Who has been the best WJC country the last 5 years?

[PAZ]

Theres something about Swedish people that just make them good at everything.

I know a few people from Sweden on a semester abroad, and everything they do they're good at (soccer, basketball, dodgeball, etc.) 1 of them hasn't played soccer at all and he's better than half the people that played metro

 

[Lunatik]

I decided not to let my Canadian bias become a factor, so what I did is I looked at the past 5 years, calculated the average placing as well as the winning percentage against the other big 4 teams.

To me the average placing is the #1 factor in ranking these 4 countries. The #2 factor would be the winning percentage against the other big 4 teams.

Average placing...

2.4 - Canada
2.4 - Sweden
3 - Russia
3.4 - USA

Winning percentage...

0.600 - Canada
0.583 - Sweden
0.455 - USA
0.357 - Russia

Based on this my final rankings would be:

1. Canada
2. Sweden
3. Russia
4. USA

Although with how bad Russia has been against the other big 4 teams I feel badly ranking them ahead of USA

 

[bizzz*]

Last 5 years - USA with 2 golds.
Last 4 years - still USA.
Last 3 years - Russia. The only country with a medal at every tournament.
Last 2 years - Sweden with gold and silver.

LOL at people saying Canada.
They've been losing to Russia for 3 years in a row now.

 

[bizzz*]

I decided not to let my Canadian bias become a factor, so what I did is I looked at the past 5 years, calculated the average placing as well as the winning percentage against the other big 4 teams.

To me the average placing is the #1 factor in ranking these 4 countries. The #2 factor would be the winning percentage against the other big 4 teams.

Average placing...

2.4 - Canada
2.4 - Sweden
3 - Russia
3.4 - USA

Winning percentage...

0.600 - Canada
0.583 - Sweden
0.455 - USA
0.357 - Russia

Based on this my final rankings would be:

1. Canada
2. Sweden
3. Russia
4. USA

Although with how bad Russia has been against the other big 4 teams I feel badly ranking them ahead of USA

2011. Canada. Final game. Canada loses to Russia.
2012.USA. Semifinals. Canada loses to Russia.
2013. Russia. Bronze medal game. Canada loses to Russia.

Somehow you find a way to say that Russia was worse than Canada. Who gives a damn about meaningless preliminary round games?

 

[BiggestLeafsFanEVER*]

USA won their 2010 gold over Canada 6-5 in OT. Take away that one overtime goal and they instantly become the worst of all of them. They've almost been relegated and only have three medals. If a single goal is enough for you to jump USA from last to first then that is nothing but sheer nonsense.

LOL! What a stupid post. Sweden's only gold in the last 5 years came off an OT win. If you "take away" that goal they're the only team without a gold. Does that mean they're really the worst. Russia's bronze last year came off an OT goal. Should we discount that one too?

Surprise! The purpose of the tournament is to, you know, win (for real...not as in 'but if we were the ones to have scored in OT we woulda got the gold"). Canada hasn't managed that in almost 5 years and its finish gets worse every year.

 

[The Sweetness]

Theres something about Swedish people that just make them good at everything.

I know a few people from Sweden on a semester abroad, and everything they do they're good at (soccer, basketball, dodgeball, etc.) 1 of them hasn't played soccer at all and he's better than half the people that played metro

You must be kidding me...

 

[Sojourn]

USA won their 2010 gold over Canada 6-5 in OT. Take away that one overtime goal and they instantly become the worst of all of them. They've almost been relegated and only have three medals. If a single goal is enough for you to jump USA from last to first then that is nothing but sheer nonsense.

Interesting.

I suppose we should ignore Canada's 2nd Olympic gold because they won it in overtime against the United States. That wouldn't be nonsense, right? Apparently winning in OT comes with an asterisk that allows you to ignore it at some point in the future, as long as it helps your argument.

 

[Syan Ruter]

Shut up you dum bass, you aren't supposed to give your neighbors any credit!!!



I think who ever wins gold most of the times is best of them.

They give us a lot of love on Hfboards, this is simply "returning the favour"

 

[Beerfish]

USA (and I'm a Canuck). Gold is what matters.

 

[Pontius Palat]

LOL! What a stupid post. Sweden's only gold in the last 5 years came off an OT win. If you "take away" that goal they're the only team without a gold. Does that mean they're really the worst. Russia's bronze last year came off an OT goal. Should we discount that one too?

