Where would you rather the Montreal Canadiens finish this year? (Part 2)

[BaseballCoach]

Depends on the team and the year. People are talking about the Habs, this year. Looking at the holes Montreal have, people preferred to get a shot at drafting 1st overall than getting booted out of first round.
There is a time to really look at the POs as an important learning experience for your up and coming team. This year wasn't it for us.

Agreed some posters made specific reference to this year, but I find that the great majority of pro-tanking posters would either approve or not object to comments equating a first round loss to a failure without any caveats.

But even referring to this year's Habs, I felt and still feel that on balance the Habs are more of an "up and coming" team than they are "spent and falling". No guarantees of course, but the age of our center line, the depth of our prospect pool and the cap space the club has are elements that would help drive a further climb, IF THE RIGHT MOVES ARE MADE NEXT.

 

[Kriss E]

Agreed some posters made specific reference to this year, but I find that the great majority of pro-tanking posters would either approve or not object to comments equating a first round loss to a failure without any caveats.

But even referring to this year's Habs, I felt and still feel that the Habs are on balance more of an up and coming team than a spent and falling team. No guarantees of course, but the age of our center line, the depth of our prospect pool and the cap space the club has are elements pointing in the right direction, IF THE RIGHT MOVES ARE MADE NEXT.

Doesn't matter. I think adding a high pick to this team would be more beneficial for us than a 1st round exit.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Doesn't matter. I think adding a high pick to this team would be more beneficial for us than a 1st round exit.

Of course, adding a high pick to ANY team is always beneficial. But if a team is not one of the worst teams in the league, the league policy is to only give that team a very small chance for a top-3 pick.

Notwithstanding that we might WISH for free stuff, the league is designed to give a small break to bad teams, but the design is such that it is not BETTER to be a bad team than a good team. If the advantage were really so big, professional teams would mainly want to lose instead of win. Even the pro-tankers acknowledge that intentional tanking behaviour is rarely done, and certainly rarely done BEFORE the point in a season where the chances of success are realized to be nil.

The flaw in the bolded statement above that is that the posters like #KrissE are holding the team's real worth as a constant and just commenting on whether a high pick is better for that one and the same team as the experience of getting playoff experience - as if the chances the next year are exactly the same except for the one and only difference of draft rank. But that is not how the league is set up.

I showed yesterday that in the last 13 years, 12 times a team went from supposed "no man's land" - meaning not bottom-5 and not top-8 - to playing for the Cup the next year. In Zero cases did a team go from bottom 5 to playing for a Cup the next year. This is why the league gives the worst teams a small break - so that they can eventually get a bit of help with some talent for 3 years before the salary cap catches up to them.

But it is still better medium-term and long-term to be good than to be bad, unless you are making desperate moves that compromise your future.

 

[ECWHSWI]

Of course, adding a high pick to ANY team is always beneficial. But if a team is not one of the worst teams in the league, the league policy is to only give that team a very small chance for a top-3 pick.

Notwithstanding that we might WISH for free stuff, the league is designed to give a small break to bad teams, but the design is such that it is not BETTER to be a bad team than a good team. If the advantage were really so big, professional teams would mainly want to lose instead of win. Even the pro-tankers acknowledge that intentional tanking behaviour is rarely done, and certainly rarely done BEFORE the point in a season where the chances of success are realized to be nil.

The flaw in the bolded statement above that is that the posters like #KrissE are holding the team's real worth as a constant and just commenting on whether a high pick is better for that one and the same team as the experience of getting playoff experience - as if the chances the next year are exactly the same except for the one and only difference of draft rank. But that is not how the league is set up.

I showed yesterday that in the last 13 years, 12 times a team went from supposed "no man's land" - meaning not bottom-5 and not top-8 - to playing for the Cup the next year. In Zero cases did a team go from bottom 5 to playing for a Cup the next year. This is why the league gives the worst teams a small break - so that they can eventually get a bit of help with some talent for 3 years before the salary cap catches up to them.

