Edmonton and Toronto both have top tier talent. Hasnt helped them. Boston is a good example

Marchand 3rd round pick
Bergeron 2nd Round pick
Pastranak 25th overall

Using the Flyers as an example is poor because we havent developed our prospects well
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

Here is an analogy of such logic, seen here for the umpteetnh time, which is essentially choosing the examples you want and not looking either at the ones you don't like or the odds.

"Its a bad idea to spend all that money on College. Gates dropped out. Zuckerberg dropped out. Musk dropped out. Ergo, for financial success, not going to college is no worse than going."

Did you watch it? Guy was untouched. Should not have been out there. Medical and training staff: also suck.
- iamscore2day

It was one of the weirder injuries I have seen. He didn't even seem to be moving that much.

http://media.silive.com/advance/photo/2012/05/art-auction-the-scream-2f91ac116e5bf217.jpg
- iamscore2day

Waiter, I will order whatever that lady is Munching.

There's nothing to disagree about lol. The numbers are the numbers.
- Tomahawk

The numbers do tend to be themselves, but which numbers are the ones being discussed? For the season, Risto is 2nd in CF%, XGF%, and HDCF% after Sanheim (ignoring Connaughton, Ellis, Zamula and York).

In the last 30 days, he is 3rd (Braun pips him).

In both ranges, he is better than Provorov.

This has to be the lowest. They're about to repeat missing the playoffs for the first time in almost thirty years, they're piling up double digit losing streaks, and honestly it feels like the trajectory for next season will be similarly downward.
- BulliesPhan87

I sincerely hope so. I doubt it though.

Scared to mention Colorado, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Chicago, or Washington? Think LA wins without Doughty? St Louis without Pietrangelo?
- FlyerFan3260

Tampa Bay:

Point 3rd round
Cirelli 3rd Round
Vaslievsiy 19th overall
Kucherov 2nd Round

St Louis:
RoR added via Trade
Schenn added via trade
Schwartz 14th overall
Tarasenko 16th overall

LA:
Kopitar 11th overall
Richards added via trade
Carter added via trade
I cant recall anyone else on the winning teams but Doughty was the only top 5 pick

WSH:
Wilson 16th overall
Kuznetsov 26th Overall
Carlson 27th Overall
I will give you Backstrom
Ovechkin generational

Pittsburgh got several 1st round picks two of which being generational players, they were awful for a long time

Chicago like Pittsburgh was awful for a long time

Colorado hasnt won anything

These teams had top 5 picks but as you can see they also drafted well late and also added pieces via trade or FA to be successful

You will notice most the teams above only have 1-2 top 5 picks. Flyers also had 2 top 5 picks. JVR and Nolan Patrick so clearly its not about when guys are drafted

Tampa Bay:

Point 3rd round
Cirelli 3rd Round
Vaslievsiy 19th overall
Kucherov 2nd Round

St Louis:
RoR added via Trade
Schenn added via trade
Schwartz 14th overall
Tarasenko 16th overall

LA:
Kopitar 11th overall
Richards added via trade
Carter added via trade
I cant recall anyone else on the winning teams but Doughty was the only top 5 pick

WSH:
Wilson 16th overall
Kuznetsov 26th Overall
Carlson 27th Overall
I will give you Backstrom
Ovechkin generational

Pittsburgh got several 1st round picks two of which being generational players, they were awful for a long time

Chicago like Pittsburgh was awful for a long time

Colorado hasnt won anything

These teams had top 5 picks but as you can see they also drafted well late and also added pieces via trade or FA to be successful
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

you forgot jon quick

Here is an analogy of such logic, seen here for the umpteetnh time, which is essentially choosing the examples you want and not looking either at the ones you don't like or the odds.