Surprise! The purpose of the tournament is to, you know, win (for real...not as in 'but if we were the ones to have scored in OT we woulda got the gold"). Canada hasn't managed that in almost 5 years and its finish gets worse every year.

If have any sort of grasp on sample sizes and why they're important then you would realize which post was actually stupid. Thinking that gold medal games are the ultimate indication of a team's talent and that all other round robin games and playoffs can be discounted is quite stupid.

Hockey is a random sport. If Canada played USA 10 times then they'd probably have won about half of them each. Just because the States happened to barely pull out a win one time, one goal is such a small sample size that it shouldn't factor that heavily into this ranking for any rational person. They won the gold, but so marginally that it shouldn't count as infinitely more important than Canada's silver, which you apparently claim to suggest.

This debate is over who has been the best over the five years, not who has won the most golds. These are two entirely different things. For example, would you say that Carolina has played better than Vancouver in the post-lockout era? Or San Jose? Or Washington? Because by your same faulty logic they apparently did because of their one Stanley Cup.

America won gold twice (both marginally), then played like **** for the other three years. They don't come close to being the best of these teams. Unless of course you believe in "clutch factor" and small sample sizes.

Interesting.

I suppose we should ignore Canada's 2nd Olympic gold because they won it in overtime against the United States. That wouldn't be nonsense, right? Apparently winning in OT comes with an asterisk that allows you to ignore it at some point in the future, as long as it helps your argument.

I'm not saying to ignore it. Just pointing out that the difference between gold and silver that year was one single goal. And that they were one unfortunate bounce or fluke away from getting silver. It's certainly something to consider when you start counting golds as infinitely more valuable than silvers.

 

[dwanmaster*]

If have any sort of grasp on sample sizes and why they're important then you would realize which post was actually stupid. Thinking that gold medal games are the ultimate indication of a team's talent and that all other round robin games and playoffs can be discounted is quite stupid.

Hockey is a random sport. If Canada played USA 10 times then they'd probably have won about half of them each. Just because the States happened to barely pull out a win one time, one goal is such a small sample size that it shouldn't factor that heavily into this ranking for any rational person. They won the gold, but so marginally that it shouldn't count as infinitely more important than Canada's silver, which you apparently claim to suggest.

This debate is over who has been the best over the five years, not who has won the most golds. These are two entirely different things. For example, would you say that Carolina has played better than Vancouver in the post-lockout era? Or San Jose? Or Washington? Because by your same faulty logic they apparently did because of their one Stanley Cup.

America won gold twice (both marginally), then played like **** for the other three years. They don't come close to being the best of these teams. Unless of course you believe in "clutch factor" and small sample sizes.



I'm not saying to ignore it. Just pointing out that the difference between gold and silver that year was one single goal. And that they were one unfortunate bounce or fluke away from getting silver. It's certainly something to consider when you start counting golds as infinitely more valuable than silvers.

So Silver > Gold. Gotcha.

And yes Carolina has performed better than those teams because they won a stanley cup. Nothing else really matters.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

If have any sort of grasp on sample sizes and why they're important then you would realize which post was actually stupid. Thinking that gold medal games are the ultimate indication of a team's talent and that all other round robin games and playoffs can be discounted is quite stupid.

Hockey is a random sport. If Canada played USA 10 times then they'd probably have won about half of them each. Just because the States happened to barely pull out a win one time, one goal is such a small sample size that it shouldn't factor that heavily into this ranking for any rational person. They won the gold, but so marginally that it shouldn't count as infinitely more important than Canada's silver, which you apparently claim to suggest.

This debate is over who has been the best over the five years, not who has won the most golds. These are two entirely different things. For example, would you say that Carolina has played better than Vancouver in the post-lockout era? Or San Jose? Or Washington? Because by your same faulty logic they apparently did because of their one Stanley Cup.

America won gold twice (both marginally), then played like **** for the other three years. They don't come close to being the best of these teams. Unless of course you believe in "clutch factor" and small sample sizes.



I'm not saying to ignore it. Just pointing out that the difference between gold and silver that year was one single goal. And that they were one unfortunate bounce or fluke away from getting silver. It's certainly something to consider when you start counting golds as infinitely more valuable than silvers.

