GDT: Red Wings @ Sharks - 10:30 PM EST - FSD

[TCNorthstars]

I can't....I can't even right now. You have a poop mouth.

Probably better poops too!

 

[TheOtherOne]

I think everyone should take a moment and imagine that Ken and Mickey acted actively pro-tank.

"AA is in the clear, let's hope he bobbles the puck- oh no, he puts it right through the 5 hole with 2 minutes left, what a disaster for the Red Wings. They're going to get another useless 2 points out of this one."

"Jimmy is a sieve tonight, he let in 3 easy ones! He's really doing a great job getting us closer to Hughes."

 

[Pavels Dog]

Having better players will equal more wins in the long run. Not meaningless wins that only hurt the long term. Gummie bears taste better than broccoli too, should we have those for dinner instead too?

Getting a #1OA would be awesome but lots of great players are available top 5 and top 10. Calgary and Boston are top 3 in the league, Edmonton and Buffalo still suck. Jersey have Hall and Hishier and are 1 point ahead of us. Pettersson looks generational and was a #5OA.
It's not like a win or two at this point changes our draft odds from "guaranteed elite superstar" to "mediocre depth guy".

 

[Flowah]

Except there is no guarantee whatsoever that you're gonna get that $100.

We can do some basic math here. It won't be perfect but it'll give people a rough idea.

Last place gets you:
18.5% at 1st
16.5% at 2nd
14.4% at 3rd
50.6% at 4th

3rd place gets you:
11.5% at 1st
11.3% at 2nd
11.1% at 3rd
13.2% at 4th
37.7% at 5th
15.2% at 6th

The average PPG of forwards (and I'm excluding d-men because it's hard to add their PPG in with forwards and have it work) of the top6 picks from 2005-2015 are:
1 - .95
2 - .68
3 - .70
4 - .67
5 - .62
6 - .51

Multiply expected payoff (PPG of player) by chance of getting that result and see what's better and by how much. Like if you had a 90% chance of winning $10 but 10% chance of winning $1000, you'd do $9+$100. That's the expected value of that position.

If you do that math and add it all up, you get 73.0 for 1st last place and 66.5 for 3rd to last.

Just for completion's sake, let's do d-men as well:
You end up with 40.1 and 35.6. About the same kind of gap.

Add them up and you get 113.1 vs 102.1.

Not huge gaps. That said, if you're already that low what is the point of not finishing last?

It's ironic that the same people who complain about Mantha and AA's compete level want the team to tank.

I want them to compete hard and I still want the team to lose.

Don't mind them, they're probably not watching the games.

I'm watching every single game. Just like the past 10 seasons, 4 of which I've been actively on the tank train. If you think tankies aren't watching every game you're deluded. We watch to see the development of the younger players.

 

[TheOtherOne]

We can do some basic math here. It won't be perfect but it'll give people a rough idea.

Last place gets you:
18.5% at 1st
16.5% at 2nd
14.4% at 3rd
50.6% at 4th

3rd place gets you:
11.5% at 1st
11.3% at 2nd
11.1% at 3rd
13.2% at 4th
37.7% at 5th
15.2% at 6th

The average PPG of forwards (and I'm excluding d-men because it's hard to add their PPG in with forwards and have it work) of the top6 picks from 2005-2015 are:
1 - .95
2 - .68
3 - .70
4 - .67
5 - .62
6 - .51

Multiply expected payoff (PPG of player) by chance of getting that result and see what's better and by how much. Like if you had a 90% chance of winning $10 but 10% chance of winning $1000, you'd do $9+$100. That's the expected value of that position.

If you do that math and add it all up, you get 73.0 for 1st last place and 66.5 for 3rd to last.

Just for completion's sake, let's do d-men as well:
You end up with 40.1 and 35.6. About the same kind of gap.

Add them up and you get 113.1 vs 102.1.

Not huge gaps. That said, if you're already that low what is the point of not finishing last?


I want them to compete hard and I still want the team to lose.


I'm watching every single game. Just like the past 10 seasons, 4 of which I've been actively on the tank train. If you think tankies aren't watching every game you're deluded. We watch to see the development of the younger players.

I'm not gonna check your math, I'll take your word for it, but I also want to add that the gap between #21 and #31 is 20 points. Therefore, the difference between losing/winning a single game is on average about 1 place in the standings. So cheering for 2 losses is roughly equivalent to gaining 11 points or an 11% gain by your math.