"Its a bad idea to spend all that money on College. Gates dropped out. Zuckerberg dropped out. Musk dropped out. Ergo, for financial success, not going to college is no worse than going."
- PT21

You've badly misread what his logic is. His logic is not that it's the best way or the best odds. His logic is simply that it is possible.

you forgot jon quick

- 2Real

Quick was a 3rd round pick as well

The numbers do tend to be themselves, but which numbers are the ones being discussed? For the season, Risto is 2nd in CF%, XGF%, and HDCF% after Sanheim (ignoring Connaughton, Ellis, Zamula and York).

In the last 30 days, he is 3rd (Braun pips him).

In both ranges, he is better than Provorov.
- PT21

Defensive numbers. CA/60 SA/60 GA/60 xGA/60 SCA/60 HDCA/60

You should know better with sample size and 30 days.

[quote=xShoot4WarAmpsx]Tampa Bay:

Point 3rd round
Cirelli 3rd Round
Vaslievsiy 19th overall
Kucherov 2nd Round

Add the name you omitted, Hedman.

Now, lets say those 5 names are the critical pieces without which Tampa does not win any of their 2 recent cups. (Just choose Hedman and any other 4, same logic)

Now look at how those pieces were obtained. 1 (20%) came from the top 5. The remaining 4 came from all over the draft, of which there are (7×31)- 5 = 212 possibilities.

212 possibilities gave you 4 of the top 5 players. Success ratio for generating any one of the top 5 players critical to a cup run = 1/53.

5 possibilities (top 5 of draft) gave you 1 of the top 5 players. Success ratio for generating any one of the top 5 players critical to a cup run =1/5

Ergo, you have over 10 times the likelihood of getting one of the top 5 players critical to a cup run from the top 5 of the draft than you do from outside it.

[quote=xShoot4WarAmpsx]Tampa Bay:

Point 3rd round
Cirelli 3rd Round
Vaslievsiy 19th overall
Kucherov 2nd Round

Add the name you omitted, Hedman.

Now, lets say those 5 names are the critical pieces without which Tampa does not win any of their 2 recent cups. (Just choose Hedman and any other 4, same logic)

Now look at how those pieces were obtained. 1 (20%) came from the top 5. The remaining 4 came from all over the draft, of which there are (7×31)- 5 = 212 possibilities.

212 possibilities gave you 4 of the top 5 players. Success ratio for generating any one of the top 5 players critical to a cup run = 1/53.

5 possibilities (top 5 of draft) gave you 1 of the top 5 players. Success ratio for generating any one of the top 5 players critical to a cup run =1/5

Ergo, you have over 10 times the likelihood of getting one of the top 5 players critical to a cup run from the top 5 of the draft than you do from outside it.
- PT21

Again, you fail to understand that the posters point is not disputing that the best odds of getting a top player is with a top 5 pick.

[quote=xShoot4WarAmpsx]Tampa Bay:

Point 3rd round
Cirelli 3rd Round
Vaslievsiy 19th overall
Kucherov 2nd Round

Add the name you omitted, Hedman.

Now, lets say those 5 names are the critical pieces without which Tampa does not win any of their 2 recent cups. (Just choose Hedman and any other 4, same logic)

Now look at how those pieces were obtained. 1 (20%) came from the top 5. The remaining 4 came from all over the draft, of which there are (7×31)- 5 = 212 possibilities.

212 possibilities gave you 4 of the top 5 players. Success ratio for generating any one of the top 5 players critical to a cup run = 1/53.

5 possibilities (top 5 of draft) gave you 1 of the top 5 players. Success ratio for generating any one of the top 5 players critical to a cup run =1/5

Ergo, you have over 10 times the likelihood of getting one of the top 5 players critical to a cup run from the top 5 of the draft than you do from outside it.
- PT21

Flyers picked twice in recent years in the top 5. They ended up with JVR and Nolan Patrick. Even this seasons draft scouts are saying Wright will be a very good player but they dont think he will be great

Flyers picked twice in recent years in the top 5. They ended up with JVR and Nolan Patrick.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

Are you looking for certainties? If something with the better odds didn't work once, twice, five times, you would abandon it for one with worse odds?

