What happened to Michael Rasmussen ?

[Dotter]

Malkin, Crosby, Kane, McDavid, Matthews, etc. Guys that are a slam dunk to break into the NHL and immediately be very productive.

The ones that Detroit isn't interested in finishing low enough to have access to.

You forgot Nail Yakupov.

Red Wing just finished low enough last season to win the lottery.. and drafted 9th. This year they are bottom 5. What else do you expect them to do without turning into the Oilers/Sabres? They already have the worse coach in the NHL and big contract players past their prime and not performing.

Basically you are saying you don't hate the player [Red Wings], you hate the game [NHL draft lottery], right? As pointed out in the tank thread, TANKING IS HARD WHEN THERE'S OTHER TEAMS OUT THERE WHO LIVE OFF LOSING!!

The odds are probably easier to make it top 4 in the playoffs than tanking #1 AND winning the lottery. And HALF of the players you mentioned are GENERATIONAL TALENT. Lol, good luck with TANKING + WINNING LOTTERY + DRAFTING GENERATIONAL TALENT all in the same year. You're more likely to get struck by lightning and winning the Stanley cup the same day.

Man, I swear peoples' reality is lost somewhere on freakin' Venus! I blame xBox and PS4!!

 

[Redder Winger]

You forgot Nail Yakupov.

Red Wing just finished low enough last season to win the lottery.. and drafted 9th. This year they are bottom 5. What else do you expect them to do without turning into the Oilers/Sabres? They already have the worse coach in the NHL and big contract players past their prime and not performing.

Basically you are saying you don't hate the player [Red Wings], you hate the game [NHL draft lottery], right? As pointed out in the tank thread, TANKING IS HARD WHEN THERE'S OTHER TEAMS OUT THERE WHO LIVE OFF LOSING!!

The odds are probably easier to make it top 4 in the playoffs than tanking #1 AND winning the lottery. And HALF of the players you mentioned are GENERATIONAL TALENT. Lol, good luck with TANKING + WINNING LOTTERY + DRAFTING GENERATIONAL TALENT all in the same year. You're more likely to get struck by lightning and winning the Stanley cup the same day.

Man, I swear peoples' reality is lost somewhere on freakin' Venus! I blame xBox and PS4!!

There's a good chance the Wings finish 29th. Which would mean what? 6th overall at worst?

 

[Dotter]

There's a good chance the Wings finish 29th. Which would mean what? 6th overall at worst?

You don't get Mcdavid's and Crosby's "sure thing"-type picks 6th overall, though. that's the entire point.

A 6th overall pick is very much welcomed. It could be worse.

 

[DatsMagic]

You don't get Mcdavid's and Crosby's "sure thing"-type picks 6th overall, though. that's the entire point.

A 6th overall pick is very much welcomed. It could be worse.

This is hfboards dude. More than half of the posters on here watch the games, cheer for the team to lose, then complain when they do in fact...lose.

 

[Henkka]

After that "trend setting" -statement from Tyler Wright, I understand much much better this Rasmussen pick. We will be bigger, and tougher WITH SPEED in the future. Pain in the ass to play against. There will be also be those skill guys, but rest of the score will be big, strong, fast skating and competitive. Rasmussen and Mantha will set the standard. I also understand that Svechnikov pick much better now afterwards, after that statement.

Now NHL is all high-tempo speed, but is it after 8 years, when these guys hit in prime? It could be clutch-grab hockey again, at least at playoffs.

Set the standard, don't copy what others will do. I like the idea in general. I don't care what the style is if they start winning and become a pain-in-the-ass team like Anaheim was some years ago.

I just don't like that kind of hockey as much as I liked Red Wings on their best puck-possession era. This is more of going back to early 90's.

 

[Redder Winger]

You don't get Mcdavid's and Crosby's "sure thing"-type picks 6th overall, though. that's the entire point.

A 6th overall pick is very much welcomed. It could be worse.

But here are some of the guys you can get at 6:
Paul Coffey
Phil Housely
Vincent Damphouse
Peter Forsberg
Ryan Smyth
Doug Wilson
Mikko Koviu
Oliver Ekman Larson
Sean Monahan

From 2000 to 2013:
Hartnell
Koviu
Upshall
Michalek
Montoya
Brule
Brassard
Gagner
Filatov
OEL
Connolly
Zibanejad
Lindholm
Monahan

Last year we were at 9
There are some good players there too, but even three spots makes a difference.

Honestly, we're looking at 2-3 years in the bottom 6.

At this point I'm going to assume Svech busts and only 1 out of Cholo, Hronek and Saarijarvi make it in our top 4.
I'll pencil in Rasmussen for a top 9 forward position (in a couple years).

If we can land one elite player and one Hartnell-level guy in the next three years, that's a big step forward.

