TCNorthstars
Registered User
I can't....I can't even right now. You have a poop mouth.
Probably better poops too!
I can't....I can't even right now. You have a poop mouth.
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.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?
We can do some basic math here. It won't be perfect but it'll give people a rough idea.Except there is no guarantee whatsoever that you're gonna get that $100.
I want them to compete hard and I still want the team to lose.It's ironic that the same people who complain about Mantha and AA's compete level want the team to tank.
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.Don't mind them, they're probably not watching the games.
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.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.
There is almost no uncertainty near the top and there's less uncertainty closer to the top you get.But of course you have to remember the uncertainty involved, and the fact that you can always just draft Petterson. Or Athanasiou.
Not sure what you're getting at here.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.
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.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.
This is so silly. The whole point of my exercise was expected value, historically.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.
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.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.
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.
That's great butMost #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.
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.
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.
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.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.
You're responding to me as if I said "losing a game has no value".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.
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?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".
We should win hockey games because it's sports and the objective is to beat the other team.So we should win meaningless games because having the best possible pick is worse than winning those games?
I thought the objective was to win the championship. Why have low standards? Who are we, Phoenix?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?
But when one opposes the other, why pick the less exciting one? That's so odd to me.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.
But when one opposes the other, why pick the less exciting one? That's so odd to me.