Here is a more nerdy example of your logic: you want to pick a red marble (red marble=hockey stud). There are two boxes you can choose from at random.

One box A has 5 marbles, 1 red
Another box B has 50 marbles, 1 red.

You have picked twice from box A in the past, and came up with no red marbles -which mind you, could not just happen but has a high (64%) chance of happening

Does that mean you should switch to Box B for your next pick or say you don't care which box you choose?

Because that is exactly what you are saying.

Are you looking for certainties? If something with the better odds didn't work once, twice, five times, you would abandon it for one with worse odds?

Here is a more nerdy example of your logic: you want to pick a red marble (red marble=hockey stud). There are two boxes you can choose from at random.

One box A has 5 marbles, 1 red
Another box B has 50 marbles, 1 red.

You have picked twice from box A in the past, and came up with no red marbles -which mind you, could not just happen but has a high (64%) chance of happening

Does that mean you should switch to Box B for your next pick or say you don't care which box you choose?

Because that is exactly what you are saying.
- PT21

You have it wrong again. That is not what he is saying. You have tunnel vision and are fixated on how you want the team to proceed. All he said was that getting a top 5 pick does not guarantee anything. He is correct on that. He is not saying he doesn't want the team to pick high. You seem to be having issues following the conversation.

Are you looking for certainties? If something with the better odds didn't work once, twice, five times, you would abandon it for one with worse odds?

Here is a more nerdy example of your logic: you want to pick a red marble (red marble=hockey stud). There are two boxes you can choose from at random.

One box A has 5 marbles, 1 red
Another box B has 50 marbles, 1 red.

You have picked twice from box A in the past, and came up with no red marbles -which mind you, could not just happen but has a high (64%) chance of happening

Does that mean you should switch to Box B for your next pick or say you don't care which box you choose?

Because that is exactly what you are saying.
- PT21

Let's go back to my original post. You can build a successful team with mid to late 1st round picks.... Not sure why you are arguing probability. Fact is we drafted early, they were busts. Other teams drafted late and got superstars.

Hence why I say scouting and developing is key to being successful not picking top 5.

Let's go back to my original post. You can build a successful team with mid to late 1st round picks.... Not sure why you are arguing probability. Fact is we drafted early, they were busts. Other teams drafted late and got superstars.

Hence why I say scouting and developing is key to being successful not picking top 5.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

PT21 views the biggest key to winning a cup is drafting elite players with a top 5 pick. If he would revise that to the best chance of getting an elite player is with a top 5 pick, he would be correct. He routinely fails to consider the many teams that have drafted top 5, some teams numerous times, have failed to build a cup winning team. That fact is what makes his premise that the most important factor in winning a cup is having elite players picked in the top 5 incorrect. The most important factor by far is building the best team. Which takes what you allude to. Scouting and development. Which also includes making the key right trades and player acqusitions at the NHL level as well as drafting.

He is fixated on tanking and getting a top 5 pick as the only way.

Tampa Bay:

Point 3rd round
Cirelli 3rd Round
Vaslievsiy 19th overall
Kucherov 2nd Round

St Louis:
RoR added via Trade
Schenn added via trade
Schwartz 14th overall
Tarasenko 16th overall

LA:
Kopitar 11th overall
Richards added via trade
Carter added via trade
I cant recall anyone else on the winning teams but Doughty was the only top 5 pick

WSH:
Wilson 16th overall
Kuznetsov 26th Overall
Carlson 27th Overall
I will give you Backstrom
Ovechkin generational

Pittsburgh got several 1st round picks two of which being generational players, they were awful for a long time

Chicago like Pittsburgh was awful for a long time

Colorado hasnt won anything

These teams had top 5 picks but as you can see they also drafted well late and also added pieces via trade or FA to be successful

You will notice most the teams above only have 1-2 top 5 picks. Flyers also had 2 top 5 picks. JVR and Nolan Patrick so clearly its not about when guys are drafted
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

i see it as all the teams that win the cup have top 5 picks, most have multiple top 5 picks HArd to win without getting the top talent in the draft.

