East/West Discrepancy

[OMG67]

OMG67, you make lots of worthwhile points (and have touched on a lot of things I'm investigating for my article series). I typically don't do this, but there's so much here that I'm going to break it down point by point and add my input.



These are pretty vast generalizations, to be honest. I'm not sure the West had any bottom-feeders this year. Guelph's record was brutal, but they went 10-9-1 against the Eastern Conference and played by far the league's hardest schedule. Saginaw went 12-5-3 against the East and was +15. I know you'll defend Ottawa at the very least, but it's possible the East had the league's five worst teams this year. Mississauga embarrassed Peterborough in the Conference Finals. Some of that is Missy's strength, but are you really comfortable pointing to a flawed Petes team that got embarrassed out of the playoffs as part of a solid final four?

I realize this year was exceptional, but you can't very well make these kind of blanket statements and not acknowledge these exceptions. I've presented a fair bit of evidence why the league isn't competitive at all!



Again, I'd push back on your Peterborough assertion (a bit ironic as we were arguing opposite sides of that particular debate a few weeks ago!). Peterborough went 4-4-2 against the West's Big Five; not bad, but still more losses than wins. Missy went 4-8, and then 1-4 again in the Final. Sure, the Final was competitive, but it was still a 4-1 series win in which Erie outscored Missy 17-12. The fact that we're pointing to this as a point in the East's favour isn't exactly reassuring.

Peterborough absolutely went hard at the deadline (Paquette, Black, Korostolev). Missy made more of their moves earlier in the year, but they had a mediocre record in January. But even if we ignore all this, how is standing pat at the deadline and taking one's chances as a 70-30 underdog in the OHL Final a good strategy? That hasn't worked since 2006.



One thing I'm currently trying to do is create a metric for OHL contention. What, exactly, does it mean to be a contender in a given year? I'm probably going to poll the forum about it (and get about three replies), but one thing I've noted is that no team has won the league in the modern OHL with a goal differential of less than 70 (OS in 2011). I decided to test this benchmark out as a way to measure contention. (It's obviously a crude metric, but it's what I have so far, and it's probably more accurate than regular season points total.) I pulled all of the teams that met this criterion. In ten of the last thirteen seasons, the West has had more such "contenders" than the East. In two seasons they were tied. In only one season did the East have more "contenders" than the West, 2010-11, and the one West contender, Owen Sound, won the league anyway. In total, the West has had over twice as many contenders as the East. There were even four seasons in which the East had no contenders at all!



This was not true this year, and while I haven't had time to run the numbers on many past seasons, I think the eyeball test at least suggests it's not really true. Seven western teams have won championships since 06-07. One Eastern team has. You can argue that teams like Guelph and Owen Sound have been mediocre in seasons when they haven't won championships; I'd counter that teams like the 2012-13 Storm and Attack would have been highly competitive in most Eastern Conference years--and would certainly have made that list you put together.



I don't have time to test this theory now, but I do have the data to do it and probably will when I have time. (The Draft Pick Database does have the last two seasons of trades logged.) I talked about how Mark Hunter created the modern, cyclical, super-team OHL at the 2005 trade deadline in a previous article. But if you're right (and I like the theory and I think it's quite plausible), the question is why the Eastern teams are being run like this, if it's not bringing them championships. I was pretty clear in my article that the pre-2004-05 years of the 20-team OHL were pretty even, even spending a couple paragraphs talking about how the Mississauga IceDogs skewed the numbers, so I'm not sure why you're bringing up data from that era--let alone the early to mid 90's, which predates the two-conference format!



These are all areas of inquiry I'm pursuing and planning to write about in the article series, and it gets at my core project: why are the Eastern teams falling behind, and what can we do to fix it? To be honest, I'm not quite sure why you're arguing in some places that the discrepancy isn't that severe and elsewhere pointing to reasons why the Eastern Conference has trouble competing with the West. (And even elsewhere that the disparity, if it exists, doesn't matter.) Your arguments sound more like a holistic defense of the Eastern Conference than anything else--which is fine, but I've made pretty clear, and I think others have too, that this isn't a "whose conference is best" competition, which I personally have zero interest in.



No team has won the league with fewer than 97 points in the modern OHL. Moreover, how happy were Kingston fans about putting up 97 points in the regular season only to fall to an underachieving IceDogs team in the second round? Was Kingston's season a success? I'd probably argue that it was, but I know a ton of fans (probably the majority) would disagree with me.

