Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,226
- 14,726
Lately I have seen a lot of comments from Ken Holland where he talks about Philadelphia winning the #2 pick in the lottery, as justification that it is a smart move to try and make the playoffs, because even if you fail you can get lucky and get a top 3 pick. I had to ask myself… Does this guy understand that Philadelphia had a 2.4% chance at pulling that off? Or maybe, am I the one who is missing something here? So I decided to dig a little deeper.
If we look at the lottery odds from this last draft, the one thing that seems apparent to me is that the NHL wanted to make it harder to obtain a top 3 pick. I don’t think that was an accident by any means, most of the data I have seen shows a strong correlation between a top 3 pick and a productive player (we will dive into that more later), and I am sure the folks in the NHL front office are well aware of that.
(Source)
Now, you can look at this a number of different ways. And I did narrow this down to just the top 3 picks, although I am about to give some reasoning as to why that is. But the team that was the 3rd worst in the team last year only has a 10% better chance (30.7%) at a top pick than we had as the 7th worst team (20.9%). The 7th worst team in the league (20.9%) only has a 10% chance at a top 3 pick than the 11th worst team (10.5%). Quite honestly, this was pretty surprising to me. Supplanting one of the bottom 3 teams (Vegas, Colorado, and Vancouver) isn’t as easy as it might seem. Asking your fans to sit through a tank when it gets you a guarantee at McDavid/Eichel is pretty understandable. But asking fans to sit through a tank when it only gets you a 48.1% chance at a top 3 pick? Tough spot for a GM to be in.
So, why did the NHL purposefully draw the line at the top 3? Well, data taken from 1998 to 2010 tells you that the top 3 picks are easily your best bet for finding forwards that produce 55 points and up. See below for some data from this time period:
(Source )
Conclusion: The top 3 picks of the draft are far and away a team’s best bet at landing an impact player that can change the direction of a franchise. The NHL re-structured the lottery to make obtaining these picks harder than it has ever been. So in my opinion, there is more luck needed with re-building than ever before. Now that’s not to say this is completely out of our control, we can still do things to better our odds.
The most logical way to beat the odds would be to go for the prospects that have the highest ceiling, and could out-produce the average output of their peers at their draft position. This is a strategy that requires taking risks, as sometimes those boom/bust prospects have a higher risk of not making it to the NHL at all. Vegas GM George McPhee (also responsible for finding Backstrom, Semin, Kuznetsov) said his outlook on the draft is this:
In picking Glass, Suzuki, and Brannstrom with his first 3 picks with Vegas, I think he is practicing what he preaches. That is the approach that our team should have with every draft at this juncture as well.
The best way to support this strategy is to acquire as many picks as possible, so you can take more liberty with some of your picks on these risky boom/bust type of prospects. Last year we did a good job at acquiring picks at the deadline. That needs to be the norm on a yearly basis. Holland should take a look at the team every Dec/Jan, and field calls on everyone not named Larkin/Mantha, and decide who he can part with to acquire more picks. I would deem this as absolutely essential in re-building this team.
If we look at the lottery odds from this last draft, the one thing that seems apparent to me is that the NHL wanted to make it harder to obtain a top 3 pick. I don’t think that was an accident by any means, most of the data I have seen shows a strong correlation between a top 3 pick and a productive player (we will dive into that more later), and I am sure the folks in the NHL front office are well aware of that.
Below you can find the odds of obtaining a top 3 pick in the lottery:
31st - 48.1%
30th- 35.2%
29th - 30.7%
28th - 30.7%
27th- 26.0%
26th- 23.4%
25th- 20.9%
24th – 18.3%
22nd – 17.1%
21st – 14.4%
20th – 10.5%
19th – 8.4%
18th – 7.3%
17th – 5.8%
16th- 3.0%
31st - 48.1%
30th- 35.2%
29th - 30.7%
28th - 30.7%
27th- 26.0%
26th- 23.4%
25th- 20.9%
24th – 18.3%
22nd – 17.1%
21st – 14.4%
20th – 10.5%
19th – 8.4%
18th – 7.3%
17th – 5.8%
16th- 3.0%
(Source)
Now, you can look at this a number of different ways. And I did narrow this down to just the top 3 picks, although I am about to give some reasoning as to why that is. But the team that was the 3rd worst in the team last year only has a 10% better chance (30.7%) at a top pick than we had as the 7th worst team (20.9%). The 7th worst team in the league (20.9%) only has a 10% chance at a top 3 pick than the 11th worst team (10.5%). Quite honestly, this was pretty surprising to me. Supplanting one of the bottom 3 teams (Vegas, Colorado, and Vancouver) isn’t as easy as it might seem. Asking your fans to sit through a tank when it gets you a guarantee at McDavid/Eichel is pretty understandable. But asking fans to sit through a tank when it only gets you a 48.1% chance at a top 3 pick? Tough spot for a GM to be in.
So, why did the NHL purposefully draw the line at the top 3? Well, data taken from 1998 to 2010 tells you that the top 3 picks are easily your best bet for finding forwards that produce 55 points and up. See below for some data from this time period:
Conclusion: The top 3 picks of the draft are far and away a team’s best bet at landing an impact player that can change the direction of a franchise. The NHL re-structured the lottery to make obtaining these picks harder than it has ever been. So in my opinion, there is more luck needed with re-building than ever before. Now that’s not to say this is completely out of our control, we can still do things to better our odds.
The most logical way to beat the odds would be to go for the prospects that have the highest ceiling, and could out-produce the average output of their peers at their draft position. This is a strategy that requires taking risks, as sometimes those boom/bust prospects have a higher risk of not making it to the NHL at all. Vegas GM George McPhee (also responsible for finding Backstrom, Semin, Kuznetsov) said his outlook on the draft is this:
In picking Glass, Suzuki, and Brannstrom with his first 3 picks with Vegas, I think he is practicing what he preaches. That is the approach that our team should have with every draft at this juncture as well.
The best way to support this strategy is to acquire as many picks as possible, so you can take more liberty with some of your picks on these risky boom/bust type of prospects. Last year we did a good job at acquiring picks at the deadline. That needs to be the norm on a yearly basis. Holland should take a look at the team every Dec/Jan, and field calls on everyone not named Larkin/Mantha, and decide who he can part with to acquire more picks. I would deem this as absolutely essential in re-building this team.
Frk It thanks for re-posting that the Flyers had a 2% possibility to win the lottery, it's idiotic Holland would reference this as a reliable occurrence.
