Prospect Info: Quinn Hughes Pt. II | Will return to Michigan, Apr. / Sep. join date possible

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
27,056
6,627
Haven’t had time to do a large post about my long talk with Ron Delorme as I’ve been extremely busy, but I’ll reveal what his rankings were, and the conscious between management.

Dahlin
Svechnikov
Hughes
Zadina
Dobson
Bouchard
Tkachuk

Is what I was told. But He also said they desperately wanted a dman because they feel like next year is loaded with superstar forwards. I’ll post the whole convo sometime this week sorry guys.


Didn't Benning say that they had the same top7, just in a different order? That would mean that Kotkaniemi and Hayton were in their top7.

The ranking of Hughes over Zadina lines up with that video where Brackett is seen as saying he prefers Hughes.

Having Hughes at #3 also lines up given how highly touted Zadina was pre-draft. It makes sense that both are high up in the order.


We haven't had awful lottery luck. We've consistently landed about where we should have expected to land based on the percentages.

Failure to win an unlikely lottery doesn't equate to awful luck.


You're right. May be more accurate to say that the Canucks haven't had good luck with regards to the lottery.

Then again, they haven't done what other teams have done to get the percentages on their side either. Have to be awful to be lucky for the draft.
 

Grantham

Registered User
Mar 28, 2017
1,379
1,414
Okay a fun little comparison/exercise I thought of while I couldn’t sleep last night due to the heat...

How would you characterize the similarity, and then differences between Quinn Hughes & Jordan Subban?
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
27,056
6,627
Yes, Quinn Hughes is being described as the d-man version of Patrick Kane...so who cares whether or not he can play defense?...just pair him with a rock like Tryamkin, Tanev or Edler down low, and let him wheel.

He can actually play defense though so...?

I think it's shoddy scouting to say that he wasn't a good defender last year.
 

Wo Yorfat

dumb person
Nov 7, 2016
2,962
3,924
We haven't had awful lottery luck. We've consistently landed about where we should have expected to land based on the percentages.

Failure to win an unlikely lottery doesn't equate to awful luck.

Very fair. Apparently im bad at internet, I was trying to find our odds in each of the lotteries but I failed to do so. If memory serves, it's sorta like we've lost 3 all ins when we've been a 60/40 underdog. Not awful, but still unfortunate.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,883
9,563
Contrary to what Benning indicated as well (same group of 7) so I'm assuming that was Delorme's personal rankings.

or benning was "being less than precise" and just meant they had all those guys ranked highly.

put it this way, the canucks were clearly very surprised and excited to see hayton go at 5th.

now if hayton was in their top 7, and they were surprised to see him go at 5th, that suggests that going into the draft there was a very high chance they expected he was going to be our pick.

how likely is that? and would we react that way if they picked a guy we had decided we were happy to pick?

it also means that dobson and bouchard were not in our top 7.

how likely is that given delorme is saying we wanted a dman. without those guys, the only dman on our list was hughes.

now i suppose maybe we were going to reach for dmen even though we rated kotkaniemi and hayton higher. but that would be pretty bizarre given they are big centres. i think it's way more likely the teams that drafted them reached because they are big centres. that would explain the canuck reaction and also the very similar chicago reaction.
 

DonnyNucker

Registered User
Mar 28, 2017
4,002
2,896
Okay a fun little comparison/exercise I thought of while I couldn’t sleep last night due to the heat...

How would you characterize the similarity, and then differences between Quinn Hughes & Jordan Subban?
Lol why?
 

ChilliBilly

Registered User
Aug 22, 2007
7,133
4,391
chilliwacki
Very fair. Apparently im bad at internet, I was trying to find our odds in each of the lotteries but I failed to do so. If memory serves, it's sorta like we've lost 3 all ins when we've been a 60/40 underdog. Not awful, but still unfortunate.

Actually we have been unlucky. While we have never had a surprisingly bad luck thing happen, basically the odds against never moving up is like less than 10%.
 

Wo Yorfat

dumb person
Nov 7, 2016
2,962
3,924
Actually we have been unlucky. While we have never had a surprisingly bad luck thing happen, basically the odds against never moving up is like less than 10%.

Maybe, I don't have the figures. In the unlikely event my analogy was accurate, the % would be just above 20.
 

M2Beezy

Objective and Neutral Hockey Commentator
Sponsor
May 25, 2014
45,758
31,053
Actually we have been unlucky. While we have never had a surprisingly bad luck thing happen, basically the odds against never moving up is like less than 10%.
Exactly Billy after bad luck in 2016 and 2017 the odds were much higher this year but still lost out. If were a bottom 5 team again next years its pretty close to certain will win a lotto pick (hopefully 1st to get Hughes brother!!)

