Log in Register
  • For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

General Leafs Talk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Based on the criteria, it's hard to argue, even if it's ultimately meaningless. Coaching could probably be higher, I suppose...
 
CarltonTheBear said:
bustaheims said:
For what it's worth, the Coyotes were the top ranked NHL team on this list, so . . .
Click to expand...

I had heard this from other people too but was kind of skeptical just because the list hadn't been officially published yet, but now it's up:

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/teamrankings

The Phoenix Coyotes are the 6th best franchise in the 4 major sports leagues folks. The reigning Stanley Cup champions are the 9th best NHL team, right in between the Carolina Hurricanes and the Florida Panthers.
Click to expand...

If there was only a media outlet in Canada with the balls to call the Leafs out like this from time to time.

Saw you rejoined btw - welcome back ;]
 
CarltonTheBear said:
bustaheims said:
For what it's worth, the Coyotes were the top ranked NHL team on this list, so . . .
Click to expand...

I had heard this from other people too but was kind of skeptical just because the list hadn't been officially published yet, but now it's up:

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/teamrankings

The Phoenix Coyotes are the 6th best franchise in the 4 major sports leagues folks. The reigning Stanley Cup champions are the 9th best NHL team, right in between the Carolina Hurricanes and the Florida Panthers.
Click to expand...

Am I right in thinking that this:

Bang For The Buck (BNG): Wins during the past three years (regular season plus postseason) per revenues directly from fans, adjusted for league schedules.

directly penalizes teams with more fans (or, conversely, gives advantage to teams with fewer fans).  For every additional jersey or seat purchases or, say, Leafs TV subscription, the team is getting more revenue, and that is counted directly as a negative.  Bang-for-buck calculated as (average-ticket-price*games-played/wins) would make more sense.
 
princedpw said:
CarltonTheBear said:
bustaheims said:
For what it's worth, the Coyotes were the top ranked NHL team on this list, so . . .
Click to expand...

I had heard this from other people too but was kind of skeptical just because the list hadn't been officially published yet, but now it's up:

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/teamrankings

The Phoenix Coyotes are the 6th best franchise in the 4 major sports leagues folks. The reigning Stanley Cup champions are the 9th best NHL team, right in between the Carolina Hurricanes and the Florida Panthers.
Click to expand...

Am I right in thinking that this:

Bang For The Buck (BNG): Wins during the past three years (regular season plus postseason) per revenues directly from fans, adjusted for league schedules.

directly penalizes teams with more fans (or, conversely, gives advantage to teams with fewer fans).  For every additional jersey or seat purchases or, say, Leafs TV subscription, the team is getting more revenue, and that is counted directly as a negative.  Bang-for-buck calculated as (average-ticket-price*games-played/wins) would make more sense.
Click to expand...

I am extremely skeptical that the rankings for this field:  "Players (PLA):  Effort on the field and likability off it" are generated in any scientific or even moderately unbiased way.

One gauge of likability is, for instance, number of jerseys sold with player names on it.  Obviously, that will bias large market teams, but those large market teams do have more people who like their players, so that is fair.  I wonder, what objective criteria did they use to rank the Leafs #121 (suspiciously identical to their overall ranking) when they have legions of fans and a decent work ethic as far as I can tell (though unfortunately not the talent)?  And why are the Philadelphia Eagles, with a star player who kills dogs for fun, ranked up at #71 in PLA (#73 overall)?

And another sketchy column:

Title Track (TTR): Championships already won or expected in the lifetime of current fans.

Why again is Toronto #121 when my mom is a huge Leaf fan and she had a great time watching a whole bunch of Leaf championships in the 60s?  In contrast, Pheonix is #68, St Louis is 75, Florida is 84, Ottawa is 58, ... by that ranking when 0% of their fans have seen a championship.

So, this ranking is worth less than nothing.
 
