I don’t understand why New Jersey desperately wanted Kovalchuk so bad, but it looks like their benefits may be offset by cap issues caused by Kovalchuk.

For those who don’t know:

…the Devils iced a roster of 15 skaters and two goaltenders in a 3-1 loss to Pittsburgh [Monday October 11], many are wondering if the NHL should step in and slap the team for violating the CBA; if what the Devils did with their roster because of the salary cap can be deemed good for the game. [Yahoo]

I’m not one to care what sort of things the NHL does to punish the New Jersey devils – anything monetary is just part of doing business for them and the team has already lost enough: the game.

However, I do want to comment on what effect these sorts of things have on the probability of winning. I did a study a couple years ago that showed that whether a player got more or less ice time in a game their absolute number of points received dropped (if they got less ice time it’s because they didn’t have enough time to get the same number of points, and if they got more time it was because their scoring rate fell due to fatigue).

For the intent of this explanation I will assume the simpler situation: points are constant for each player with respect to number of minutes played. Which means if you increase a players ice time their scoring totals for that game on average are constant.

How does this affect New Jersey?
Normally when a player is injured a replacement is used. In this case New Jersey couldn’t afford the replacement. So not only did New Jersey lose the benefits of having Volchenkov, Pierre-Luc & Rolston they also couldn’t fit marginal players (who also get points) to contribute at least a little.

Cap Cost:
A “marginal” forward will generally contribute about 0.3 Points/game and a defenseman about 0.17 points per game. So the salary cap cost them 0.77 points or about 0.3 goals (equal to about a $55,000 fine…).

Actual Cost:
The loss of Volchenkov [0.22 points/game], Rolston [0.5 Points/game] & Pierre-Luc [ 0.1 points/game] for a total of 0.82 points per game (not that much different due to Pierre-Luc being more of a fighter than player and Volchenkov’s inability to score).

Presumably goals against will go up a little with fewer skaters, lets assume it is half the effect of offense (conservative estimate) or about 0.15 goals.

Let’s use New Jersey’s scoring numbers from last year for demonstration purposes: 2.7 GF/gp & 2.3 GA/gp and won 48 games (59%). The new numbers would be 2.4 GF and 2.45 GA for an expected winning percentage of 49%. So in effect New Jersey goes from being an excellent team to being below average.

Also, I think these estimates are conservative – effects could be much higher. Study this is based on was assuming small changes to icetime, not 20% increases. 

I don’t understand why New Jersey desperately wanted Kovalchuk so bad, but it looks like their benefits may be offset by cap issues caused by Kovalchuk.

For those who don’t know:

…the Devils iced a roster of 15 skaters and two goaltenders in a 3-1 loss to Pittsburgh [Monday October 11], many are wondering if the NHL should step in and slap the team for violating the CBA; if what the Devils did with their roster because of the salary cap can be deemed good for the game. [Yahoo]

I’m not one to care what sort of things the NHL does to punish the New Jersey devils – anything monetary is just part of doing business for them and the team has already lost enough: the game.

However, I do want to comment on what effect these sorts of things have on the probability of winning. I did a study a couple years ago that showed that whether a player got more or less ice time in a game their absolute number of points received dropped (if they got less ice time it’s because they didn’t have enough time to get the same number of points, and if they got more time it was because their scoring rate fell due to fatigue).

For the intent of this explanation I will assume the simpler situation: points are constant for each player with respect to number of minutes played. Which means if you increase a players ice time their scoring totals for that game on average are constant.

How does this affect New Jersey?
Normally when a player is injured a replacement is used. In this case New Jersey couldn’t afford the replacement. So not only did New Jersey lose the benefits of having Volchenkov, Pierre-Luc & Rolston they also couldn’t fit marginal players (who also get points) to contribute at least a little.

Cap Cost:
A “marginal” forward will generally contribute about 0.3 Points/game and a defenseman about 0.17 points per game. So the salary cap cost them 0.77 points or about 0.3 goals (equal to about a $55,000 fine…).

