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

[Tocchet.A.Hockey.God]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Miss Korea]

You felt the need to make another topic about this?

 

The only people who care about odds right now are gamblers.

[Tocchet.A.Hockey.God]

1 minute ago, Miss Korea said:

You felt the need to make another topic about this?

 

The only people who care about odds right now are gamblers.

Another please show me one topic that does this, I couldn't even find this information on line grouped like this. This is my research

[Tocchet.A.Hockey.God]

5 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

You felt the need to make another topic about this?

 

The only people who care about odds right now are gamblers.

Every topic has it's author if you don't like it don't open it. Let the mods close it if they feel worthy of closing it. If you don't like me trust me when I say I don't care

Edited January 26 by Tocchet.A.Hockey.God

[Miss Korea]

3 minutes ago, Tocchet.A.Hockey.God said:

Another please show me one topic that does this, I couldn't even find this information on line grouped like this. This is my research

 

Just now, Tocchet.A.Hockey.God said:

Every topic has it's author if you don't like it don't open it. Let the mods close it if they feel worthy of closing it. If you don't like me trust me when I say I don't care

 

This is about probability odds based on regular season standings, and you were already debating about that in your thread yesterday.  I guess the premise of this topic is different.  But this is hockey, one of the most unpredictable, luck-based sports, and the playoffs amplify that unpredictability to a new level.  

[Tocchet.A.Hockey.God]

3 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

 

This is about probability odds based on regular season standings, and you were already debating about that in your thread yesterday.  I guess the premise of this topic is different.  But this is hockey, one of the most unpredictable, luck-based sports, and the playoffs amplify that unpredictability to a new level.  

and that is why i wrote the post history clearly shows your wrong. Where a team places in the standing and the points a team amassed during the regular season does matter

Edited January 26 by Tocchet.A.Hockey.God

[Miss Korea]

4 minutes ago, Tocchet.A.Hockey.God said:

and that is why i wrote the post history clearly shows your wrong. Where a team places in the standing and the points a team amassed during the regular season does matter

 

The state of the team before every game is the greatest predictor.  As an example, did you really think the Panthers had a chance of winning with Matthew Tkachuk injured/out of the lineup?  How optimistic would the media be about Edmonton if McDavid were injured?  Or... Vancouver without Hughes?

[Tocchet.A.Hockey.God]

18 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

The state of the team before every game is the greatest predictor.  As an example, did you really think the Panthers had a chance of winning with Matthew Tkachuk injured/out of the lineup?  How optimistic would the media be about Edmonton if McDavid were injured?  Or... Vancouver without Hughes?

But I didn't say the Canucks or any 1 team would win it. If you read the post you would know that the odds or in favor of the top 8 teams 83.4% of the time and on normal season when the top tiers are not low point earns like this season those odds go higher. 

 

All your post states is that a team like Edm who lose their top guy has decreased odds but for it to have any effect on the odds every top 8 team would have to lose their top player and even then it rebalances the odds.

[Tocchet.A.Hockey.God]

23 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

The state of the team before every game is the greatest predictor.  As an example, did you really think the Panthers had a chance of winning with Matthew Tkachuk injured/out of the lineup?  How optimistic would the media be about Edmonton if McDavid were injured?  Or... Vancouver without Hughes?

and I'm not talking about the media I'm talking about historical odds. I never mention media once

[Jess]

Yeah, to me, it basically feels like you've gotta be about a top 8 team, usually somewhere around 105+ points, and you've got a good shot of winning it all. Anything beyond that is so subject to variance of injuries and hot/cold streaks, so the top 8 team that just gets it all together at the right time will usually win.

[Wash]

I liked the work you put into the post!  I think the most significant piece is the last point about not selling the farm unless you are in the sweet spot that you outlined.   Although realistically if a team were in a playoff spot and made no upgrades, the players and fans likely wouldn't be too happy.

[Tocchet.A.Hockey.God]

45 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Yeah, to me, it basically feels like you've gotta be about a top 8 team, usually somewhere around 105+ points, and you've got a good shot of winning it all. Anything beyond that is so subject to variance of injuries and hot/cold streaks, so the top 8 team that just gets it all together at the right time will usually win.

bingo you hit it on the head 

[Tocchet.A.Hockey.God]

1 hour ago, -AJ- said:

Yeah, to me, it basically feels like you've gotta be about a top 8 team, usually somewhere around 105+ points, and you've got a good shot of winning it all. Anything beyond that is so subject to variance of injuries and hot/cold streaks, so the top 8 team that just gets it all together at the right time will usually win.