Title Track (TTR): Championships already won or expected in the lifetime of current fans

I don't think your mom is reflective of the total demographics of the Leafs fan base. Many Leafs fans, such as myself and I'm guessing you, have yet to see a championship, can count the number of viable opportunities to win a championship on one hand and don't really expect a championship in the foreseeable future.

So by that metric, the Leafs would certainly be very close to last place, but you're correct that there's an argument to be made that they are not necessarily last place. They probably played with the ratings a little bit so that a big market team whose fans don't necessarily hit up ESPN for news would be controversially ranked at the bottom.
 
I grew up in Thunder Bay and had lots of fellow Leaf fans as friends.  Of those, only one went to a Leaf's game.  If the Leafs only had 19,000 fans, then maybe the ESPN article would hold some weight.
 
#1PilarFan said:
Title Track (TTR): Championships already won or expected in the lifetime of current fans

I don't think your mom is reflective of the total demographics of the Leafs fan base. Many Leafs fans, such as myself and I'm guessing you, have yet to see a championship, can count the number of viable opportunities to win a championship on one hand and don't really expect a championship in the foreseeable future.

So by that metric, the Leafs would certainly be very close to last place, but you're correct that there's an argument to be made that they are not necessarily last place. They probably played with the ratings a little bit so that a big market team whose fans don't necessarily hit up ESPN for news would be controversially ranked at the bottom.
Click to expand...

I am saying that there are *some* leaf fans who have seen a championship.  The 60s were 50 years ago.  People in their teens and 20s are now in their 60s and 70s.  Men, especially, of retirement age watch A LOT of TV -- this is a well-established fact.  In Toronto, there are a pretty substantial number of these people who watch hockey.  Both of my parents watch pretty much every leaf game. My mum is a bigger fan than my dad.

I contrast this with the ZERO fans from the other teams I mentioned. 

SOME FANS >>>>> NO FANS

With that in mind, it is easy to argue the rankings are just wrong.  (I understand there is some forward-looking component, but that shouldnt dominate to the point where a franchise with multiple championships loses to the many, many, many franchises with zero championships across all the sports.)
 
Hard to argue about where the Leafs rank. If anything I am more mad about the Coyotes being ranked sixth. Of course they offer value, NOBODY WANTS TO OWN OR WATCH THE TEAM PLAY. If anything that ranking shows the flaw in the system more than where the Leafs are ranked.

 
As the immortal goalie Alan Turing once said: Garbage in, garbage out.  That applies to this ranking.
 
Even the Islanders were ahead of the Leafs of the bottom rankers.

Many of us already know about the Leafs' woes in just about all of the categories mentioned -- save for the stadium part and the community part.  Because the Maple Leafs are the richest and most profitable hockey team in the world for that matter, they were bound to end up at the other end of the spectrum when it comes to what makes a hockey team successful on ice.

I wouldn't, by any means, take these rankings seriously, but, they do serve as a fair barometer of where the team has stood in quite a few areas -- and still does, in a way.
 
princedpw said:
Am I right in thinking that this:

Bang For The Buck (BNG): Wins during the past three years (regular season plus postseason) per revenues directly from fans, adjusted for league schedules.

directly penalizes teams with more fans (or, conversely, gives advantage to teams with fewer fans).  For every additional jersey or seat purchases or, say, Leafs TV subscription, the team is getting more revenue, and that is counted directly as a negative.  Bang-for-buck calculated as (average-ticket-price*games-played/wins) would make more sense.
Click to expand...

Well, the component you're missing there is that the revenues you're talking about contribute to teams winning. Even in the NHL with a salary cap the Leafs revenues pay for front office people and scouts and so on. In sports without a hard cap big market teams can use those revenues on players so winning is directly tied to the revenue generated.