But it still takes time after the top 5 picks

I wonder how many teams won a cup without a top 5 pick, or multiple top 5 picks. Pretty rare i bet.

Let's go back to my original post. You can build a successful team with mid to late 1st round picks.... Not sure why you are arguing probability. Fact is we drafted early, they were busts. Other teams drafted late and got superstars.

Hence why I say scouting and developing is key to being successful not picking top 5.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

Of course you can. I never said it is impossible. Just like you can get red marbles from Box B. The whole point is, there are degrees of 'can-ness', so to speak.

I am using probability because this is at heart a probability argument, as stark and as simple as you will ever find in real life.

Moving onto draft and develop, and team spirit, and having enough vets, and every thing else: the empirical evidence for their effectiveness in building a champ is far, far lower. If all those factors played anything near as important a role as picking at the top of the draft, you would see teams occasionally winning without a single top 5 pick playing a critical role. Because, think about it, there are about 50 times as many (including undrafted signings and the 7 round draft) players who can benefit from draft and develop and mentorship and so on. If those qualities bridged the gap, you would see that show up in the cup winning team rosters.

Of course you can. I never said it is impossible. Just like you can get red marbles from Box B. The whole point is, there are degrees of 'can-ness', so to speak.

I am using probability because this is at heart a probability argument, as stark and as simple as you will ever find in real life.


- PT21

Again, incorrect. As you normally do, you're attempting to determine what the scope of the argument is. The poster made a point and offered an opinion to which you have replied to. The context was not what was most probable. The context was that you can build a good team without a top 5 draft pick.

Moving onto draft and develop, and team spirit, and having enough vets, and every thing else: the empirical evidence for their effectiveness in building a champ is far, far lower. If all those factors played anything near as important a role as picking at the top of the draft, you would see teams occasionally winning without a single top 5 pick playing a critical role. Because, think about it, there are about 50 times as many (including undrafted signings and the 7 round draft) players who can benefit from draft and develop and mentorship and so on. If those qualities bridged the gap, you would see that show up in the cup winning team rosters.
- PT21

Where you go wrong and we've had this conversation multiple times is that you also don't see teams winning the Cup without other team factors such as scoring line depth, role players and quality goaltending. Those type of players normally are not top 5 drafted players. Reality is you need it all. If you can show a team that won the Cup with just a few top 5 pick stars and without the other qualities that I mentioned, then you would be correct. You're opinion is not only incorrect but it's illogical.

Moving onto draft and develop, and team spirit, and having enough vets, and every thing else: the empirical evidence for their effectiveness in building a champ is far, far lower. If all those factors played anything near as important a role as picking at the top of the draft, you would see teams occasionally winning without a single top 5 pick playing a critical role. Because, think about it, there are about 50 times as many (including undrafted signings and the 7 round draft) players who can benefit from draft and develop and mentorship and so on. If those qualities bridged the gap, you would see that show up in the cup winning team rosters.
- PT21

I was searching for an analogy this morning that would make the above less abstract, and I think I found one.

Consider the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. Let us say we analogize not getting lung cancer to winning cup. And not smoking to drafting high.

Can you not be a smoker and still get lung cancer? Sure. There are plenty of other factors suspected to be at play (genetics, environmental pollution, radon exposure, 2nd hand smoke, others not yet known, etc).

Can you be a smoker and avoid lung cancer? Sure. 80% odd of lifetime smokers avoid that diagnosis.

But this fact remains: the single biggest thing you can do to avoid lung cancer is not smoke. It does not guarantee you success (avoiding lung cancer). It is not the only thing that is important (other factors need to be present as well, as mentioned above). It is just the biggest correlate.

Same with drafting high. The reasoning is simple. Almost all teams that win have superstars. The likeliest way to get such a superstar is drafting top 5. All other paths pale in likelihood of producing such superstars.

