Some stats for those of you upset by Canada's WJC showing

[ontariojames]

Because of the U.S.A.'s strong showings and impressive rosters at the WJC's recently, there's been a lot of talk about how the U.S.A. is catching up to Canada in developing high level hockey players and how they're developing high level  players in more states now and I've even heard it suggested that 10 years from now the U.S. might surpass Canada in developing high level hockey players.  Well I decided to actually look over the NHL's drafts of the last five years to see  how close the U.S. actually was to Canada in developing high level players and I was very surprised to see just how not close it still was. In the last five years Canada has 31 top ten draft picks to the U.S.'s 4, yes that's right, the U.S only has 4 top ten picks in the last five years. Canada has 75 first rounders to the U.S's 29.

I don't want to take the fun out of these tournaments for people, but they don't mean anything. Whether Canada wins or loses, they are still by FAR the best country at developing high level hockey players, it's not even close.

 

[TML fan]

They just can't put the best teams together.

 

[Kin]

Because of the U.S.A.'s strong showings and impressive rosters at the WJC's recently, there's been a lot of talk about how the U.S.A. is catching up to Canada in developing high level hockey players and how they're developing high level  players in more states now and I've even heard it suggested that 10 years from now the U.S. might surpass Canada in developing high level hockey players.  Well I decided to actually look over the NHL's drafts of the last five years to see  how close the U.S. actually was to Canada in developing high level players and I was very surprised to see just how not close it still was. In the last five years Canada has 31 top ten draft picks to the U.S.'s 4, yes that's right, the U.S only has 4 top ten picks in the last five years. Canada has 75 first rounders to the U.S's 29.

I don't want to take the fun out of these tournaments for people, but they don't mean anything. Whether Canada wins or loses, they are still by FAR the best country at developing high level hockey players, it's not even close.

That strikes me as kind of meaningless because, to me, at least you're not really addressing the two major points you're supposedly refuting. For one, you're using draft position as the barometer of player development as opposed to, say, performance in the NHL and more importantly you're not addressing whether or not the number as a whole is increasing.

People are saying "catching up", not "caught up" and considering how they're playing at the WJC it seems like they have a pretty strong case to make.

 

[ontariojames]

Because of the U.S.A.'s strong showings and impressive rosters at the WJC's recently, there's been a lot of talk about how the U.S.A. is catching up to Canada in developing high level hockey players and how they're developing high level  players in more states now and I've even heard it suggested that 10 years from now the U.S. might surpass Canada in developing high level hockey players.  Well I decided to actually look over the NHL's drafts of the last five years to see  how close the U.S. actually was to Canada in developing high level players and I was very surprised to see just how not close it still was. In the last five years Canada has 31 top ten draft picks to the U.S.'s 4, yes that's right, the U.S only has 4 top ten picks in the last five years. Canada has 75 first rounders to the U.S's 29.

I don't want to take the fun out of these tournaments for people, but they don't mean anything. Whether Canada wins or loses, they are still by FAR the best country at developing high level hockey players, it's not even close.

That strikes me as kind of meaningless because, to me, at least you're not really addressing the two major points you're supposedly refuting. For one, you're using draft position as the barometer of player development as opposed to, say, performance in the NHL and more importantly you're not addressing whether or not the number as a whole is increasing.

People are saying "catching up", not "caught up" and considering how they're playing at the WJC it seems like they have a pretty strong case to make.

What are the odds that those 75 players, including 31 top ten players, aren't going be much more successful in general in the NHL than the 29 players, with only 4 top ten players? It's just common sense.

But just to drive home the point in case you have a response to that, Canadian star players or players who have shown they have the potential to be stars in that five year span: Stamkos, Doughty, Pietrangelo, Myers, Eberle, Tavares, Duchene,Hall,Kane, Seguin,Skinner,RNH

USA: Gardiner,Fowler,Carlson,Leddy

Not only is the Canadian list much bigger, but much better in quality.

