From: wilson@cs.ucf.edu (tom wilson)
Subject: Re: Radical Format Change (flame bait)
Organization: University of Central Florida, Orlando
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:48:47 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) wrote:
>Through all this, the Stanley Cup winner is always more likely
>to repeat than the regular season champion.

I'm not going to get involved in SC versus PT any more, but you can't make
this statement because it's not that simple. Everyone puts the emphasis on
winning the SC because they associate that with being the best. The team that
wins the PT but not the SC gets nothing but flack for not winning the SC. The
next year, the emphasis is on doing nothing but winning the SC. Winning the
PT is unimportant (won it once, who cares now). Winning the division might be
even be important because the pressure of winning those first two at home is
too great. Life's a lot easier when you're not expected to do well and you
don't than when you are expected to and don't.

If emphasis was on winning the PT and not the SC, you would see plenty of
repeats. Statistically, a "good" team will do well in the long run, not matter
what injuries or losing streaks. Almost all of these "good" teams experience
4-game losing streaks. Often that's enough to be out of the playoffs.

You usually note the fact that the SC winner is a first or second place team
in a division, which to me just says that the SC winner is always a good team.
It doesn't say the team is the best. I don't think that anyone could really
argue a team is the best if the team won the PT and the SC. Likewise, people
will always question the team that doesn't.

If anyone has every played in any kind of individual tournament (say
racquetball, tennis, etc.) where you have no one to blame but yourself, then
you know how easy it is to get "knocked out" of it. Winners always say I was
"on." A good player wins. The best player, the one who would do the best in
the long run, may not. If you want to define the best as the winner of the SC
then there is no contradiction in terms. I find flaw in the definition, just
as most people have trouble saying the best team is the one that wins just one
game. Also, winner in a tournament and winner in a league are very different.
In a league, teams play all teams (the unbalanced schedule is a financial
decision not one to favor teams in the standings - but yes it does influence
the outcome, but nowhere near as much as a tournament where the 4 teams that
you play could be quite an easy schedule, which is statistically unlikely).

Which franchise has had the most success? Well, if you count number of cups in
the number of years of existence, I think Montreal and Edmonton would be at
the top. Neither has one won the last couple of years, so maybe they aren't
the best (I don't agree with that). That's the difference between long term and
short term success.

Like I said though, I'm not going to argue about it anymore. If everyone wants
to say that Pittsburgh was the best team last year, then fine. Given the
definition they want to use, I won't argue. If everyone else wants to say that
the Rangers had the best team, then fine. Given the definition they want to
use, I won't argue. There's no argument concerning who won the SC or the PT.
The argument lies in which one is "best." Each person thinks he is right
because of the view he holds. The one thing that is wrong is when people claim
the SC winner is the league champion. There is no such correlation.

For me, end of discussion. Everyone else is free to carry on. If you really
want my comments, you'll have to use e-mail on this topic.

Tom