Le Quebec mis en échec: On French-Canadians in the NHL
by Hawerchuk on Oct 22, 2009 1:16 PM EDT
20 comments
[A version of this post originally appeared in French.]
Ex-NHLer Bob Sirois published a book earlier this week detailing discrimination against French-Canadian hockey players in the NHL. Sirois alleges discrimination in a number of ways, but I found one claim to be particularly interesting:
"Only francophones of the highest level were able to have lasting careers; the other Quebecois hockey players were quickly eliminated from the NHL." - National Post, Oct 19, 2009
Now I don't have any way of separating Francophones from Anglophones in my database - there are simply too many Francophone Johnsons and Anglophone Desjardins in Canada to figure it out solely by surname. But we can see what percentage of games played by Canadians in the NHL were played by people born in Quebec historically:
| 1994-2009 | 1980-1993 | 1967-1979 | 1945-1966 | |
| ON | 40.3 | 45.6 | 48.6 | 44.4 |
| PQ | 17.7 | 16.2 | 19.8 | 19.7 |
(Note: For the sake of brevity, I've cut the other provinces off the table - you can see it here.) Whatever decline there has been in Quebecois players making it to the NHL has been matched by a similar decline in Ontario-born players. Ontario's decline is even steeper in light of its population growing at three times the rate of Quebec's over the last 30 years. Quebec still produces fewer NHL players per capita than Ontario does, but this is not evidence of a conspiracy; the explanation, as in other provinces, might be structural: Saskatchewan produces twice as many NHLers as Manitoba, despite similar populations.
So if the distribution of players hasn't changed much in the last 50 years, does that mean that two equally-talented players, one from Ontario and one from Quebec, have the same likelihood of playing in the NHL? How do they compare to players from the WHL?
To answer this question, I took every player who played in the QMJHL, OHL and WHL since 1981 and looked at his scoring in his draft year. To eliminate the impact of the high-scoring mid-1980s, I normalized each league and season to the current NHL offensive levels: three goals per game, 1.7 assists per goal, and 82 games per season. (Players who played fewer than 40 games in their final season were not counted.)
I then further divided these players by their scoring levels. The first group included all players who, after normalizing their stats, scored 82 points or more in their draft season. The second group consisted of players who scored between 57 and 81 points. Let's first look at what happened to the group of 82+ scorers:
| OHL | QMJHL | WHL | |
| % Drafted |
96 | 93 | 95 |
| NHL GP @ 24 |
60 | 48 | 39 |
| Pts/82 @ Age 24 |
67 | 62 | 58 |
This group made up approximately 4% of regular players in each league. Over the course of more than 25 years, virtually every one of these players was drafted, regardless of where he came from - the only major miss among the French-Canadian group was Stephan Lebeau. At age 24, the QMJHL players score less and play less than the OHL players, but more than the WHL players. While it's surprising that QMJHL players didn't hold up their scoring as well as the Ontarians - they do if we only look at Age 19 or Age 20 NHL seasons - WHL players did even worse. So it's hard to draw the conclusion that Quebecois players were particularly hard-done-by.
But what about the next tier of players, the 11% of players who scored between 53 and 81 points in their draft year:
| % Drafted | OHL | QMJHL | WHL |
| 53-81 pts |
85 | 69 | 86 |
| >82 pts |
96 | 93 | 95 |
Here we see what Bob Sirois probably saw in his own analysis - once we're not talking about future stars, QMJHL players are much less likely to get drafted - 20%. And if we look at Games Played at Age 24, the difference is even larger:
| GP @ 24 |
OHL | QMJHL | WHL |
| 53-81 pts |
16 | 12 | 19 |
| >82 pts |
60 | 48 | 39 |
Players in the 53-81 points group did equivalently well in the NHL at Age 24 regardless of what league they came from, averaging 38-41 points per 82 games. Yet QMJHL graduates played 50-70% less than their counterparts from the OHL and the WHL. While star Quebecois players are impossible to ignore, 3rd- and 4th-liners are much less likely to make the team even if they have the same skills - no question, Bob Sirois is right.
And who's wrong? Jeff Marek, of Hockey Night in Canada Radio, for one. In an interview with the CBC, Marek claims:
"The reality is the rest of the world has caught up. The days where every year either Gilbert Perreault, or Guy Lafleur or Marcel Dionne were selected first overall, those days are gone. That ship has sailed. Helsinki, Stockholm, Moscow, Prague have all caught up to the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. Once upon a time, Quebec had the best hockey system in the world — hands down. The Quebec Major Junior Hockey League has always been an offence-first hockey league ... it's high-flying, it's action-packed, it's a fun league to watch. Does it translate to the NHL game? Not as smoothly as it used to."