London is a big focus of my upcoming article (Knights fans, take note!). But I think your previous argument is a better one for why the disparity exists in the modern OHL. London built the model for anyone to see, but the Western teams, mostly due to geography, are better able to implement it. I'm not convinced that the Eastern teams are willfully choosing to, again, take their chances as 70-30 'dogs in the Final. If they are, it's bad management, because it's not working.

There's also pretty compelling evidence that, in fact, anything can't (or doesn't) just happen in a seven-game series in the OHL. In the article I mentioned earlier, I talked about how upsets are steadily dwindling in the OHL playoffs. If I can pull this data, the Eastern teams can pull this data. Why aren't they changing a strategy that isn't working? I admit that I haven't run any advanced statistical analyses on the likelihood of some of these outcomes. (Side note: if anyone has talked to DiscoStu lately, I'd love to get in touch with him.) But even the more rudimentary analysis I'm doing suggests that this isn't a fifteen-year Finals fluke.

In closing, while I have tons of respect for your viewpoint, it just isn't convincing to me, for the reasons outlined above. I find this a fascinating topic, though, and I really do enjoy talking about it. I hope you found the article somewhat interesting, at the very least.

Here is my main problem with your assertions. You have a slanted opinion on what constitutes success.

Success isn't necessarily about a team blowing its brains out trading assets one year to achieve 105+ points and a chance at the lottery for a Championship with four or five other teams. Some teams value a more conservative approach where they are loyal to their players and their fan base. Not all teams agree with the new cycle of Junior Hockey.

To me, 90+ points gets you contender status. It doesn't necessarily get you a Championship but neither does 100 points. I hate using this year as an example but following your lead, Windsor had 90 points on the button. They came very close to knocking off London in round 1. They went undefeated in the Memorial Cup against solid competition. It does prove that 90 points does make you a solid team and a contender "most" years. This year was a bit of an anomaly with so many honest to goodness elite teams. It was impressive to see to be honest.

I pointed out in the previous article that from '96 through '05 the 67's were the class of the league and were easily the most competitive team during that stretch. I haven't runt he numbers (you can) but I would estimate they outclassed the league in combined win% by a wide margin. During those seasons the biggest and most impactful trade they made as a "buyer" was adding Brad Staubitz. The main reason for that deal was Kilelr had a young player that wanted out so he accommodated that player and added a veteran.

Regarding your point about no conferences back then, I was cherry picking Eastern Conference teams and representing them as the teams that are now being questioned. I realize that there were no conferences back then.

From '05 on, the league changed. London generated a market for big deals at the deadline. Some other teams have followed suit with deals of their own to keep pace. The reality is it is a Conference based system. Teams in the East don't keep up witht he Jones' in the West and vice versa. The mentality is to come out of your conference and make the Finals. If you read past articles with quotes from coaches and GM's, that is the goal from both Conferences. Get to the Finals and take your chances. How is that approach wrong?

Now, let's look at some fiascos. The Petes went through a phase post Dick Todd in 2006 that saw them flounder through multiple coaches. Sudbury was a joke for a long stretch with some of the same issues as PEterborough except add in the nepotism issues. We've seen a roller coaster of issues with the GTA teams which fall moreso on the Eastern Conference. Kingston under Mavety was well....nuff said.

Add in issues with Geography which is more prevalent now than ever before. Kids, especially on the high end, have had the ability to control their fate moreso now than in the past. Teams challenged geographically are less likely to convince a GTA area player to forgo NCAA to join their club. We've seen a lot of that where travel for parents and being closer to home being an issue. Western Teams tend to be more accessible on the easy side of the GTA for travel. Missy to Sarnia is much further than Missy to Oshawa but getting through the gaggle of traffic makes the time allowance almost equal. Now toss int he additional 2 hours to Kingston and 4 hours to Ottawa and it is a problem.