 

[jkutswings]

You forgot Nail Yakupov.

Red Wing just finished low enough last season to win the lottery.. and drafted 9th. This year they are bottom 5. What else do you expect them to do without turning into the Oilers/Sabres? They already have the worse coach in the NHL and big contract players past their prime and not performing.

Basically you are saying you don't hate the player [Red Wings], you hate the game [NHL draft lottery], right? As pointed out in the tank thread, TANKING IS HARD WHEN THERE'S OTHER TEAMS OUT THERE WHO LIVE OFF LOSING!!

The odds are probably easier to make it top 4 in the playoffs than tanking #1 AND winning the lottery. And HALF of the players you mentioned are GENERATIONAL TALENT. Lol, good luck with TANKING + WINNING LOTTERY + DRAFTING GENERATIONAL TALENT all in the same year. You're more likely to get struck by lightning and winning the Stanley cup the same day.

Man, I swear peoples' reality is lost somewhere on freakin' Venus! I blame xBox and PS4!!

Enjoy all the anecdotes and outbursts you like. The data confirms that, across a large sample size, the higher the pick, the more likely the player not only has a long NHL career, but has high-end productivity as well.

Yes, 6OA is better than before. But not as good a chance as top 3. So, I'd like all the probability I can get. And while we're on the subject of probability, no matter how often an UNprobable event like Philly getting the 2nd pick happens, the GUARANTEE is that you can't slide more than 3 slots. So I'd rather know I CAN'T slide past 6th, than be starting at 6th, with a very high chance at dropping to 7th, and maybe sliding all the way to 9th.

Now, is it possible to pick 9th (or later), and still end up with a better player than those who picked sooner? Sure. But, like you said, it's possible to get stuck by lightning and win the Stanley Cup on the same day... It's just not an optimum probability to plan on.

 

[Pavels Dog]

jkuts: what do you want the team to do other than lose a lot which they are doing? Last year we got screwed not only by the lottery but by Vegas stealing a position, and to top it off it was a weaker than normal draft. Even if we kept finishing 5th-6th odds are we won’t slide that far all the time, nor will there be such a lack of truly interesting high-end talents available at 5-10 every year.

You can keep harping on Philly being a rare scenario but no one is saying we should finish right outside the playoffs, and this team is nowhere near that position. We’re talking about finishing 3rd-6th last or so, or being more active to remove good players to maybe, maybe push us to 2nd-4th last. I think it’s valid to say that under current lottery odds it’s maybe not worth pushing as hard as you can to go from 4th last to 3rd last. At least not 30 games into the season, you can save that for post-TDL.

This is hfboards dude. More than half of the posters on here watch the games, cheer for the team to lose, then complain when they do in fact...lose.

Yeah gotta be honest, GDTs this year are baffling. The people wanting a tank seem to be the same people complaining about every game we lose.

 

[Red Stanley]

jkuts: what do you want the team to do other than lose a lot which they are doing? Last year we got screwed not only by the lottery but by Vegas stealing a position, and to top it off it was a weaker than normal draft. Even if we kept finishing 5th-6th odds are we won’t slide that far all the time, nor will there be such a lack of truly interesting high-end talents available at 5-10 every year.

You can keep harping on Philly being a rare scenario but no one is saying we should finish right outside the playoffs, and this team is nowhere near that position. We’re talking about finishing 3rd-6th last or so, or being more active to remove good players to maybe, maybe push us to 2nd-4th last. I think it’s valid to say that under current lottery odds it’s maybe not worth pushing as hard as you can to go from 4th last to 3rd last. At least not 30 games into the season, you can save that for post-TDL.


Yeah gotta be honest, GDTs this year are baffling. The people wanting a tank seem to be the same people complaining about every game we lose.

Well, if that simulator posted in the other thread is how the lottery is actually drawn, I personally got teams closer to the playoffs winning #1 more often than Arizona and Buffalo in ten tries. That's ten years in real time and Buffalo has as many #1 picks as Dallas. FYI, Detroit got #1 twice. The NHL won't reroll until they get a "fair" result. The rare scenario argument implies that over a long enough time line the averages will end up accurately representing the standings. How big does the sample size have to be in order to classify what happened with Philly last year as a rare scenario? As of right now, it's a pretty damn common occurrence.

 

[jkutswings]

jkuts: what do you want the team to do other than lose a lot which they are doing?

The players are doing just fine. What I want, is for management to finally, wholeheartedly, to accept (and even embrace) the reality. Stop pretending that a decent run over these 10-15 games would've somehow meant that this is a good team that doesn't need a major overhaul. Call a spade a spade, and say yes, we're selling. And rebuilding. And prioritizing the ability to have as elite a team as possible in 5 years, even if that means even greater reduction in short term success. Larkin needs another center to be a 1-2 punch with. The defense needs a heart, plus another 1-2 warm bodies with a brain. The best of those treasures are often found up high, so make the most of being down in the basement.

