Share.

    8 Comments

    1. Honestly this is showing me that there is very little if any correlation between tax rate and cup drought. R2 value of .3328 shows very loose or no correlation

    2. This data would be much more interesting with a COL analysis, but even still, the data set is not particularly useful. I can immediately identify California as a fan, but that drought was 45 years originally. STL was 50 years until it wasn’t. Canada’s long standing drought strongly impacts this, but mot analysis, even in Kings winning era that considered COL and taxes vs salary cap, management of the Canadian teams was a much bigger influence. They’re simply stale, they have their markets held hostage, know they’ll sell enough merch regardless of performance, and are unmotivated to be leaner and more aggressive. Florida and Vegas recent performance is a whole other bag of worms for this data set that may mark a trend, but Vegas is also the result of a much different expansion draft. Anyway, while I believe COL and Taxes do play a role, this chart isn’t using the right data to show it.

    3. Sick_Pangolin_369 on

      Interesting general observation but hard to track with 30 observations, many of which haven’t had 50 years of actual history as an NHL team to actually refer to

    4. tripping_on_phonics on

      It would be interesting to compare this across multiple sports and see if the correlation still exists.

    5. I think the better way to do this would be studying how far each team makes it in the playoffs each year vs tax rate, not something as arbitrary as cup droughts.

      A lot of luck goes into a cup win, but consistent deep playoffs means more.

      Plus now you’d have 30+ data point per season instead of just 32 data points total, which would yield much stronger results.