So, to recap:

1> Measuring success isn't the same for all franchises. Winning Championships, for some franchises, isn't the goal. We can argue that it should be the goal (I personally agree that it should be the goal and as an Ottawa 67's fan I made many enemies criticizing Brian Kilrea for his conservative approach). But, in the end, it isn't up to us to determine the goal of any franchise.
2> If you extend your investigation back another 10 years you will see an imbalance in Championships between Eastern and Western teams during a relatively long stretch. Maybe your metrics are skewed by your selective range of years?
3> A few Eastern teams have had systemic issues at the management level that have held them back lessening the number of teams having a real ability to gain any sustained success at all
4> Geography has shown and been proven to hurt the eastern Conference teams to a higher degree than Western Conference teams with respect to travel and accommodating families.
5> The previous "contender" status was 90+ points. That bar seems to be revised to 100+ points in recent years. Because of some of the points or handicaps a handful of the Eastern teams have, 90 points is obtainable in a good year but their access to talent and lack of willingness to outspend the opposition keeps them from being 100+ point teams.
6> Intra-Conference competition drives performance. Since the West has London that seems to be able to unearth elite players at will, they are at a competitive advantage vs their opposition in the conference. As long as Eastern teams are willing to dish off their 19 year old assets for cupboards full of picks and players at the deadline, the Jones' of the West will always chase London. The East has no need to chase London because quite simply they don't compete with them because of an intra Division/Conference laden schedule.

These are the reasons for the gap in my mind. I hope it is better explained and reasoned than my last late night post.

 

[OSA]

My hypothesis would be that there has been a sizeable increase in the number of American players in the OHL since the early 2000's and that most of these American players have played in the Western Conference.

I havent pursued this hypothesis much other some rudimentary analysis, but I do recall that, when analyzing the rosters of the Sudbury Wolves over the last 15 or so years, other than Alan Lyszarczyk, the team has not drafted an American that has reported or signed one as a free agent during that time. I was astounded! I have a feeling that a thorough analysis of the draft and free-agent history of all teams in the OHL over the last >15 years with respect to American players would reveal a decided advantage for the Western Conference.

 

[OMG67]

My hypothesis would be that there has been a sizeable increase in the number of American players in the OHL since the early 2000's and that most of these American players have played in the Western Conference.

I havent pursued this hypothesis much other some rudimentary analysis, but I do recall that, when analyzing the rosters of the Sudbury Wolves over the last 15 or so years, other than Alan Lyszarczyk, the team has not drafted an American that has reported or signed one as a free agent during that time. I was astounded! I have a feeling that a thorough analysis of the draft and free-agent history of all teams in the OHL over the last >15 years with respect to American players would reveal a decided advantage for the Western Conference.

Think you are correct but let's just assume you are correct. Americans from Michigan are more likely to play for Flint and Saginaw. Erie has had some that seemingly have signed there as well. But, the three marquee franchises (London, Windsor, and Kitchener) have 'seemed' to have the most success drafting Americans and them reporting as 18 or 19 year olds.

Why those three franchises? They seem to be three of the handful of teams that spend money on coaching a development as well as have the most connected networks outside the OHL to further pro careers. Some conspiracy theorists will say these teams PAID for their services but although there is truth to that, I don't think it is or was as rampant as has been projected by many.

 

[EON]

1> Measuring success isn't the same for all franchises. Winning Championships, for some franchises, isn't the goal. We can argue that it should be the goal (I personally agree that it should be the goal and as an Ottawa 67's fan I made many enemies criticizing Brian Kilrea for his conservative approach). But, in the end, it isn't up to us to determine the goal of any franchise.

If there is a management group in the league whose end goal isn't to win championships and I was a fan of that team, I would want them fired immediately.

I understand the value of sustained success and some teams don't want to completely fall off and rebuild, but the notion that a team's ultimate goal isn't to win championships seems absurd to me.

 

[OMG67]

If there is a management group in the league whose end goal isn't to win championships and I was a fan of that team, I would want them fired immediately.

I understand the value of sustained success and some teams don't want to completely fall off and rebuild, but the notion that a team's ultimate goal isn't to win championships seems absurd to me.

I think you are taking it out of context. There are franchises with fans that will not accept missing the playoffs and watching a sub .400 team. There are fragile franchises like that.

So, a management team will be more likely to protect what they have as opposed to try to win a Championship.

You have to define "win a Championship." To me, that is to blow your load at the deadline for one year of a run and then the following year trade off all assets that won't return the following year thus tanking the season. That is the formula now. Unless your team is fortunate enough to draft extremely well for two or three years in a row and/or have a couple players fall out of the sky and report walking away fromt he NCAA, your only avenue is to trade your next 6 2nds and 3rds as well as your most recent 1st round pick for two players that get you over the top.

So, if you are suggesting every franchise should be willing to toss away assets for a chance at a Championship, I would say you are not realistic in your expectations. Only a small handful of teams will ever decide to do that.