Where do I even start? First of all, when you control for the influx of Europeans into the NHL, the number of Quebecois players has gone up relative to the number of Ontarians. Second, it's simply incorrect to call the QMJHL "high-flying": goals per game are just 3% higher than in the OHL over the last 30 years. And over the last two seasons, the OHL has had higher scoring than the QMJHL - are they both now "offense-first hockey leagues?" Third, the notion that the QMJHL no longer "translates to the NHL...as smoothly as it used to" is not supported by any data - nothing has changed.
As Attorney-at-Law Lionel Hutz said on The Simpsons: "All I have is hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence." No matter what data you brought to the table, I doubt there's anything you could do to change Marek's mind.
The statistical analysts among you might ask if there a market inefficiency to be exploited here. Sort of. The value of a 3rd- or 4th-liner is not particularly high, and cutting your 14th best player in favor of your 19th might cost you a point in the standings. It's not nothing, but no coach is going to lose his job over one win every two seasons.
And that's why this situation has been able to persist for so long. If virtually every team was making a mistake and there were freely-available players out there who could give teams a two-win boost in the standings, somebody would jump on them. Think of Anders Hedberg and Ulf Nilsson coming over to the WHA from Sweden in the mid-1970s. Somebody would do it even if there was a chance it might work out. Think of Mike Smith drafting as many Russians as he could in the early-1990s.
What surprises me is how many people feel the need to deny that such a situation could even exist. Maybe I've read too many Mordecai Richler novels (no, not the ones about the kid who says everything twice) but it hardly surprises me to find out that people from Quebec are discriminated against, whether it's consciously or unconsciously. Don Cherry would probably get fired from an American network for the things he says about Quebecers, and yet he was voted the 7th-Greatest Canadian, right behind some guy who got a Nobel Peace Prize for creating the first UN Peacekeeping force. Bob Sirois' book will certainly lay out the facts, some of which can't easily be explained away with terms like "high-flying", and ultimately people will have to come to grips with the evidence.
0 recs |
20 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Thank you for posting an english version.
I can read french much better than I speak it but I’m only a budding stathead so I have enough trouble following these things in english sometimes! Very interesting stuff, and sad too.
"Fear the Fin: where some fans chose to swathe themselves in baseless optimism all season long." -CTGray
I talked to an anonymous GM the other day, asked him about some of his goals for the year. He said some of the usual things like developing their young players, competing every night, making the playoffs and a run at the Stanley Cup. He did say something that was kind of strange at the time, but made sense after hearing of this new book, he told me he planned on alienating the French-Canadian hockey players that were on his team, and preventing any more French-Canadian players from coming to his team (the ones who were already there I gather he inherited or their defence didn’t pan out after drafting them, and therefore are a liability).
Seems kinda like Brian Burke’s perceived attitude towards Europeans right?
by 3rd Line Grinder on Oct 25, 2009 3:00 AM EDT up reply actions
On average, there are two French-Canadians per team in the NHL. There should probably be 2.5 or 3 per team. It’s not like there should be seven and there’s only one. It’s a very subtle difference that you don’t see unless you look at decades of numbers.
I don’t think anybody sets out to discriminate. And GMs believe they made the right personnel decisions. But GMs and coaches from Ontario have a higher comfort level with players from Ontario than they do with players from Quebec. It’s undeniable – any coach will tell you that he’s looking for work ethic, and you need to be very familiar with a given player or team to know if they have it.
NFL teams don’t set out to only hire white coaches; they hire people they’re familiar with. And they too thought they made the right choice. But their unwillingness to consider African-American coaches became a PR problem for them, and so they had to institute policies to force teams to consider hiring people they were less familiar with.
There’s Don Cherry’s bigotry…And then there’s the subtle bias that virtually every human being possesses – and that subtle bias is enough to create the situation we have today.