I think you can break the league into 4 tiers each tier consists of 8 teams they are 

 

Top tier ( Stanley Cup contenders)

The other 8 teams that made the playoffs tier

The 8 teams that just miss the playoffs tier (the worst tier no playoffs and no high draft pick)

The rebuilding tier (teams that suck and need to rebuild call it the tanking tier or falling for blank tier)

 

There is overlap for sure but by usually 1 team here and there

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, -AJ- said:

Yeah, to me, it basically feels like you've gotta be about a top 8 team, usually somewhere around 105+ points, and you've got a good shot of winning it all. Anything beyond that is so subject to variance of injuries and hot/cold streaks, so the top 8 team that just gets it all together at the right time will usually win.

Another interesting tidbit, is there was a time when quite a few cup winners, made it to the final, lost, came back a few years (or even the following year) and won.    Of the list CAR, ANA, PIT .. so 3 of the first 4 post cap era teams all did this,  Vegas did too (albeit with a much different group).  It would be curious to see how many other teams, made it to at least the conference final, and how many times even, as well, with mostly the same group of guys.   My bet is, the odds of winning a cup goes up significantly, if your part of a group of teams (most on this list), who went to the conference final within a couple years at least once before winning a cup.     Think the list can be further divided this way.  

 

Most teams, don't come out of nowhere and win right away, but need a couple cracks at deep runs first.    Off the top of my head, only CHI (one of 3 cups) Boston, LA first cup and maybe St. Louis, maybe WSH can't remember, usually PIT took them out in the second round. 

 

13/18 cups,  that's a significant difference.   

 

Can be taken one more step as well.   How many teams, won a cup, without winning one round of hockey  with the same core?     It could be argued we did in the bubble.    Of the 18 cup teams ... it's a short list.  

 

Edit: As a curiosity, going to guess TB made it to the conference final the most .. also think they can be included as a cup winning example, it's not like they bought their cup (their first cup, the Martin St. Louis era, Stamkos had a good shot to win with him at the start of his career).    Of the 19 winners, they've been to the conference final five times?  Maybe more? Boston also went to the conference final often.    PIT too. 

Edited January 26 by IBatch

[Drakrami]

It just goes to show being higher in the standings do give you better odds, because you were the better team for most of the season that year. But it is not heavily tilted. Once in the playoffs, anything can happen in the bracket format. Like Florida eliminating the most winning team in history Boston last season. 

[IBatch]

13 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

It just goes to show being higher in the standings do give you better odds, because you were the better team for most of the season that year. But it is not heavily tilted. Once in the playoffs, anything can happen in the bracket format. Like Florida eliminating the most winning team in history Boston last season. 

Often two very good teams are pitted against each other by the second round as well, and sometimes in the first round (TO and Boston, TO and TB).    That's part of it.   Playoff reps for sure increase your odds.    

Edited January 26 by IBatch

[Jess]

13 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Another interesting tidbit, is there was a time when quite a few cup winners, made it to the final, lost, came back a few years (or even the following year) and won.    Of the list CAR, ANA, PIT .. so 3 of the first 4 post cap era teams all did this,  Vegas did too (albeit with a much different group).  It would be curious to see how many other teams, made it to at least the conference final, and how many times even, as well, with mostly the same group of guys.   My bet is, the odds of winning a cup goes up significantly, if your part of a group of teams (most on this list), who went to the conference final within a couple years at least once before winning a cup.     Think the list can be further divided this way.  

 

Most teams, don't come out of nowhere and win right away, but need a couple cracks at deep runs first.    Off the top of my head, only CHI (one of 3 cups) Boston, LA first cup and maybe St. Louis, maybe WSH can't remember, usually PIT took them out in the second round. 

 

13/18 cups,  that's a significant difference.   

 

Can be taken one more step as well.   How many teams, won a cup, without winning one round of hockey  with the same core?     It could be argued we did in the bubble.    Of the 18 cup teams ... it's a short list.  

 

Edit: As a curiosity, going to guess TB made it to the conference final the most .. also think they can be included as a cup winning example, it's not like they bought their cup.    Of the 19 winners, they've been to the conference final five times?  Maybe more? Boston also went to the conference final often.    PIT too. 

 

Yeah, I'd even say making it to the second round is significant enough to maybe get them considerable experience. The 2011 Canucks obviously didn't win, but had made it to the second round in both the prior years as well as in 3 of 4 years going back to 2007. The Caps obviously constantly lost in the second round.

 

The 2024 Canucks mostly haven't been to the playoffs in a while, but much of our core was at least around for the long 2nd round run in 2020, so maybe that experience will help.

[IBatch]

12 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

 

Yeah, I'd even say making it to the second round is significant enough to maybe get them considerable experience. The 2011 Canucks obviously didn't win, but had made it to the second round in both the prior years as well as in 3 of 4 years going back to 2007. The Caps obviously constantly lost in the second round.