Based on my narrow definition of being committed to winning a Championship and Owen Sound's lack of buyer trades would combine to suggest Owen Sound is not committed to winning a Championship. What would their team look like after the deadline of they added MVS and Stephens by trading away every last piece of their future to get those two players?

Owen Sound clearly made a decision that trying to win a championship wasn't worth the cost to their future. Good management teams are there to ensure the best for the franchise is maintained, not what is best for one year.

 

[Savard18]

If there is a management group in the league whose end goal isn't to win championships and I was a fan of that team, I would want them fired immediately.

I understand the value of sustained success and some teams don't want to completely fall off and rebuild, but the notion that a team's ultimate goal isn't to win championships seems absurd to me.

I fully agree. There's still a business side to this and paying fans (the customers) aren't going to be down with that. OMG, as he usually does, has brought up some solid points though, and some that at least merit consideration. It does appear the deadline arms battle in the East is a little tamer. I would not like to see my franchise just suck for two years, be mediocre for one year and then sell the farm on the gamble of a Championship every four years on a continuous cycle either. I also think there needs to be some consideration to the players wishes at this level and I respect a franchise that respects that. I also think that a little extra loyalty and care being shown to the players (and all the staff) will benefit the franchise in recruiting anyway. Then again, that's just how I think any business SHOULD be run to be successful.

 

[Fischhaber]

Approaching the Christmas break, the East is already 25 games below .500 in head to head matchups against the West.

Many in this thread had blamed the discrepancy on the financial powerhouses of the West, but that certainly is not the case this season. We could very well end up seeing the smallest markets in Sarnia, SSM, Owen Sound, and Saginaw take most of the top seeds.

There are some very good looking teams in the East this year. Here's how they stack up against the West so far:

Hamilton 3-2-3
Barrie 3-3-1
Kingston 6-2-3
Niagara 4-2-2

Basically holding their own with 16 wins and 18 losses, which is pretty consistent with the top teams of past seasons.

 

[icepups]

Approaching the Christmas break, the East is already 25 games below .500 in head to head matchups against the West.

Many in this thread had blamed the discrepancy on the financial powerhouses of the West, but that certainly is not the case this season. We could very well end up seeing the smallest markets in Sarnia, SSM, Owen Sound, and Saginaw take most of the top seeds.

There are some very good looking teams in the East this year. Here's how they stack up against the West so far:

Hamilton 3-2-3
Barrie 3-3-1
Kingston 6-2-3
Niagara 4-2-2

Basically holding their own with 16 wins and 18 losses, which is pretty consistent with the top teams of past seasons.

Chalk up another win for the East tonight with Niagara beating London 4-2.

 

[Fischhaber]

Chalk up another win for the East tonight with Niagara beating London 4-2.

It's always a good day when London loses. Nobody deserves it more.

 

[Fischhaber]

Trade deadline update for inter-conference records:

East:

Barrie: 7-5-1
Hamilton: 4-3-3
Kingston: 7-6-3
Mississauga: 7-7-1
Niagara: 7-2-2
North Bay: 6-9-3
Oshawa: 6-7-1
Ottawa: 5-3-3
Peterborough: 4-10-2
Sudbury: 3-8-2

Total: 56-60-21

Both Barrie and Niagara have won more than they have lost. Kingston and Hamilton are in a position to join that group with improved performance after the trades. Hamilton may have one of the toughest remaining schedules.

West:

Erie: 7-9-2
Flint: 4-5-1
Guelph: 8-5-0
Kitchener: 6-4-0
London: 7-5-0
Owen Sound: 7-2-3
Saginaw: 7-6-1
Sarnia: 12-3
Sault Ste. Marie: 15-2-3
Windsor: 8-4-1

Total: 81-45-14

Only Flint and Erie are below .500 against the East, but Flint has a chance to change that in the second half. Top teams in Sarnia and Sault Ste. Marie have feasted on the other conference.

I think I missed a game or two for one of the Eastern teams, but it should accurate to within a game or two.

 

[dirty12]

If there is a management group in the league whose end goal isn't to win championships and I was a fan of that team, I would want them fired immediately.

I understand the value of sustained success and some teams don't want to completely fall off and rebuild, but the notion that a team's ultimate goal isn't to win championships seems absurd to me.

The eastern conference has slowly followed suit in playing the cycle (all-in). It just took teams like Barrie & Niagara (or Marty Williamson) to force the hand of other teams that could previously get to the OHL final without sacrificing too much of the future.

