World Cup: Let's decide right now: does this count?

[seventieslord]

Let's say you're me and you've been maintaining an all-time best-on-best scoreboard as seen here: hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1557609

I'd rather decide before any hockey is played - does this count as best on best hockey like any other? Should I include these games in the all-time standings? See the poll.

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

Nope. Your best on best thread deals with national team results. This tournament has two non-national teams. That obviously throws off the results. Additionally, it isn't a best on best since two of the national teams have restrictions placed upon who they can select. Might as well start new data for "Canada 24 and over" and "USA 24 and over".

I would consider this tournament as something similar to the 1979 Challenge Cup or Rendezvous 87. National vs non-national teams with most of the best players present, but a different animal than an actual best on best tournament.

 

[ijuka]

It's a best-on-best but yeah, even if the 2 other teams were ignored USA and Canada can't ice their best lineups so this can't count.

 

[Canuckistani]

I suppose you could count the results between Russia, Sweden, Finland and Czech Rep since those are the only teams that fit the definition of best-on-best. But not the rest.

 

[seventieslord]

Nope. Your best on best thread deals with national team results. This tournament has two non-national teams. That obviously throws off the results. Additionally, it isn't a best on best since two of the national teams have restrictions placed upon who they can select. Might as well start new data for "Canada 24 and over" and "USA 24 and over".

I would consider this tournament as something similar to the 1979 Challenge Cup or Rendezvous 87. National vs non-national teams with most of the best players present, but a different animal than an actual best on best tournament.

to play devil's advocate - we all agree this tournament is a disgrace, but do we need to overstate just how weakened canada and usa are by this format? They have essentially the same teams they'd otherwise have, right? Give or take one player, maybe two. An injury or a "don't feel like it" would have the same effect on either team and lord knows there are always a handful of those.

 

[cutchemist42]

I think because the USA is effected more than Canada that yeah, some results honestly should not be included. Are you willing to only accept some games from the tourney?

Just curious then, does your database include Denmark because I feel they have never had the chance to field their best team?

 

[JackSlater]

to play devil's advocate - we all agree this tournament is a disgrace, but do we need to overstate just how weakened canada and usa are by this format? They have essentially the same teams they'd otherwise have, right? Give or take one player, maybe two. An injury or a "don't feel like it" would have the same effect on either team and lord knows there are always a handful of those.

I understand that. Injuries and refusals happen, as we see already in this tournament or in any other tournament. This tournament has a structure that doesn't allow Canada or USA to select all of their best players though, which is different. We know that USA wanted Eichel, as per their GM's request to the NHL, and we can speculate on others like Gaudreau and Saad. Canada likely wanted McDavid, probably not any others but who knows. Possibly more significant is that these Canadian and American players can play against their supposed national teams. If Canada or USA loses to a team half composed of its own players... what exactly does that show?

Consider other actual best on best tournaments. If they were played under this format, there is no doubt that some of the results would be different. Players Canada would miss under this format:

1976 Canada Cup - Potvin, Gainey, Gare, McDonald

1981 Canada Cup - Gretzky, Bourque, Hartsburg, Linseman, Reinhart

1984 Canada Cup - Gretzky, Bourque, Anderson, Coffey, Messier, Sutter, Fuhr, Yzerman

1987 Canada Cup - Mario Lemieux, Dineen, Hextall, Claude Lemieux, Tocchet

1991 Canada Cup - Dejardins, Fleury, Lindros, Shanahan

1996 World Cup - Lindros, Niedermayer, Jovanovski

1998 Olympics - Pronger

2002 Olympics - Brewer, Gagne

2004 World Cup - Heatley

2006 Olympics - Nash, Bouwmeester

2010 Olympics - Crosby, Doughty, Toews

2014 Olympics - Tavares, Duchene

The format is just too different to count.

 

[777]

It's such a weird format I don't know what to think of it, or which poll option to pick.

This isn't on the same level as Olympics that I'm certain of

 

[seventieslord]

If Canada or USA loses to a team half composed of its own players... what exactly does that show?

I agree, but isn't that only an argument against option 1? It doesn't seem to affect option 2.

 

[Atas2000]

Every international tournament is best on best... or none. There is no tournament where all stars partcipate.

 

[Canuckistani]

Every international tournament is best on best... or none. There is no tournament where all stars partcipate.

There are invariably injuries and declines for any event, but there's a clear difference between the rosters at the Olympics and those at the WHC.

 

[JackSlater]

I agree, but isn't that only an argument against option 1? It doesn't seem to affect option 2.

If that was the only issue, ie Canada and USA had first access to players 23 and under, then #2 would be a viable option. The format of the tournament doesn't allow Canada or USA to select those players though, so they are limited in their selections and not full best on best level national teams.

I can understand using games featuring exclusively Russia, Czech Republic, Finland and Sweden for the data, but the gimmick teams aren't even national teams, and Canada and USA do not have access to all of their best healthy players.

 

[seventieslord]

If that was the only issue, ie Canada and USA had first access to players 23 and under, then #2 would be a viable option. The format of the tournament doesn't allow Canada or USA to select those players though, so they are limited in their selections and not full best on best level national teams.

I can understand using games featuring exclusively Russia, Czech Republic, Finland and Sweden for the data, but the gimmick teams aren't even national teams, and Canada and USA do not have access to all of their best healthy players.

...but they have access to basically the same amount of top healthy players they otherwise would, right? I may sound like a chest thumping canadian here (and I don't want to sound like I care about this stupid tournament either), but... we don't really need McDavid to steamroll this thing with a series of 4-1 and 4-0 wins, do we? And Matthews and Eichel don't really make or break USA either, they aren't built-in excuses for why they end up losing in the quarters to the Czechs or something, are they?

