Random Occurrence or Parity Playing Big Factor in Post-Season Results

AttackSound

Junior Hockey Fan Since Birth
Aug 25, 2016
2,257
977
Owen Sound, Ontario
As the playoffs continue and the conference finals nearing, I came across this interesting stat in the CHL that really shows how parity across the CHL has played more of factor in then just teams talent.

Looking at the OHL, QMJHL, and WHL playoffs and comparing the final standings this season the standings don't lie on how parity has majorly changed the CHL.

In the OHL eastern conference final

Ottawa (1) with 106 pts in 68 games
Oshawa (3) with 92 pts in 68 games

In the QMJHL conference finals

Rouyn-Noranda (1) with 119 pts in 68 games
Rimouski (3) with 92 pts in 68 games

Halifax (1) with 102 pts in 68 games
Drummondville (2) with 107 pts in 68 games

In the WHL conference finals

Prince Albert (1) 112 pts in 68 games
Edmonton (3) 92 pts in 68 games

Vancouver (1) 101 pts in 68 games
Spokane (3) 87 pts in 68 games

As the stats don't lie the parity across the CHL shows that not also dose it exist more then ever before but that 1st and 3rd place are are key spots in success in the post-season.

This would be an interesting thing to track for the next cycle of seasons to see how much parity truly exists in the CHL especially since the CHL has aligned its games to a 34-34 format for this past season and into the future as the WHL has since dropped 4 games in their schedule to mirror the OHL and QMJHL leagues.

Would be interesting to see over the next few seasons on how the parity across all three leagues will shake out in the post-season results.

Wonder if any other posters have seen this looking back at the regular season standings this year in the CHL and what things are to come for the future??
 
  • Like
Reactions: three dog night

ohloutsider

Registered User
Jan 13, 2016
6,715
7,500
Rock & Hardplace
As the playoffs continue and the conference finals nearing, I came across this interesting stat in the CHL that really shows how parity across the CHL has played more of factor in then just teams talent.

Looking at the OHL, QMJHL, and WHL playoffs and comparing the final standings this season the standings don't lie on how parity has majorly changed the CHL.

In the OHL eastern conference final

Ottawa (1) with 106 pts in 68 games
Oshawa (3) with 92 pts in 68 games

In the QMJHL conference finals

Rouyn-Noranda (1) with 119 pts in 68 games
Rimouski (3) with 92 pts in 68 games

Halifax (1) with 102 pts in 68 games
Drummondville (2) with 107 pts in 68 games

In the WHL conference finals

Prince Albert (1) 112 pts in 68 games
Edmonton (3) 92 pts in 68 games

Vancouver (1) 101 pts in 68 games
Spokane (3) 87 pts in 68 games

As the stats don't lie the parity across the CHL shows that not also dose it exist more then ever before but that 1st and 3rd place are are key spots in success in the post-season.

This would be an interesting thing to track for the next cycle of seasons to see how much parity truly exists in the CHL especially since the CHL has aligned its games to a 34-34 format for this past season and into the future as the WHL has since dropped 4 games in their schedule to mirror the OHL and QMJHL leagues.

Would be interesting to see over the next few seasons on how the parity across all three leagues will shake out in the post-season results.

Wonder if any other posters have seen this looking back at the regular season standings this year in the CHL and what things are to come for the future??
Nor sure how this defines parity? If there were numbers to prove parity you would see more 1 versus 8 in the finals but with all the top teams moving on not sure how that defines parity?
 

WolvesAndWings

Wherever I go, the strawman follows
Mar 18, 2017
2,543
3,049
Parity is fading, but it's ultimately due to the new mentality where 70% of the league are full-on sellers at the deadline and only like 4 or 5 teams load up. This causes for a huge discrepancy in the playoffs.
 

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
Parity is fading, but it's ultimately due to the new mentality where 70% of the league are full-on sellers at the deadline and only like 4 or 5 teams load up. This causes for a huge discrepancy in the playoffs.

It's been this way for ages... hard to say that parity is fading. Any one of the top 8 teams this year had a legitimate shot at the OHL title.
 

WolvesAndWings

Wherever I go, the strawman follows
Mar 18, 2017
2,543
3,049
It's been this way for ages... hard to say that parity is fading. Any one of the top 8 teams this year had a legitimate shot at the OHL title.

I hear you but I disagree because it never used to be to the same extent that it is now. There have always been deadline acquisitions but now it's a handful of teams go all in at the deadline and acquire multiple star players for their run (ie Guelph getting Suzuki/Durzi, Saginaw getting Tippett/McLeod).

