

How are the Maple Leafs ranked so high? They don’t have very many draft picks in the NHL.

You’re correct, but that’s not the fault of their drafting - that’s the fault of their trading away draft picks before they use them. The fact that they’ve managed to draft an average number of NHL players anyway puts them in the top-10.

Their 2006 selections turned out to be some of the best all year, finding Viktor Stalberg and Leo Komarov in the sixth round after already drafting Nikolai Kulemin, James Reimer, and Jiri Tlusty. Picking Tuukka Rask and Anton Stralman the year before that solidifies their status as a relatively strong-drafting team. Toronto can draft well if they have the opportunity to do so. That’s a big ‘if’.

7. San Jose Sharks

They almost persistently make the playoffs, and yet they manage to find an above-average number of NHL players in the draft.

Over the years, they’ve been very hit-or-miss. They whiffed completely in 2000, 2002, and 2009. However, they’ve done exceptionally well in 2001 (Marcel Goc, Christian Ehrhoff, and Ryane Clowe), and 2003 (Joe Pavelski, Milan Michalek, Matt Carle, and Steve Bernier). And despite not having a 1^st or 2^nd round pick in 2008, they still managed to find Tommy Wingels and Jason Demers.

They’re not slowing-down either. In this decade, they’ve drafted Charlie Coyle, Matthew Nieto, and Tomas Hertl.

6. Ottawa Senators

Unlike the past couple of teams, the Senators actually have had an ample supply of draft picks over the years, mostly via trade. They usually have at least their share of draft picks, and then some.  Still, their ability to select players who have combined for the fourth-most man-games ranks them highly on this list.

2010 was a weird year in that they only retained four draft picks, their earliest was 76^th overall. They still landed Mark Stone at 178^th. Their other highlights include 2008 (Erik Karlsson, Patrick Wiercioch, Zack Smith, and Mark Borowiecki), 2001 (Jason Spezza, Brooks Laich, Ray Emery, and Tim Gleason), and 2006 (Nick Foligno, Eric Gryba, and Erik Condra at 211^th).

5. Carolina Hurricanes

It feels weird to put such a hapless team so high on any list, but they fall into the Toronto camp. They’ve managed to draft a respectable number of full-time players despite trading away a huge chunk of their draft picks.

They don’t have a whole lot of highlight years, though they have had recent success in Jeff Skinner, Justin Faulk, and Viktor Rask which pushes their score higher. Also, I’ll bet you didn’t know that they drafted Andrew Ladd and Jack Johnson. True story.

4. Colorado Avalanche

The Avalanche have performed above-average with below-average opportunities. It wasn’t that long ago that they were a fixture in the playoffs, lucky to draft top-15 until 2009. That didn’t stop them from grabbing Johnny Boychuk and Tom Gilbert in 2002, Brad Richardson and David Jones in 2003, or Kevin Shattenkirk and TJ Galiardi in 2007.

Even so, 2009 turned out to be their best year yet, picking up Matt Duchene, Ryan O’Reilly, and Tyson Barrie. So far, their more recent picks seem to be middle-of-the-road which neither helps nor hurts their score.

3. Montreal Canadiens

Virtually the same as the Avalanche, the Canadiens haven’t had an enormous plethora of draft picks, but have chosen wisely. They’ve had a couple of relatively-recent busts in 2008 and 2009, but rebounded nicely with Brendan Gallagher in the 5^th round in 2010.

Their biggest highlights include 2005 (Carey Price, Guillaume Latendresse, Matt D’Agostini, and Sergei Kostitsyn) and 2007 (Ryan McDonagh, Max Pacioretty, PK Subban, and Yannik Weber).

2. Anaheim Ducks

They’ve had an average number of draft picks this century, but have a remarkable list of names to go under it.

Their drafting accomplishments include drafting at least one full-time NHL player every year that they’ve ever existed (not counting the past two seasons), being one of only five teams to have amassed 10,000 man-games between their draft picks since 2000, and most amazingly, winning the 2003 draft with both Ryan Getzlaf and Corey Perry in the late 1^st round, plus Drew Miller and Shane O’Brien in the 6^th and 8^th rounds later on.

Other highlights include Ilya Brygalov in the 2^nd round, PA Parenteau in the 9^th, Matt Beleskey in the 4^th, Bobby Ryan, Cam Fowler, Joffrey Lupul, and a few good-looking prospects in just the past few years.