Secondly, if people are going to make it a point to talk about how the US is catching up to Canada, I would expect it to be closer than it is, not the complete landslide it still is. When there's still that huge of a difference, I don't see the point in making that comment.

 

[Kin]

What are the odds that those 75 players, including 31 top ten players, aren't going be much more successful in general in the NHL than the 29 players, with only 4 top ten players? It's just common sense.

Well, leaving aside that conclusions are better drawn from actual facts as opposed to "common sense", you still seem to be missing the point. The Americans have had 20 or so 1st round draft picks in the last three years. That still trails Canada, sure, but it's certainly a sign that they're improving. As is, undeniably, their improved showings at the WJC.

Secondly, if people are going to make it a point to talk about how the US is catching up to Canada, I would expect it to be closer than it is, not the complete landslide it still is. When there's still that huge of a difference, I don't see the point in making that comment.

Catching up really just means making progress and I think it's pretty clear that they are.

More to the point though, I don't really know that anything you've shown highlights either countries strength at development as opposed to just reflecting the relative popularity of the game in the two countries. Canada is essentially unique in the world in that hockey is the unquestioned #1 sport in terms of popularity, which gives it the most players and makes it the biggest draw for the country's best athletes. All of the European countries probably have at least an even split with soccer and hockey, in the States, is probably 5th or 6th down the list. Saying that Canada has produced many more first round draft picks doesn't really, to my mind, reflect that players in this country are particularly well developed(And Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers makes a pretty convincing argument that they're not) but rather that Canada has the most hockey players and most entrenched/traditional model by which players are developed.

So when people praise the way USA hockey is developing hockey players they may mean it to be less in an outcome driven sense and more in a procedural sense, wherein the number of top tier young players the USA is producing is very good considering what they have to work with in terms of their player pool in the first place.

 

[ontariojames]

What are the odds that those 75 players, including 31 top ten players, aren't going be much more successful in general in the NHL than the 29 players, with only 4 top ten players? It's just common sense.

Well, leaving aside that conclusions are better drawn from actual facts as opposed to "common sense", you still seem to be missing the point. The Americans have had 20 or so 1st round draft picks in the last three years. That still trails Canada, sure, but it's certainly a sign that they're improving. As is, undeniably, their improved showings at the WJC.

Secondly, if people are going to make it a point to talk about how the US is catching up to Canada, I would expect it to be closer than it is, not the complete landslide it still is. When there's still that huge of a difference, I don't see the point in making that comment.

Catching up really just means making progress and I think it's pretty clear that they are.

More to the point though, I don't really know that anything you've shown highlights either countries strength at development as opposed to just reflecting the relative popularity of the game in the two countries. Canada is essentially unique in the world in that hockey is the unquestioned #1 sport in terms of popularity, which gives it the most players and makes it the biggest draw for the country's best athletes. All of the European countries probably have at least an even split with soccer and hockey, in the States, is probably 5th or 6th down the list. Saying that Canada has produced many more first round draft picks doesn't really, to my mind, reflect that players in this country are particularly well developed(And Malcolm Gladwell in Outliers makes a pretty convincing argument that they're not) but rather that Canada has the most hockey players and most entrenched/traditional model by which players are developed.

So when people praise the way USA hockey is developing hockey players they may mean it to be less in an outcome driven sense and more in a procedural sense, wherein the number of top tier young players the USA is producing is very good considering what they have to work with in terms of their player pool in the first place.

Which I did, by going through all of the players to see how successful they've been, and the result was the same result anyone who has any common sense and doesn't assume all of the NHL's GM's and scouts are completely incompetent would have already known.

From 2002-1998 the US had 24 1st rounders, so they improved by a whole 5 draft picks in a five year span. If you think the U.S' marginal improvement in developing players is worthy of all the talk about how much better they've been developing players and how they're catching up Canada than I guess that;s your opinion, I think it's stupid.

I highly doubt that's what they're talking about, if it was I think they'd make that clear.