Actual Cost:
The loss of Volchenkov [0.22 points/game], Rolston [0.5 Points/game] & Pierre-Luc [ 0.1 points/game] for a total of 0.82 points per game (not that much different due to Pierre-Luc being more of a fighter than player and Volchenkov’s inability to score).

Presumably goals against will go up a little with fewer skaters, lets assume it is half the effect of offense (conservative estimate) or about 0.15 goals.

Let’s use New Jersey’s scoring numbers from last year for demonstration purposes: 2.7 GF/gp & 2.3 GA/gp and won 48 games (59%). The new numbers would be 2.4 GF and 2.45 GA for an expected winning percentage of 49%. So in effect New Jersey goes from being an excellent team to being below average.

Also, I think these estimates are conservative – effects could be much higher. Study this is based on was assuming small changes to icetime, not 20% increases.

I’ve always felt the statistics used to judge a goalie in hockey are incomplete. As it stands, the most popular – and useless – measure employed is goals against average. GAA should be outright ignored. It’s misleading. Save percentage is a more reliable albeit imperfect statistic, yet its traction is a recent phenomena.

The problem with SP is it only reflects how many pucks a goalie stops relative to the number of shots faced. It tells nothing else. Still, it’s a helluva lot better than GAA. In turn, GAA is more acceptable than people who think wins/lost are what matters for goalies.

Of course, this is pure idiocy. A goalie can’t score goals and trying to determine with any objectivity how many games a goalie “wins” by himself is impossible and futile. A lot like seeking “Mr. Clutch” stats. The reality is hockey is a team game and winning and losing entails the collective actions (big and small) of each and every player on the ice. To tag a goalie with a win or loss and stigmatize him with it is a human rights crime.

The other thing that drives me batshit is when I hear so-called pundits talk out of their asses by saying, “but he’s never won anything!” or “he’s unproven because he’s never won a playoff series.” 

That’s commentary used to fill out air space with fluff. Most of the time, a goalie’s track record, given a large enough sample size, has a pattern and that pattern tells truths. If he’s played well all along it means he can goaltend even if he’s playing on a team that never makes the playoffs. It”s not his fault the organization he plays for is rub by a piece of celery.

I’m telling you, it’s insulting to have to hear about how one great athlete is somehow deficient because he “never won.”

If a goalie plays for a team that wins 45 games a year obviously he will win more games. Unless he’s winning those games by himself, which he isn’t, this is a reflection of a strong hockey club. Conversely, a team that wins 28 games will mean their goalie is winning less games. Duh. But does it mean he’s “shittier” than the goalie on the better team? Of course not. Any reasonable, sane person with a rational bone will concede this.

There resides among observers and commentators too much of a subjective streak in spinning a goalie’s performance. Too often we’re left with a “he shoulda had” that puck routine. According to whose context? In order to say such a thing you need to contextualize and even then, proof it statistically.  

Truth is, the sports community is filled with unimaginative individuals who have come to believe in their own divine bull shit which often is pure bunk and that luck plays a larger part in outcome than they care to admit. They seem incapable – or at least unwilling – to admit that it’s entirely possible sometimesmthe best athletes in a particular sport never won a title.

There’s nothing complicated in accepting this premise. If you don’t, and you become the GM of a team, you’re likely to repeat the same mistakes over and over and over. Preconceived notions murder your chances for success.

The only option to weed this evil human flaw is to devise reliable statistics measuring a goalie’s performance.

Inspired by Bill James no doubt, puckprospectus at least explores and expands on incomplete stats.

Anyway.

The Hockey Compendium, a book woefully under valued in my opinion, by Klein and Reif attempted to at least consider a goalie’s “workload” factoring shots faced, shots faced per game and minutes played. They called it goalie perseverance and it basically is save percentage expanded with more information.

It doesn’t consider the defensive unit in front of a goalie, screened or deflected shots or other uncontrollable factors that contribute to a goal, but at least it’s a start.

According to them, and quite frankly it’s not surprising, Dominik Hasek is the greatest goalie of all time.