1. Buffalo Sabres

Huh. This isn’t where I’d thought we’d end either. What’s the logic here?

According to my data, they’re ranked 23^rd in “Expected Drafted Man-Games” but 1^st (by a lot) in “Weighted Drafted Man-Games”. The Blue Jackets are 2^nd with 10,879 but the Sabres have 11,519. How did they draft so many NHL players, and yet be so terrible?

Between 2001 and 2005, they drafted 14 players who would go on to play at least four full NHL seasons, plus another two who would play at least four part-time NHL seasons.

Those players are Jason Pominville, Thomas Vanek, Derek Roy, Drew Stafford, Chris Thorburn, Dennis Wideman, Keith Ballard, Daniel Paille, Clarke MacArthur, Jan Hejda, Andrej Sekera, Patrik Kaleta, Chris Butler, Nathan Gerbe, Jiri Novotny, and Nathan Paetsch. Yup, that’s almost a whole NHL team right there, almost none of whom are still on the Sabres.

Conclusion

I don’t have much to say since the draft is starting soon and I’ve already written close to 3500 words. But if you want to see who’s likely to be a future NHL player, watch who the Sabres draft. I bet it’s going to be Jack Eichel.

If you want to see who’s not going to make the NHL, watch who the Coyotes draft. I bet it’s going to be Noah Hanifin.  

Blue Teams Keep on Losing

If you were to go to the nearest person and ask to play one round of Rock, Paper, Scissors, how likely would you be to win that round? 1 in 3, or 33.3%, right?

Granted, there are Jedi mind-tricks available to improve your odds, but in theory at least, your chances of winning are 33.33%. That leaves you with a 66.67% chance that you'll either lose or draw. 

Assuming that both you and your opponent are making your selections randomly, what is the likelihood that you will fail to win if you play two rounds? The answer is (2/3)² or 44.36%. The likelihood of failing to win if you play three rounds is (2/3)³  or 29.54%.

Obviously, the more rounds that you play, the less likely you are to continue losing. It would be ludicrous to suggest that you could play 20 rounds without winning once. The odds of that are (2/3)²⁰ or 0.03% or 1 in 3325. 

Of course it's possible that you are just extremely unlucky. But if you were to play 20 rounds of Rock, Paper, Scissors and not win a single round, you'd probably suspect that something was awry. Either your opponent was a mind-reader or you were somehow giving away your move. Only a dunce would believe that it was a fluke. 

Let that scenario sink-in and hold it in your mind while we talk about something different in the next few paragraphs.

From 1926 until the end of the Original-6 era, the only blue teams were the Maple Leafs and the Rangers (unless you count the one season that the St. Louis Eagles existed). By the mid-70s, half of the league wore blue, and today, 11/30 teams wear primarily blue. Since 1926 (the first year the Stanley Cup was awarded exclusively to the NHL champions), about 36% of teams have worn blue. You can name a random NHL franchise, and it's more probable than not that at least one of their uniforms since 1996 has been predominantly blue. And that's not even counting the Avalanche and Penguins who have worn blue alternate jerseys in recent years. My point: blue has been the de-facto colour amongst hockey teams for decades now. 

By the way, this unofficial NHL Uniforms website was an invaluable resource for this study.

If team colour had no bearing on success, we should expect to see a blue-coloured team win a Stanley Cup every 2 or 3 seasons. Even in an 88-year period (1927-2015), the odds of the NHL going 20 consecutive years without one of them winning would be 110:1.

We need to talk about this.

The NHL has a reputation as a copycat league, but this is a trend that nobody seems to be taking seriously or even noticing. Despite the Stanley Cup being persistently hoisted by red and/or black teams, while lifelong-blue teams such as the Maple Leafs, Blues, and Rangers possess notorious Stanley Cup droughts, blue continues to be as popular a colour as ever.

Admittedly, the Oilers and Islanders had dynasties back in the 1980s, and the Maple Leafs had some success in the 40s and 60s, but those all occurred before the age of parity. Since the introduction of the salary cap, those three teams have combined for five post-season appearances in 10 years. In a league where teams are no longer able to hoard superstars, the little things matter. Is jersey colour one of those things? Are blue teams at a psychological disadvantage?

This is a problem worth addressing for three reasons:

1. It makes sense. A common objection to my claim is that correlation doesn't imply causation - it could simply be a coincidence, or else perhaps blue is an unoriginal colour that is selected by management teams who make unoriginal decisions that thus result in inferior teams.
   
