Red Wings between now and New Years.

[TheOtherOne]

You're using a decade as a measurement, you don't get to pick and choose what applies and what doesn't relative to the decade.

Please explain the link between consecutive years a single franchise makes the playoffs and the number of years required to prove the effectiveness of a rebuilding strategy.

The only thing they have in common is they both have something to do with hockey.

Next let's talk about how a decade is equally useful when talking about bowling and evolution.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Pittsburgh is evidence that tanking works. If accompanied by other elements. Crosby only exists once in a million years, but Toews exists, Kopitar exists, Doughty exists, Kane exists. There have been plenty of elite players picked through the years that have a cup other than Crosby. There are also plenty of other elite players who could win a cup but haven't yet. Stamkos exists.

You're again, looking at it all wrong.

The data shows that having an elite player is almost a necessity for winning the cup. Every single cup winner has had one since the lockout. They don't need to be Crosby level, but they need to be at least Bergeron/Zetterberg/Doughty level. Now, historically, where does the data show those players being picked? In terms of probability, it's many times higher in the first 5 picks of each draft.

Great so you've established that you need elite players. Nobody ever argued with that.

It's amazing to me how Detroit fans can yell over and over "Pittsburgh is a valid example because it fits my narrative, but Detroit doesn't so they must be just a crazy outlier!" Do some research on confirmation bias.

 

[TheMule93]

Great so you've established that you need elite players. Nobody ever argued with that.

It's amazing to me how Detroit fans can yell over and over "Pittsburgh is a valid example because it fits my narrative, but Detroit doesn't so they must be just a crazy outlier!" Do some research on confirmation bias.

Lets play a game. You state a team that won a cup without a top 5 draft pick, and then i'll state a team that won a cup with a top 5 draft pick. Lets see who runs out of examples first.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Lets play a game. You state a team that won a cup without a top 5 draft pick, and then i'll state a team that won a cup with a top 5 draft pick. Lets see who runs out of examples first.

Are we referring to the era in which the #16 ranked team can get the #5 pick?

 

[jkutswings]

Are we referring to the era in which the #16 ranked team can get the #5 pick?

Yes, but it's the same era where the most successful teams have had multiple top 5 picks. The odds of a bubble team winning the lottery twice in short order are the Webster's dictionary opposite of reliable.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Yes, but it's the same era where the most successful teams have had multiple top 5 picks. The odds of a bubble team winning the lottery twice in short order are the Webster's dictionary opposite of reliable.

Ok. Every single team that drafted top 5 in that era (all 4 years!) had failed to win any Cups since.

 

[jkutswings]

Ok. Every single team that drafted top 5 in that era (all 4 years!) had failed to win any Cups since.

I meant the Cap era. You meant just the readjusted lottery. But the point remains that, on average, the worst teams in the league have the best odds at the best new players still being on the board when they select.

Maybe you feel that being a .500 team instead of a .300 team is worth a reduction in the ping pong balls. I definitely don't.

 

[TheMule93]

I think the main thing that differentiates people on what they want the Wings to do is emotion. Some prioritize statistical probabilities, while others care more about feelings and loyalty. Holland is about as far down the feelings/loyalty/etc path that one can possibly be. On the other hand, a GM like Chayka in Arizona is 100% stats/probabilities/etc and he isn't doing so hot either.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Maybe you feel that being a .500 team instead of a .300 team is worth a reduction in the ping pong balls. I definitely don't.

!!!

Yes! This is exactly the way the argument should be phrased, and it is completely fair to both sides.

When one goes around claiming they know exactly how many ping pong balls are involved, or that the strategy they prefer is the only viable strategy, that is where I take issue.

But I am just going to go ahead and say yes: I feel that going from .300 to .500 is worth a reduction in ping pong balls. And with that, I feel we have both won the world's first non-zero-sum internet argument.

 

[Voodoo Glow Skulls]

oh, this is going to be fun to watch.

Please donate Kleenex.

 

[Voodoo Glow Skulls]

Green should have a lot of sway in whether we’re sellers or buyers if were in any sort of grey area. I remember some radio station did an interview with Green right after he signed in Detroit and they were teasing him for signing with us and he was basically like “lol yeah but it’s not that bad.” And we’ve basically been a joke of a team since he’s been here. So I can’t imagine he’s willing to re-sign and I can’t imagine there won’t be teams banging down Detroit’s door with trade offers if he keeps up anything more than 60% of his 58 point pace right now.

If Holland keeps him and we’re a first round exit or don’t make it after the deadline, and Green walks, Holland has his resignation letter signed for him. Can’t validate losing your “best defenseman” (quotations emphasized) after being a playoff non-factor 2 years in a row when your defense is already a candidate for bottom 5 as it is.

Green is going to want a "retirement" contract, and I can see Holland giving him that contract.

I guess in your senario that would be a bittersweet win-win.

 

[hyduK]

Green is going to want a "retirement" contract, and I can see Holland giving him that contract.

