Stats of Stanley Cup winners during the Cap Era, and what it might tell us about the Canucks odds

[Hairy Kneel]

I'm interested in any Stone or Kucharev type deals we can make with our roster.

[AnthonyG]

You should look more so at what pieces every cup winner had… not just overall standings.

 

Crosby/Malkin/Letang/Fleury

Kopitar/Richards/Doughty/Quick

Kane/Toews/Queef/Crawford

Ovi/Backstrom/Carlson/Holtby

Mackinnon/Rantanen/Makar/Landeskog/Toews/a goalie

Stone/Eichel/Theodore/Hill

 

You need elite players at all positions in order to have the best chance at winning.

Pettersson/Miller/Hughes/Demko is a god damn good start and I like the chances with those guys in place. 

Edited January 26 by AnthonyG

[Integra250]

12 hours ago, cripplereh said:

So we have a 1 in 8 chance to make the finals.

 

1 in 16 to win the cup.

 

Think that's the same as always.

 

[VegasCanuck]

At the start of the season, I didn't view this team as a serious contender, but I'm starting to come around on that. The Zadorov trade was something that I didn't think the team could pull off, but they made it happen.

 

I still don't think we are a true cup team, but I think the additions needed can be done. Our shooting percentage is phenomenal, but I've noticed that it disappears with certain types of teams. We are excellent along the boards and winning battles, but we struggle to gain shooting lanes with teams that are strong at clogging up the middle of the ice and taking away space. We're not as good at fighting in the open as I'd like to see and winning those battles.

 

I also think that we still rely far too much on our goaltending to bail us out, we don't do enough at core shot suppression in our own zone, even with weaker teams. We are winning many nights because with most teams, we are lethal in the offensive zone.

 

I think if we can find a way to make those improvements, the objective of bringing the cup to Vancouver is within sight. The next 2 weeks will be interesting, JR has a history of making his moves long before the deadline and next week with teams being off for the the all-star game is a good time to make a move.

 

[The Lock]

22 hours ago, Tocchet.A.Hockey.God said:

Since the introduction of the NHL cap these have been the Cup winners and the league rank and pts they have amassed 

 

06, Car, 4th, 112 pts

07, Ana, 4th, 110 pts

08, Det 1st,  115 pts

09, Pit, 8th, 99 pts

10, Chi, 3rd, 112 pts 

11, Bos, 7th, 103 pts

12, LA, 13th, 95 pts  (notice yes they where the 8th place team in the west but league wide 13th overall and that year was the lowest top tier point totals lead by the Canucks @ 111pts)

13, Chi, 1st, 77 pts. (This was obviously a league lockout season. So this is 48 game season. Chi was on pace for 132 pts in a 82 game season).

14, LA, 10th, 100 pts ( LA doing it again coming from behind, clearly a team built for the Playoffs but this time they did hit the magic 100 point mark we will get to that a little later)

15, Chi, 7th, 102 pts

16, Pit, 4th 104 pts

17, Pitt, 2nd, 111 pts

18, Wash, 6th, 105 pts of 1

19, St.L, 12th 99pts

20, TBL, 4th, 92 ( Covid shortened season, on pace for 108pts in 82 game season)

21, TBL, 8th, 75pts (Covid shortened season, on pace for 110pts in 82 game season)

22,Col, 2nd, 119pts

23, Vegas, 5th 111pts

 

Time to break some of this down.

 

By points amassed 

 

Of the 18 Stanley Cup winners of the cap era 15 of them amassed a point total or was on pace to amass a point total of 100 points or more in a 82 game season (83.4%). Lets look at the 3 that didn't 09 Pits 99 pts that's really close. 12 LA 95 points and as I already noted above this was the lowest point total ever amassed by the top tier teams in the cap era. 19 St.L 99 points again that is really close to 100pts. My conclusion here is that the Magic point total seems to be 100 or more points in a normal regular season to have a serious chance at winning the  Stanley cup. I call this the top tier teams and to amass 100+ points the most consistent teams.

 

By league rank.  # of cup winners-rank

 

2 - 1st 

2 - 2nd 

1 - 3rd

4 - 4th

1 - 5th

1 - 6th

2 - 7th

2 - 8th

1 - 10th

1 - 12th 

1 - 13th

 

Let's break it down

At first glance you might say the best odds are in favor of the 4th place finisher you would be wrong. 06 Car and 07 Ana were technically tied in third place in points but because of the tie breakers they where placed 4th. So what can we say about this. I think you could make the argument that It doesn't matter where you place as long as a team is placed in the top 8 in point with at least 100 pts. 15 of the 18 Cup winners come from the top 8 place teams (83.4%). You could also make the argument that finishing 1st isn't cursed but it also doesn't give you any better odds of winning the Cup over the other top 7 ranked teams.