But of course you have to remember the uncertainty involved, and the fact that you can always just draft Petterson. Or Athanasiou. Also I believe these numbers are maxed out going from #3 to #1, and will be less for other cases (like #5 to #3).

All this being said, I won't say it's wrong or illogical to cheer for losses. I just hate it and will never do it myself.

 

[Flowah]

But of course you have to remember the uncertainty involved, and the fact that you can always just draft Petterson. Or Athanasiou.

There is almost no uncertainty near the top and there's less uncertainty closer to the top you get.

I'm not gonna check your math, I'll take your word for it, but I also want to add that the gap between #21 and #31 is 20 points. Therefore, the difference between losing/winning a single game is on average about 1 place in the standings. So cheering for 2 losses is roughly equivalent to gaining 11 points or an 11% gain by your math.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

 

[TheOtherOne]

There is almost no uncertainty near the top and there's less uncertainty closer to the top you get.


Not sure what you're getting at here.

Uh sorry bud the whole thing is uncertainty. We're talking about probabilities. Expected values. Not certain values. As in the expected value is 66.5 but the actual value at the end of the day could be 0.95 or it could be 0.51.

Even if you somehow could lock up the #1oa 100%, you would still have uncertainty because you could have McDavid or you could have Yakupov. Every aspect of this whole damn thing is incredibly uncertain.

And you don't have to infer any hidden meanings, I was just providing numbers for additional context.

 

[Flowah]

Even if you somehow could lock up the #1oa 100%, you would still have uncertainty because you could have McDavid or you could have Yakupov. Every aspect of this whole damn thing is incredibly uncertain.

This is so silly. The whole point of my exercise was expected value, historically.

Your attitude is "it's all so uncertain" so who cares? Then why not trade our 1st rounder every year for 2-3 picks in later rounds? All so uncertain!

Because expected values matter. Because you tend to want to maximize probabilities and one way to do that is the math it out instead of throwing up your hands and saying "But Yakupov!!!" That's an absolutely ludicrous reason to discount the math here. By the same token you could say "But Datsyuk!" and justify stockpiling 7th rounders.

Live by the math. It's better than people.

 

[TheOtherOne]

This is so silly. The whole point of my exercise was expected value, historically.

Your attitude is "it's all so uncertain" so who cares? Then why not trade our 1st rounder every year for 2-3 picks in later rounds? All so uncertain!

Because expected values matter. Because you tend to want to maximize probabilities and one way to do that is the math it out instead of throwing up your hands and saying "But Yakupov!!!" That's an absolutely ludicrous reason to discount the math here. By the same token you could say "But Datsyuk!" and justify stockpiling 7th rounders.

Live by the math. It's better than people.

Dude, uncertainty is a real thing whether you like it or not. It is a fact of reality and there are entire fields of math dedicated to the phenomenon.

If you throw out uncertainty you're saying "if the Red Wings finish 3rd to last they will add a player who scores exactly 66 points every season." That's obviously not how the world works. What ACTUALLY happens in the real world is if the Red Wings finish 3rd to last they will add a fuzzy probability cloud that might eventually turn into a 50 point guy or a 100 point guy, but if you repeat the experiment a thousand times he will on average be a 66 point guy. And that's not even mentioning that there's a lot more to any given player than how many points he scores.

I never said anything close to "who cares". All I did was add context. Real context that exists whether you like it or not. You can draw whatever conclusions you want from it but it's not going away.

Yakupov and Datsyuk aren't crazy hypothetical dream scenarios. They both existed in real life.

 

[The Zermanator]

Uh sorry bud the whole thing is uncertainty. We're talking about probabilities. Expected values. Not certain values. As in the expected value is 66.5 but the actual value at the end of the day could be 0.95 or it could be 0.51.

Even if you somehow could lock up the #1oa 100%, you would still have uncertainty because you could have McDavid or you could have Yakupov. Every aspect of this whole damn thing is incredibly uncertain.

And you don't have to infer any hidden meanings, I was just providing numbers for additional context.

Most #1 picks end up much closer to McDavid than Yakupov. The vast majority go on to have very good careers, many of them HOF.