The Hockey Compendium hasn’t been updated so I’ve taken their calculation and applied it to the present crop of NHL goalies. Obviously, sample size differs from goalie to goalie. For example, we have little on Jimmy Howard at the pro level and more on Martin Brodeur.

I also wanted to check out their AHL and NCAA or Junior stats but there were to many gaps of missing of information and to track them down would be too much work. Maybe I’ll do it down the road. The reason is I wanted to see a goalie’s “track record” and compare it to their pro stats. I’m sure in there we’d find some gem goalies who are overlooked or ignored based on erroneous presumptions.

Here’s the list of top goalie perseverance:

1) Tuukka Rask -.978

2) Jonas Hiller – .972

3) Jaroslav Halak – .972

4) Roberto Luongo – .971

5) Jimmy Howard – .971

6) Thomas Vokoun – .967

7) Niklas Backstrom – .967

Keri Lehtonen – .967

9) Craig Anderson – .966

10) Henrik Lundqvist – .965

11) Ryan Miller – .964

12) Carey Price – .964

13) Ilya Bryzgalov – .963

14) Pekka Rinne – .962

15) Mikka Kiprusoff – .961

16) Cristobal Huet – .960 *

17) Dwayne Roloson – .959

18) Ondrej Pavelec – .959

19) Semyon Varlamov – .958

20) Nikolai Khabibulin – .957

21) Marc-Andre Fleury – .957

22) Steve Mason – .956

23) Mike Smith – .955

24) Marty Turco – .954

25)  Rick DiPietro – .954

26) Antero Niittymaki – .954

27) Brian Elliott – .954

28) Michael Leighton -.952

29) Cam Ward – .950

30) Jon Quick – .950

31) Jonas Gustavson – .946

-

After reading Moneyball I was interested in seeing how the Oakland A’s closed out the decade. Turns out pretty well.

Top 17 teams (over .500) by wins/winning percentage 2000-2009.

1) New York Yankees – 965 (.596)

2) Boston Red Sox – 920 (.568)

3) St. Louis Cardinals – 913 (.564)

4) L.A. Angeles – 900 (.556)

5) Atlanta Braves – 892 (.551)

6) Oakland A’s – 890 (.549)

7) Minnesota Twins – 868 (.536)

Los Angeles Dodgers – 862 (.532)

9) Chicago White Sox – 857 (.529)

10) San Francisco Giants – 855 (.528)

11) Philadelphia Phillies – 850 (.525)

12) Seattle Mariners – 837 (.517)

13) Toronto Blue Jays – 835 (.515)

14) Houston Astros – 832 (.514)

15) Cleveland Indians – 816 (.504)

16) New York Mets – 815 (.502)

17) Florida Marlins – 811 (.501)

Notes:

-No surprise at the top two. But before you go off about big payrolls equating to success, keep in mind the L.A. Dodgers well underwhelming and the New York Mets a downright mess. Conversely, small market/budget teams like the A’s and Minnesota Twins did well. Incidentally, I would like to know how the Twins do it year in and year out.

-Only four teams won over 900 games: Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Angels. 15 won over 800. Of the 15 only two teams have winning percentages below .500: Chicago Cubs .498 and Arizona Diamond Backs .497.

- Worst team (s)? Kansas City Royals (672 – .415) and Pittsburgh Pirates (681 – .420). By choice and design or pure ineptness?

-Oakland had seven winning seasons two with 100 plus wins. Only three other teams had multiple 100 win seasons: The Yankees (4), Cardinals (2), Braves (2). The Red Sox, a big payroll team, had none. Although, of course, they have two world titles.

-The A’s made the playoffs consecutively four times between 2000-2003. They never made the World Series. The Yankees were in the playoffs every single year going to the series four times winning twice (2-2). The Cardinals reached it twice going 1-1 and the Red Sox also two times winning each time. The Angels made the playoffs six times winning one world title. The Twins made five trips to the post season; same for the Braves. Like Oakland they both didn’t make it to the final series.

- The average wins for MLB is 810.7. The top 17 teams are the only ones above the average.