You aren't going to see 6 v 3 or 7 v 2 upsets when most of those teams sold their 2-3 best players and the teams they're playing often made 2-3 huge acquisitions. It's a 4-6 player swing in most cases completely unbalancing the scales.

I highly doubt we'll see anything close to a 2007 Wolves run happen with the way things kind of are now compared to then.
 

AttackSound

Junior Hockey Fan Since Birth
Aug 25, 2016
2,257
977
Owen Sound, Ontario
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying there is parity, or there is no parity?

What I am saying is that there's more parity in the playoffs this post-season than others across the CHL then there used to be this season.

Compared to other years where you'd get upsets in the playoffs across the whole CHL we're seeing more 1 vs. 3 1 vs. 2 instead of 1 vs. 5 sort of matchups we've seen in other years.
 
Last edited:

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
I hear you but I disagree because it never used to be to the same extent that it is now. There have always been deadline acquisitions but now it's a handful of teams go all in at the deadline and acquire multiple star players for their run (ie Guelph getting Suzuki/Durzi, Saginaw getting Tippett/McLeod).

You aren't going to see 6 v 3 or 7 v 2 upsets when most of those teams sold their 2-3 best players and the teams they're playing often made 2-3 huge acquisitions. It's a 4-6 player swing in most cases completely unbalancing the scales.

I highly doubt we'll see anything close to a 2007 Wolves run happen with the way things kind of are now compared to then.

I believe the 2007 Wolves were an anomaly. Prior to 2007 when did it happen?
 

WolvesAndWings

Wherever I go, the strawman follows
Mar 18, 2017
2,543
3,049
I believe the 2007 Wolves were an anomaly. Prior to 2007 when did it happen?

99' Knights and 05' 67s were nice cinderella playoff runs very similar to the 07 Wolves.

It's not just about the finals though, between that period the 1st round upsets were far more frequent. And 3/4 seeds used to be alot more competitive with 1/2 seeds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvenSteven

dirty12

Registered User
Mar 6, 2015
8,965
3,636
What I am saying is that there's more parity in the playoffs this post-season than others across the CHL then there used to be this season.

Compared to other years where you'd get upsets in the playoffs across the whole CHL we're seeing more 1 vs. 3 1 vs. 2 instead of 1 vs. 5 sort of matchups we've seen in other years.

That’s less parity to me. The OHL had only 3 teams with a legit chance to win, imo.
 

WolvesAndWings

Wherever I go, the strawman follows
Mar 18, 2017
2,543
3,049
I have a few ideas of how to fix this. Perhaps stop letting teams trade picks away so far down the line? Limit trades to say picks 3 seasons down the line at most.

Additionally allow for the trading of first round picks so that real value can be exchanged for these superstars to make teams think twice about trading their equity for a superstar.

Right now all that happens is essentially what Erie did. Offload a bunch of picks, go all in, then next year get rid of your 1 or 2 best players for all of those picks back.

Not saying its a perfect foolproof solution or anything, but it could assist with stopping some of the chaos and open up the playoffs a bit again.

Another issue that kind of annoys me from a competition standpoint is that you also have teams with what I believe are obvious informal/unofficial handshake agreements, or "i scratch your back, you scratch mine" sort of dealings. Sarnia and Sudbury come to mind...Pezzetta to the Sting last year for relatively cheaper than what you'd expect in the current market, then Ruzicka to Sudbury this year in the same fashion. Oshawa and London have done this before too. There is no stopping this and I'm not saying it's "wrong" or "unfair", it just bothers me is all.
 
Last edited:

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
I have a few ideas of how to fix this. Perhaps stop letting teams trade picks away so far down the line? Limit trades to say picks 3 seasons down the line at most.

Additionally allow for the trading of first round picks so that real value can be exchanged for these superstars to make teams think twice about trading their equity for a superstar.

Right now all that happens is essentially what Erie did. Offload a bunch of picks, go all in, then next year get rid of your 1 or 2 best players for all of those picks back.

Not saying its a perfect foolproof solution or anything, but it could assist with stopping some of the chaos and open up the playoffs a bit again.

Another issue that kind of annoys me from a competition standpoint is that you also have teams with what I believe are obvious informal/unofficial handshake agreements, or "i scratch your back, you scratch mine" sort of dealings. Sarnia and Sudbury come to mind...Pezzetta to the Sting last year for relatively cheaper than what you'd expect in the current market, then Ruzicka to Sudbury this year in the same fashion. Oshawa and London have done this before too. There is no stopping this and I'm not saying it's "wrong" or "unfair", it just bothers me is all.

