![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldScott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money linked to Nate Silver's blog post analyzing the weakness of Canadian teams in the NHL, at least weakness as measured by the paucity of cups won.
He goes on at length. Interestingly, he suggests that the relatively much greater popularity of hockey in Canada as compared to the United States makes even relatively small urban centres across Canada, like Sherbrooke and Halifax and Saskatoon, at least as attractive expansion prospects for the NHL as many American cities which have teams already.
Lemieux disagrees, suggesting that a bad luck explanation works best.
Go, read both posts.
First, bad luck is a major component. Even after accounting for the fact that Canadian teams have rarely been among the league’s best in recent years, you would still have expected Canada to pick up at least a couple of Stanley Cups at some point.
Second, the N.H.L.’s economic structure changed at an unfavorable time for Canada. During the first half of the 20-year drought, the league allowed teams to spend freely, but Canadian teams were hampered by the weak Canadian dollar. Since 2005, the Canadian dollar has recovered substantially, and Canadian teams are now turning large profits. But they are limited in their capacity to invest those profits in superior players because the league has instituted a hard salary cap.
Third, there is almost certainly a shortage of N.H.L. teams in Canada relative to the demand for hockey there and the revenues that Canada contributes to the league. Teams in nontraditional hockey markets like Raleigh, N.C., Tampa, Fla., and Anaheim, Calif., have won Stanley Cups since 1993, but without doing especially well financially. So have the Colorado Avalanche, who relocated from Quebec City in 1995-96. Had the distribution of N.H.L. teams more closely matched fan interest in the sport across the United States and Canada, Canada would have more teams in the league and – very probably – at least one Stanley Cup championship.
Finally, and related to the excess demand for hockey in Canada, Canadian teams routinely sell out their arenas at high ticket prices — whether or not they are any good. This may reduce their incentive to compete.
He goes on at length. Interestingly, he suggests that the relatively much greater popularity of hockey in Canada as compared to the United States makes even relatively small urban centres across Canada, like Sherbrooke and Halifax and Saskatoon, at least as attractive expansion prospects for the NHL as many American cities which have teams already.
Lemieux disagrees, suggesting that a bad luck explanation works best.
[T]he long drought is mostly a fluke based on the nearly random outcomes of short series. The ’94 Canucks lost by a single goal in Game 7. The ’04 Flames lost in double overtime in Game 6 and 2-1 in game 7 (granted that Tampa Bay outplayed them in the deciding game by a greater margin that the score suggests.) The Oilers essentially lost Game 7 in ’06 by a goal (there was an empty netter.) The ’11 Canucks also lost a Game 7, granting that they weren’t really competitive in any game they lost in that series (although, again, luck still matters: injuries, the Bruins could have lost Game 7 in the first round giving the league’s best regular season team a more favorable matchup, etc.) The ’07 Senators were the only one of the Canadian finalists to lose a lopsided series. Obviously, a few bounces of the puck and there could have been several Canadian champions during this period.
Go, read both posts.