Your post exhibits the "losing mentality" that Canadians are mocked for having.

Keep celebrating Canada's round robin victories and silver medals!

I would have easily given up 2012's bronze medal and accepted the relegation round if we got to have the gold in 2013.

 

[Pontius Palat]

So Silver > Gold. Gotcha.

And yes Carolina has performed better than those teams because they won a stanley cup. Nothing else really matters.

Gold ≈> silver ≈> bronze ≈> 4th ≈> 5th ≈> 6th ≈> 7th ... >> Almost getting relegated

I don't even know what to say to the second part. They've had more success but are obviously the inferior team. Different things.

 

[Sojourn]

The difference between a gold and a silver is significant. You're trying to change the significance of the medal by valuing it based on goals, and that just isn't the way it works. In a short tournament like this, what matters is winning the gold.

I don't look at your Carolina example as even remotely relevant, because those are 82 game seasons, and 4 7-game playoff series, where teams operate under salary caps that can force winning teams to break up because they can't afford to stick together long term. Not to mention, that was 8 years ago. We aren't talking about a full NHL season, or playing a 7 game series here. We're talking about a short single-elimination tournament, and there is no salary cap to speak of. There's the Gold, and there's everything else. The difference between the Gold and the Silver is not one goal. It's the difference between winning and not winning. How you won isn't as relevant as the fact that you did win.

 

[Pontius Palat]

The difference between a gold and a silver is significant. You're trying to change the significance of the medal by valuing it based on goals, and that just isn't the way it works. In a short tournament like this, what matters is winning the gold.

I don't look at your Carolina example as even remotely relevant, because those are 82 game seasons, and 4 7-game playoff series, where teams operate under salary caps that can force winning teams to break up because they can't afford to stick together long term. Not to mention, that was 8 years ago. We aren't talking about a full NHL season, or playing a 7 game series here. We're talking about a short single-elimination tournament, and there is no salary cap to speak of. There's the Gold, and there's everything else. The difference between the Gold and the Silver is not one goal. It's the difference between winning and not winning. How you won isn't as relevant as the fact that you did win.

A hockey game is won or lost on goals. You're the one changing the significance of the medal by placing arbitrary weight on the gold medal game. The gold medal determines who wins but doesn't always indicate who is best. And anyone who refutes that just keeps saying "gold is all that matters".

Sample sizes are a good thing. Short tournaments aren't great indicators of a team's skill. Under the largest possible sample size of WJC tournaments over the past 5 years, Canada and Sweden are the best. Needlessly focusing on gold medal games only is incredibly imprecise.

If the difference between winning and not winning is as small as a lucky/unlucky bounce, then how on earth can you say a team is conclusively better because of it? Hypothetically, if Canada got a fluke bounce in OT and won the game against USA in the 2010 final, would you then say Canada is obviously the best over the past 5 years? If so then you make a very poor argument. Your whole argument should not hinge on random chance, and the sheer randomness of a single 4 on 4 overtime. Because hockey is merely weighted randomness. The better teams sometimes lose and the worse teams sometimes win. I love hockey just as much as anyone, but that's what it is.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

A hockey game is won or lost on goals. You're the one changing the significance of the medal by placing arbitrary weight on the gold medal game. The gold medal determines who wins but doesn't always indicate who is best. And anyone who refutes that just keeps saying "gold is all that matters".

Sample sizes are a good thing. Short tournaments aren't great indicators of a team's skill. Under the largest possible sample size of WJC tournaments over the past 5 years, Canada and Sweden are the best. Needlessly focusing on gold medal games only is incredibly imprecise.

If the difference between winning and not winning is as small as a lucky/unlucky bounce, then how on earth can you say a team is conclusively better because of it? Hypothetically, if Canada got a fluke bounce in OT and won the game against USA in the 2010 final, would you then say Canada is obviously the best over the past 5 years? If so then you make a very poor argument. Your whole argument should not hinge on random chance, and the sheer randomness of a single 4 on 4 overtime. Because hockey is merely weighted randomness. The better teams sometimes lose and the worse teams sometimes win. I love hockey just as much as anyone, but that's what it is.

no, you're the one erring by putting equal weight on all games and ignoring that they are not all the same. winning by a large margin in the round robin against germany is not the same as winning the gold medal match.