-Currently, the Yankees have a $206 million payroll. The Sox $162. The A’s are at $51 million.

What I did, simplistically, was take the top soccer nations in history according to ELO rankings -  Brazil, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Holland, France, England, Spain and Uruguay. I took their all-times records and matched them against their records against “non-ranked” teams of a particular decade at the World Cup. For example, ELO ranks the top 20 sides per decade. If a team is in the list, they’re not considered to be non-ranked or “small.” So if, say, Germany lost to Mexico in the 1950s and Mexico wasn’t ranked, then that loss was tabulated as Germany losing to a small team.

I did this for every record matching it to the ELO rankings per decade. It’s not perfect, but so aren’t you. Fifa doesn’t do it and all we’re left with is ELO.

Notes: Another thing I took the liberty of doing is counting a shoot-out as a win or loss and not a draw. For me, it’s a true reflection. After all, if we can determine a champion by it then it’s good enough to be a win. Simple. Also, 2010 was not considered because the 2010s are just starting. If I time at a later date, I’ll refine this list.

Ok. Here we go:

Top teams against non-ranked teams by winning percentage:

1) Brazil – 92 WC games – 25 against non-ranked games: 23-0-2: .920

2) Holland – 36 – 13 anrt;  9-2-2: .870

3) Germany – 92 – 34 anrt; 25-6-3: .823

4) Argentina – 65 – 24 anrt; 19-1-4: .813

5) Spain 49- 22 anrt; 16-3-3: .795

6) France 51 – 17 anrt; 12-3-2: .794

7) Italy 77 – 31 anrt; 20-7-4; .758

England 55 – 18 anrt 11-5-2: .750

9) Uruguay 35 – 17 anrt 6-5-6: .500

For fun I decided to do the opposite and see how these teams did against RANKED sides:

1) Brazil .724

2) Germany .647

3) Italy .641

4) Argentina .512

5) England .500

6) Uruguay .500

7) France .485

Holland .478

9) Spain .370

So much to digest. No really. I just had a salad with peanut sauce. Dee-lish. About the stats.

Brazil and Germany are indeed consistent but maybe there’s some truth to Italy – relative to my simple criteria  sample anyway – being better against quality sides. In the first part, though their winning percentage is high, it’s only good for 7th spot ahead of England and Uruguay. But where the competition stiffens, they rise to 3rd in the second list. So far the Big Four (Brazil, Germany, Italy, Argentina) are ‘acting” like the Big four.

Now consider the drop (against non-ranked teams to ranked teams) in total points between bagel bites:

1) Spain 425

2) Holland 392

3) France 309

4) Argentina 301 

5) England 250

6) Brazil 196

7) Germany 176

Italy 117

9) Uruguay —  (no change)

So, here is a compilation of all the saves/goals/shots etc. each goalie faced over the last 5 years (inc. playoffs). I may be missing some games, but there is a lot of data here. The “Cred” column is just adjusting the shot quality neutral save percentage based on number of shots faced (regressing to the mean).

EG = Expected Goals
G = Actual Goals
SQN = shot quality neutral save percentage
= 1- 0.0926*G /EG
SV% = real save percentage
= 1 – G / S

Note: The expected goals are adjusted for site based biased shot information.
Few things of note
- Save percentages over 0.920 are not really sustainable (8 goalies in 2010).
- I didn’t realize how good Hiller is.
- Raycroft is really bad (allowed almost 100 more goals than average)

I think I just made the case for Dino. There are plenty of players in the Hall, that if we were to apply and employ what it means to be a hall of famer – a player that clearly demonstrates dominance above his peers – like they do in baseball, wouldn’t make the cut.

Hockey’s Hall of Fame is just that, it allows a certain amount of flexibility for players who didn’t quite dominate but put in a good career. Classic case is Mike Gartner. Indeed, Gartner is a tough file to wrestle with. His wicked constant stream of goals led him not to 600 goals but 708. It’s pretty hard to deny a player hitting that mark even if they didn’t dominate.

Then again, is it?