Then again if PBP continues to accell the way he has then we won that lottery by losing and this year like we won 3rd in the lotto if Benning really had Hughes at 3, which is SUPER possible
 

CanaFan

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
19,887
5,849
BC
Exactly Billy after bad luck in 2016 and 2017 the odds were much higher this year but still lost out. If were a bottom 5 team again next years its pretty close to certain will win a lotto pick (hopefully 1st to get Hughes brother!!)

Then again if PBP continues to accell the way he has then we won that lottery by losing and this year like we won 3rd in the lotto if Benning really had Hughes at 3, which is SUPER possible

No, our odds were lower this year. You *really* should talk to your teacher about some extra math homework. Your math = baaaaaad.
 

M2Beezy

Objective and Neutral Hockey Commentator
Sponsor
May 25, 2014
45,758
31,053
No, our odds were lower this year. You *really* should talk to your teacher about some extra math homework. Your math = baaaaaad.
Just talking about chances ya canafan
 

M2Beezy

Objective and Neutral Hockey Commentator
Sponsor
May 25, 2014
45,758
31,053
Chances = odds. They don’t change because of what happened in the past. Our odds in 2018 were lower because we finished 25th instead of 29th (2017) and 28th (2016).

Those are facts, not opinions.
Yeah i get your point but it doesnt always work that way like in 2017 1st place missed on ALL three lotto picks which makes it liklier to get a spot this year and that IS what happend. If ya group ALL our chances from the last three lotteries PLUS wherever we end next year that we will have won one of those times are odds will be way up. Its no guarantee of course tho
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight53

Josepho

i want the bartkowski thread back
Jan 1, 2015
14,798
8,344
British Columbia
Yeah i get your point but it doesnt always work that way like in 2017 1st place missed on ALL three lotto picks which makes it liklier to get a spot this year and that IS what happend. If ya group ALL our chances from the last three lotteries PLUS wherever we end next year that we will have won one of those times are odds will be way up. Its no guarantee of course tho

No.

The 2018 Sabres defied odds and won with an 18% chance.
 

CanaFan

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
19,887
5,849
BC
Yeah i get your point but it doesnt always work that way like in 2017 1st place missed on ALL three lotto picks which makes it liklier to get a spot this year and that IS what happend. If ya group ALL our chances from the last three lotteries PLUS wherever we end next year that we will have won one of those times are odds will be way up. Its no guarantee of course tho

No. Once an event happens it no longer is part of future odds. This is a statistical fact. The odds are only dependent on what the NHL sets them at.

What you are arguing is factually wrong. This is why I suggest talking to your High School math teacher. Or writing him/her an angry letter because they have clearly done something wrong.
 

M2Beezy

Objective and Neutral Hockey Commentator
Sponsor
May 25, 2014
45,758
31,053
No. Once an event happens it no longer is part of future odds. This is a statistical fact. The odds are only dependent on what the NHL sets them at.

What you are arguing is factually wrong. This is why I suggest talking to your High School math teacher. Or writing him/her an angry letter because they have clearly done something wrong.
Its fine i get what you mean
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanaFan

ProstheticConscience

Check dein Limit
Apr 30, 2010
18,459
10,107
Canuck Nation
Glad to hear it. So when we get to the 2019 draft you get that our odds are simply whatever the NHL gives us, right? It won’t be any higher because we lost from 2016-2018.
You're wasting your time. I've been up and down the gambler's fallacy with M2B like ten times. He doesn't understand probability. Period.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
I thought that this would be fun to tabulate.

The Canucks entered the league, as we all know, with the Sabres in 1970. Our odds at #1 overall were split, 50/50, with Buffalo. We lost. Our odds of winning the lottery can be expressed thusly:

Expected WinsActual Wins
0.50
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Beginning with the 1971 draft and up to the 1995 draft, the order was determined solely by the order of the regular season standings. The Canucks never finished in dead last and, thus, never had a shot at the #1 pick.

Beginning with the 1995 entry draft, the NHL held a lottery to determine the #1 overall pick. This lottery only included teams who had missed the playoffs, which excluded Vancouver, who had lost to Chicago in the second round of the preceding post-season (f*** Chris Chelios.) The Canucks would also make the playoffs one final time the following season, losing to Colorado in the first round.

Therefore, the first lottery participated in by Vancouver was 1997, following a season when the Canucks missed the playoffs by 4 points. Vancouver had the highest amount of points out of the non-playoff teams and thus held the worst odds.