Dahlin
Hischier
Matthews (Franchise + HOF possibly)
McDavid (Franchise + HOF lock)
Ekblad
MacKinnon (Franchise + HOF possibly)
Yakupov
Nugent-Hopkins
Hall
Tavares (Franchise + HOF possibly)
Stamkos (Franchise + HOF possibly)
Kane (Franchise + HOF lock)
Johnson
Crosby (Franchise + HOF lock)
Ovechkin (Franchise + HOF lock)
Fleury
Nash
Kovalchuk
Dipietro

Those are the #1s going back to 2000. Excluding the goalies and dmen because those are harder to compare and because most #1s are forwards (including this year presumably), you can see you're nearly guaranteed to get a franchise type player.

 

[SirloinUB]

My biggest issue with the tank crowd is ya'll can't even let others enjoy the few wins that do happen. Half of you come in here to ruin the party for those who are trying to extract some enjoyment out of a shitty season(s). We won a couple games and now some posters feel the need to lecture us on the lottery implications as if anybody doesn't know the implications lol. Its toxic.

And the reality is we have zero control over the outcomes. Like it or not, the human beings that play for the red wings give a shit and want to win. Beyond that, the lottery is set up so that even if you finish dead last you're most likely to draft 4th overall anyway. No matter how much we want first overall, there is not a damn thing we can do about it. So maybe, we cancel the tank wagon for one day and not rain on the parade of a couple wins in a season filled with loses.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Most #1 picks end up much closer to McDavid than Yakupov. The vast majority go on to have very good careers, many of them HOF.

Dahlin
Hischier
Matthews
McDavid
Ekblad
MacKinnon
Yakupov
Nugent-Hopkins
Hall
Tavares
Stamkos
Kane
Johnson
Crosby
Ovechkin
Fleury
Nash
Kovalchuk
Dipietro

Those are the #1s going back to 2000. Excluding the goalies and dmen because those are harder to compare and because most #1s are forwards (including this year presumably), you can see you're nearly guaranteed to get a franchise type player.

That's great but
- There's still a huge difference (uncertainty) between Crosby and Nash (and Stills and Young for that matter).
- You still only have an absolute maximum of <20% chance to get 1oa. That in itself is a TON of uncertainty.

 

[Hen Kolland]

This is so silly. The whole point of my exercise was expected value, historically.

Your attitude is "it's all so uncertain" so who cares? Then why not trade our 1st rounder every year for 2-3 picks in later rounds? All so uncertain!

Because expected values matter. Because you tend to want to maximize probabilities and one way to do that is the math it out instead of throwing up your hands and saying "But Yakupov!!!" That's an absolutely ludicrous reason to discount the math here. By the same token you could say "But Datsyuk!" and justify stockpiling 7th rounders.

Live by the math. It's better than people.

Actually, don't live by math. Do you know why the first overall pick is valuable? Get this, it's because you get the FIRST choice. You get the first crack at the talent pool, based on who you think is the best player based on your criteria. That specific player you are selecting has done absolutely nothing to factor into that math. Do you want to be first in line to take a crack at who you think is best? Sure, but expected values based on the past don't mean a literal f***ing thing when you are making that pick. Vancouver at the podium selecting Elas Pettersson at #5 never said the words "With the 5th pick of the 2017 NHL draft, Vancouver is proud to select some kid who we expect to score 0.62 points per game based on historical averages."

Every team wants #1 because it guarantees to get their guy, whoever it is. But they have a vision in their head of what each player they are drafting will be, not what the past is telling them they might be. The entire idea of drafting players is projections of what they as players can evolve into. They are looking at skills, physical tools, mental capacity, personality traits. So no, don't live by math. The math you are sharing is the result, not the cause.

Never manage based solely on historical performance, otherwise you are being oblivious to new developments.

 

[Pavels Dog]

At this point it's hard to make the roster any worse than it is. We're right there in the bottom 3-4 of the league. It's in the hands of bounces and the lottery whether we get a pick in the #4-6 range or the #1-3 range.

And I'd just advise everyone against ever falling too much in love with the #1-2 ranked prospects in a draft. Even being dead last in the league you are not even 50% likely to get one of those picks. But go through draft history and look at how many incredible players have been drafted #3-6 or even #3-10.

 

[The Zermanator]

That's great but
- You still said "most", not "all"
- And we're not just talking about #1oa because the best case scenario is still <20% chance at #1oa.

Sorry, should have said the vast majority of #1 picks, I guess 'most' was too subtle.

That's great but
- There's still a huge difference (uncertainty) between Crosby and Nash (and Stills and Young for that matter).
- You still only have an absolute maximum of <20% chance to get 1oa. That in itself is a TON of uncertainty.

That's great but on top of having the best odds for 1st OA you also know you can't fall any lower than 4th OA if you finish last. Rise a few spots in the standings and you're looking at a likelihood of picking 5th or later.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Sorry, should have said the vast majority of #1 picks, I guess 'most' was too subtle.


That's great but on top of having the best odds for 1st OA you also know you can't fall any lower than 4th OA if you finish last. Rise a few spots in the standings and you're looking at a likelihood of picking 5th or later.

You're responding to me as if I said "losing a game has no value".

I did not say that. In fact one thing I said implied the opposite: "All this being said, I won't say it's wrong or illogical to cheer for losses. I just hate it and will never do it myself."

All I have done was add context, and nothing I've added was incorrect. You're inferring things that aren't there.

 

[iDangleDangle]

Getting a #1OA would be awesome but lots of great players are available top 5 and top 10. Calgary and Boston are top 3 in the league, Edmonton and Buffalo still suck. Jersey have Hall and Hishier and are 1 point ahead of us. Pettersson looks generational and was a #5OA.
It's not like a win or two at this point changes our draft odds from "guaranteed elite superstar" to "mediocre depth guy".

But the difference between a top 5 pick and picking in the 6-10 range IS generally huge, outliers notwithstanding. On one position you get to pick Tkachuks, Draisatls and Marners vs. Granlunds and Rasmussens.

We don't need middle six players or 4-6 d-men. We need gamebreaking talent.

 

[TCNorthstars]

I thought we agreed to keep the tank talk in the tank thread. You know, since they didn’t want any positivity in that thread.

 

[Steve Yzerlland]

Getting a #1OA would be awesome but lots of great players are available top 5 and top 10. Calgary and Boston are top 3 in the league, Edmonton and Buffalo still suck. Jersey have Hall and Hishier and are 1 point ahead of us. Pettersson looks generational and was a #5OA.
It's not like a win or two at this point changes our draft odds from "guaranteed elite superstar" to "mediocre depth guy".

So we should win meaningless games because having the best possible pick is worse than winning those games?

 

[TheOtherOne]

So we should win meaningless games because having the best possible pick is worse than winning those games?

We should win hockey games because it's sports and the objective is to beat the other team.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

We should win hockey games because it's sports and the objective is to beat the other team.

I thought the objective was to win the championship. Why have low standards? Who are we, Phoenix?

 

[SirloinUB]

I thought the objective was to win the championship. Why have low standards? Who are we, Phoenix?

That is definitely the objective of management. For players, and coaches the objective mostly takes on a more day to day focus of winning the game in front of you. Nothing wrong with fans focusing on the day to day objectives as well since their individual desires has no baring on the real outcomes.

Again, this is the annoying part of the tank mentatlity, the fact that you can't let anyone else enjoy the day to day (read: Few wins between the losses). Instead you have lecture a poster about why their enjoyment of win is wrong.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

That is definitely the objective of management. For players, and coaches the objective mostly takes on a more day to day focus of winning the game in front of you. Nothing wrong with fans focusing on the day to day objectives as well since their individual desires has no baring on the real outcomes.

But when one opposes the other, why pick the less exciting one? That's so odd to me.

 

[SirloinUB]

But when one opposes the other, why pick the less exciting one? That's so odd to me.

To this I'd say, rebuilding is a multi-year path that is a winding journey. While good odds in the vacuum of a single draft are better than worse odds, the reality is many things need to align before this team can have playoff success. Moreover there are different routes to that success (ie. do we "need" hughes if we get lafreniere and other draft luck). With that context in mind, whether we finish 30th or 28th this year doesn't really matter because there are other pieces to fall in place (ex. the lottery, the 2020 and 2021 drafts, internal player development, free agent signings etc.)

Also, as I have previously mentioned, this is all completely out of our hands as fans. We can't control whether they win or lose, we cant control where they finish, we cant control where the lottery balls land, we can't control the choices the organization make. So I can whine about losing a handful of percentage points in the lottery or enjoy the win for what it is, a successful night on the ice. I choose option B.

 

[Hen Kolland]

But when one opposes the other, why pick the less exciting one? That's so odd to me.

What you meant to say is “why pick the one I personally don’t agree with?”

Different strokes for different folks. If you can’t grasp the concept that people can have different opinions, you shouldn’t be so vocal about the importance of yours