I guess in your senario that would be a bittersweet win-win.

Yeah.

This is why it is important we lose a lot over the next stretch. I don't know what would be worse, losing Green for nothing or having Holland handcuff us even more with another long term contract.

If Green isn't traded at the deadline it sends a big message from Ken Holland. Buckle in for another half decade of mediocrity at least.

 

[Redder Winger]

I think we'll be second or third from the bottom on Jan. 1.

Something like
Florida
Detroit
Philadelphia
Buffalo

But Florida/Philly/Detroit are interchangeable.
Florida ought to be better than they are.

 

[Dotter]

Wings can also trade Green's negotiating rights if they need to keep him for the entire season.

 

[Redder Winger]

Wings can also trade Green's negotiating rights if they need to keep him for the entire season.

For like a 4th or 5th round pick.

 

[Syckle78]

This is exactly the point I'm making. You can get Crosby or you can get RNH, but there are a ton more variables you have to take into account for a Cup run.



This is always a weird thing to hear from the other side. You see "rebuild on the fly doesn't work at all, end of story" and in the same breath "Holland made all these bad moves."

Just consider for a moment, maybe if Holland had made better moves, rebuild on the fly COULD have worked. Every move Holland has made or not made is another variable to consider. If he does them poorly, it ruins your evidence about whether or not the overarching strategy would have worked.



You say "decade" like it's a big deal. That's 10 Cup winners. That's nothing. It would take 10 times that to even THINK about drawing conclusions, and by then more rules will have changed.

Lol ten times that is the entire history of the NHL. A tenth of the history of the league is a good chunk. Especially when that decade is pretty much the entirety of the post cap era. Parity is a joke. The loser point keeps teams close at the bottom of the playoff race that's it.

 

[Dotter]

Lol ten times that is the entire history of the NHL. A tenth of the history of the league is a good chunk. Especially when that decade is pretty much the entirety of the post cap era. Parity is a joke. The loser point keeps teams close at the bottom of the playoff race that's it.

Does parity help increase revenue across the board?

 

[Red Stanley]

Lol ten times that is the entire history of the NHL. A tenth of the history of the league is a good chunk. Especially when that decade is pretty much the entirety of the post cap era. Parity is a joke. The loser point keeps teams close at the bottom of the playoff race that's it.

Well, it's true that league parity manifests itself mostly during the regular season, but if you think about the past decade of playoff hockey, it's been very close regardless of the winner. Chicago and Pitt had one dominant run each despite winning 6 total championships.

 

[Redder Winger]

Does parity help increase revenue across the board?

Its debatable.

On the one hand, closer standings more more fans think their team is half decent and worth watching.

On the other hand, if you had teams playing for wins instead of ties, the quality of the game would be better.

My guess is that coaches would drastically change their gameplans and get away from "low-event" hockey.
Honestly, some NHL games have virtually no entertainment value.

 

[jkutswings]

Does parity help increase revenue across the board?

Which matters financially, not in terms of quality of product.

So the owners get richer, and have greater opportunity to take the "safe" route.

And any fans that have a higher standard of ROI than "maybe make the playoffs" get shafted.

 

[Dotter]

Its debatable.

On the one hand, closer standings more more fans think their team is half decent and worth watching.

On the other hand, if you had teams playing for wins instead of ties, the quality of the game would be better.

My guess is that coaches would drastically change their gameplans and get away from "low-event" hockey.
Honestly, some NHL games have virtually no entertainment value.

I guess it would be interested in seeing a report if parity helps revenue across the board. I do believe I read (while lurking) TML fans talking about this on some random thread around here somewhere, but I can't remember when/where. If my memory serves me right, the consensus was parity does help revenue which is what the NHL wants I guess. It's all 'bout those Benjamins.

 

[Dotter]

Which matters financially, not in terms of quality of product.

So the owners get richer, and have greater opportunity to take the "safe" route.

And any fans that have a higher standard of ROI than "maybe make the playoffs" get shafted.

Such is life. It's a commercial world we live in. And honestly I'd be a hypocrite if I say it's disgusting and wrong because I do the same thing in my line of business. Because at the end of the day it's business.

 

[Reddwit]

Green is going to want a "retirement" contract, and I can see Holland giving him that contract.

I guess in your senario that would be a bittersweet win-win.

Green is the prototypical impact defenseman in today's NHL. He will get a retirement contract from any number of teams in the NHL while also getting a chance at a playoff run in the interim. His wish will be his command barring a season-ending injury.

 

[Reddwit]

Such is life. It's a commercial world we live in. And honestly I'd be a hypocrite if I say it's disgusting and wrong because I do the same thing in my line of business. Because at the end of the day it's business.

Pretty sure sports fanaticism plays on a different line of emotional commercialism than lawncare does.

 

[Reddwit]

Big game tonight with OTT vs. MTL. If Montreal wins, they become the 3rd seed with the ROW tiebreaker. If Ottawa wins, they’re only 1 point behind us with 2 games in hand.