 

[Kin]

Which I did, by going through all of the players to see how successful they've been, and the result was the same result anyone who has any common sense and doesn't assume all of the NHL's GM's and scouts are completely incompetent would have already known.

No, all it assumes is that the NHL draft doesn't represent the be all and end all of player development.

From 2002-1998 the US had 24 1st rounders, so they improved by a whole 5 draft picks in a five year span. If you think the U.S' marginal improvement in developing players is worthy of all the talk about how much better they've been developing players and how they're catching up Canada than I guess that;s your opinion, I think it's stupid.

No, I think the case for it is that they wiped the floor with Team Canada a couple days ago but, more to the point, at this point you're just arguing semantics. Catching up is catching up.

What are you going on about now? I don't care about why each country develops as many good players as they do and this was never about that, all I'm talking about is how many they develop, not why.

There is a difference between development and production. Fairly straightforward concept.

 

[ontariojames]

Which I did, by going through all of the players to see how successful they've been, and the result was the same result anyone who has any common sense and doesn't assume all of the NHL's GM's and scouts are completely incompetent would have already known.

No, all it assumes is that the NHL draft doesn't represent the be all and end all of player development.

From 2002-1998 the US had 24 1st rounders, so they improved by a whole 5 draft picks in a five year span. If you think the U.S' marginal improvement in developing players is worthy of all the talk about how much better they've been developing players and how they're catching up Canada than I guess that;s your opinion, I think it's stupid.

No, I think the case for it is that they wiped the floor with Team Canada a couple days ago but, more to the point, at this point you're just arguing semantics. Catching up is catching up.

What are you going on about now? I don't care about why each country develops as many good players as they do and this was never about that, all I'm talking about is how many they develop, not why.

There is a difference between development and production. Fairly straightforward concept.

Of course one player being drafted ahead of another player doesn't automatically mean they will be better in the NHL, but the chances of 75 1st rounders with 31 top 10's isn't going to yield significantly better results at the NHL level than 29 1st rounders with only 4 top tens is incredibly small. Again, common sense.

The US beating Canada means very little as far as where the countries are in producing good young players, if it did, Canada would have destroyed the US, just look at the rosters on  paper. Canada was loaded with top 10 draft picks.

If people meant the US was good at developing players based on resources and interest and all that they would say it, that'snot what they're talking about.

 

[Kin]

Of course one player being drafted ahead of another player doesn't automatically mean they will be better in the NHL, but the chances of 75 1st rounders with 31 top 10's isn't going to yield significantly better results at the NHL level than 29 1st rounders with only 4 top tens is incredibly small. Again, common sense.

In the aggregate maybe. But, again, nobody is disputing that Canada is producing more hockey players than the USA.

The US beating Canada means very little as far as where the countries are in producing good young players, if it did, Canada would have destroyed the US, just look at the rosters on  paper. Canada was loaded with top 10 draft picks.

I don't think that follows unless you think one hockey team beating another is irrelevant to the issue of which team is better than the other. If that's the case you've got a serious issue with the bedrock concept of organized sport. As the saying goes, games aren't played on paper.

If people meant the US was good at developing players based on resources and interest and all that they would say it, that'snot what they're talking about.

No, they said that they're getting better which is, quite clearly, true.

 

[ontariojames]

Of course one player being drafted ahead of another player doesn't automatically mean they will be better in the NHL, but the chances of 75 1st rounders with 31 top 10's isn't going to yield significantly better results at the NHL level than 29 1st rounders with only 4 top tens is incredibly small. Again, common sense.

In the aggregate maybe. But, again, nobody is disputing that Canada is producing more hockey players than the USA.

The US beating Canada means very little as far as where the countries are in producing good young players, if it did, Canada would have destroyed the US, just look at the rosters on  paper. Canada was loaded with top 10 draft picks.

I don't think that follows unless you think one hockey team beating another is irrelevant to the issue of which team is better than the other. If that's the case you've got a serious issue with the bedrock concept of organized sport. As the saying goes, games aren't played on paper.