You are Right, but You're Also Wrong
Here’s the thing, French-Canadians are being systematically eliminated from the NHL. But not the way that everyone thinks they are. The NHL is set-up now for successful teams to have scoring relied on by your top-6 forwards. The bottom-6 are generally responsible for either playing physical, or being able to defend well on either the PK or protect a late lead. Excluding enforcers, how many French-Canadians are there / would you want to be your grinders / defensive specialists? Not many, I would assume. It’s just not the way the game is played in Quebec (not just the QMJHL, but hockey all over Quebec, from kids to people in their early 20’s). I like to think of Quebec as comparable to Russia. Generally, their game is about high-end skill and really beautiful hockey. They aren’t the most physical, but they don’t avoid checking either. And a lot of times they rely on good goaltending to make up for some of the risk-taking that they do on offence and in transition. Now, while this is great hockey in its own regard, it isn’t the way that the NHL is played today, for better or worse. There is a system that all teams employ (for those players who aren’t supremely gifted scorers, a la Dany Heatley) that requires defensive awareness, as well as a willingness to go into the corners to fight for puck and get into areas that could easily result in a few bruises. And that’s something that more people from the OHL and WHL (who aren’t top-6 forwards) are more willing to do than people from the Q. And while I don’t have facts to back that up, I do have logic. If there was a player out in the FA market, who was a solid contributor offensively, was good defensively and was willing to go into the corners and park himself in front of the net, you’d sign him. Regardless of where he’s from, if he can clearly help you win, and he’s better at everything that another one of your 3rd liners (and wants to fill that role), why wouldn’t you sign him. The ultimate goal is the Stanley Cup right? Not to alienate a certain segment of a population because of some reason that absolutely nobody has yet to say, much less prove [you can say that less French-Canadians in the NHL is a bias, but unless you can prove it, it’s just a conspiracy theory].
I’d like to point everyone to this site [ http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/article/there-is-no-anti-french-bias.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=955&cHash=389baaf380 ] for a different statistical analysis on the situation.
And how, in your analysis, did you come to the conclusion that there is a bias against French-Canadian players? As I said, for the 3rd and 4th liner roles, it’s about the players who can give the most effort defensively (and provide some offence) or who are overtly physical that get those jobs. If you’re a player from Quebec who’s only capable of putting up 30 points (an average 3rd liner, I’d say), isn’t that physical, plays like Dany Heatley in his own end, but can stick-handle in a phone-booth; you aren’t likely to get a job as a 3rd or 4th liner. Possibly you’d get signed to an AHL team to see if you can improve your offence, but no team would want a liability like that on their NHL team, especially not when there are players availible who may only be capable of 20 points, but can defend like nobody’s business (think Ryan Johnson of Vancouver). The NHL is set up so that you need offence and defence on your team. Otherwise, good luck winning, or you better have a goalie about as good as Martin Brodeur + Roberto Luongo.
by Belligerent Burkie on Oct 23, 2009 2:33 AM EDT reply actions
Thanks for the lengthy reply.
A few points:
“Excluding enforcers, how many French-Canadians are there / would you want to be your grinders / defensive specialists? Not many, I would assume. It’s just not the way the game is played in Quebec…their game is about high-end skill and really beautiful hockey…”
I’ve heard this a lot and I don’t buy it. Maybe it was true in 1984 or 1974, but from 1989-90 to 1997-98, the OHL was the higher scoring league of the two, as it is today. And between 1980-81 and 1996-97, the WHL was by far the highest-scoring league of the three. You could explain this away with goaltending if the QMJHL had one outlier low-scoring season, but you can’t have offense-first hockey and low scoring for an entire decade or longer – the two are incompatible.
It also doesn’t say a lot about NHL development programs if teams don’t think they can take a big skilled 17-year-old kid – people aren’t smaller in Quebec than they are in Ontario, after all – and turn him into a professional player by Age 24. Only they do – they draft 20% fewer guys in the 85th-96th percentile in scoring, not 95% fewer.
“And that’s something that more people from the OHL and WHL (who aren’t top-6 forwards) are more willing to do than people from the Q. And while I don’t have facts to back that up, I do have logic.”
I can’t argue with no facts.
“you can say that less French-Canadians in the NHL is a bias, but unless you can prove it, it’s just a conspiracy theory. And how, in your analysis, did you come to the conclusion that there is a bias against French-Canadian players?”
I think I made it pretty clear, in both official languages!
I took every single player who played in the QMJHL, OHL and WHL from 1981 to 2009 and normalized his scoring stats in his draft year to a league with 3 goals per game, 1.7 assists per goal and 82 games per season. I looked at the top 4% in overall scoring in each league and found no difference in how likely they were to get drafted.
Then I looked at the next 11% of each league, and found that players from the QMJHL were 20% less likely to be drafted, and 50-70% less likely to be NHL regulars at age 24 even though they scored just as much as the OHL and WHL players. That represents a bias – whether it’s conscious or unconscious.