Kingston, Hamilton, Missasauga, Barrie, and Niagara are as good or better prepared for this year’s playoff than the top 5 of the west.

 

[Fischhaber]

The eastern conference has slowly followed suit in playing the cycle (all-in). It just took teams like Barrie & Niagara (or Marty Williamson) to force the hand of other teams that could previously get to the OHL final without sacrificing too much of the future.

Kingston, Hamilton, Missasauga, Barrie, and Niagara are as good or better prepared for this year’s playoff than the top 5 of the west.

Are they really or is it just an illusion? Those teams have struggled to maintain a .500 record against the West as a whole, let alone the top teams.

 

[dirty12]

Are they really or is it just an illusion? Those teams have struggled to maintain a .500 record against the West as a whole, let alone the top teams.

Those teams may have struggled vs the west; Idk, I don’t take the time to check records vs every team. I do know Barrie & Niagara & Miss have improved and Hamilton & Kingston added more pieces that look to fit than any other team. And, most of those pieces added came from the west.
IMO, you can throw the records of the top five in each conference out. Except SSM, those games played may as well be thought of an extended pre-season.

 

[Fischhaber]

Those teams may have struggled vs the west; Idk, I don’t take the time to check records vs every team. I do know Barrie & Niagara & Miss have improved and Hamilton & Kingston added more pieces that look to fit than any other team. And, most of those pieces added came from the west.
IMO, you can throw the records of the top five in each conference out. Except SSM, those games played may as well be thought of an extended pre-season.

I just posted an update of all inter-conference records a few posts above. Check it out.

 

[dirty12]

I just posted an update of all inter-conference records a few posts above. Check it out.

If you read my posts, you would realize that they regarded post dead-line teams

 

[Fischhaber]

If you read my posts, you would realize that they regarded post dead-line teams

I did read and you said you didn't know the records against the other conference. I'm just trying to help you out so the snarky response was uncalled for.

Trade deadline update for inter-conference records:

East:

Barrie: 7-5-1
Hamilton: 4-3-3
Kingston: 7-6-3
Mississauga: 7-7-1
Niagara: 7-2-2
North Bay: 6-9-3
Oshawa: 6-7-1
Ottawa: 5-3-3
Peterborough: 4-10-2
Sudbury: 3-8-2

Total: 56-60-21

West:

Erie: 7-9-2
Flint: 4-5-1
Guelph: 8-5-0
Kitchener: 6-4-0
London: 7-5-0
Owen Sound: 7-2-3
Saginaw: 7-6-1
Sarnia: 12-3
Sault Ste. Marie: 15-2-3
Windsor: 8-4-1

Total: 81-45-14

 

[dirty12]

I did read and you said you didn't know the records against the other conference. I'm just trying to help you out so the snarky response was uncalled for.

Trade deadline update for inter-conference records:

East:

Barrie: 7-5-1
Hamilton: 4-3-3
Kingston: 7-6-3
Mississauga: 7-7-1
Niagara: 7-2-2
North Bay: 6-9-3
Oshawa: 6-7-1
Ottawa: 5-3-3
Peterborough: 4-10-2
Sudbury: 3-8-2

Total: 56-60-21

West:

Erie: 7-9-2
Flint: 4-5-1
Guelph: 8-5-0
Kitchener: 6-4-0
London: 7-5-0
Owen Sound: 7-2-3
Saginaw: 7-6-1
Sarnia: 12-3
Sault Ste. Marie: 15-2-3
Windsor: 8-4-1

Total: 81-45-14

Ok. Sorry about the misunderstanding, I was more into the discussion pertaining to previous playoff success/deadline additions past & present

 

[Hammer9001]

Both Barrie and Niagara have won more than they have lost. Kingston and Hamilton are in a position to join that group with improved performance after the trades. Hamilton may have one of the toughest remaining schedules.

Yeah, I have to agree with that. The dogs play Kingston twice more, two games vs SSM, one game vs Sarnia, two vs Kitchener, two more tilts with Barrie and a handful of games vs Niagara who has given the team trouble this year. The also got three more vs Oshawa who are no slouches.

Keeping the division will not be easy for the Bulldogs, especially since it looks like Kingston has a much easier schedule.

 

[Duke Guy]

The top 6 teams in PIM's are all from the Eastern Conference.

This means.......