If you look at that specific ranking and who's near the bottom you get a pretty healthy mix of big market clubs(The Yankees, Leafs, Cubs) and small market losers as well(The Oilers, Jets and Twins).
 
princedpw said:
I am extremely skeptical that the rankings for this field:  "Players (PLA):  Effort on the field and likability off it" are generated in any scientific or even moderately unbiased way.

One gauge of likability is, for instance, number of jerseys sold with player names on it.  Obviously, that will bias large market teams, but those large market teams do have more people who like their players, so that is fair.  I wonder, what objective criteria did they use to rank the Leafs #121 (suspiciously identical to their overall ranking) when they have legions of fans and a decent work ethic as far as I can tell (though unfortunately not the talent)?  And why are the Philadelphia Eagles, with a star player who kills dogs for fun, ranked up at #71 in PLA (#73 overall)?
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something but it's not like they're being mysterious or secretive about how they arrived at their rankings. They link to their methodology in the second paragraph of the article here and they explain it pretty clearly. This is a fan poll/survey for the most part. So a team's likability is being graded by the fans of the team. Why do Eagles fans like their team more than Leafs fans like theirs? I don't know. But would it really surprise you if a question posed to a group of Leafs fans about the Leafs received negative, or at least an unusually high amount of negative, answers?

We've all taken surveys like that. "How do you rank this professor's class?" 1. very good 2. good 3.average 4. bad 5. very bad. Then they just count up the responses.

Is that "unbiased"? Well, no. Fans, by the very definition of the word, are biased. What works against the Leafs here is that the bias Leafs fans feel towards the team is not necessarily a positive one.

princedpw said:
And another sketchy column:

Title Track (TTR): Championships already won or expected in the lifetime of current fans.

Why again is Toronto #121 when my mom is a huge Leaf fan and she had a great time watching a whole bunch of Leaf championships in the 60s?  In contrast, Pheonix is #68, St Louis is 75, Florida is 84, Ottawa is 58, ... by that ranking when 0% of their fans have seen a championship.
Click to expand...

Two things. One, and I can't say for certain this is what they had in mind, but it's a often ignored fact that most major sports do not just have one championship. They may have one championship that trumps the others in importance but just from a technical standpoint it's not the case. Last year the Devils were the Eastern Conference Champions, baseball plays the ALCS and the NLCS which determines the American League and National League champions and so on and so forth. If that's being considered, and again I don't know if it is, then some of the teams you're mentioning won championships and recently.

Two, again, this is a fan survey. Would it really surprise you if Maple Leafs fans, as a group, were the most pessimistic about their chances to see a Cup victory in their lives?

Now, ok, you're free and 100% accurate to say that it's hyperbole to call these "Ultimate Team Rankings" as opposed to a fan opinion poll. Likewise you'd be free to say that a poll that says that Leafs fans are more down on their team than any other isn't all that revealing. That said, I think you have to acknowledge that it's a believable outcome given the criteria and methodology they're using. 
 
Mike1 said:
Hard to argue about where the Leafs rank. If anything I am more mad about the Coyotes being ranked sixth. Of course they offer value, NOBODY WANTS TO OWN OR WATCH THE TEAM PLAY. If anything that ranking shows the flaw in the system more than where the Leafs are ranked.
Click to expand...

One of the things to keep in mind is that the categories that go into the final rankings are weighted. So things like Title Track account for only 3.2% of the final score whereas Bang for the Buck, which seems to be the category where they most seem inclined to look at things objectively, accounts for 21.6%.

The Red Wings, who would seem to excel in terms of Ownership, coaching and title winning, are hurt because those seem to be the least heavily weighted categories.

Now, you and I might not agree with all thqat, but those weights are arrived at via poll with fans and what they consider important from a franchise.
 
princedpw said:
@Nik:  To boil down my thoughts to a sentence:  I feel their methodology generates pretty useless results.
Click to expand...

I mean, I can't argue for the "usefulness" of a fan poll but I don't think that's a reflection of their methodology. Polling fans seems like a pretty fair way to gauge fan opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top