“I’d like to point everyone to this site [ ”http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/article/there-is-no-anti-french-bias.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=955&cHash=389baaf380" target="_blank">http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/article/there-is-no-anti-french-bias.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=955&cHash=389baaf380 ] for a different statistical analysis on the situation."
This article looks at (among other things) minor hockey league registrations in 2005-06 in Quebec and Ontario (even though we’re talking about guys who were drafted in 1981, but that’s a different issue.) Phil Birnbaum debunks the use of minor hockey registrations to predict NHL careers at his site: (point #2)
http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/2009/10/premature-accusations-of-anti-french.html
The author of this article also claims:
“If, as Sirois states, French-Canadians are perceived to be lazy defensively, who is to blame for their reduced numbers? Today’s game is…about two-way hockey, and if French-Canadians are unwilling to backcheck, why should they be given a spot on a team just because they can stickhandle in a phone booth?”
This is a horrible argument. The group in power decides that a minority group is “lazy.” And the minority group is to blame for the majority’s perception?
Look, it’s one thing for a coach from Ontario to say that he’s more familiar with a group of players from the OHL, and that he knows which of them has a strong work ethic, and so he thinks he has more of a sure thing going with one of them than with a QMJHL player. This is still bias, but it recognizes that it’s due to the coach lacking information. This denies players from Quebec a chance they should have had, but it can be corrected. Look at the “Rooney Rule” in the NFL – teams with head coaching vacancies have to at least make an effort to hire minority coaches rather than just hiring the guy they know. Like I said, this is still bias, but you can make the case that it’s not malicious.
But saying that French-Canadians or members of any other group are “lazy”? Smells like bigotry to me.
1. I’m not saying that the QMJHL is like a pond hockey league with goals every few minutes. I’m talking about the style of play. Alex Semin said in an interview with Puck Daddy that “in Russia people like beautiful hockey, and not dump and chase. I just don’t get it, why when a player is skating up the ice and no one is attacking him, he dumps the puck into the offensive zone and then chases it? Why would you do this if there is no one forechecking you? I understand that if there is someone coming at you and you don’t know whether you can get past that player, then you can dump the puck, pass it or shoot. But if not, then hold on to the puck, skate forward, create a chance.”
Does he mention anything about high-flying or 8-7 games? Nope. He’s talking about a style of play that’s different from the NHL’s common dump-and-chase (although more teams are swithching to a Detroit style offence). High-end skill doesn’t say that everybody can snipe, but it does say that you try to skate by other guys with the puck and make them look foolish, as opposed to dumping the puck and trying to outwork them for it – as is done by many teams and players in the NHL. And that’s what the Q is more about, skillful hockey – that is actually very entertaining to watch. But it does lack some of the physicality – sort of like an All-Star game, but with only 5-10 solid bodychecks.
2. You say that “I took every single player who played in the QMJHL, OHL and WHL from 1981 to 2009 and normalized his scoring stats in his draft year to a league with 3 goals per game, 1.7 assists per goal and 82 games per season. I looked at the top 4% in overall scoring in each league and found no difference in how likely they were to get drafted.”
Please, show me 1 team in the NHL that is completely filled with players whose main objective is to score goals, or set up goals. I think you’ll have a hard time finding that. Scoring isn’t the only thing that make people into NHL players. Look at Robyn Regehr and Mike Komisarek, they can barely get more points than a goalie can. Yet they are guys who get 20+ mintues per game because they can defend.
Let’s look at some forwards from last year:
Vancouver – Taylor Pyatt played almost 15 mintues per game last year, yet he couldn’t even put up 20 points. So he must be a solid defensive player, right? Otherwise he would be out of a job. No team will give 15 minutes a game to a player that can’t put up 40 points, much less 20; unless he can provide in an area not on a main box score.
San Jose – Mike Grier, 23 points, 15 mintues per game. Same as above.
Pittsburgh – Max Talbot and Pascal Dupuis – here we have some French-Canadians who aren’t of the top-6 variety, they put up 22 and 28 points respectively, both averaging slightly over 14 minutes per game. Here’s a good example of players who can’t score, but can play defensively being rewarded with ice time (and Pascal really can’t score, he played on Sid’s wing for a while and couldn’t score).
New Jersey – this team is littered with marginal offensive players who can contribute defensively; John Madden, Brendan Shanahan, Jay Pandolfo, David Clarkson and Bobby Holik. All of those guys averaged over 10 mintues per game, and all had less than 35 points.
Detroit – even these guys have some defensive stoppers in Darren Helm and Kris Draper, 12 minutes each, 1 and 17 points respectively (although Helm didn’t play in many games, but his role is pretty clearly defined).