Eight 40 plus and one 50 goal season (with one 100 point season) in 15 years in succession is impressive on its own, but measured against his peers it was, you know, less so.  It’s still not enough. I don’t want to hear anything about character and what he did to trim his moustache. Nor does the fact this player, as it’s been said of Ciccarelli, played “poorly defensively” make any sense whatsoever. How do you even begin to put that into a competent or coherent formula? What, does winning the Selke make you a dominant player? Unless you’re winning the Art Ross alongside that Selke, it’s not much of an argument.

 That’s more of an intangible issue. I want to stay strictly on the DOMINANT theme.

Length of time really isn’t a measure of greatness. Call it the Alex Delvecchio effect. If you’re an above average player like Gartner and Delvecchio were, you’re bound to hit some substantial numbers.

In fact, on a goals per game basis Gartner clocks in at a meager .494 gpg. If you’re to pull out the top 100 goals scorers ever he wouldn’t make the top 10; or even 20 perhaps. I use goals because that’s the primary reason why Gartner got in. Not because he won any major awards like the Art Ross or Hart trophy. He doesn’t even have any 1st or 2nd all-star selections.

If there’s a poster boy for getting in for having a solid career without dominating he’s it.

Another player in the Hall is Glenn Anderson. The Anderson comparison is relevant for two reasons. One, it removes the “bad boy” argument against Dino and two, his stats are also similar to Ciccarelli.

Anderson’s off ice issues is well known. It may have delayed his induction but he’s in now. I’m off the opinion a player should be in based on the strength of their body of work on the ice. Period. HHOF official criteria notwithstanding. Why complicate things with abstract notions of “morality” and “character?” If we were to scrutinize many athletes for off ice behavior, the list of inductees would be thin indeed.

The former Edmonton Oilers great has the most annoying stats in pro sports: 498 goals , 1099 points. Couldn’t anyone have signed him for a couple of more games to, you know, round up those numbers? Sheesh. Anyway, that works out to .441 gpg and .973 ppg. Like Gartner, Anderson has no all-star selections and no major trophies. Absolutely, he had a remarkable knack to score big playoff goals – he’s 4th all-time in playoff points behind his Oilers contemporaries Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier and Jari Kurri -  but again, no Conn Smythe for his troubles.

Still, Anderson has something none of the concerns have: Five Stanley Cup rings.

 Which brings me to Dino Ciccarelli.

His stats summarized look like this: Two 50 plus, four 40 plus, 2 one hundred point seasons. Productively, he was slightly better than Gartner. In fact, their numbers are similar. If 700 can’t deny you entry, then 600 is pretty darn close. Moreover, since we’re at it, Ciccarelli was a top 10 scorer twice in his career to Gartner’s one. Again, no major trophies but he sure could play with a meanstreak; sorta like Anderson.

As irony would have it, Ciccarelli’s gpg avg. is exactly .494. The same as you know who. And if you don’t, you haven’t been reading.  His ppg is .973. The same as one Glenn Anderson. 

Statistically, there’s little rationale to keep Ciccarelli out.

However, the point is, did Gartner, Anderson and Ciccarelli DOMINATE their peers? The answer is no. Judging by their careers, with a few differences here and there, either you lump them in together or you don’t. Personally, as great as these players were – and they really were – I don’t think they were “Hall” worthy if we were to be really, really strict about it like they are in baseball.

But hey. That’s me.

Taw, taw.

CHI   PHI # G EG S%   G EG SV% Game 1: 6 3.2 83.9 5 3.1 81.3 Game 2: 2 2.3 96.4 1 2.8 91.3 Series [2-0] 8 5.5 89.8 6 5.9 85.5

Philadelphia is doing a lot better than I would have anticipated. If it wasn’t for the difference in goaltending this series could easily be tied (or have gone the other way).

CHI PHI Winner Even Strength GF 2.9 2.44 EGF 2.83 2.78 GA 2.35 2.43 EGA 2.19 2.53 SV% 89.2% 90.4% Power Play GF 6.54 6.64 EGF 6.55 8.69 GA 0.49 2.42 EGA 0.6 0.8 SV% 92.3% 89.6%

The host harmlessly replied, “old reliable” Brazil.