That's not intentionally losing games, or sabotaging anybody's career. That's playing the hand you're dealt, instead of denying the existence of the lousy cards you have.

Yeah gotta be honest, GDTs this year are baffling. The people wanting a tank seem to be the same people complaining about every game we lose.

Absolutely nothing wrong with losing, assuming players keep trying and movable assets maintain value.

 

[Frk It]

Well, if that simulator posted in the other thread is how the lottery is actually drawn, I personally got teams closer to the playoffs winning #1 more often than Arizona and Buffalo in ten tries. That's ten years in real time and Buffalo has as many #1 picks as Dallas. FYI, Detroit got #1 twice. The NHL won't reroll until they get a "fair" result. The rare scenario argument implies that over a long enough time line the averages will end up accurately representing the standings. How big does the sample size have to be in order to classify what happened with Philly last year as a rare scenario? As of right now, it's a pretty damn common occurrence.

Philly had a 2.4% chance at pulling off what they did. So roughly once every 50 simulations. So not common whatsoever.

Someone made a pretty detailed thread on this not too long ago

 

[Red Stanley]

Philly had a 2.4% chance at pulling off what they did. So roughly once every 50 simulations. So not common whatsoever.

Someone made a pretty detailed thread on this not too long ago

So over the course of 50 years what happened last year will be considered rare. We'll have to check back in 50 years to confirm that In my simulator they got another #2 pick on my first try. Results will even out when 100k people do a simulation, but there aren't 100k NHLs doing simulations every draft. See what I'm getting at?

 

[BinCookin]

This is hfboards dude. More than half of the posters on here watch the games, cheer for the team to lose, then complain when they do in fact...lose.

lol. hilarious.

 

[Frk It]

So over the course of 50 years what happened last year will be considered rare. We'll have to check back in 50 years to confirm that In my simulator they got another #2 pick on my first try. Results will even out when 100k people do a simulation, but there aren't 100k NHLs doing simulations every draft. See what I'm getting at?

Respectfully, I don’t care what you (or anyone for that matter) got in your particular simulation. That’s doesn’t change the odds from what they actually are.

 

[Claypool]

What I want, is for management to finally, wholeheartedly, to accept (and even embrace) the reality. Stop pretending that a decent run over these 10-15 games would've somehow meant that this is a good team that doesn't need a major overhaul. Call a spade a spade, and say yes, we're selling.

This team is going to be selling, as Holland stated many times they would be. You're literally complaining about nothing.

 

[Red Stanley]

Respectfully, I don’t care what you (or anyone for that matter) got in your particular simulation. That’s doesn’t change the odds from what they actually are.

Well, the sample size under current rules is 2, so it's literally happened half the time. Another actual stat: in 5 out of 6 lotteries the bottom team failed to win the #1 pick.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

So over the course of 50 years what happened last year will be considered rare. We'll have to check back in 50 years to confirm that In my simulator they got another #2 pick on my first try. Results will even out when 100k people do a simulation, but there aren't 100k NHLs doing simulations every draft. See what I'm getting at?

It's true that there's only one draft event, but it's drawn from a perfectly defined system. There's no sampling bias or anything like that obscuring the true distribution; unless you're a conspiracy theorist, what you see is what you get. What we witnessed last year was 100%, definitely, indubitably rare. It's not a matter of interpretation or sampling or anything like that. The odds are the odds, even when you're only drawing once.

It's true that having bad odds doesn't mean good teams won't win (as we've seen), but the existence of those wins doesn't change the probability of them winning, which is low. And having a good team win on a simulator on the first try says very little except that you saw a rare occurrence.

 

[Frk It]

Well, the sample size under current rules is 2, so it's literally happened half the time. Another actual stat: in 5 out of 6 lotteries the bottom team failed to win the #1 pick.

Sample size in the current rules is 2? How does one come to that conclusion? Percents are based out of 100, by nature. So you doing something 1 or 2 times does not suggest in any way that it is repeatable.

Your last sentence... exactly! That’s something the odds actually suggest!

This is all described in the thread I just bumped, if you want to take a look and continue the discussion. Not partciularly relevant in this Rasmussen thread.

 

[jkutswings]

This team is going to be selling, as Holland stated many times they would be. You're literally complaining about nothing.

Holland said he would wait and see after 10-15 games whether they'd sell.

And because:
* Waiting until the last minute;
* Selling only because you feel you're out of options, and;
* Trying to add one or more veterans next summer to return to being a bubble team

Is the same as turning the page on this window of contention once and for all, and building accordingly for the future?

Not in my world.

 

[Red Stanley]

Sample size in the current rules is 2? How does one come to that conclusion? Percents are based out of 100, by nature. So you doing something 1 or 2 times does not suggest in any way that it is repeatable.