Columbus – Andrew Murray (even heard of him?), Raffi Torres, Mike Peca, Manny Malhotra and Jason Chimera.
Chicago – Colin Fraser and Dustin Byfuglien.
Carolina – Ryan Bayda, Patrick Eaves, Scott Walker, Chad LaRose and Matt Cullen.
Calgary – Wayne Primeau, Dustin Boyd and Craig Conroy.
Buffalo – Paul Gaustad, Dominic Moore, Adam Mair and Clarke MacArthur.
Boston – Stephane Yelle, PJ Axelsson, Patrice Bergeron (can produce, but didn’t last year, but they kept putting him out there for 18 minutes a game. Must have been doing something else right).
Anaheim – Mike Brown, Drew Miller, Brendan Morrison, Andrew Ebbett, Todd Marchant, Travis Moen, Rob Niedermayer, Sammy Pahlson (18:30 minutes per game for a guy who puts up 5 goals and 10 assists. If this doesn’t prove to you that defence earns ice time, then nothing will).
You see the defensive player argument yet? Clearly successful teams are made up of those who can score, those who can defend and those who can do both. If you can do both (Ryan Kesler, Mike Richards) you will get much more playing time than an average offensive or defensive player would. It just makes sense, doesn’t it? And if there are French-Canadians out there, currently toiling in the minors or un-employed, who can do both, why wouldn’t you hire them, especially if they can help your team.
3. The Canadian team at the World Juniors.
Not having as many QMJHL players, as would be reccomended by statistical distributions would be a problem, had the Canadian team not WON the LAST 5 TOURNAMENTS! If you win the gold, clearly you could not have done much better, right? In order to win gold, you need talent, work ethic and character. And if any QMJHL player has all of those qualities, they would likely be taken, wouldn’t they?
4. The likelyhood of a bias.
I have no stats for this argument, and if you can’t argue without stats, well then don’t bother reading.
Coaches and General Managers are only as valuable to a team as their last year or so of work. So if your team is struggling in any area, and there is a player availible who can help improve your team, you’d take him, wouldn’t you? It doesn’t matter if you have a deep-seeded hatred for French-Canadians, if one of them can save your job, you’d do it in a heart-beat.
Conversely for a coach, if you have a French-Canadian in your line-up who has limited minutes, but he’s been solid whenever you’ve played him, you’d increase his minutes, right? Assuming of course that you are not currently the best team in the leauge, in which case, don’t mess with a formula that works.
Let’s look at owners. They like money. Making it to the playoffs makes them money. Winning the Cup makes them the most extra money possible. If there’s a French-Canadian out there that can help your team win the cup, you’ll agree with your coach and GM that he should be on the team, whether you like or dislike French-Canadians. There’s no way that an owner would choose keeping a French-Canadian out of a job over raking in a huge amount of extra profits.
Any questions now?
by Belligerent Burkie on Oct 23, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
On Alex Semin: he played in the RSL while the offensive level there was 21% higher than the NHL. That’s why the game felt wide open. And one anecdote from one outspoken player does not the truth make.
On Draft Picks:
“Please, show me 1 team in the NHL that is completely filled with players whose main objective is to score goals, or set up goals.” and gave me a list of 38 players who have basically always been defensive forwards, 18 of whom were Canadians who played Tier I junior.
Niedermayer, Walker, Torres, Macarthur – all put up a lot of points in their draft year even after you adjust for offensive levels. They would be in the >82 points in junior category. Bergeron, Pyatt, Primeau, Talbot, Peca, Malhotra, Fraser – still reasonable offense. They would be in the 57-82 category.
Dupuis, Mair, Boyd, Chimera, Helm, Yelle, Moen – below 57 adjusted points. But they’re all big guys.
So seven out of 38 guys you identified played junior in Canada and didn’t have obvious top 15% offensive talent at age 17. Even defensive forwards score in junior – using points per game at that age is a reasonable way to identify potential 3rd and 4th liners.
World Juniors:
“In order to win gold, you need talent, work ethic and character. And if any QMJHL player has all of those qualities, they would likely be taken, wouldn’t they?”
Why does that follow? If a coach prefers OHL players, then he’s more likely to pick OHL players. And he may fully believe that he’s picking the best players, even though because of his natural human biases he passed over QMJHL players who were just as good or perhaps slightly better.
General Managers exploit inefficiencies; Greedy Owners like to make money
As I wrote in the piece, the impact of cutting your 14th-best player and replacing him with your 19th-best player is very small. We’re not talking about somebody magically getting Tretiak to defect in 1975.
