Some stats for those of you upset by Canada's WJC showing

[losveratos]

Of course it is. You're confusing what the whole point of international hockey is. The US developmental program doesn't exist to improve kids draft stock. It's to make better players out of the material they have so that they have better results in international competition. They're getting better at that. To deny that is to deny the basic and fundamental reason for international hockey to exist which is for teams to play each other and, you know, care about who scores the most goals in a given game. If USA hockey doesn't have a single player chosen in the draft but they win the WJC they are better at developing players than anyone else.

I'm just wondering after reading this... how many American players on the US teams were actually developed in the CHL? And not the NCAA or whatever? I'm not using this as a point as I really don't know. But if you looked into that... then maybe that would settle this argument.

Also last year, the Toronto Maple Leafs had a winning record against the Rangers. Does that mean we're better at developing and coaching our players? We went 2-1-1 against them from what I can tell.

[losveratos]

Actually I just found the answer I think on the CHL website. The answer is 10...

10 of their players came from our development programs... Can't say that exactly US getting better so much more than just more of their players are coming here to train.

[OldTimeHockey]

This thread is great!  ;D





BTW, a 2 week tournament, in the middle of the year where teams are comprised largely of players that have never played together is hardly an indication of where individual training systems are at. There are far too many variables that can come into play when playing a short sampling of games with not much practice time to prepare.


That being said, the US is obviously producing better players but I don't think it calls for an overhaul of Hockey Canada and their training systems.

[bustaheims]

Actually I just found the answer I think on the CHL website. The answer is 10...

10 of their players came from our development programs... Can't say that exactly US getting better so much more than just more of their players are coming here to train.

How many of them played in the USHL before they went the CHL route? I imagine most, if not all, of them played for the US National Development Team before suiting up in the CHL. They're coming to the CHL because it's a more direct route to the NHL. They've already done most of their development in the US system before they get there.

[bustaheims]

Just an as example to my previous post - Seth Jones, who was a significant part of the US gold medal team is in his first CHL season after spending 2 with the US development team. He didn't come here to train, he came here to get more ice time than he would in the NCAA and fast track his way into the NHL.

[Nik]

Also last year, the Toronto Maple Leafs had a winning record against the Rangers. Does that mean we're better at developing and coaching our players? We went 2-1-1 against them from what I can tell.

You do realize a 2-1-1 record means the Leafs beat them twice and were beaten by them twice, right?

[losveratos]

Also last year, the Toronto Maple Leafs had a winning record against the Rangers. Does that mean we're better at developing and coaching our players? We went 2-1-1 against them from what I can tell.

You do realize a 2-1-1 record means the Leafs beat them twice and were beaten by them twice, right?

In the Hockey world where points are the only thing that matters for getting into the playoffs. I'd say 5 points to their 4 is a victory :P

*edit*

Pushing past that though... lets just say that it was 2-2 instead. Does that make us equals in Coaching and Development?

My point that I was trying to illustrate is that using records of such a small sample size is a slippery slope for deciding which team is better. Let alone moving these conclusions onto much larger things such as an entire countries development programs. If this kind of play continues into the future and we have more of these small tournaments put together to create a much larger sample size, then perhaps we can at that point sit down and talk about the abilities of the American systems.

I just don't think we're there yet.

[Nik]

Pushing past that though... lets just say that it was 2-2 instead. Does that make us equals in Coaching and Development?

It doesn't work as an analogy because it ignores the fundamental difference between international hockey and professional hockey. A professional hockey team's record isn't intrinsically a measurement of that team's development program. The Rangers didn't develop Brad Richards or Marian Gaborik, the Leafs didn't develop Joffrey Lupul or Dion Phaneuf. At the world Juniors, as Busta points out, all of these kids do go through their respective countries development programs. It's not like Seth Jones signed with Team USA as a free agent from Switzerland.

edit: But what the Leafs record against the Rangers does tell us is that there's a ton of parity in the NHL and that the difference between the teams near the top and the teams near the bottom isn't great enough to make any result a surprise. The Rangers aren't miles better than the Leafs. The Rangers advantage over the Leafs might boil down to one or two players. If Brad Richards and Henrik Lundqvist swapped with Bozak and Gustavsson, the Leafs are probably the better team. The argument here is that because America beat Canada, it's fair to say America is in Canada's league. Likewise it's fair to say that the Leafs are in the Rangers league because...well, that's what the L stands for.

My point that I was trying to illustrate is that using records of such a small sample size is a slippery slope for deciding which team is better.