If people meant the US was good at developing players based on resources and interest and all that they would say it, that'snot what they're talking about.

No, they said that they're getting better which is, quite clearly, true.

No, but you did claim that those draft numbers on their own didn't mean much, when common sense would dictate that the chances of Canada's 1st round numbers not yielding much better results than the US's numbers is incredibly small.

Better TEAM does not = better PLAYERS. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that whenever one team beats another that always means the winning team has more individual talent?

They are getting a bit better, they still aren't in the same universe as Canada far as producing elite young players, doesn't warrant people making the talking point of how good the US has become at producing young players. If you think it does, fine, I disagree.

 

[Kin]

No, but you did claim that those draft numbers on their own didn't mean much, when common sense would dictate that the chances of Canada's 1st round numbers not yielding much better results than the US's numbers is incredibly small.

Again, that's just another case of my personal foible of wanting to deal with actual facts and not "chances" and "common sense" that are being pulled out of thin air. The draft not being the ultimate determining factor in player development, I think, is a pretty solid position to take.

Better TEAM does not = better PLAYERS. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that whenever one team beats another that always means the winning team has more individual talent?

I think talent plays a heavy role in the outcome of athletic competitions yes. I think the fact that the American WJC teams of late have been far more competitive in recent years than in the past is a pretty good sign of the trend in modern hockey development. I think only a fool would take comfort in the fact that even though Team USA demolished Team Canada, the guys on Team Canada were drafted higher. Otherwise, what's even the point of international competition?

They are getting a bit better, they still aren't in the same universe as Canada far as producing elite young players, doesn't warrant people making the talking point of how good the US has become at producing young players. If you think it does, fine, I disagree.

I notice you've switched from "developing" to "producing" here which to me is a pretty good sign that my point was made and well received.

 

[ontariojames]

No, but you did claim that those draft numbers on their own didn't mean much, when common sense would dictate that the chances of Canada's 1st round numbers not yielding much better results than the US's numbers is incredibly small.

Again, that's just another case of my personal foible of wanting to deal with actual facts and not "chances" and "common sense" that are being pulled out of thin air. The draft not being the ultimate determining factor in player development, I think, is a pretty solid position to take.

Better TEAM does not = better PLAYERS. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that whenever one team beats another that always means the winning team has more individual talent?

I think talent plays a heavy role in the outcome of athletic competitions yes. I think the fact that the American WJC teams of late have been far more competitive in recent years than in the past is a pretty good sign of the trend in modern hockey development. I think only a fool would take comfort in the fact that even though Team USA demolished Team Canada, the guys on Team Canada were drafted higher. Otherwise, what's even the point of international competition?

They are getting a bit better, they still aren't in the same universe as Canada far as producing elite young players, doesn't warrant people making the talking point of how good the US has become at producing young players. If you think it does, fine, I disagree.

I notice you've switched from "developing" to "producing" here which to me is a pretty good sign that my point was made and well received.

No, it's your surprising inability to realize how incredibly unlikely it would be for Canada's 31 top 10's to not produce more very good NHL players than the US's 4, I mean I seriously can't believe you can't see how ridiculous your position on this is. It's even more annoying given how you respond to people on here for similarily ridiculous positions some people take on certain things.

In terms of what country produces the best hockey players, international competitions are pointless, because no  matter what team wins, the argument cannot be made that any country produces better players than Canada.  There are many factors that go into who wins short, one game elimination tournaments, such as:

which team has the best natural chemistry among its players or what team develops chemistry fastest

which coach implements the best system for his group of players and or which team is able to become highly efficient at that system the fastest

which team's players are able to adjust to their new roles the fastest and most efficiently

which team gets a hot goalie at the right time

which team gets the lucky bounces in a game elimination

which team is the healthiest at the beginning of the tournament and which team can maintain their health

and so on...


No, you had no point about development vs production, that's never what the issue was, I only started saying production to avoid more pointless side point arguing from you about development vs production.

 

[Kin]

No, it's your surprising inability to realize how incredibly unlikely it would be for Canada's 31 top 10's to not produce more very good NHL players than the US's 4, I mean I seriously can't believe you can't see how ridiculous your position on this is.

I just like facts better than "probably" if we're using it as the basis for an argument.

In terms of what country produces the best hockey players, international competitions are pointless, because no  matter what team wins, the argument cannot be made that any country produces better players than Canada.  There are many factors that go into who wins short, one game elimination tournaments, such as:

And talent. Talent is probably 80-90% of it and the rest is what you list. It's why Kazakhstan doesn't win every now and again, regardless of how good their chemistry is. It's why no coach has figured out how to get Denmark into the mix. It's why Canada won so often for goodness sake.

Talent is the major factor and that's why results matter.

No, you had no point about development vs production, that's never what the issue was,

Of course it is. You're confusing what the whole point of international hockey is. The US developmental program doesn't exist to improve kids draft stock. It's to make better players out of the material they have so that they have better results in international competition. They're getting better at that. To deny that is to deny the basic and fundamental reason for international hockey to exist which is for teams to play each other and, you know, care about who scores the most goals in a given game. If USA hockey doesn't have a single player chosen in the draft but they win the WJC they are better at developing players than anyone else. 

 

[ontariojames]

No, it's your surprising inability to realize how incredibly unlikely it would be for Canada's 31 top 10's to not produce more very good NHL players than the US's 4, I mean I seriously can't believe you can't see how ridiculous your position on this is.

I just like facts better than "probably" if we're using it as the basis for an argument.

In terms of what country produces the best hockey players, international competitions are pointless, because no  matter what team wins, the argument cannot be made that any country produces better players than Canada.  There are many factors that go into who wins short, one game elimination tournaments, such as:

And talent. Talent is probably 80-90% of it and the rest is what you list. It's why Kazakhstan doesn't win every now and again, regardless of how good their chemistry is. It's why no coach has figured out how to get Denmark into the mix. It's why Canada won so often for goodness sake.

Talent is the major factor and that's why results matter.

No, you had no point about development vs production, that's never what the issue was,

Of course it is. You're confusing what the whole point of international hockey is. The US developmental program doesn't exist to improve kids draft stock. It's to make better players out of the material they have so that they have better results in international competition. They're getting better at that. To deny that is to deny the basic and fundamental reason for international hockey to exist which is for teams to play each other and, you know, care about who scores the most goals in a given game. If USA hockey doesn't have a single player chosen in the draft but they win the WJC they are better at developing players than anyone else.

It wasn't probably, it was extremely high likelihood of being true.

Obviously I'm not trying to say talent doesn't matter at all, my point was that whoever wins hasn't proven they have the MOST talent.  You obviously have to have a certain level of talent on your team to compete for gold at these tournaments. Finland almost beat us at the last World Cup, does that mean Finland had a team with similar individual talent to Canada? Finland couldn't even fill their roster out with all NHL players and they didn't have a single legitimate star player in the NHL. Their best forward was Saku Koivu, who at the time was a fringe #1 centre, their second best forward was Jokinen who had come off a season where he had 58 points.

What about the US's roster at the last Olympics where they almost beat us for gold? Canada had 7 players in the top 20 scoring that year, US had 3, Canada had 12 in the top 40, US had 5, Canada had 4 of the top 5 Dmen in scoring, US only had 1 in the entire top 20 and he was right at 20. Not to mention all of the individual trophies Canada had on that team compared to the US roster. A few Art Ross', a few Norris', a few Conn Smythe's, a few Rocket Richards, a few Harts.

No, it's not the point of this discussion because that's not what I wrote this thread on, when I hear people talking about how good the US has become at developing players they aren't going into the specifics about resources, interest and what not. They mean in general, how many good players the US is developing.

 

[Kin]

It wasn't probably, it was extremely high likelihood of being true.

You bought fine razors to split that hair.