The lottery format remained the same until 2012. I am not able to find the exact odds assigned to teams in those early years, but the odds from 2010-2012 are well-documented and we can assume they were similar for the years previous, although we need to re-distribute to account for the fact that fewer teams were participating in some years, to come up with the following table for the Canucks for the four consecutive years they missed the playoffs:

YearDraft Spot2012 Lottery%# of TeamsEst. Lottery%
1997102.1102.19
1998314.21014.78
1999218.81119.26
2000111.5121.52
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
The Canucks made the playoffs in 2001 (Avs again) and every following season until the lockout canceled the 2004-05 season. For the 2005 draft, the NHL came up with a convoluted method for determining the draft order, which gave all 30 teams the chance at #1 overall (Sidney Crosby, of course.)

For the 2005 draft, four teams were given 3 "balls" to be drawn, and another ten teams were given 2. That left one ball each for the remaining 16 teams (including Vancouver, of course,) and 48 balls in total. The Canucks therefore had a 1 in 48 chance of winning the 2005 lottery, or 2.08%

From 2006-2013 the Canucks would miss the playoffs twice, in 2006 and 2008, and have odds of 0.5% and 1.1% in those two seasons, respectively.

The 2014 draft was a weird one because New Jersey was deemed ineligible to participate as a punishment from the league for the contract given to Ilya Kovalchuk. In the 1.5% chance of New Jersey winning, a re-draw would occur, which means that each team had a slightly higher chance of winning. To determine the Canucks odds, you therefore must sum the 6.2% chance of winning the first draw, with the 6.2% chance of winning the second draw in the 1.5% chance that it occurs. I don't have enough information to calculate this perfectly (since I presume the combination assigned to NJ would not be "put back" for the re-draw) but this gets us close enough:

6.2% + (6.2% * 1.5%) = 6.29%

Close enough!

The Canucks would make the playoffs the following season and not participate again until 2016, by which time the NHL had changed things rather dramatically. Now, the top 3 teams would all be selected by lottery, and since there are now three lotteries, we need to think about our process.

I have decided that from this point on, I am going to simply divide the winning pick by the lottery spot. Thus, winning the #1 overall pick counts as winning the lottery, getting #2 counts for 0.5 and #3 overall counts as 0.33. This is sort of lazy and simple but I think it's good enough. A team that wins #2 overall twice is pretty lucky and arguably as lucky as a team that wins #1 overall once. Looking at it this way, there are now 1.83 lotteries up for grabs each season.

The Canucks had the 3rd worst record for the 2016 draft and had these odds for the 3 lotteries:

Odds of #1 = 11.5%
Odds of #2 = 11.4%
Odds of #3 = 11.3%

Another way to look at this is they had an 11.5% chance at winning a lottery, 11.4% at 0.5 of a lottery, and 11.3% chance at 0.333 of a lottery, or:

(11.5 * 1) + (11.4 * 0.5) + (11.3 * 0.333) = 20.9%

We do the same thing for 2017 and 2018 to get 21.77 and 13.87, respectively.

Putting it all together, the Canucks have had the following historical odds:

Expected WinsCumulative Expected WinsActual WinsNet Luck
19700.500.500.00-0.50
19710.000.500.00-0.50
19720.000.500.00-0.50
19730.000.500.00-0.50
19740.000.500.00-0.50
19750.000.500.00-0.50
19760.000.500.00-0.50
19770.000.500.00-0.50
19780.000.500.00-0.50
19790.000.500.00-0.50
19800.000.500.00-0.50
19810.000.500.00-0.50
19820.000.500.00-0.50
19830.000.500.00-0.50
19840.000.500.00-0.50
19850.000.500.00-0.50
19860.000.500.00-0.50
19870.000.500.00-0.50
19880.000.500.00-0.50
19890.000.500.00-0.50
19900.000.500.00-0.50
19910.000.500.00-0.50
19920.000.500.00-0.50
19930.000.500.00-0.50
19940.000.500.00-0.50
19950.000.500.00-0.50
19960.000.500.00-0.50
19970.020.520.00-0.52
19980.150.670.00-0.67
19990.190.860.00-0.86
20000.020.880.00-0.88
20010.000.880.00-0.88
20020.000.880.00-0.88
20030.000.880.00-0.88
20040.000.880.00-0.88
20050.020.900.00-0.90
20060.050.950.00-0.95
20070.000.950.00-0.95
20080.010.960.00-0.96
20090.000.960.00-0.96
20100.000.960.00-0.96
20110.000.960.00-0.96
20120.000.960.00-0.96
20130.000.960.00-0.96
20140.061.020.00-1.02
20150.001.020.00-1.02
20160.211.230.00-1.23
20170.221.450.00-1.45
20180.141.590.00-1.59
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
As of today, the Canucks have won 1.59 fewer lotteries than we could have expected, confirming that they are, in fact, due. :)

I hope this information helps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad