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

[CanaFan]

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 Wins	Actual Wins
0.5	0

[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 (**** 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:

Year	Draft Spot	2012 Lottery%	# of Teams	Est. Lottery%
1997	10	2.1	10	2.19
1998	3	14.2	10	14.78
1999	2	18.8	11	19.26
2000	11	1.5	12	1.52

[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.

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 Wins	Cumulative Expected Wins	Actual Wins	Net Luck
1970	0.50	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1971	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1972	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1973	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1974	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1975	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1976	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1977	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1978	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1979	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1980	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1981	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1982	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1983	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1984	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1985	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1986	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1987	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1988	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1989	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1990	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1991	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1992	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1993	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1994	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1995	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1996	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1997	0.02	0.52	0.00	-0.52
1998	0.15	0.67	0.00	-0.67
1999	0.19	0.86	0.00	-0.86
2000	0.02	0.88	0.00	-0.88
2001	0.00	0.88	0.00	-0.88
2002	0.00	0.88	0.00	-0.88
2003	0.00	0.88	0.00	-0.88
2004	0.00	0.88	0.00	-0.88
2005	0.02	0.90	0.00	-0.90
2006	0.05	0.95	0.00	-0.95
2007	0.00	0.95	0.00	-0.95
2008	0.01	0.96	0.00	-0.96
2009	0.00	0.96	0.00	-0.96
2010	0.00	0.96	0.00	-0.96
2011	0.00	0.96	0.00	-0.96
2012	0.00	0.96	0.00	-0.96
2013	0.00	0.96	0.00	-0.96
2014	0.06	1.02	0.00	-1.02
2015	0.00	1.02	0.00	-1.02
2016	0.21	1.23	0.00	-1.23
2017	0.22	1.45	0.00	-1.45
2018	0.14	1.59	0.00	-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.

I loved it until the end because we had just gotten M2B settled and now you’ve revved him up again.

 

[Melvin]

I loved it until the end because we had just gotten M2B settled and now you’ve revved him up again.

Ah, I'm sure he'll understand I am begin facetious.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Ah, I'm sure he'll understand I am begin facetious.

Will he, though?

 

[mathonwy]

I think the pinch he was referring to was on the team Canada breakout leading up to the goal. Hughes came down to the half wall trying to intercept the Canadian pass while the rest of the USA players are skating the opposite direction. Kemp had to cover for Hughes on the left side. Norris has to play right D and is the one engaged to start the battle behind the net. Cotter comes in to support Kemp and Norris down low while Hughes drifts back and stands to the right side of the net. At the time that backhand by Cotter dribbles to Wahlstorm on the half wall, there are still three Americans below the goal line to two Canadians. The whole situation happens because people were playing out of position covering for Hughes after the failed pinch, first Norris then Cotter.

Cotter should be skating back, he's the winger. Hughes took the front of the net, as he should being the late man back, Rassmusen was his check. He charged too far out when Wahlstorm got the puck, pivots back and is not even facing the play when the shot comes nor is he engaged with his check. I agree the Aqualung on this one, a lot of the fault can be put on Hughes.

It wasn't his only defensive breakdown in the game. Canada caught him flat-footed on a few occasions that led to scoring chances, he took a slashing penalty after getting beat that led to the second Canada goal and Studnicka blew pass him for the fifth goal.

Overall he probably created more chances for than against in the game though. Those two goals he assisted on were all him and his skating. He really shines when he's able to beat his check one on one to get to open ice. I thought his first half was pretty weak but was one of the best players in the second half.

Umm..

You should post more.

 

[CanaFan]

Ah, I'm sure he'll understand I am begin facetious.

Oh for sure. If there’s one thing M2B never misses it’s sarcasm

 

[M2Beezy]

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 Wins	Actual Wins
0.5	0

[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 (**** 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:

Year	Draft Spot	2012 Lottery%	# of Teams	Est. Lottery%
1997	10	2.1	10	2.19
1998	3	14.2	10	14.78
1999	2	18.8	11	19.26
2000	11	1.5	12	1.52

[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 Wins	Cumulative Expected Wins	Actual Wins	Net Luck
1970	0.50	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1971	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1972	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1973	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1974	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1975	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1976	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1977	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1978	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1979	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1980	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1981	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1982	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1983	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1984	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1985	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1986	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1987	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1988	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1989	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1990	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1991	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1992	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1993	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1994	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1995	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1996	0.00	0.50	0.00	-0.50
1997	0.02	0.52	0.00	-0.52
1998	0.15	0.67	0.00	-0.67
1999	0.19	0.86	0.00	-0.86
2000	0.02	0.88	0.00	-0.88
2001	0.00	0.88	0.00	-0.88
2002	0.00	0.88	0.00	-0.88
2003	0.00	0.88	0.00	-0.88
2004	0.00	0.88	0.00	-0.88
2005	0.02	0.90	0.00	-0.90
2006	0.05	0.95	0.00	-0.95
2007	0.00	0.95	0.00	-0.95
2008	0.01	0.96	0.00	-0.96
2009	0.00	0.96	0.00	-0.96
2010	0.00	0.96	0.00	-0.96
2011	0.00	0.96	0.00	-0.96
2012	0.00	0.96	0.00	-0.96
2013	0.00	0.96	0.00	-0.96
2014	0.06	1.02	0.00	-1.02
2015	0.00	1.02	0.00	-1.02
2016	0.21	1.23	0.00	-1.23
2017	0.22	1.45	0.00	-1.45
2018	0.14	1.59	0.00	-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.

Thanks for putting this all together Melvin!

 

[krutovsdonut]

so would it be wrong to prefer a single 18 in 20 chance at something as opposed to nineteen 1 in 20 chances at the same thing?

because i don't see cumulative odds working the way melvin calculates them. the canucks have had a series of low percentage chances at the top pick and predictably failed, which is hard cheese, but i don't think bad luck. rather i think most canuck fans think our lottery luck has been bad as regards any better than expected draft pick outcome. we always seem to drop or stay where we are.

 

[CanaFan]

so would it be wrong to prefer a single 18 in 20 chance at something as opposed to nineteen 1 in 20 chances at the same thing?

because i don't see cumulative odds working the way melvin calculates them. the canucks have had a series of low percentage chances at the top pick and predictably failed, which is hard cheese, but i don't think bad luck. rather i think most canuck fans think our lottery luck has been bad as regards any better than expected draft pick outcome. we always seem to drop or stay where we are.

Well at some point any team should have some “luck” even if the odds are always low and therefore the likely outcome is to lose. I haven’t checked Melvin’s numbers but considering we’ve *never* won then we are definitely below our expected win percentage (nothing is lower than 0 in probabilities).

 

[ProstheticConscience]

so would it be wrong to prefer a single 18 in 20 chance at something as opposed to nineteen 1 in 20 chances at the same thing?

because i don't see cumulative odds working the way melvin calculates them. the canucks have had a series of low percentage chances at the top pick and predictably failed, which is hard cheese, but i don't think bad luck. rather i think most canuck fans think our lottery luck has been bad as regards any better than expected draft pick outcome. we always seem to drop or stay where we are.

Bolded: No it would not.

Sorry Melvin. Odds do not accumulate. You've shown that the Canucks have had bad luck historically, to which I must say: duhhhhh! However, this changes nothing about the odds moving forward. All you're doing is frustrating M2B's math teacher next year.

 

[Melvin]

Bolded: No it would not.

Sorry Melvin. Odds do not accumulate. You've shown that the Canucks have had bad luck historically, to which I must say: duhhhhh! However, this changes nothing about the odds moving forward. All you're doing is frustrating M2B's math teacher next year.

I never said anything about our odds moving forward. The bit about us being due was a joke.

In terms of assessing the expected outcomes of the past, of course they accumulate. How many sixes would you expect to get if you rolled a die 10,000 times? Is it zero?

What I did was calculate (for fun) the expected number of lottery wins for our fifty year history. The number I got was 1.59, which is to say that our actual number of wins (0) is slightly less than would be expected. It is no different from saying that if you rolled a die 12 times you would expect to get 2 sixes and since we didn't get any, we were slightly unlucky. Obviously it has no bearing on future rolls.

Here is the wiki link on Expected Value if you want to read more: Expected value - Wikipedia

 

[Melvin]

Well at some point any team should have some “luck” even if the odds are always low and therefore the likely outcome is to lose. I haven’t checked Melvin’s numbers but considering we’ve *never* won then we are definitely below our expected win percentage (nothing is lower than 0 in probabilities).

It was just a fun math exercise that I thought some might enjoy. Obviously 0 is well within the range of 1.59 expected wins and we are probably not even the lowest team if I did this for all the teams.

 

[Melvin]

so would it be wrong to prefer a single 18 in 20 chance at something as opposed to nineteen 1 in 20 chances at the same thing?

If all you need is one success and failures do not harm you in any way, then absolutely yes that would be wrong.

In my left hand I have a standard six-sided die. I will roll it five times. If it comes up 3 on any of my five rolls you win $10,000.
In my right hand I have a standard scratch and win. It has an 80% chance of being a horseshoe. If it is, you win $10,000.

You get to choose, left hand or right?

If you wouldn't take the die, how many times do I have to roll it for you to change your mind? What if I rolled it 10 times instead of 5? What if I rolled it 1,000 times? Obviously at that point you would take the die I hope.

At five rolls the die is your better bet, but the difference is razor thin. At 10 rolls you would be stupid to go for the scratch and win.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

The bit about us being due was a joke.

Sorry, just had a flashback of trying (and failing) to get M2B to understand the Gambler's Fallacy in like 5 other threads.