Obviously I'm not trying to say talent doesn't matter at all, my point was that whoever wins hasn't proven they have the MOST talent.

But, again, nobody is framing this in the context of the United States having surpassed Canada, simply that the gap is narrowing and the fact that the US junior team has gone from an afterthought to consistently capable of beating Canada is evidence of that.

What about the US's roster at the last Olympics where they almost beat us for gold? Canada had 7 players in the top 20 scoring that year, US had 3, Canada had 12 in the top 40, US had 5, Canada had 4 of the top 5 Dmen in scoring, US only had 1 in the entire top 20 and he was right at 20. Not to mention all of the individual trophies Canada had on that team compared to the US roster. A few Art Ross', a few Norris', a few Conn Smythe's, a few Rocket Richards, a few Harts.

Well, leaving aside the fact that where players rank on scoring lists isn't always the best way to determine how good they are in the NHL I think it particularly exposes the flaw in your main point re: draft position. Things like stay at home defensemen, goaltending, third line forwards...those are huge components in what makes for winning hockey teams and those are things that are consistently shown to be the hardest for NHL scouts to judge. John Gibson was a second round pick. Does that mean he doesn't count in your world when we're looking at the quality of players the United States is developing? That's nonsense.

Again, the point in international hockey is to win tournaments, not to assemble the most talented squad on paper. Winning tournaments is proof positive of a country's ability at developing players regardless of where those players are then drafted.

No, it's not the point of this discussion because that's not what I wrote this thread on, when I hear people talking about how good the US has become at developing players they aren't going into the specifics about resources, interest and what not. They mean in general, how many good players the US is developing.

But, again, that's just true. The US is developing a lot of good players. That number is increasing. They're doing better in international tournaments. What people are saying about the increasing quality of the US development program is true. Are you upset that they're not being specific enough in their stating the truth? They aren't attaching an appropriate number to it

The US is getting better. They are producing players in more states. Denying that is raging at the tides.

 

[losveratos]

Of course it is. You're confusing what the whole point of international hockey is. The US developmental program doesn't exist to improve kids draft stock. It's to make better players out of the material they have so that they have better results in international competition. They're getting better at that. To deny that is to deny the basic and fundamental reason for international hockey to exist which is for teams to play each other and, you know, care about who scores the most goals in a given game. If USA hockey doesn't have a single player chosen in the draft but they win the WJC they are better at developing players than anyone else.

I'm just wondering after reading this... how many American players on the US teams were actually developed in the CHL? And not the NCAA or whatever? I'm not using this as a point as I really don't know. But if you looked into that... then maybe that would settle this argument.

Also last year, the Toronto Maple Leafs had a winning record against the Rangers. Does that mean we're better at developing and coaching our players? We went 2-1-1 against them from what I can tell.

 

[losveratos]

Actually I just found the answer I think on the CHL website. The answer is 10...

10 of their players came from our development programs... Can't say that exactly US getting better so much more than just more of their players are coming here to train.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

This thread is great!  ;D





BTW, a 2 week tournament, in the middle of the year where teams are comprised largely of players that have never played together is hardly an indication of where individual training systems are at. There are far too many variables that can come into play when playing a short sampling of games with not much practice time to prepare.


That being said, the US is obviously producing better players but I don't think it calls for an overhaul of Hockey Canada and their training systems.

 

[bustaheims]

Actually I just found the answer I think on the CHL website. The answer is 10...

10 of their players came from our development programs... Can't say that exactly US getting better so much more than just more of their players are coming here to train.

How many of them played in the USHL before they went the CHL route? I imagine most, if not all, of them played for the US National Development Team before suiting up in the CHL. They're coming to the CHL because it's a more direct route to the NHL. They've already done most of their development in the US system before they get there.

 

[bustaheims]

Just an as example to my previous post - Seth Jones, who was a significant part of the US gold medal team is in his first CHL season after spending 2 with the US development team. He didn't come here to train, he came here to get more ice time than he would in the NCAA and fast track his way into the NHL.