The guest then later added Germany for their “mental strength,” the Netherlands, Italy, Spain and I believe Argentina if my memory serves me loyally.

In any event, “old reliable” and “mental strength” descriptions attached to Brazil and Germany got me thinking. First of all, it’s interesting how Italy tends to get overlooked for their own mental strength. If anyone has noticed, very few nations can win trench warfare type of soccer like the Italians; just like their German rivals. You can literally outplay either side for 90 minutes and just when you think you have a win or tie in the bag, that’s when they always seemingly strike.

The other thing was the reliability factor. How to define it? I’ll just keep it simple and use straightforward math as opposed to all the interesting freakanomics about population and resources and all that.

Let’s focus on Brazil, Germany, Italy and Argentina since they’ve reached the finals at least four times. The following considers all World Cups until 2006.

Brazil: 18 finals. Of those they won five and reached the finals seven times. They further reached the finals 1o times and the quarter-finals 15.

Germany: 16 finals. Three titles and seven finals. 11 semis and 15 quarters.

Italy: 16 finals. Four titles and six finals. Eight semis and 10 quarters.

Argentina: 14 finals. Two titles. Four finals. Four semis and eight quarters.

Let’s compute.

Brazil has a 28% winning ratio (5/18) when it comes to triumphs.

Italy is next clocking in at 25% (4/16).

Germany stands in third with 19% (3/16).

Argentina is 4th at 14% (2/14)

Based on this alone, Brazil certainly is reliable with Italy close on its heels.

Ok. Finals:

Germany has reached the finals 44% of the ime (7/16).

Brazil has been in the finals 39% of the time (7/18).

Italy 33% of the time (6/16).

Argentina last again at 28% (4/14).

Both Germany and Italy are looking pretty reliable alongside Brazil.

And the semis:

Germany had made it to the semis a remarkable 69% of the time (11/16)

Brazil: Fans have witnessed a Brazilian side in the semis 56% of the time (10/18).

Italy: Not to shabby at 50% (8/16).

Argentina: 29% is their semi-finals ratio.

Finally, the quarters. Again, the natural progression sees the percentages rise:

Germany: 94% (15/16).

Brazil: 83% (15/18).

Italy: 63% (10/16).

Argentina: 57% (8/14).

With the notable exception of the titles where Brazil and Italy lead, for the finals, semis and quarters balance, Germany leads Brazil with Italy a consistent 3rd and Argentina 4th. Deciding who is more reliable is a bit of a nit-picking game but it’s hard judging by the raw numbers alone,  not to give the nod to Germany. However, their three titles to Italy’s four and Brazil’s five does hurt their case. At the end of the day, it’s the victory that matters.

Nonetheless, Germany’s consistency is extremely impressive. Already, the other three countries on the list have posted great results but Germany has an extra little umph to their tradition of excellence.

On a side note, one country I’d monitor is France. At 12 World Cups, the numbers don’t stack up with the Big Four but another good performance in South Africa and they could make a case for a Big Five.

***

One thing I always ignore at the World Cup is the player awards and 2006 did nothing to earn my attention. In fact, it repelled me further. The nuttiness of naming Lukas Podolski as the best young player award and the outrageous determination that Zinedine Zidane was somehow the tournament’s best player only makes a mockery of FIFA’s decision. Worse, they didn’t even seem to bother to adhere to their own criteria.

Like any awards ceremonies, I’m not big on them.

The 2003 NHL draft was a deep one so I wanted to see how selected 1st round forwards were doing. Without further a-doo-adoo:

Where they were drafted in brackets with their current teams. Stats right up to March 10, 2010.

2) Eric Staal – Carolina – 184 goals/410 points/ 463 games. High pick panned out greatly. Won Stanley Cup in 2006.

3) Nathan Horton – Florida -  139 goals/284 pts/408 games. Still looking for consistency.

4) Nikolai Zherdev – (last) New York Rangers -  99 g/239 pts/ 365 gms.  Currently plays for CSKA Moscow in the KHL.

