PDA

View Full Version : This is one young division this year



Warrior Fan
01-16-2007, 12:29 PM
Prince Albert
2 -86
4-87
8-88
8-89
2-90

Moose Jaw
86-3
87-4
88-6
89-5
90-4

Saskatoon
86-3
87-0
88-8
89-9
90-3

Brandon
86-3
87-10
88-4
89-6
90-1

Regina
86-3
87-4
88-11
89-4
90-2

Swift Current
86-3
87-4
88-7
89-6
90-4

I would have to say that the Blades and Warriors are the youngest teams in the division but in all honesty i can see the math working out to a difference of less than .5... That is a small difference considerall the teams are fairly loaded with talent 18 years and younger.

This Division is going to do very well in the upcoming seasons.

witness
01-16-2007, 01:22 PM
Brandon will have a significant turnover of players next year.

Blades 4 Life!
01-16-2007, 01:39 PM
This is going to be the Toughest divisions in the next couple years. Next year and years to come are going to be so close and one team one or two teams are not going to maek it in the playoffs which so go.

Warrior Fan
01-16-2007, 02:49 PM
Just to see how young all the teams really are. Coaching is really going to be a big issue over the next couple of years. I know the Warriors have another 2 17 year olds to add(16 this season) I also know they will be looking at adding 3 91's next season. I just don't see where there is room to do it.

Warrior Fan
01-16-2007, 05:59 PM
It could really get to be some good hockey. Raiders/Kings are going to be weak on the backend though. Tending and D.

Triton
01-18-2007, 03:08 PM
Amie is going to be a great tender , and we dont loose a defencemen next year and have to find room for a bery good button to play on the backend the raiders wont be weak anywhere next year, they may be weak at d the year after that but are very deep at forward that year to go get backend help

I don't think May will be back.I think we will see the same thing happen as what took place with Byers moving on.

grainbear
01-18-2007, 08:51 PM
i just completed an anylsis of all the teams in terms of age , here are the results for all teams doing an average with the total # of players on the current rosters, including any 15 year olds that are currently up on the WHL rosters. Lowest average age by team in order .


Swift Current 17.04 years old
Portland 17.29
Kelowna 17.54
Seattle 17.67
Chilliwack 17.81
PA 17.83
Calgary 17.88
Spokane 17.92
Moose Jaw 17.92
Vanc 18.00
Kamloops 18.00
Lethbridge 18.08
Regina 18.08
Red Deer 18.14
Saskatoon 18.20
Everett 18.21
PG 18.25
Koot 18.27
Med Hat 18.33
Brandon 18.33
TC 18.87

Warrior Fan
01-19-2007, 10:36 AM
i just completed an anylsis of all the teams in terms of age , here are the results for all teams doing an average with the total # of players on the current rosters, including any 15 year olds that are currently up on the WHL rosters. Lowest average age by team in order .


Swift Current 17.04 years old
Portland 17.29
Kelowna 17.54
Seattle 17.67
Chilliwack 17.81
PA 17.83
Calgary 17.88
Spokane 17.92
Moose Jaw 17.92
Vanc 18.00
Kamloops 18.00
Lethbridge 18.08
Regina 18.08
Red Deer 18.14
Saskatoon 18.20
Everett 18.21
PG 18.25
Koot 18.27
Med Hat 18.33
Brandon 18.33
TC 18.87

No way this can be accurate. Look at the age breakdown I did above on how many players at each age group it is impossible for SC to be that young. LOL

CHtoo
01-19-2007, 02:35 PM
Going by the roster against Seattle the average age was 17.6.
If you add in the injured roster players it's 17.68.
If you take out the "AP" players and average the roster it comes to 18.00.


Not getting into years and months just the posted age.
nhl3

grainbear
01-19-2007, 06:22 PM
Gentlemen

I am not going to argue with the comments, I simply took the players on all the teams on the WHL web site the day before I did the calculations. Any player listed as 86 was give a 20 age, 87 was a 19, 88 was a 18 , 89 was a 17 and 90 was a 16 and yes that day there were a couple of teams with 91 listed and called them 15. I took the number of players in each year multiply by the age as shown above. Then I divided by the total number of players on the roster that day. You can argue about how I did it that fine but don,t question the accuracy , I have been in accounting for too many years to listen to people who never do their homework . If I made an error show how based on the methodology , lets compare apples for apples . I was shocked by the results myself because I thought the Canes had a young team and I see that we are in the middle of the pack .

Five Hole
01-20-2007, 08:57 AM
Count Players That Are There For The Year Not Fill Ins, All Teams Will Have Aps But They Arent Regular Players


Year Born - #of Players
86 - 3 = 258
87 - 4 = 348
88 - 7 = 616 = 2116 Divided By 24 Players
89 - 6 = 534 = 88.16
90 - 4 = 360

You're totaling up the birth years and dividing by the number of players. Doing it that way, the 'average' player was born in 1988 +.16... not sure what that means other than the average player is an 18 year old, in WHL terms.

taking your same example and using grainbear's methodology (converting birth years to age first and then dividing by the number of players) it comes out to 17.83.
I'd agree grainbear's method is the correct way to do it... your's is accurate too , but it's just looking at it from a different perspective.
Just goes to show 'ya, numbers don't lie, but you CAN make them say different things! :D :confused:

mjwfan
01-20-2007, 01:37 PM
I think we should call in a Math Teacher and figure this out . besides who cares if we are out a month or so .

Scout
01-20-2007, 03:19 PM
Here is the age breakdown of the Broncos. We are carrying 3-20 year-old, 4-19 year-olds, 7-18 year-olds, 6-17 year-olds and 2-16 year-olds. These are not affiliate players but are players who have made the club. Because of injuries they are right now carrying another 16 year-old and 2-15 year-olds. After the game last night in Moose Jaw, R.J. and McAvoy went down with injuries. So two more go down.
Scout

grainbear
01-20-2007, 04:25 PM
I have just rechecked all my calculations, and I did make an error on Swift Current Missed adding in 1 15 year old. The correct average age for Speedy Creek should be 17.61 . years . Used total of years of 443 when it should have been 458 / 26 players for correct average of 17.61. Just like our players who once in a while make a mistake and it costs us I did the same. Better me then the Canes however, once again sorry guys !