Your last sentence... exactly! That’s something the odds actually suggest!

This is all described in the thread I just bumped, if you want to take a look and continue the discussion. Not partciularly relevant in this Rasmussen thread.

We appear to be talking past each other here. There have been 2 drafts in which all non-playoff teams were allowed to roll for the top 3 picks. That's a sample size of 2. The rare scenario has occurred 50% of the time so far. It's rare only in the sense that you can statistically predict that it won't happen again in the next 48 years of drafting under the same rules. And if it does, then you'll need a sample size of 100 years of drafting to make it as rare as the odds suggest it should be.

Someone else was discussing this and I chimed in. I will look at the other thread, though.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

We appear to be talking past each other here. There have been 2 drafts in which all non-playoff teams were allowed to roll for the top 3 picks. That's a sample size of 2. The rare scenario has occurred 50% of the time so far. It's rare only in the sense that you can statistically predict that it won't happen again in the next 48 years of drafting under the same rules. And if it does, then you'll need a sample size of 100 years of drafting to make it as rare as the odds suggest it should be.

Someone else was discussing this and I chimed in. I will look at the other thread, though.

Why would we expect the sampling distribution to differ so much from the population distribution (where the "population" distribution is the original odds)? If anything, we should expect it to be subject to the central limit theorem, which should put it in a relatively normal distribution-like-form after relatively few observations, which would preserve the notion that we're talking about here: that teams performing well would have a lower chance of winning the lottery.

So what are you saying here? That because the distribution appears to be different early on, it shouldn't be considered to be related to the beginning set of odds? That because the original odds will take a different form early on, we can't rely on them? Just because the sampling distribution differs with a low number of observations does not mean it's somehow unrelated to the original population. That's just the kind of thing that is smoothed out with more observations. It's just statistical noise that makes them appear different, and that averages out with repeated sampling.

 

[Frk It]

We appear to be talking past each other here. There have been 2 drafts in which all non-playoff teams were allowed to roll for the top 3 picks. That's a sample size of 2. The rare scenario has occurred 50% of the time so far. It's rare only in the sense that you can statistically predict that it won't happen again in the next 48 years of drafting under the same rules. And if it does, then you'll need a sample size of 100 years of drafting to make it as rare as the odds suggest it should be.

Someone else was discussing this and I chimed in. I will look at the other thread, though.

It’s all good. Sorry, not trying to be an annoying stickler on Xmas Eve. My mind just breaks things down this way (statistically).

 

[Red Stanley]

It’s all good. Sorry, not trying to be an annoying stickler on Xmas Eve. My mind just breaks things down this way (statistically).

Merry Christmas! I know what you're saying and I don't disagree. I just think that luck will play a bigger role than statistical probability mainly because I doubt we'll ever arrive at an adequate sample size. I'm willing to bet that either the rules will change again soonish, or enough time will pass that it won't make any difference to anyone involved. If the rules change say 8 years from now and all those draw as predicted, that will leave Philly's 2.4% at a statistical 10%.

 

[Claypool]

Holland said he would wait and see after 10-15 games whether they'd sell.

And because:
* Waiting until the last minute;
* Selling only because you feel you're out of options, and;
* Trying to add one or more veterans next summer to return to being a bubble team

Is the same as turning the page on this window of contention once and for all, and building accordingly for the future?

Not in my world.

Teams aren't in buying mode right now. They, too, are trying to figure out if they are buying or selling. Trading Green when there's no demand for him right now makes no sense.

 

[jkutswings]

Teams aren't in buying mode right now. They, too, are trying to figure out if they are buying or selling. Trading Green when there's no demand for him right now makes no sense.

I'm not asking him to sell right now. I'm asking him to resume holding a standard of excellence.

If the GM of Chicago or Boston or any other team that hadn't won a Cup in a few years stepped to the podium, and essentially said, 'winning championships is too hard now; fans need to lower their expectations', they'd be deservedly ridiculed.

My gripe with Holland is that, after so many years of historic success, he's changed his aspirations to act as if landing that sweet, sweet 8th seed is a year worthy of high fives all around.

Sooner or later, everybody's run is over, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean you then move the goalposts, and set the bar at making the playoffs for the next 5-10 years. He's not only acting like last year was a fluke, but that, if the stars aligned a bit better, that Detroit could return to The Promised Land of 'playoff bubble team'. As if that's the gold standard for NHL aspirations for everybody, and the core principle around which every team should be built.

I certainly don't expect any team to achieve excellence every year, not even the defending champs. But I darn well expect a team to pursue excellence. Fervently.

Whether that's reloading or rebuilding or maintaining, you strive to be the best. To have a team that can win it all. To shoot for the stars...not to shoot for the bubble.