There's a degree of truth to that but:

1) That's sports. The guy who wins on one day at the olympics gets the gold medal, the guy who beats him every day the other four years doesn't. Nobody would have time for the other guy saying he's better than the gold medalist. Winning when it matters, even in a do or die event, is kind of how we measure these things. Even a best of seven isn't a great way to determine which team is better but at some point games do have to be played and there comes a point where being "better" is meaningless if you don't win when you need to.

2) Remember, this still isn't framed within the context of saying the United States is better than Canada, just that they're catching up and that, despite my sort of flip remark, is really best evidenced by the way the USA international program has produced results over the past few years.

3) As per above, I didn't say "America beat Canada, therefore America is better" but what I did say was that a good argument can be made for the Americans because they beat Canada handily. Sure, Belarus can beat Sweden 4-3 if a puck goes in off Tommy Salo's head. But can Belarus beat Sweden 8-0? Crazy things can happen in sports that can lead to all sorts of unexpected results but a significantly less talented team kicking the crap out of the more talented team doesn't happen very often.

Let alone moving these conclusions onto much larger things such as an entire countries development programs. If this kind of play continues into the future and we have more of these small tournaments put together to create a much larger sample size, then perhaps we can at that point sit down and talk about the abilities of the American systems.

Most of the talk re: America's improved development program is about their results from multiple tournaments. The past few WJC's, the last Olympics, how they've done at the U-17's...this isn't a new thing that only has to do with last week.

[OldTimeHockey]

The past few WJC's

The US finished in relegation last year ;)

That would result in a meltdown here in Canada

[Nik]

The US finished in relegation last year ;)

That would result in a meltdown here in Canada

They've won 2 of the last 4 golds and won medals in 3 of the last four.

[ontariojames]

It wasn't probably, it was extremely high likelihood of being true.

You bought fine razors to split that hair.

Obviously I'm not trying to say talent doesn't matter at all, my point was that whoever wins hasn't proven they have the MOST talent.

But, again, nobody is framing this in the context of the United States having surpassed Canada, simply that the gap is narrowing and the fact that the US junior team has gone from an afterthought to consistently capable of beating Canada is evidence of that.

What about the US's roster at the last Olympics where they almost beat us for gold? Canada had 7 players in the top 20 scoring that year, US had 3, Canada had 12 in the top 40, US had 5, Canada had 4 of the top 5 Dmen in scoring, US only had 1 in the entire top 20 and he was right at 20. Not to mention all of the individual trophies Canada had on that team compared to the US roster. A few Art Ross', a few Norris', a few Conn Smythe's, a few Rocket Richards, a few Harts.

Well, leaving aside the fact that where players rank on scoring lists isn't always the best way to determine how good they are in the NHL I think it particularly exposes the flaw in your main point re: draft position. Things like stay at home defensemen, goaltending, third line forwards...those are huge components in what makes for winning hockey teams and those are things that are consistently shown to be the hardest for NHL scouts to judge. John Gibson was a second round pick. Does that mean he doesn't count in your world when we're looking at the quality of players the United States is developing? That's nonsense.

Again, the point in international hockey is to win tournaments, not to assemble the most talented squad on paper. Winning tournaments is proof positive of a country's ability at developing players regardless of where those players are then drafted.

No, it's not the point of this discussion because that's not what I wrote this thread on, when I hear people talking about how good the US has become at developing players they aren't going into the specifics about resources, interest and what not. They mean in general, how many good players the US is developing.

But, again, that's just true. The US is developing a lot of good players. That number is increasing. They're doing better in international tournaments. What people are saying about the increasing quality of the US development program is true. Are you upset that they're not being specific enough in their stating the truth? They aren't attaching an appropriate number to it

The US is getting better. They are producing players in more states. Denying that is raging at the tides.

Big difference between probably and extremely likely.

Well, if you want to make that argument then go ahead and tell me how the US forwards as a group were so much more well rounded that it made it for how many more elite point producers Canada had.

Yes, there are always going to be players who end up being better than their draft position indicates, but Canada clearly still had much more individual talent when you consider how many top 10's they had compared to the US.

The US has been a gold medal threat since the early 2000's,  a few years after the National Team Development Program started, them winning the gold twice in the last few years doesn't mean that they have started producing a lot more good players recently.

Most importantly though, I never said they weren't producing more good players, I said the difference wasn't big, and they are still so far behind Canada that making comments like "they're catching up Canada," is just pointless. That's the reason I was so surprised when I saw just how big the difference still was. If I was a hockey analyst on TV and I was aware of how big the difference was I wouldn't bother making that comment. My issue isn't with anyone saying that the US is getting better at producing players, it's that I think it's getting overblown by some people.

[Nik]

Big difference between probably and extremely likely.

Not when it's entirely invented with no basis.