OHL limits trading of draft picks into the future
 
  • Like
Reactions: WolvesAndWings

Truthking

Registered User
Mar 27, 2016
335
187
99' Knights and 05' 67s were nice cinderella playoff runs very similar to the 07 Wolves.

It's not just about the finals though, between that period the 1st round upsets were far more frequent. And 3/4 seeds used to be alot more competitive with 1/2 seeds.
You are correct , and I think it does need to be looked at. Outside of the top 4 teams of each season recently, the rest of the league has generally packed it in at the trade deadline. It used to be a handful of teams would go into sell mode, now it’s almost 70-80% of teams that trade everyone they can.
 

WolvesAndWings

Wherever I go, the strawman follows
Mar 18, 2017
2,543
3,049
Agree, it would make a difference and maybe force teams to draft better.

Yeah, and it stops the whole "I'll give you 7 2nds and 3rds over the next 4 years for your stud 19 year old so I can make a memorial cup run, then next year I'll flip my current 18 year old for 7 2nds and 3rds over the next 4 years so it's all good.

If there was actually a consequence to making these trades it might settle things down a bit.
 

Generalsupdates

@GeneralsUpdates on Twitter
Sep 4, 2017
7,300
4,367
Yeah, and it stops the whole "I'll give you 7 2nds and 3rds over the next 4 years for your stud 19 year old so I can make a memorial cup run, then next year I'll flip my current 18 year old for 7 2nds and 3rds over the next 4 years so it's all good.

If there was actually a consequence to making these trades it might settle things down a bit.

Completely disagree. All it would mean is instead of draft picks, it'd be young players getting traded, which would hamstring the teams who go all-in even more. Because now after your "all-in year" you have no picks for the next 2-3 years, but now you also have no young players. Every team who goes all-in would have to do with Kingston did last year and move their young players because they ran out of picks to deal, and look how that turned out for them this year. That would be a nightmare for the OHL
 

AttackSound

Junior Hockey Fan Since Birth
Aug 25, 2016
2,257
977
Owen Sound, Ontario
4 years still seems like too much. I say reduce some more. 2-3 years. Just my opinion.

The ruling states that after this past season they will limit to 3 and then it will stay at maximum 3 years. After the insane amount of depth pick dealing that has happened in years gone by.

Thus fixing the craziness that has happened in the past
 

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
The ruling states that after this past season they will limit to 3 and then it will stay at maximum 3 years. After the insane amount of depth pick dealing that has happened in years gone by.

Thus fixing the craziness that has happened in the past
Right now its 6 years. Down to 5 in 2020 and 4 in 2021 as per the article I posted above
 

WolvesAndWings

Wherever I go, the strawman follows
Mar 18, 2017
2,543
3,049
Completely disagree. All it would mean is instead of draft picks, it'd be young players getting traded, which would hamstring the teams who go all-in even more. Because now after your "all-in year" you have no picks for the next 2-3 years, but now you also have no young players. Every team who goes all-in would have to do with Kingston did last year and move their young players because they ran out of picks to deal, and look how that turned out for them this year. That would be a nightmare for the OHL

Then adjust the rules so you can trade players you drafted in the previous year and hold rights to. Right now you can only trade the player you took in round 1 IIRC.

Also, the idea is that teams won't want to do what Kingston did, or at least not as liberally as teams currently trade away picks like candy.
 

EvenSteven

Registered User
Sep 3, 2009
7,321
6,075
The ruling states that after this past season they will limit to 3 and then it will stay at maximum 3 years. After the insane amount of depth pick dealing that has happened in years gone by.

Thus fixing the craziness that has happened in the past

I agree with generalupdates. I don't see any craziness at all dealing distant picks. Never have. The craziness is trading more younger players than you need to.
 

EvenSteven

Registered User
Sep 3, 2009
7,321
6,075
Then adjust the rules so you can trade players you drafted in the previous year and hold rights to. Right now you can only trade the player you took in round 1 IIRC.

Also, the idea is that teams won't want to do what Kingston did, or at least not as liberally as teams currently trade away picks like candy.

What's the difference if they are able to recoup these picks down the road.? I'd rather see a multitude of picks dealt for veteran players than young players for veteran players.

This year showed that for the most part, you don't have to uproot your 16 year old first rounder.

One selling feature of the NCAA is that there are no trades. The OHL boasts minimal trades. These new rules would likely cause more bodies moved in deals.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->