Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!absary
From: absary@watmath.UUCP (Al Sary)
Newsgroups: net.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Re: Let's give some respect to the Vancouver Canucks
Message-ID: <16826@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 12-Oct-85 13:19:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.16826
Posted: Sat Oct 12 13:19:12 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Oct-85 04:38:21 EDT
References: <7564@watrose.UUCP> <664@alberta.UUCP> <7569@watrose.UUCP> <669@alberta.UUCP> <7586@watrose.UUCP> <1704@dciem.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 37

> > Well, I guess what you mean here is that a team's current ability
> > should be based on their previous year's performance.
> > 
> > I don't know if I agree with that totally.  Sure the previous year indicates
> > something.  However, I think a team's past few years may give you a better
> > indication of what you can expect from a team.
> 
> I disagree.  When a team has a year like the Canucks or Rangers had last year,
> a lot of people will say, "they had a bad year; they're really a much better
> team than their record last season indicates.  They'll return to their previous
> level this year."  However, it just doesn't work that way.  The record over an
> 80 game season is a pretty good indication of the direction in which the team
> is heading.  The Chicago Black Hawks were a great team in 82/83, but they
> followed it with a terrible 83/84.  Everyone said, "they were just unlucky.
> They had a bad year and a lot of injuries.  They'll be great again in 84/85."
> Well, they were better, but nowhere near as good as in 83/84.[you mean 82/83]

I think you are saying the same thing as I was.  Where were the Chicago Black
Hawks in the years previous to 82/83 (just as an aside, they finished behind
the Canucks in 82, which tells you the story).  The Hawks have not been
performing too well for years, so I am not surprised that they could not keep
up their one year good performance. (but again, the reasons are arguable)

> I know not everyone agrees with me, and we could argue back and forth about it
> forever, so if anyone disagrees, there's no need to say anything unless you
> can name some teams that have come back to their former level after one bad
> year.

Or after one good year.  You just gave an example of that above.

I know somebody has already said this, but I don't expect the Flyers to
do as well as they did last year (although I hope I am wrong, and they
win the Stanley cup because I really like Bobby Clark).

Anyways, this is a discussion group (I think) so why not exchange ideas
(but some people may not agree with this either).