Well, if you want to make that argument then go ahead and tell me how the US forwards as a group were so much more well rounded that it made it for how many more elite point producers Canada had.

Well, you might have noticed that it was Team USA celebrating after the game and not Team Canada. That's a start.

Yes, there are always going to be players who end up being better than their draft position indicates, but Canada clearly still had much more individual talent when you consider how many top 10's they had compared to the US.

You keep saying that, I keep saying it's irrelevant. But heck, I can do it a few more times if you like.

The US has been a gold medal threat since the early 2000's,  a few years after the National Team Development Program started, them winning the gold twice in the last few years doesn't mean that they have started producing a lot more good players recently.

They've won medals in three of the last four years, including two golds. Those three medals in four years equal their medal count from their previous 12 tournaments before that and only 2 medals less than they'd won in the previous 20. Denying there's an upswing is ridiculous.

Most importantly though, I never said they weren't producing more good players, I said the difference wasn't big, and they are still so far behind Canada that making comments like "they're catching up Canada," is just pointless. That's the reason I was so surprised when I saw just how big the difference still was.

Except the methodology by which you arrived at that conclusion, basing it on players draft position as opposed to results in international hockey, is fundamentally flawed.

[OldTimeHockey]

The US finished in relegation last year ;)

That would result in a meltdown here in Canada

They've won 2 of the last 4 golds and won medals in 3 of the last four.

Just yanking your chain Mr Pollock

[ontariojames]

Big difference between probably and extremely likely.

Not when it's entirely invented with no basis.

Well, if you want to make that argument then go ahead and tell me how the US forwards as a group were so much more well rounded that it made it for how many more elite point producers Canada had.

Well, you might have noticed that it was Team USA celebrating after the game and not Team Canada. That's a start.

Yes, there are always going to be players who end up being better than their draft position indicates, but Canada clearly still had much more individual talent when you consider how many top 10's they had compared to the US.

You keep saying that, I keep saying it's irrelevant. But heck, I can do it a few more times if you like.

The US has been a gold medal threat since the early 2000's,  a few years after the National Team Development Program started, them winning the gold twice in the last few years doesn't mean that they have started producing a lot more good players recently.

They've won medals in three of the last four years, including two golds. Those three medals in four years equal their medal count from their previous 12 tournaments before that and only 2 medals less than they'd won in the previous 20. Denying there's an upswing is ridiculous.

Most importantly though, I never said they weren't producing more good players, I said the difference wasn't big, and they are still so far behind Canada that making comments like "they're catching up Canada," is just pointless. That's the reason I was so surprised when I saw just how big the difference still was.

Except the methodology by which you arrived at that conclusion, basing it on players draft position as opposed to results in international hockey, is fundamentally flawed.

Now you're clearly just being ridiculous trying to win an argument. Are you seriously trying to argue that with Canada's 1st round numbers compared to the US's, the chances of Canada's group of 1st rounders in that time frame not yielding significantly better results than the US's is extremely small, which they clearly are?

You have no basis to say it's irrelevant. I've already shown how Canada's huge number of top 10 picks has produced way more star or on the verge star players in the NHL than the US has in the last five years. It's very likely that down the road Canada's team produces significantly more good NHL players than the US' team.

the US is on a four year trend, considering how cyclical these things are, it doesn't prove anything. Canada didn't suddenly become much worse at producing players when they went from winning five straight to going on a long dry spell, and then suddenly become great at it again when they went on another streak. The US has had many teams starting in the early 2000's that were gold medal favourites or co favourites that didn't live up to their potential for whatever reason.

[Nik]

Now you're clearly just being ridiculous trying to win an argument. Are you seriously trying to argue that with Canada's 1st round numbers compared to the US's, the chances of Canada's group of 1st rounders in that time frame not yielding significantly better results than the US's is extremely small, which they clearly are?

No, I'm saying that absent any actual facts the difference between whatever adverbs you might choose to describe what you think the facts might be doesn't really change anything.

You have no basis to say it's irrelevant.

Sure I do. The basis being that you continue to define how good a player is by his draft position or point totals in the NHL as opposed to their ability to help a team win international hockey tournaments.

the US is on a four year trend, considering how cyclical these things are, it doesn't prove anything.

Except these things aren't cyclical for the United States. They've never had a sustained period of success in international hockey like they're having now. Canada ebbs and flows as other countries challenge them while maintaining a default level of competitiveness but the United States are historical also-rans. That's clearly not the case anymore and I'm far more comfortable attributing it to the improvement of their development program than your attributing it to, I don't know, magic beans or something.

Until something ends, you can't call it a trend or know how long it's going to last.