And what if a GM’s unconscious bias makes him think the 19th best guy is the 14th-best, and the 14th-best is 19th?
Then he firmly believes that he is making the right decision, and he has the owner’s backing – so both the GM and the owner are acting rationally even though they cut a guy who should have made the team.
Alex Semin:
He knows a hell of a lot more about how the game is actually played in the NHL, RSL and KHL than either of us. So his word holds some weight with me.
Draft picks:
Can you please acknowledge the defensive aspect of the game? Everything you’ve said revolves around scoring, but that isn’t everything in the NHL. Sammy Pahlsson is putrid when it comes to offence, but he gets 18:30 of ice time per game. So how about some stats for players like him and Ryan Johnson; hits, shots blocked, takeaways and face off %. That will provide a better picture.
And, better yet, I just thought of something that brings down the value of your offence-first statistics; Rickard Wallin. This guy was known for his offence during his first time in the NHL, but he was a marginal offensive player (like many of the players in the O, W and Q who aren’t taken in the first 2 or 3 rounds), and within a season or two, he was playing in Europe and out of a job in the NHL. While in Europe, it dawned on him that he could better help his team by playing better in his own end. So over the next few years, he concentrated on defence, and he became one of the team’s best defensive-forwards. Fast-forward to late last season, and everybody’s watching his team play – not for him, but for Jonas Gustavsson. One scout, however, notices his strong 2-way play and strongly recommended to Burke that he try to sign him in the off-season, along with the Monster. Low and behold, Wallin is back in the NHL. He’s still the same marginal offensive player he was a few years back with the Wild, but now he has a job in the NHL because of his commitment to defence. And Burke is not the type of person to sign marginal offensive players with no defence – especially from Europe.
World Juniors:
You’re right, my logic doesn’t have to hold true, but the coaches do have their reputations on the line. Imagine how a coach would look now if the Canadian team didn’t even get a medal? He probably wouldn’t get a job in the NHL, and if his team struggled the next year, he could very well be out of a job.
Another thing that dawned on me, the Canadian Junior roster actually isn’t made up of the best 23 players in Canadian Junior hockey. It’s built like an NHL team – 2 scoring lines, a strong 2-way line (but defence still comes first), and some physical players with some offensive upside. Look at Jordin Tootoo and Steve Downie. Would these guys have likely made the team in an offense-first team concept? Probably not. But they clearly brought something to the team that nobody else could match.
Like I said before too, they’ve won 5 straight gold medals. Clearly they’re picking the best teams aren’t they? The Russians always field great teams, same with Sweden. And the USA is definitely doing well now with their junior program. So picking the best players for this tournament seems like a logical way to go.
GM’s and Owners:
I can guarantee you that there is at least 1 NHL GM who does not have a bias against French-Canadian players – the Montreal Canadiens GM (not Bob Gainey specifically, but any GM for that team, same with the Nordiques back in the day). If you didn’t have many French-Canadian players on the Canadiens, and you didn’t win the Cup, or at least make it to the Conference Finals, the fans would call for your head on a platter.
Now, with that out of the way. Let’s say that in fact, many French-Canadiens are being cut for no good reason. Ok, so better players are being pushed to the way-side in favour of people from other parts of Canada, the States or Europe. So that would probably give Montreal the best and most talented checking lines in the NHL, right? I don’t think they have either of those things in their bottom-6 forwards.
Why are you talking about the 19th and 14th best players? If that’s just forwards, then we’re talking about non-roster guys, or maybe the 23rd man. And job or not, you aren’t going to be seeing much ice time in the NHL. If it’s all players on a team we’re talking about, then there is a difference. That’s a 3rd line forward in that case. There is a big difference between a 3rd line forward, and a 4th liner or extra player. Your 3rd liners are generally counted on to be your top defensive (there it is again, as much as you seem to ignore it) forwards, one of your better centreman is usually there (i.e. john madden), be a physical player and have a willingness to do the little things that others might not. Now, if you want to play your 4th liners on your 3rd line, and have non-roster players on your 4th line, good luck.
Now, you might argue that the 3rd liner probably won’t win you any more games than a 4th liner, but that’s not the way to look at it. When it comes to those guys, it’s who will lose you the fewest games that matter. Just because a guy isn’t winning you any games doesn’t mean he isn’t helping out the team (again; hits, blocked shots (even if it’s 1 or 2), face-offs and PK).