 

The 2024 Canucks mostly haven't been to the playoffs in a while, but much of our core was at least around for the long 2nd round run in 2020, so maybe that experience will help.

Think it will help, as will Cole's, Myers, Millers, Bluegers experience's.   Couple cup winners, and Miller/Myers were part of runs in NYR and WNP, so not like they haven't been there before.    St. Louis might have had a blip in their recent past, but when they were a perrenial playoff team.   There aren't really many surprises on that list of winners.    As in teams that wouldn't be considered a contender going into each individual season.     LA's first cup,  and St. Louis are the biggest ones.   O'Reilly was a pretty big addition though, like adding a prime Kesler.    Jeff Carter trade ... was pretty big too. 

Edited January 26 by IBatch

[Tocchet.A.Hockey.God]

55 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Another interesting tidbit, is there was a time when quite a few cup winners, made it to the final, lost, came back a few years (or even the following year) and won.    Of the list CAR, ANA, PIT .. so 3 of the first 4 post cap era teams all did this,  Vegas did too (albeit with a much different group).  It would be curious to see how many other teams, made it to at least the conference final, and how many times even, as well, with mostly the same group of guys.   My bet is, the odds of winning a cup goes up significantly, if your part of a group of teams (most on this list), who went to the conference final within a couple years at least once before winning a cup.     Think the list can be further divided this way.  

 

Most teams, don't come out of nowhere and win right away, but need a couple cracks at deep runs first.    Off the top of my head, only CHI (one of 3 cups) Boston, LA first cup and maybe St. Louis, maybe WSH can't remember, usually PIT took them out in the second round. 

 

13/18 cups,  that's a significant difference.   

 

Can be taken one more step as well.   How many teams, won a cup, without winning one round of hockey  with the same core?     It could be argued we did in the bubble.    Of the 18 cup teams ... it's a short list.  

 

Edit: As a curiosity, going to guess TB made it to the conference final the most .. also think they can be included as a cup winning example, it's not like they bought their cup (their first cup, the Martin St. Louis era, Stamkos had a good shot to win with him at the start of his career).    Of the 19 winners, they've been to the conference final five times?  Maybe more? Boston also went to the conference final often.    PIT too. 

This is a lot of work, just so you know this stuff can't be found online I had to do the research and data collection myself. I might take you up on the Challenge though.

I will do the loser of the Stanley Cup final for sure. I know for a fact there will be 1 1st place in the data set.

Edited January 26 by Tocchet.A.Hockey.God

[PureQuickness]

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

and that is why i wrote the post history clearly shows your wrong. Where a team places in the standing and the points a team amassed during the regular season does matter

 

Yes, the poster you're replying to is/was wrong. Rather than own up to the error, that other poster changed the discussion to something else to try and challenge your point.

 

Your thread is good. Keep it up.

Edited January 26 by PureQuickness

[Miss Korea]

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

But I didn't say the Canucks or any 1 team would win it. If you read the post you would know that the odds or in favor of the top 8 teams 83.4% of the time and on normal season when the top tiers are not low point earns like this season those odds go higher. 

 

All your post states is that a team like Edm who lose their top guy has decreased odds but for it to have any effect on the odds every top 8 team would have to lose their top player and even then it rebalances the odds.

 

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

and I'm not talking about the media I'm talking about historical odds. I never mention media once

 

I'm only using media as an example.  Anyone in their right mind would realize a team like Edmonton is in deep trouble without McDavid/Draisaitl.  But what I'm saying is that your probability model does not account for player injuries, which is a super common factor in hockey.  It's hard enough to predict the outcome of an 82-game regular season.  It's practically impossible to predict a 7-game series.

 

There is something just not right about your probability model here, but I'm not a statistician so I can't quite point out the problems.  We do have a statistics professor here - he might be able to offer better input.

 

50 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

Yes, the poster you're replying to is/was wrong. Rather than own up to the error, that other poster changed the discussion to something else to try and challenge your point.

 

Your thread is good. Keep it up.

 

Where did you go off to?  Did you read up on how junior jockey operates in Canada?

[IBatch]

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

This is a lot of work, just so you know this stuff can't be found online I had to do the research and data collection myself. I might take you up on the Challenge though.

I will do the loser of the Stanley Cup final for sure. I know for a fact there will be 1 1st place in the data set.

It's an interesting set of data no doubt.   Agree with other posters, who point out context matters.    For example,  Vegas missed the playoffs, and then won a cup.   And same with St. Louis (after mostly been in the playoffs, since their inception ... a pro sports miracle  really).    Vegas missed, obviously, because every single key player, missed considerable time, often several at a time.   Injuries.   St. Louis brought up Binnington, had a coaching change, went from worst in the league and then all the way to the cup (O'Reilly of course, at the peak of his powers).    
 

