Back to the league's most successful franchises for some more analysis now.....just for the heck of it, I decided to take a look at regular season success as well. So, the WHL's most successful franchises based on average regular season points over the last five years:
| Team | 08-09 | 07-08 | 06-07 | 05-06 | 04-05 | Avg |
| Vancouver | 119 | 106 | 100 | 100 | 76 | 100.2 |
| Calgary | 122 | 99 | 85 | 101 | 83 | 98 |
| Medicine Hat | 79 | 93 | 107 | 103 | 96 | 95.6 |
| Kootenay | 78 | 92 | 104 | 94 | 104 | 94.4 |
| Brandon | 101 | 90 | 93 | 70 | 96 | 90 |
| Tri-City | 101 | 108 | 96 | 67 | 64 | 87.2 |
| Kelowna | 98 | 84 | 53 | 96 | 104 | 87 |
| Seattle | 75 | 91 | 88 | 76 | 91 | 84.2 |
| Everett | 63 | 81 | 111 | 85 | 77 | 83.4 |
| Saskatoon | 103 | 67 | 58 | 88 | 86 | 80.4 |
| Spokane | 95 | 107 | 80 | 58 | 58 | 79.6 |
| Lethbridge | 75 | 96 | 71 | 63 | 91 | 79.2 |
| Swift Current | 86 | 89 | 69 | 62 | 53 | 71.8 |
| Regina | 60 | 94 | 80 | 85 | 34 | 70.6 |
| Kamloops | 72 | 58 | 86 | 73 | 61 | 70 |
| Moose Jaw | 41 | 88 | 59 | 96 | 39 | 64.6 |
| Red Deer | 60 | 43 | 79 | 58 | 82 | 64.4 |
| Prince Albert | 67 | 57 | 60 | 61 | 71 | 63.2 |
| Edmonton | 67 | 55 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 61 |
| Prince George | 53 | 44 | 74 | 76 | 57 | 60.8 |
| Chilliwack | 45 | 65 | 57 | n/a | n/a | 55.7 |
| Portland | 43 | 25 | 37 | 72 | 80 | 51.4 |
If 100 points is considered the gold standard for a very successful season, the Vancouver Giants have averaged that number over the last five years. In fact, they've hit the century mark for four straight years now.
At the low end of the scale....well, apart from Edmonton and Chilliwack, who can be forgiven their low totals for being expansion teams, you have eight other teams that have not averaged .500, including the Cougars and Winter Hawks (I'll put the space in there because the space-less team hasn't played a game yet!) who have averaged worse than the expansion team(s).
And over the last ten years:
| Team | 03-04 | 02-03 | 01-02 | 00-01 | 99-00 | Avg |
| Kootenay | 74 | 83 | 83 | 100 | 102 | 91.4 |
| Calgary | 82 | 63 | 72 | 82 | 120 | 90.9 |
| Kelowna | 98 | 109 | 77 | 86 | 57 | 86.2 |
| Vancouver | 81 | 61 | 36 | n/a | n/a | 84.9 |
| Brandon | 68 | 98 | 92 | 72 | 59 | 83.9 |
| Everett | 80 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 82.8 |
| Swift Current | 79 | 86 | 97 | 95 | 101 | 81.7 |
| Medicine Hat | 92 | 67 | 66 | 56 | 54 | 81.3 |
| Red Deer | 85 | 105 | 100 | 114 | 73 | 79.9 |
| Spokane | 75 | 62 | 80 | 79 | 100 | 79.4 |
| Seattle | 65 | 94 | 53 | 69 | 80 | 78.2 |
| Kamloops | 78 | 84 | 85 | 79 | 78 | 75.4 |
| Tri-City | 76 | 48 | 72 | 57 | 57 | 74.6 |
| Regina | 59 | 69 | 92 | 85 | 75 | 73.3 |
| Lethbridge | 71 | 61 | 72 | 66 | 59 | 72.5 |
| Moose Jaw | 91 | 86 | 68 | 77 | 63 | 70.8 |
| Saskatoon | 27 | 85 | 62 | 48 | 79 | 70.3 |
| Prince George | 68 | 57 | 79 | 70 | 95 | 67.3 |
| Prince Albert | 87 | 62 | 57 | 43 | 65 | 63 |
| Edmonton | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 61 |
| Portland | 77 | 51 | 83 | 82 | 39 | 58.9 |
| Chilliwack | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 55.7 |
After comparing these charts to the ones of playoff success, I don't think there is a huge variation....teams that have consistently had some regular season success have generally also had some playoff success. No surprise there really, I guess....
UPDATE: A reader has thoughtfully compiled the complete records for the top teams over the last decade:
| W | L | T | OTL | SOL | Pts | |
| Kootenay | 413 | 219 | 42 | 11 | 15 | 894 |
| Calgary | 417 | 226 | 34 | 10 | 13 | 891 |
| Kelowna | 389 | 245 | 29 | 30 | 14 | 852 |
| Medicine Hat | 367 | 274 | 26 | 13 | 13 | 786 |
| Vancouver | 304 | 201 | 24 | 11 | 26 | 669 |
| Kamloops | 332 | 318 | 37 | 10 | 11 | 722 |
| Brandon | 359 | 260 | 17 | 15 | 17 | 767 |
| Spokane | 354 | 281 | 40 | 10 | 16 | 774 |
| Red Deer | 355 | 284 | 38 | 10 | 22 | 780 |
| Kamloops | 327 | 307 | 40 | 8 | 17 | 719 |
7 comments:
I am not suggesting Vancuver has not had a good team in the past five years but how many points did they get playing Chilliwack, Prince George, and Portland ?
Agreed, is there a way to do a strength of schedule?
The big problem I see with trying to analyze strength of schedule is that it varies from year to year. One season's doormats are the next season's contenders. So you would have to analyze each season individually and that is just a hell of a lot of work. I welcome anyone who wants to take a stab at it though. :-)
One other thing to point out there actually - this is a two-way street. Was Vancouver's record so good because they played weak teams so much, or were those weak teams' records so bad because they played good teams so much? A little bit of both, I'm sure?
Great stuff, except for a little kid stealing your work and posting it on the whl message board. What a sad thing, doesnt even give you credit and acts like he did all the work.
Yeah-- KBF is a real TOOL (with no tool) signed off by Moosey
For the record, KBF didn't steal anything from me. He contacted me and asked if I was interested in the overall records of the top teams.
He compiled those records himself and I have posted them here. I know he posted them on the message board too, but he compiled them himself so that's his right and he doesn't have to give me credit since it's not my work.
All is good here.
Hey nice try there boys. You couldn't look more retarded than you already do right now if you had a helmet and a gold medal from the special Olympics. Try again, this time without making yourselves look like dumbasses.
Post a Comment