And what’s about greedy owners? You do know that owners make ridiculously more for winning the Cup than they do for fielding a team that is barely over the cap. Plus, the difference in salary between a 3rd liner and 4th liner is negligible, once you take into account the extra revenue that 3rd liner will create by helping your team advance to or through the playoffs. If an owner was truly greedy, s/he would seek out the players who give to the team way more than they receive, and not just the players who get little. In many cases you get what you pay for, but for plenty of other difference makers, you get more from them than it would seem like.
by Belligerent Burkie on Oct 23, 2009 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions
In one breath Semin’s perhaps brilliant, in another, he’s saying Sidney Crosby’s nothing special. That doesn’t give him much credibility.
At any rate, I don’t see much point in continuing this with you. I’ve developed all kinds of tools for evaluating defense, but we don’t have the necessary data to use them on junior leagues. Otherwise, I’ve answered your claims as best I can.
- You claimed that players don’t player defense in the QMJHL; I pointed out that goal-scoring has often been lower in the QMJHL than in the OHL, and was lower than the WHL during the 1980s.
- You noted that Semin didn’t understand the strategy in the NHL and claimed that nobody plays defense in the Russian League either. I pointed out that the Russian League had 21% higher offense than the NHL when Semin played there, so the difference is expected. If the QMJHL was 21% higher-scoring than the OHL, I would concede your point.
- You gave me a list of defensive forwards, and of the 50% who came from Tier I junior, I pointed out that most of them were actually reasonably big scorers as 17-year-olds, which suggests that dividing players into groups based on their junior scoring is reasonable.
- You cited an article elsewhere that claimed minor hockey enrollments indicated that Quebec was producing NHL players in the expected proportions. I passed along Phil Birnbaum’s comments about how minor hockey doesn’t necessarily translate to pro players.
- You asked why there isn’t some huge market inefficiency involving excess Quebec players that GMs and owners would obviously take advantage of. I gave you an example of the scenario that they face, and estimated that the number of wins they give up is small so there’s no incentive to change.
We can go round in circles with this notion that players from Quebec are lazy and don’t play defense – so they don’t make the team; if they weren’t lazy, they’d make the team; so they must be lazy. That’s a tautology, and it can’t be disproved.
If you have some analysis to contribute – say you looked up every team since 1967 and found that the more 3rd and 4th liners you had from Quebec, the worse you did; or you found that marginal players from Quebec fail to make the jump from the QMJHL to the AHL more often than players from other leagues – I’m all ears. But arguments that proceed from the notion than entire groups are lazy or that greedy businessmen behave optimally will never prove your point.
Yep, there’s defenitely a French-Canadian bias. Everybody hates the frogs. Death to Quebec is a common notion I run into while following hockey. In fact, they even built it in to the new NHL 10 game to add to the realism. It’s great too, no French-Canadian player with a rating of less than 80 is signed by an NHL team except for Montreal, and nobody from Quebec gets drafted in the game except for 1st and 2nd rounders. Gotta love realism. Even better is the fact that during the Olympic break, only goalies from Quebec are selected to play for Canada, even though Vinny Lecavailer is good enough to make it. And the new “prospects game” feature has 0 QMJHL players from the North American team, that way it better represents the “best” players from Canada and the States.
As you may have been able to tell, I’ve given up. There’s just no convincing you. Sticking with offensive statistics when they really only apply to offensive defenceman and top-6 forwards, and maybe some other defenceman who aren’t considered offensive, but can also contribute more than an average defender – while not being a defensive laibility.
And this is really an argument that niether of us can prove. Your inference of why I think QMJHL players don’t make it unless they’re Simon Gagne – types can’t be proven or disproven – there’s no good tangible way to measure effort. And talking about offense, when according to you, you’ve “developed all kinds of tools for evaluating defense, but we don’t have the necessary data to use them on junior leagues.” And from that, nobody can really evaluate the bottom-6 forwards, and what their contributions are/could be based on playing time or being given the chance to play; whether they’re from Europe, USA, the OHL, WHL or QMJHL.
Also, I’d appreciate you not twisting my words, especially when what you want to quote is readily availible above your writing. Did you see what I did in the previous paragraph? I quoted you, using the actual quote, and not my own personal recollection of what you said. Your 3rd and 4th paragraphs mis-represent what I said. Especially the Semin one. I didn’t even mention anything close to what you said in your 4th paragraph.
by Belligerent Burkie on Oct 23, 2009 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re right. I can’t be convinced – by conjecture with no evidence to back it up. I can’t be convinced by arguments that start from logical fallacies like your appeals to the authority of GMs and owners.