Without doing the research, which of course is all available on the internet, year to year, all layed out for us, just from memory, most of these 18 teams (and will go to 19, because TB has been one of the very best teams, not much stall time between Martin St. Louis to Stamkos, they almost played us but also couldn't solve Thomas, and has even a better series with them then we did),  had reps, a considerable portion reached the Conference Final or better before winning too.     That's a data set that matters too.    If say 5 of those cups were won by a team that hadn't gone to the conference final at some point (often recently) and 13 did, odds are that if your one of those 8 teams per year, it goes up as well.

 

    If 72% ish of those teams, won a cup after going to the conference final first ... or 3 rounds (the bubble was 17 games ... can't get 17 games in two rounds, not going to debate that, but you can bet those guys remember and that it was valuable experience).    Not going to check, again going by memory.   LA first cup for sure, Boston I think (lots of conference finals later though),  CHI first cup maybe can't remember .. St. Louis .. WSH.   5 out of 18.   13 did?   13 divided by 18 = 72% 

 

This isn't accurate, but you can bet that 1-8, don't have even odds.    That's what actuaries and math wizards figure out for gambling sites.  And they also hedge for the house.   So they aren't accurate either.   

 

You can bet that the odds are far from even of the top 8 going in.    Another set of data that would be interesting, is how often home ice is an advantage.    It does matter somewhat, so there is another multiplier.   That's two ontop of what you've shown. 

 

Edit:  A simple modifier, based on all-time, NHL teams win 59% of their games at home.    Not sure if this is regular season or playoffs, but i'm sure it's not much different.     That's huge.    Given we have a  Hockey God in Tochett, and our home record so far is sick ... pretty sure that's an advantage multiplier if we win the Presidents trophy.    Also think, that the bookies will consider this.    So far we've lost 80% more games on the road, then we've done at home. 

Edited January 26 by IBatch

[cripplereh]

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.

[c00kies]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

It's an interesting set of data no doubt.   Agree with other posters, who point out context matters.    For example,  Vegas missed the playoffs, and then won a cup.   And same with St. Louis (after mostly been in the playoffs, since their inception ... a pro sports miracle  really).    Vegas missed, obviously, because every single key player, missed considerable time, often several at a time.   Injuries.   St. Louis brought up Binnington, had a coaching change, went from worst in the league and then all the way to the cup (O'Reilly of course, at the peak of his powers).    
 

Without doing the research, which of course is all available on the internet, year to year, all layed out for us, just from memory, most of these 18 teams (and will go to 19, because TB has been one of the very best teams, not much stall time between Martin St. Louis to Stamkos, they almost played us but also couldn't solve Thomas, and has even a better series with them then we did),  had reps, a considerable portion reached the Conference Final or better before winning too.     That's a data set that matters too.    If say 5 of those cups were won by a team that hadn't gone to the conference final at some point (often recently) and 13 did, odds are that if your one of those 8 teams per year, it goes up as well.

 

    If 72% ish of those teams, won a cup after going to the conference final first ... or 3 rounds (the bubble was 17 games ... can't get 17 games in two rounds, not going to debate that, but you can bet those guys remember and that it was valuable experience).    Not going to check, again going by memory.   LA first cup for sure, Boston I think (lots of conference finals later though),  CHI first cup maybe can't remember .. St. Louis .. WSH.   5 out of 18.   13 did?   13 divided by 18 = 72% 

 

This isn't accurate, but you can bet that 1-8, don't have even odds.    That's what actuaries and math wizards figure out for gambling sites.  And they also hedge for the house.   So they aren't accurate either.   

 

You can bet that the odds are far from even of the top 8 going in.    Another set of data that would be interesting, is how often home ice is an advantage.    It does matter somewhat, so there is another multiplier.   That's two ontop of what you've shown. 

 

Edit:  A simple modifier, based on all-time, NHL teams win 59% of their games at home.    Not sure if this is regular season or playoffs, but i'm sure it's not much different.     That's huge.    Given we have a  Hockey God in Tochett, and our home record so far is sick ... pretty sure that's an advantage multiplier if we win the Presidents trophy.    Also think, that the bookies will consider this.    So far we've lost 80% more games on the road, then we've done at home. 

 

I remember the Blackhawks seemingly coming out of nowhere and making it to the Conference Finals (outplayed and lost to Detroit), but then they came back the next year and won it all.

 

The phrase "they just don't know any better" is ingrained from that experience.

[Alflives]

the empties odds for our Cup this year. That’s all we need! Cup!