History Says Canucks Have Already Lost Stanley Cup Finals (Amazing Stat Alert)

Business Insider ^ | 06/09/11 | Cork Gaines

[nhwingut]

Last night the Boston Bruins blew out the Vancouver Canucks for the second straight game. But while the series might now be even at two games apiece, the series is anything but even.

In sports, one of the best indicators of how good (or bad) a team really is, is to look at that team's goal/run/points differential. That is, the difference between the number of points they have scored and the number of points they have allowed. The bigger the difference, the better a team is.

And in the NHL playoffs, the results so far tell us that the Canucks are lucky they have even gotten this far.

[slapshot]

Enough of this Mike Emrick babble!!

That is why they will drop the puck in Vancouver Friday night. My Assessment: Luongo starts, Last man standing wins- It will be that type of game.

Being a Hawks fan I am envious there is another team living in Luongo’s head.

[rlmorel]

You are correct, what I meant to say was the maturation and universal adoption of the trap.

Not everyone used it until they realized that it produced more “competitive” results with more meager talent, then when it became universal, it killed the game (for me, at least)

And hey...Boston used it more than anyone.

[Varda]

“Last man standing...”
LOL you answer my Emmerick line with one of the Nhl promo commercials! All I can say is history will be made.

As a Pens fan, it’s a little weird cheering for the Bruins knowing how much they hate us (& Chara would lift the Cup barf) but I
1. won’t cheer against an American team.
2. was a big Bobby Orr/Bruins fan as a kid
3. don’t think the Sedins are near as good as the Canadian press thinks they are
4. think it would be fun to watch Vancouver’s obnoxious fanbase wailing and gnashing teeth after losing
5. Love Tim Thomas

[Axeslinger]

You forgot:

6. Love knowing it's one MORE year that a Canadian team doesn't win Lord Stanley's Cup.

No Canadian team has won the Cup since '93.

[cowboyway]

Go Wings!

:~)

[Varda]

Yup that’s good too . The Canadians already have a come back for that: the Bruins have a roster full of canucks, one from every province. The Stanley Cup will spend all summer in Canada.

I don’t care where the Cup spends the summer. As long as the championship stays in America.

[Alberta's Child]

And now we have this bizarre scenario right now where Boston has outscored Vancouver by a 14-6 margin in these finals, yet Vancouver leads the series, 3-2.

Just goes to show you how statistics can sometimes be so misleading.

[Alberta's Child]

That's a good point. But I think a lot of people overestimate the impact that the neutral-zone trap had on the decline of the NHL back then. The key to the success of the trap is that it is a sound defensive system tied to a strong counter-attack. Shutting down the opponent in the neutral zone is only half the story . . . the other half is that forcing turnovers in the neutral zone gives opportunities for odd-man rushes that represent great scoring chances.

This is why Montreal was so dominant back when they played the neutral-zone trap to perfection. The 1976-77 Canadiens, for example, were arguably the best team of all time. They finished the season with only 8 losses in 80 games (60-8-12), and outscored their opponents by an unbelievable 387-171 margin. Their individual award winners included Guy Lafleur (Hart, Art Ross and Conn Smythe Trophies), Ken Dryden and Michel Larocque (Vezina Tropy), and Steve Shutt (led the NHL in goals scored, though this was before the NHL adopted the Maurice Richard Trophy for this). They also had first-team NHL All-Stars at four of the six positions in hockey (Dryden in goal, Lafleur and Shutt at both wings, and Larry Robinson on defense). Larry Robinson was an unbelievable +120 that season -- the only player other than Bobby Orr to finish a season with a plus/minus rating over +100.

And yeah, they played the neutral-zone trap.

What changed in the 1990s is that teams played the trap as a defensive system but simply didn't have the scoring talent to play the counter-attacking part of the system very well. The post-2005 rule changes have helped add offensive excitement to the NHL, but there still isn't enough real talent to fill the rosters of all 30 teams. Even during those dismal years there were a number of teams that put very talented rosters together, and they played exciting hockey while winning championships. I'd cite the Colorado Avalanche and Detroit Red Wings of that era and the 1999-2001 New Jersey Devils as good examples of this.

[rlmorel]

That is a good explanation. Tied back again to over-expansion...