5) Thomas Vanek – Buffalo – 164 g/302 pts/378 gms. Austrian star carving solid career with the Sabres.

6) Milan Michalek – Ottawa – 113 g/246 pts/377 gms. Solid, two-way player with skill.

10) Andrei Kostitsyn – Montreal – 64 g/ 133 pts/231 gms. A disappointment so far relative to talent.

11) Jeff Carter – Philadelphia – 143 g/ 273 pts/ 372 gms. Developing  into an elite sniper.

13) Dustin Brown – Los Angeles – 105 g/235 pts/415 gms. A physical, two-way machine.

17) Zach Parise – New Jersey – 153 g/ 320 pts/ 390 gms. An NHL star is born. Great player.

19) Ryan Getzlaf – Anaheim – 106 g/ 335 pts/ 357 gms. Big, smooth, passing star. Will be a point a game soon.

23) Ryan Kesler – Vancouver – 84 g/202 pts/387 gms. Under rated, gritty player who does it all.

24) Mike Richards – Philadelphia – 105 g /275 pts /355 gms. Meant to be a Flyer. Outstanding all-round player.

28) Corey Perry – Anaheim – 114 g/ 257 pts/ 352 gms. Has established himself in the NHL.

Bonus:

Second round pick Loui Eriksson – Dallas – 81 g/ 171 pts/ 276 games. A pleasant surprise no doubt.

Thoughts:

-Three players on the list – Staal, Perry, Getzlaf – have won Stanley Cup.

-Staal leads all players with most career points (and goals). Kostitsyn has the least.

-Getzlaf leads list with .94 ppg.

-10 players (out of 14) on the list represented their respective countries at the 2010 Winter Olympic games in Vancouver.

With the Olympic games in full gear let’s have a look at some statistics.

First, I wanted to have a look at the medal count since Albertville, 1992 for selected countries.

- Germany has amassed 144 total medals – more than any country on the list. They also topped the list with 54 gold. Norway is next with 115 and 45 gold – although just two in Torino; its lowest gold output of the five Olympics – they won 13 in Salt Lake. Russia (including the Unified Team) is third with 99 medals and 42 gold.

- Long a winter power, Sweden’s production has stalled. Consider since 1992 they’ve won 31 medals with 10 gold. In two of those Olympics (Nagano and Salt Lake) they didn’t win a gold. Seven of the 10 came in Torino where the program seems to have been set back on track with 17 medals.

-Finland, another traditional power, also slowed. 41 total medals with nine gold.

-Switzerland earned 37 medals and 14 gold while Austria clocks in at 84 medals (23 gold) – fourth on the list.

-The United States 96 medals and 36.

-This is a big year for Canada. They’re predicted to win anywhere between 37 and 41 medals in Vancouver. For Canada, it’s been a steady uptick since Albertville winning 7, 13, 15, 17 and 24 medals during that time. Speaking of gradual improvements, China has seen its numbers move along the 3,3,8,8, 11 mark.Italy’s numbers have remain relatively steady.

-In the interesting fact corner, coming into the Olympics, 75 of Holland’s all-time 78 medals (96%) have come in speed skating. Now there’s a philosophy. Pick a sport, master it and reap the rewards.

Here’s how the total medals table looks:

Germany 144, Norway, 115, Russia 99, Austria 84, United States 96, Canada 76, Italy 68 (22 gold), France 42 (12 gold), Finland 41, Switzerland 37, Netherlands 36 (12 gold), China 33 (4 gold), Sweden 32, Korea 31 (17 gold), Japan 25 (8 gold),

***

Just a quick note on the calculation of countries by population to determine who are the most successful countries. I never was a fan of it. Here’s why. Countries with big populations (especially the United States) will always be penalized thus skewing the numbers against them since there are only a finite amount of medals available. I prefer to use number of athletes performing per country and dividing that number into the total number of medals available. You can break that down, if you wish, per event.

So no, as I’ve seen on the Summer tables, Bahamas is not the “best” or most “successful” sports nation.