 

[CanaFan]

It was just a fun math exercise that I thought some might enjoy. Obviously 0 is well within the range of 1.59 expected wins and we are probably not even the lowest team if I did this for all the teams.

It’s perhaps within the range but it’s the lowest possible in that range. You can’t do worse than 0 wins. That’s bad luck.

 

[Melvin]

It’s perhaps within the range but it’s the lowest possible in that range. You can’t do worse than 0 wins. That’s bad luck.

Well yes, by lowest I meant there might be other teams with 0 wins that had a higher expected number of wins.

We've been a pretty good team for most of the NHL's lottery era, and rarely had more than a 10% chance of winning prior to very recently.

 

[CanaFan]

Well yes, by lowest I meant there might be other teams with 0 wins that had a higher expected number of wins.

We've been a pretty good team for most of the NHL's lottery era, and rarely had more than a 10% chance of winning prior to very recently.

Ya though we had a 50% chance in 1970 (I know you listed it but don’t know if you factored it into the cumulative probs) and that’s more than most teams have ever been given.

 

[ChilliBilly]

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

Your lack of understanding of basic math is depressing. I would so love to play poker with you. $500 buy sound reasonable? You do understand that past results in no way affect future results. This is grade 8 math ... you have passed that haven't you?

 

[M2Beezy]

Your lack of understanding of basic math is depressing. I would so love to play poker with you. $500 buy sound reasonable? You do understand that past results in no way affect future results. This is grade 8 math ... you have passed that haven't you?

My math is fine

I dont gamble, so take your immoral poker somewhere else

The rest of us went over the odds of winning the lottery today, we agreed to disagree, get with the program Billy

 

[ChilliBilly]

Okay just read a bunch of the comments here. Simple math. Previous results have no effect on future results. And no the results will no trend toward the average with time. If you play roulette and you get 6 blacks in a row ... by the time you get to 1000 spins, you should have basically 503 blacks and 497 reds. ie the next 994 spins most likely will result in 497 red and 497 black. Yes, the actual results would vary greatly.

Oh, why bother ......

And I don't gamble. I do play tournament poker, tracked it for 3 years, and I made $1:50 for every $1:00 invested. Thats not including winning a tournament at Caesars Palace for $2000. Its not gambling when you expect to win. And the results show it. ( I don't do it for a living because it only turns into about $25 an hour, and that is less than i made when I worked for a living. And if you do it for a living it is no longer fun).

 

[F A N]

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.

I don't know about you, but if I was gambling, I am either going to gamble that this is the year the Canucks actually don't drop down or bet on them dropping down. But if there is a bet that involves the Canucks having better odds at moving up in the draft than Buffalo for the next 10 years, I am going to bet on Buffalo moving up. With that said, I think I have lost money betting black or red on roulette.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

My math is fine

I dont gamble, so take your immoral poker somewhere else

The rest of us went over the odds of winning the lottery today, we agreed to disagree, get with the program Billy

Your math sucks.

This isn't something that's subjective. It's not an opinion or a belief or something that's up for debate. It's probability. You can either cobble enough brain cells together to understand it or you can't.

We're right. You're wrong. That's that.

 

[Melvin]

Okay just read a bunch of the comments here. Simple math. Previous results have no effect on future results. And no the results will no trend toward the average with time. If you play roulette and you get 6 blacks in a row ... by the time you get to 1000 spins, you should have basically 503 blacks and 497 reds. ie the next 994 spins most likely will result in 497 red and 497 black. Yes, the actual results would vary greatly.

Like, who are you talking to?

 

[MadaCanuckle]

My math is fine

I dont gamble, so take your immoral poker somewhere else

The rest of us went over the odds of winning the lottery today, we agreed to disagree, get with the program Billy

Thank God I teach multivariable calculus in Portugal or you would fail my class over and over and over again.

Tell your math teacher that I feel for her. And go to Wikipedia and read something about expected value, estimations and theory of probability. People are trying nicely to explain that you're acting like a dumb prick, thank them, apologize and don't be an arrogant idiot. It pisses me to no end when I get students like you. They always fail.

 

[M2Beezy]

Thank God I teach multivariable calculus in Portugal or you would fail my class over and over and over again.

Tell your math teacher that I feel for her. And go to Wikipedia and read something about expected value, estimations and theory of probability. People are trying nicely to explain that you're acting like a dumb prick, thank them, apologize and don't be an arrogant idiot. It pisses me to no end when I get students like you. They always fail.

Yes, thank God, we sure dodged a bullet there.

 

[Shareefruck]

Sorry, just had a flashback of trying (and failing) to get M2B to understand the Gambler's Fallacy in like 5 other threads.

We keep excusing this guy for being young, but he isn't like thirteen years old, is he? Any teenager who is learning high school math should be able to grasp that concept pretty easily.