   Fortunately, I have multiple scientific studies on my side that support the idea that team colour has a causal relationship with team performance. A German study on soccer teams suggests that red teams score 10% more. This UK medical publication finds that competitors in red have higher testosterone levels. The Journal of Sports Sciences associates red shirt colour with long-term success. The Association for Psychological Science published an in-depth study on the 2004 Olympics that discovered that athletes wearing red substantially outperformed athletes wearing blue, particularly in aggressive sports. Jerald Kralik at Dartmouth University attributes this phenomenon to our primal urge to avoid the colour red as we subconsciously associate it with pain, danger, and intense emotion.
2. Nobody else is talking about it. I feel like I'm the only one who notices that blue teams always disappoint in the playoffs. Since 2006, there have been 21 occasions where a higher-seeded blue team was upset by a lower-seeded red/black team in the playoffs. Conversely, there have only been 9 occasions where a lower-seeded blue team upset a higher-seeded red/black team. I'm starting to feel guilty about how much I've profited from betting against blue teams.
3. There's a simple fix. If my team loses because the other team is better, then I can begrudgingly accept that. If my team always loses because they're at a psychological disadvantage that can be remedied with a new shirt colour, then call a f*****g marketing meeting and change the shirt colour, damn it!

Before I continue, let me address some issues:

Q: What do I mean by "primary/major/base" colour?

A: I mean the colour that comprises more than 50% of the surface area of a team's home (non-white) jersey. This doesn't take into account alternate jerseys.

Q: What colour are the Avalanche?

A: They're burgundy, which is a shade of dark red. Thus, they fall under the "red" banner. 

Q: What colour are the Sharks?

A: They're "Pacific Teal" which is a greenish shade of blue.

Q: How about the Wild?

A: They wore green with red alternate jerseys until 2007. Then they switched to red with green alternate jerseys. I categorize them under "green" until 2007, and "red" ever since.

Q: How many teams have worn something other than blue, red, black, or green?

A: Only four. The Flyers have worn orange through most of their history, except for the last decade when they mostly wore black. The Pittsburgh Pirates also wore orange back when they existed in the 1920s. The Kings have had an on-again, off-again relationship with purple (don't ask - it's complicated). And the Predators have worn gold for the past four seasons. Interestingly, every single team in the league wore either red, blue or black between 2007 and 2010.

So there you go. In a league in which a team can wear any colour they want, over 90% choose one of the same three colours, one of which isn't technically a colour. 

But even black is at an all-time low in popularity right now. Only Anaheim, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles currently wear predominantly black uniforms, and they've all won a Stanley Cup in just the last 8 years. 2015 was the first year since 2006 where at least one of the Stanley Cup finalists wasn't wearing black. Add in the Chicago Blackhawks (see what I did there), and you've got the last 7 Stanley Cups.  In a copycat league, why is nobody copying that?

Maybe I'm just bitter as a Canucks fan. The Canucks originally wore blue, but never managed to win a single playoff series until after they switched to black - most notably in 1982. 

Photo Credit: canucks.nhl.com

Those jerseys were reportedly designed by a colour psychologist. When they first came out, critics scoffed at the idea that the team would play better, only to watch them run to the Stanley Cup Finals with only the 11th-best regular season record. 12 years later, still wearing black, they made another Stanley Cup Final appearance with only the 14th-best regular season record. They were within one goal of defeating Mark Messier and the theoretically-much-better New York Rangers (who were wearing blue).

The Vancouver teams wearing black jerseys never seemed particularly good on paper, but they often exceeded expectations in the playoffs. In their last three seasons wearing black, the Canucks won 4 playoff series as a lower-seeded underdog. Since returning to blue in 1997, they have never won a playoff series as a lower-seed. Not once. They have, however, lost to a lower-seeded team wearing either red or black on six occasions, most recently the Calgary Flames this year. I'm tired of cheering for a team that, at best, meets expectations but never exceeds them.

So I ask, why? Why do so many teams adhere to a colour that was universally considered "delicate and dainty" as recently as the 1920s? 

The answer may come from this study published by the University of British Columbia which suggests that blue is considered to be a psychologically "safe" colour which instills feelings of relaxation and creativity. Blue teams, therefore, perform better in games/sports that emphasize strategy over physicality, such as baseball. But red triggers feelings of urgency, focus, and quick decision making. Thus, you have a situation where the less-popular colour results in superior in-game performance. 

Only the Blues and Blue Jackets really need to wear blue. The Canucks logo is an orca - orcas are not blue. Neither are sharks, lightning bolts, or maple leaves. Even the Sabres, Rangers, Islanders, and Jets can be whatever colour they want to be. 

There's a whole spectrum of colours out there, and yet only a handful of teams have ever tried anything outside of blue, red, or black. Two of them are clearly superior to the third, so those teams who choose to wear an inferior colour need to either innovate or adapt.

Why Vancouver Doesn't Have a Goalie Controversy

This post was originally an angry comment that I vomited all over this nhl.com article, but then it got such a positive response from other Canuck fans who have similarly grown bored of the persistent caterwauling of the lackadaisical effort put forth from the Canuck-covering media that I thought, "What the hell? Let's make a whole post out of my rant."

3...2...1...GO!

Have you heard the news? The Canucks have a Goalie Controversy! Just like last year! And the year before that! And the year before that!

In fact, since 2011, the word "Controversy" has been even more synonymous with the words "goalie" and "Vancouver" than "Graveyard" had been the previous 12 years or so.

For those of you who haven't read an article about the Canucks in 5 years, I'll summarize the "controversy" for you:

The goalie with the lower salary is playing better.

That's it. 

"So I guess we hate each other now, right?"

Photo Credit: www.theprovince.com

Every single season since 2012, that's been the case. Even in 2011, Schneider had a (barely) better save percentage than Luongo. As a Canucks fan, I'm sick of it. I'm sick of being told that there's a controversy when there isn't. If Lack is playing better, then just say that Lack is playing better. Stop saying "controversy" - it's become cliche. It's lazy journalism. Every hack reporter has commented on it fifty times by now. 

The only time in the past 4 years that things actually got controversial was when Lack started the Winter Classic instead of Luongo. And then Luongo was traded the next day. That's 1-2 days of actual goalie controversy, and 3-4 years of media-manufactured pseudo-controversy.

Here's a list of teams whose highest-paid goalie was outperformed by a lower-paid, younger goalie this season:

Senators (Hammond), Wild (Dubnyk), Blackhawks (Darling/Raanta), Rangers (Talbot), Red Wings (Mrazek), Stars (Enroth), Avalanche (Pickard), Lightning (Vasilevskiy), Canucks (Lack).

That's almost 1/3 of the league. It's a fairly common scenario. Having a young, talented goalie doesn't make you special just because he outperforms a veteran. 

And if you look into the numbers, it's not even especially surprising that Lack is the better goalie right now. Miller's numbers are slightly lower than his career average, but that's to be expected considering that he's almost 35. Even last year, Lack's save percentage was higher than Miller's is this year, and Lack was a rookie - chances were good that it would improve. 

If you want to talk about controversy, then ask the Vancouver management why they paid $18m for a goalie who would very likely be posting 2nd-rate numbers within a year. They were practically asking for a new "controversy". That's not Willie Desjardins' problem. Desjardins, as the coach, whose job it is to ice the best possible team, should not give two s#!ts about who is *supposed* to be the starter, or who has the higher salary. His job is to play the goalie who gives him the best chance to win. 

If Miller gets upset about having to sit on the bench, then it's his fault for not playing better. He's an adult. He's a professional. He's making $6m/year regardless. 

"But Lack doesn't have playoff experience!" you whine. You know what, Canuck fans, we're not winning the Stanley Cup this year anyway. How about we give Lack playoff experience now, so that we don't have an inexperienced goalie in 2-3 years when we might actually be contenders?

"But Miller has more shutouts!" Yeah, and somehow Lack still has a better goals against average. Do you know what it says about a goalie with a low GAA and a low number of shutouts? Consistency. If you don't get a lot of shutouts while maintaining a low GAA, it means that you don't get blown-out very often. 

"But Miller has more wins!" Do you know how 'wins' work when attributed to goalies? It's the goalie-of-record when the winning goal in the game was scored. It doesn't really say much about a goaltenders actual ability. 

The article under which this tirade was unleashed had opined that Canucks players should brace themselves to "expect to be answering more questions about goalie controversies".

Here's a rhetorical question: Why does the media even ask the players those types of questions?

Want to know the answer to my rhetorical question?

The answer is that because it's not the players' job to have any idea about the goaltending future of the team. As such, they're only going to give vague, enigmatic answers that provide fuel for more exaggerated tales of "controversy". If the media was actually interested in answers, they'd just ask Linden and Benning. But then, if they did that, they might have to put actual work into their jobs.

Guide to the Regular Season Finale

I haven't contributed to this blog in months. But there was so much action today with so few playoff brackets determined that I needed to create a schedule of games to follow. Just as I was finishing it, I thought, "Hey, maybe others could benefit from my handy summaries of last-day games". 

So if you're feeling overwhelmed by the abundance of hockey today, here's a handy schedule for you. We even tell you which games to catch, and which to skip: 

12:30 PM

Ottawa at Philadelphia

Ottawa: If Ottawa gets at least one point, they make the playoffs. If they win, they have a chance to play the second-seeded Atlantic team (Montreal/Tampa Bay) in the first round instead of a division winner (Montreal/New York) depending on whether Detroit loses in regulation. If they lose, then they have a chance of missing the playoffs depending on whether Boston wins, and Pittsburgh picks up at least one point.

Overall Incentive to Win: High

Philadelphia: They’re not going to the playoffs, and they’re three points removed from the closest team in the standings. This is a meaningless game.

Overall Incentive to Win: None

Game Watchability: 9/10 – Ottawa’s working on a miracle run, and has a chance at punching out the Bruins. Even if Philadelphia isn’t into it, this game has major implications.

Rangers at Washington

New York: They’ve clinched 1^st in the league and are trying to stay rested for the playoffs.

Overall Incentive to Win: None

Washington: If they win, they secure home-ice advantage for the 1^st round. If they get one point, the Islanders can pass them with a non-shootout win. If they lose, the Islanders can pass them with any win.

Overall Incentive to Win: Medium

Game Watchability: 5/10 – Not the highest stakes, but Washington has been hot and a win could give them a major confidence boost heading into the playoffs – especially if it leads to home-ice advantage.

3:00 PM

Calgary at Winnipeg

Calgary: If they win, they have a chance at home-ice advantage for the 1^st round, as long as Vancouver loses in regulation.

Overall Incentive to Win: Medium

Winnipeg: They’re guaranteed to play the best team in the conference regardless of what happens.

Overall Incentive to Win: None

Game Watchability: 6/10 – Again, this isn’t the most meaningful game. But the Winnipeg crowd is already catching playoff fever, and we should get a good preview of the post-season atmosphere.

San Jose at Los Angeles

San Jose: They’re not going to the playoffs, and three other teams are close to them in the standings.

Overall Incentive to Win: Negative

Los Angeles: They’re not going to the playoffs, and only the Bruins (who are trying to win) are close to them in the standings.

Overall Incentive to Win: None

Game Watchability: 1/10 if you care about the standings. 10/10 if you want to listen to the commentators mask their disappointment for 2 hours.

Minnesota at St. Louis

Minnesota: If they win, they have a chance at playing Nashville in the 1^st round (instead of St. Louis/Anaheim) if Chicago loses in regulation. If they don’t, then they play St. Louis if Anaheim wins, which they almost certainly will.

Overall Incentive to Win: Medium

St. Louis: If they win, then they have a chance to play Winnipeg in the 1^st round if Anaheim loses, otherwise they play Minnesota. If they get one point, they still have a chance to play Winnipeg if Anaheim loses in regulation, otherwise they play Chicago if they lose in regulation or else Minnesota. If they lose in regulation, then they play Chicago if they lose in regulation or else Minnesota.

Overall Incentive to Win: Medium-High

Game Watchability: 8/10 – This game has the highest potential to be a 1^st-round matchup, though both will be playing to avoid each other. Either way, you’ve got a good match.

7:00 PM

Pittsburgh at Buffalo

Pittsburgh: If they win, they’ll make the playoffs. They’ll definitely be a wild-card team, but they could avoid the Rangers if Ottawa didn’t win earlier, or if Detroit loses in regulation. If they get one point, they could miss the playoffs if Ottawa got at least one point AND Boston wins before the shootout. If Boston doesn’t win before the shootout, then they’ll play the Rangers if Ottawa got at least one point. If they lose in regulation, then they’ll miss the playoffs if Boston wins; otherwise they’ll play the Rangers.

Overall Incentive to Win: Very High

Buffalo: They’ve clinched last place.

Overall Incentive to Win: None

Game Watchability: 7/10 – Despite being a very important game for Pittsburgh, it’s impossible for a game in Buffalo to be any higher than 7/10 in watchability.

Montreal at Toronto

Montreal: If they get at least one point, they win the division and play the higher wild-card team, also securing home-ice advantage for the first two rounds. If they lose in regulation, and Tampa Bay wins, they play the 3^rd place Atlantic team and are only guaranteed home-ice advantage in the first round. There isn’t much discrepancy between the 3^rd place Atlantic team and the higher wild-card team.

Overall Incentive to Win: Medium-low

Toronto: They’re not going to the playoffs, and they’re nowhere near anybody else in the standings.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero

Game Watchability: 3/10; though the send-off from the Leaf fans could bump this up to 7/10.

New Jersey at Florida

New Jersey: Not going to the playoffs, and nowhere near anybody.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero

Florida: Not going to the playoffs, and close to four other teams.

Overall Incentive to Win: Negative

Game Watchability: 0/10 – Watching this game will cut your time in Purgatory by six years.

Columbus at Islanders

Columbus: Not going to the playoffs, and close to three other teams.

Overall Incentive to Win: Negative

Brooklyn: If Washington won earlier, then this is a meaningless game. If Washington lost in regulation, then a win will get the home-ice advantage over Washington. If Washington picked up one point, then a non-shootout win will get the home-ice advantage.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero to Medium

Game Watchability: 3/10 – That’s an average of 1/10 to 5/10 depending on the Washington result.

Detroit at Carolina

Detroit: A regulation loss could possibly result in a first-round matchup against the Rangers. Otherwise, they’ll either finish 3^rd in the Atlantic or the higher wild-card spot. One of those teams faces Tampa Bay and the other faces Montreal, but it’s not yet determined which. Detroit’s not at home either way.

Overall Incentive to Win: Low

Carolina: No playoffs. No close teams.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero

Game Watchability: 2/10 – Remember when these teams met in the Stanley Cup Final? Me neither.

7:30 PM

Boston at Tampa Bay

Boston: If they lose in any fashion, they miss the playoffs. If Ottawa lost in regulation earlier, then a win in any fashion will make the playoffs. If Ottawa didn’t lose in regulation, then they need to win and hope that Pittsburgh loses. If Pittsburgh picks up a point, then they need to win before the shootout.

Overall Incentive to Win: Extremely high

Tampa Bay: A win will take top spot in the Atlantic if Montreal loses in regulation. There likely won’t be much difference in which team they play, but they’ll get home ice advantage in the first two rounds. However, they have a huge revenge opportunity as it was only four years ago that Boston beat them in a Game 7 Overtime in the Eastern Finals.

Overall Incentive to Win: High, if only to play spoiler to Boston.

Game Watchability: 10/10 – LA missing the playoffs was great, but Boston missing would be legendary.

8:00 PM

Nashville at Dallas

Nashville: They’ve secured 2^nd seed in the Central and aren’t going anywhere.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero

Dallas: They’re not going to the playoffs, and they’ve got two teams nearby.

Overall Incentive to Win: Negative

Game Watchability: 1/10 – The best games are over, and the rest of the night isn’t much better.

9:00 PM

Chicago at Colorado

Chicago: If Minnesota won earlier, then one point will be the difference between playing Nashville and playing St. Louis in the first round. If Minnesota lost, then they’ll play Nashville for sure.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero to Low

Colorado: No playoffs. Three teams close by.

Overall Incentive to Win: Negative

Game Watchability: 3/10 – These are entertaining teams, so they’ll give us a game. But in terms of playoff implications, this is much more of a dud than it should’ve been.

Anaheim at Arizona

Anaheim: They look at how many points St. Louis picked up in their game. If they can match that number, then they play Winnipeg in the first round. If they can’t, then they play Minnesota in the first round.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero to Medium

Arizona: They lost the tank-battle to Buffalo and are just playing out the season.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero

Game Watchability: 4/10 – There’s not a lot of suspense towards the outcome of this game, nor are playoff implications particularly high, but it’s one of the best versus one of the worst – so at least a shellacking is in order, right?

10:00 PM

Edmonton at Vancouver

Edmonton: Just playing for pride…I guess…

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero

Vancouver: If Calgary won earlier, then they need a point for home-ice advantage in the first round. Otherwise, this is just a pregame skate before the playoffs.

Overall Incentive to Win: Zero to Medium

Game Watchability: 3/10 – By this point, you’ll have been watching hockey for 10+ hours. Even as a Canucks fan, I’ll probably call it a night.