 

How does this all effect the Canucks

 

As of the time of me writing this the Canucks are 1st in the league and are on pace for 118 pts ( a pretty normal cap era season no team is running away with it and the top tier teams are not averaging low point totals). 

 

Here are where the other 100 point on paced teams are at. 

 

2nd, Bos, 116 pts

3rd, Win, 114 pts

4th, Col, 111 pts

5th, Flo, 108 pts

6th, Dal, 108 pts

7th, Vegas, 106 pts

8th, Edm, 105 pts,

9th, Car, 101 Pts,

10th, Tor, 100 pts,

 

Including the Canucks there are 10 teams on pace for 100 points. If history repeats the Canucks have a 1 in 10 (10%) chance of winning the Stanley Cup based on points. Or they have 1 in 8 (12.5%) chance 83.4% of the time based on their current position. As I think this is a Normal season based on points earned by the top tier teams my opinion is that 1 of the top 8 teams will win the Cup giving the Canucks a 12.5% chance this season.

 

Side Notes 

 

I think teams should look at stats like these and and let the odds determine if they should be all in or not at trade deadlines. If you are not in the top 8 in the league history shows that you probably shouldn't sell the farm.

 

My Disclaimer

 

16 teams is an arbitrarily number that evenly divides by 2 every round that's why it is used. It is not a special number in mathematical odds that gives each team the same odds of winning the cup

 

I feel this approach could be generalized a bit more. Like sure, no team who placed 11th has won the cup; yet, the 12th and 13th placed teams have one once each. If we are to look at this at face value, we could say that the 12th placed team has a 1 in 18 chance to win the cup while the 11th placed team has 0 chance to win. However, any sensible person should be able to see the flaw in this line of reasoning.

 

Perhaps a better way of looking at things would be to lump slots in together, perhaps as the following:

 

1st = 2 cups = 11.11%

2nd to 4th = 7 cups = 38% total won / 3 spots = 12.96% per spot

5th to 8th = 6 cups = 33% total won / 4 spots = 8.33% per spot

9th to 16th = 3 cups = 16.67% total won / 8 spots = 2.08% per spot

 

While it might seem weird to generalize things as such, it does allow to break down the small sample size of 18 years a little easier. We can see that the 2nd to 4th placed teams appear to have a small leg up on the number 1 team; however, the difference isn't exactly anything to write home about.

 

Really, what I think the above says is, if you are in the top 8, you have a good chance of winning the cup. If you are in the bottom 8, you have a significantly less chance of winning the cup. Or, in another way of viewing it, it doesn't seem to matter much between 1st and 4th place, but then the chance drops a little if looking at 5th to 8th. After that the drop is significant.

 

You could also lump 1st and 2nd together if you want to get the leading teams of both conferences. It just depends on what you want to present in the end.

Edited January 27 by The Lock

[Dumb Nuck]

50 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

I feel this approach could be generalized a bit more. Like sure, no team who placed 11th has won the cup; yet, the 12th and 13th placed teams have one once each. If we are to look at this at face value, we could say that the 12th placed team has a 1 in 18 chance to win the cup while the 11th placed team has 0 chance to win. However, any sensible person should be able to see the flaw in this line of reasoning.

 

Perhaps a better way of looking at things would be to lump slots in together, perhaps as the following:

 

1st = 2 cups = 11.11%

2nd to 4th = 7 cups = 38% total won / 3 spots = 12.96% per spot

5th to 8th = 6 cups = 33% total won / 4 spots = 8.33% per spot

9th to 16th = 3 cups = 16.67% total won / 8 spots = 2.08% per spot

 

While it might seem weird to generalize things as such, it does allow to break down the small sample size of 18 years a little easier. We can see that the 2nd to 4th placed teams appear to have a small leg up on the number 1 team; however, the difference isn't exactly anything to write home about.

 

Really, what I think the above says is, if you are in the top 8, you have a good chance of winning the cup. If you are in the bottom 8, you have a significantly less chance of winning the cup. Or, in another way of viewing it, it doesn't seem to matter much between 1st and 4th place, but then the chance drops a little if looking at 5th to 8th. After that the drop is significant.

 

You could also lump 1st and 2nd together if you want to get the leading teams of both conferences. It just depends on what you want to present in the end.

That 11.11% for first place is low thanks to us.

[The Lock]

18 minutes ago, Dumb Nuck said:

That 11.11% for first place is low thanks to us.

 

Actually, this is incorrect.

 

Vancouver was 1st overall but lost 2 times. Detroit and Washington also was 1st overall and lost 2 times.

 

However, Boston's the #1 for this statistic. Boston was 1st overall and lost 4 times. The only time they won a cup was when they didn't come in 1st.

 

And while you can argue the other teams have a cup, it makes you wonder if we had a 3rd run what that outcome would have been.

Edited January 27 by The Lock