There’s quantitative evidence that some players from Quebec have reduced opportunities to play in the NHL. If you have a way to analyze the available data to show that they deserve to not get the opportunity, I’m all ears.
But linking to a “statistical study” that claims fewer French-Canadians play in the NHL because they’re “lazy”? Who is that going to convince?
I'm not sure roles can explain everything
(I first posted this on MC79 comments section) I used the 2006-07 NHL bio file, I pulled out players who started at least 41 games to distinguish regulars from guys getting cups of coffee. Then I broke them down into average time on ice quintiles for forwards, thirds for defense. For goalies I used Game Played to separate out starters from backups.
If you look at the distribution of Quebec-born players, their highest % is on the 2nd the 3rd line ice time categories, not 1st line or 4th line.
Here is the % born in Quebec by ice time role in 2006-07:
6.7% 1st line forward TOI (6/90)
11.1% 2nd line forward TOI (10/90)
10.0% 3rd line forward TOI (9/90)
7.6% 4th line forward TOI (8/105)
5.0% 1st D pairing TOI
1.7% 2nd D pairing TOI (1/60)
6.8% 3rd D pairing TOI (3/73)
16.7% Starting Goalie (41+GP) (5/30)
24.2% Backup Goalie (>41 GP) (8/33)
All things Thrashers + stats: www.birdwatchersanonymous.com
by The Falconer on Oct 23, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm Surprised
That goalies are below 40%, given how well the Q produces goalies, and the fact that Quebec is pretty much a goalie manufacturer.
Also for the French bias – anybody remember Guy Hebert? His name is actually pronounced Guy He-bert. He’s from New York (I think, somewhere in America for sure), but everyone saw his name and thought it was pronounced like a French name, as in Guy Lafleur. He let everyone believe that. Which apparently worked out for him. Strange that a person would allow many people to believe that he was from a section of populatoin that was being eleminated from the NHL, especially being an average starter and not a Brodeur type.
by Belligerent Burkie on Oct 23, 2009 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
this is horrifically anecdotal comment to leave on a stats blog, but it’s an addenda to your comments about don cherry. i’m american, but i lived in montreal for three years and have been in a heavily canadian expat community for the last two, and it has always surprised me how many anglo canadians are utterly shameless in their ethnic stereotyping of french canadians- in hockey and in other things. it frequently attains levels that would be considered racist in the united states, but people i’ve met seem to feel it’s justified. i would rather expect that it has a real influence on the perception of hockey players among coaches and managers, but it also wouldn’t surprise me if a large proportion of anglo canadians refused to believe it.
it’s a peculiarity of canadian society that i will never understand. the country is home to one of the world’s most unique microcultures, in an age when such sub-state ethno-linguistic identities are dying off nearly everywhere, yet rather than appreciating it as a totally irreplaceable thing that makes canada literally twice as interesting as it would otherwise be, i meet all these ontarians and westerners who treat quebec like an annoyance at best and a traumatic burden at worst. it’s depressing.
rant over, back to the quantitative reasoning…
by ephemeromorphia on Oct 26, 2009 12:36 PM EDT reply actions
I’m sure a public opinion poll of attitudes towards Quebec would bear out your experiences. Not that the bigotry doesn’t run both ways – Jacques Parizeau embodied the prejudices of many of his supporters – but it is not the minority’s responsibility to make sure that they are treated fairly by the majority. The NFL recognized this with coaches and did something about it.
I think merely recognizing the existence of natural human biases towards people who are similar to them would go a long way here. I don’t see why it’s a big deal. We all have prejudices. Coaches from Ontario like players from Ontario; it’s generally not intentional or malevolent. And I don’t think anybody’s asking the NHL to actually do something about it.
Forgive me if this has already come up in one of the walls of text y’all have been dropping here, but…couldn’t it be as simple as, given the choice between two similar grinders, the NHL coach is more likely to pick the one who speaks his language?
Not saying it’s right or wrong, or anything, just that it might explain the rather blatant discrepancy between Q representation and W/O representation among the grinder-and-goon class?
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Speaking to this point I wonder what the results would be if you ran the same analysis for other countries. That might show that it has more to do with comfort level than with an effort to discriminate against Francophones.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
I would guess the familiarity issue (which is still discrimination) accounts for most of these differences. You also have some self-selection with Europeans. A Swede might decide he’s happier making more money and playing on the PP in the SEL than scrapping it out for a spot on the 4th line on a two-way contract. You know his wife would be happier back in Sweden. You just don’t have that effect with guys from Quebec.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