 

[LetsGoBLUES91]

It's not a farce. It's going to be awesome. That said, it shouldn't count because some teams can't use all of their players.

 

[Canuckistani]

...but they have access to basically the same amount of top healthy players they otherwise would, right? I may sound like a chest thumping canadian here (and I don't want to sound like I care about this stupid tournament either), but... we don't really need McDavid to steamroll this thing with a series of 4-1 and 4-0 wins, do we? And Matthews and Eichel don't really make or break USA either, they aren't built-in excuses for why they end up losing in the quarters to the Czechs or something, are they?

At Vancouver 2010 didn't Jonathan Toews (under 24 at the time) start off as the 13th forward and end up as the team leader in points?

Canada and USA should still have the talent to compete but there's no way of knowing what their stolen players would have been able to accomplish had their played for their country instead of their age group.

 

[Sorey*]

Nope. Your best on best thread deals with national team results. This tournament has two non-national teams. That obviously throws off the results. Additionally, it isn't a best on best since two of the national teams have restrictions placed upon who they can select. Might as well start new data for "Canada 24 and over" and "USA 24 and over".

I would consider this tournament as something similar to the 1979 Challenge Cup or Rendezvous 87. National vs non-national teams with most of the best players present, but a different animal than an actual best on best tournament.

So every wjc tournament should not be counted since star players often dont get to attend? People still hype those tournaments though. You are being a hypocrite.

 

[WayneSid9987]

I suppose you could count the results between Russia, Sweden, Finland and Czech Rep since those are the only teams that fit the definition of best-on-best. But not the rest.

This and they'd obviously have to be playing vs each other.

 

[Canuckistani]

So every wjc tournament should not be counted since star players often get to attend? People still hype those tournaments though. You are being a hypocrite.

At the WJC all national teams run the risk of losing U-20 players to NHL commitments come December. Everyone understands that's just the way it is.

At the Bettman Cup, meanwhile, only two teams lose players to an age restriction while the other national teams can select whoever they want.

Blatantly unfair.

 

[QnebO]

Gold will count unless theres u24 or Europe in final. If one of them is in the final, give gold for no one in the statistics. U24 and Europe shouldn't be counted in the marathon team statistics, at least not in same group.

You could count player points from U24 or Europe games, they're still material wise "real" teams.

It's not as legit as it was before but it'll entertain well.

 

[Sorey*]

At the WJC all national teams run the risk of losing U-20 players to NHL commitments come December. Everyone understands that's just the way it is.

At the Bettman Cup, meanwhile, only two teams lose players to an age restriction while the other national teams can select whoever they want.

Blatantly unfair.

Canada and usa with the excuses already. You always brag how canada can put 3 teams as good in a best of best tournament so DEAL with it.

This is a true best of the best.

 

[Canuckistani]

Canada and usa with the excuses already. You always brag how canada can put 3 teams as good in a best of best tournament so DEAL with it.

This is a true best of the best.

So you're saying that if a country has talent depth then it's OK to mess with their roster with age restrictions that don't apply to other countries?

How about just leaving all rosters the hell alone?

 

[JackSlater]

...but they have access to basically the same amount of top healthy players they otherwise would, right? I may sound like a chest thumping canadian here (and I don't want to sound like I care about this stupid tournament either), but... we don't really need McDavid to steamroll this thing with a series of 4-1 and 4-0 wins, do we? And Matthews and Eichel don't really make or break USA either, they aren't built-in excuses for why they end up losing in the quarters to the Czechs or something, are they?

These are your expectations. They may be right, they may be wrong. Canada or USA winning or losing the tournament doesn't dictate what this tournament is though. Of course Canada is still good enough to win. That doesn't mean it was Canada's best team, just that it was still a good team. I don't think anyone is saying that it isn't a good team. Canada still has comfortably the strongest team in the tournament - that doesn't mean it is Canada's best though.

As for whether or not McDavid is necessary, as was already said just look at 2010. Canada's 13th forward (and a lesser player than McDavid) was named top forward and proved essential, and basically one would have viewed him as essential beforehand. Doughty started as the seventh defenceman and was critical as well. None of us knows how the results would be affected if certain teams had access to all of their best players. In actual best on best tournaments, there is no need to wonder about these things.

So every wjc tournament should not be counted since star players often dont get to attend? People still hype those tournaments though. You are being a hypocrite.

... of course every WJC shouldn't be counted as a best on best tournament. I think everyone can see that. What is the point of your comment?

 

[Gary Nylund]

At Vancouver 2010 didn't Jonathan Toews (under 24 at the time) start off as the 13th forward and end up as the team leader in points?

Canada and USA should still have the talent to compete but there's no way of knowing what their stolen players would have been able to accomplish had their played for their country instead of their age group.

That's true, we'll never know. But still, there's no denying Canada's depth. We'll never what McDavid could have done on this team but the guy who makes the team instead of him could also lead the team in points and be the MVP.

JMHO but I don't see a strong argument that Team Canada would be stronger if they were allowed to pick McDavid, Ekblad or whoever else. Team USA sure, but not Team Canada.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Canada and usa with the excuses already. You always brag how canada can put 3 teams as good in a best of best tournament so DEAL with it.

This is a true best of the best.

No excuses here, Canada is the favorite and if we get beat, good for the team that does it, it will be an accomplishment for sure.

It's not a "true" best on best though. Close but no cigar.

 

[Sorey*]

So you're saying that if a country has talent depth then it's OK to mess with their roster with age restrictions that don't apply to other countries?

How about just leaving all rosters the hell alone?

This is a tournament Canada themselves decided to run. It holds more value then IIHF tournament.

I see this as the ultimate hockey tournament, and if Sweden win I will say that we are the best in the world