The Odds of Canada winning the Gold Medal
by Hawerchuk on Feb 19, 2010 4:52 PM EST
in Zzz...2010 Olympics
Email
PrintJon Willis has a nice discussion of how the outcome of the Olympics will be viewed if Canada wins or loses. It's important to keep in mind that even if Canada is the best team in the world, the odds of them winning any one game are not as high as you'd think. We can see this by looking at past performance.
With Slovakia's two games against Russia and the Czechs, I wanted to update the W-L table for the world's best teams in games between each other since 1996:
| Team | W | L | GF | GA | Pyth% |
| Canada | 15 | 8 | 69 | 58 | 0.586 |
| USA | 10 | 12 | 74 | 63 | 0.580 |
| Sweden | 9 | 6 | 45 | 42 | 0.534 |
| Russia | 11 | 12 | 65 | 64 | 0.508 |
| Czech | 7 | 12 | 45 | 50 | 0.448 |
| Finland | 9 | 10 | 51 | 57 | 0.445 |
| Slovakia | 4 | 9 | 26 | 47 | 0.234 |
This table includes four Olympics plus two World Cups - the only top international competitions over the last 14 years. Canada is 15-8; if we assume that their Pythagorean winning percentage [GF^2/(GF^2+GA^2)] accurately reflects their true talent, they probably should have won 14 games against this crew. In other words, there's no way that people should expect a gold medal - Canada's the favorite, and they probably have a 20% shot at winning (it would have been 25% if they had beaten Switzerland in regulation).
But because anything less than a gold medal is considered a failure, here are how Steve Yzerman and Mike Babcock will be viewed after the games:
- Gold Medal = Geniuses (20%)
- Silver Medal = Failures (15%)
- Bronze Medal = Major Failures (15%)
- Not in the Medals = Withdrawal of Citizenship (50%)
Canada is simply not going to beat the Russians more than six times out of ten, which makes the odds of beating three national all-star teams very low - even for the absolute best team in the tournament. Whether the Canadian team is the best at this year's Olympics will be completely obscured by the luck they encounter in their games.
17 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Only 20%?
A lot of the futures odds out there still offered Canada at ~2:1 this morning (though they all seem to have disappeared now). It’s hard to guess what their real chances are based on futures odds, but I would think it would be at the very least 30%.
http://www.puckline.net/2010-vancouver-olympic-games-mens-ice-hockey-odds/
Pre-tournament, Canada was almost twice as favoured as #2 Russia.
If you take away the bookie’s profit margin (about 27%), they had Canada at 40% to win. That assumed them finishing first overall and playing the 8th seed, which now requires Swe-Fin to go to OT and for the Czechs to not win in regulation. Low odds on that happening.
With a win against the US, Canada’s best path to the final is through the Finns or the Slovaks in the quarterfinals. That best-case draw gives them a 25% chance of winning gold (70%/60%/60%), a tougher view of their abilities or a tougher draw closer to 20% (65%/55%/55%), and the scenarios that involve a loss to the US are around 15% (90%/55%/55%/55% – they need to win an extra game). I think 20% is pretty justifiable at this point.
I can’t see it. Everybody’s living in a hotel and everybody’s been in Vancouver for almost a week now. The top teams have a lot of fans in town, and so close to the border, the US may as well have the home-ice crowd. It’s possible that the teams with lots of Europe-based players are negatively affected, but they’ve got no shot at the medals.
Also none of the Canadian players have any particular familiarity with the GM place ice/arena, which I assume is part of the effect.
Kesler.
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Feb 20, 2010 10:01 AM EST up reply actions
That seems reasonable, but Canada is still available at 2:1.
That’s why I’m hesitant to guess at probabilities based on futures odds. They do still have a shot at the #1 seed if the Swe-Fin goes into OT and Russia beats the Czechs.
Sweden might be a good buy right now.
If some other team wins, based on your numbers, we can assume that they overcame greater odds than Canada, can’t we?
I guess what I mean is, doesn’t Canada still have the best odds of any team to win. And if that’s the case, isn’t it fair to expect thm to win. After all, someone has to.
doesn’t Canada still have the best odds of any team to win. And if that’s the case, isn’t it fair to expect thm to win.
Not to pick on you too much, but I think this is the jump people make that is completely inaccurate. Canada may still have the best odds, but there’s an 80% chance that they won’t win it. In fact you should expect someone else to win it. Who else? Who cares (for Canadians anyways).
In other words is 1000 people enter a $1M lottery, I get 2 tickets and everyone else gets one, I have the best chances of winning, but I’d be really dumb if I went out and bought that yacht “expecting” to win. The Canadian Media, and many fans, haven’t just bought the yacht, but already ordered customized gold-plated trim, a Maple Leaf sail, a hand carved oak pipe, a spiffy navy blazer and have added the “Captain” title to their business cards.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Feb 23, 2010 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
Great stuff. Would love to see estimated chances for all teams (or at least the big six/seven).
The average fan seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what being “the favorite” means in a tournament like this. You can be the best team and have the best chance to win, while still being far more likely to lose. I did a podcast last week before the tourney started where I said Canada was a huge favorite, and that if the tournament was played ten times we’d probably win gold three of four times. I still think that was probably about right.
And yet if/when Canada doesn’t win, millions of trees will give their lives so that we can read countless columns about what management did wrong, whether Canada is still a top hockey nation, whether we should change the entire approach next time…
Down Goes Brown - Unapologetically nostalgic for the past. Brutally realistic about the present. Grudgingly optimistic about the future.
by Down Goes Brown on Feb 23, 2010 12:01 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