I have no personal agenda here. The above is not true for NFL football, something I follow as much as hockey. It is simply the overwhelming conclusion from the NHL data.

Of course you can. I never said it is impossible.
- PT21

Again, incorrect. As you normally do, you're attempting to determine what the scope of the argument is. The poster made a point and offered an opinion to which you have replied to. The context was not what was most probable. The context was that you can build a good team without a top 5 draft pick.

- MJL

So you call my reasoning incorrect, and then conclude your correction by saying exactly what I said in my very first line (and I even emphasized it in bold). You should have been on Monty Python. You wouldn't even have needed to act.

Dude, I am putting you on my poop list for the indefinite future, like most of 2020/early 21.

1. Your initial posts/opinions are fine. Often, I agree with you. However, you have strangely stunted, really stunted ability to reason. There is no one here who is quite like you.

2. That in itself is not a deal-breaker. However, somewhere along the line someone told you that incessant arguing compensates for the first shortcoming. Indeed, I suspect you really are about the latter and have little interest in 1.

I know you will say you don;t care, and I really don;t see why you should, but well, I don't care if you don't care.

Yours in mutual uncaring for the next many months ...

I was searching for an analogy this morning that would make the above less abstract, and I think I found one.

Consider the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. Let us say we analogize not getting lung cancer to winning cup. And not smoking to drafting high.

Can you not be a smoker and still get lung cancer? Sure. There are plenty of other factors suspected to be at play (genetics, environmental pollution, radon exposure, 2nd hand smoke, others not yet known, etc).

Can you be a smoker and avoid lung cancer? Sure. 80% odd of lifetime smokers avoid that diagnosis.

But this fact remains: the single biggest thing you can do to avoid lung cancer is not smoke. It does not guarantee you success (avoiding lung cancer). It is not the only thing that is important (other factors need to be present as well, as mentioned above). It is just the biggest correlate.

Same with drafting high. The reasoning is simple. Almost all teams that win have superstars. The likeliest way to get such a superstar is drafting top 5. All other paths pale in likelihood of producing such superstars.

I have no personal agenda here. The above is not true for NFL football, something I follow as much as hockey. It is simply the overwhelming conclusion from the NHL data.
- PT21

The fact that the best way to draft a superstar player is with a top 5 pick is not and never has been in dispute. That's pretty much proven. What is in dispute is that the single most important aspect of a cup winning team is drafting in the top 5. It ignores the countless teams that have drafted in the top 5, including multiple times, and have not won.

So you call my reasoning incorrect, and then conclude your correction by saying exactly what I said in my very first line (and I even emphasized it in bold). You should have been on Monty Python. You wouldn't even have needed to act.

Dude, I am putting you on my poop list for the indefinite future, like most of 2020/early 21.

1. Your initial posts/opinions are fine. Often, I agree with you. However, you have strangely stunted, really stunted ability to reason. There is no one here who is quite like you.

2. That in itself is not a deal-breaker. However, somewhere along the line someone told you that incessant arguing compensates for the first shortcoming. Indeed, I suspect you really are about the latter and have little interest in 1.

I know you will say you don;t care, and I really don;t see why you should, but well, I don't care if you don't care.

Yours in mutual uncaring for the next many months ...
- PT21

LOL. Missed the boat again. My reply there was simply pointing out that you were attempting to change the scope of the debate, as you always do. You don't even have the self awareness to realize that you yourself agreed with the what the poster stated. Yet you went on a 3 page rant, attempting to change the scope towards your tunnel vision of having to draft in the top 5 and argue the point. That tunnel vision leaves you unwilling and incapable of being open minded to other positions.
You can make endless posts in a debate with another poster. Yet when someone else engages the same, you label it incessant arguing. You frequently make personal insults to those who defeat your reasoning or reason better than you do.
I wish I had a dollar for every time you stated that you didn't care or were going to ignore what I posted.