But it is still better medium-term and long-term to be good than to be bad, unless you are making desperate moves that compromise your future.

and you know, of all the team finishing between 9th and 25th for 13 years, 12 of them equals to what ? 5% ? 6% ? maybe less ?

and you're not talking about WINNING the cup here, just making it to the SCF...



my guess ? if you were to look at all those teams during 13 years, you will find more than 12 that finished bottom 5 the following year, and our beloved Habs will be in there.
(top of my head : Habs, Sens, NYR, Oilers all at least once all from 2 seasons ago)

 

[BaseballCoach]

and you know, of all the team finishing between 9th and 25th for 13 years, 12 of them equals to what ? 5% ? 6% ? maybe less ?

and you're not talking about WINNING the cup here, just making it to the SCF...

my guess ? if you were to look at all those teams during 13 years, you will find more than 12 that finished bottom 5 the following year, and our beloved Habs will be in there.
(top of my head : Habs, Sens, NYR, Oilers all at least once all from 2 seasons ago)

The right way to compare the odds is to look at top-2 versus bottom-2, not bottom-five

In the 13 years in question, 7 times did a first round loser go to the Cup Final the next year, and 5 times the team dropped to bottom-2, none since 2012.

This hardly makes losing in the first round the worst thing that can happen to a team.

As for finishing out of the playoffs but not bottom-5, there have been 117 teams in that position, and 5 made it to the finals next year, while 12 times they slipped to bottom-2.

Bottom-5 teams, there have been 65 of them, and NONE went to the finals next year, while 20 stayed bottom-5.

Make of these stats what you will.

 

[ECWHSWI]

The right way to compare the odds is to look at top-2 versus bottom-2, not bottom-five

In the 13 years in question, 7 times did a first round loser go to the Cup Final the next year, and 5 times the team dropped to bottom-2, none since 2012.

This hardly makes losing in the first round the worst thing that can happen to a team.

As for finishing out of the playoffs but not bottom-5, there have been 117 teams in that position, and 5 made it to the finals next year, while 12 times they slipped to bottom-2.

Bottom-5 teams, there have been 65 of them, and NONE went to the finals next year, while 20 stayed bottom-5.

Make of these stats what you will.

why do move the goal post all the time ?


YOU start by talking about bottom 5 and top 8... now you're switching to top 2 vs bottom 2 ? and out of the PO instead of bottom 5 ?

so, none of your calculations mean anything I guess.

 

[Kriss E]

Make of these stats what you will.

Your stats mean jack f***ing shit mate, no disrespect.

They mean nothing for the Habs now, next year and the ones following.
Habs are not gonna make the finals this year, or next year unless major additions are made.

 

[BaseballCoach]

VALUE OF FINISHING BOTTOM-5

Since entry-level contracts last 3 years especially for the top draft picks, let's compare how bottom-5 teams do 3 years later, since 2007.

2007:
Philadelphia 30th to 18th
Phoenix 29th to R1
Los Angeles 28th to R1
Washington 27th to R1
Chicago 26th to Cup

2008:
Tampa Bay 30th to R3
Los Angeles 29th to R1
Atlanta 28th to 25th
Saint Louis 27th to 20th
NY Islanders 26th to 27th

2009:
NY Islanders 30th to 27th
Tampa Bay 29th to 21st
Colorado 28th to 20th
Atlanta 27th to 22nd
Los Angeles 26th to Cup

2010:
Edmonton 30th to 24th
Toronto 29th to R1
Florida 28th to 30th
Columbus 27th to 17th
NY Islanders 26th to R1

2011:
Edmonton 30th to 28th
Colorado 29th to R1
Florida 28th to 29th
NY Islanders 27th to 26th
Ottawa 26th to 21st

2012:
Columbus 30th to 23rd
Edmonton 29th to 28th
Montreal 28th to R2
NY Islanders 27th to R1
Toronto 26th to 27th

2013:
Florida 30th to R1
Colorado 29th to 21st
Nashville 28th to R2
Tampa Bay 27th to R3
Carolina 26th to 18th

2014:
Buffalo 30th to 26th
Florida 29th to 23rd
Edmonton 28th to R2
Calgary 27th to R1
NY Islanders 26th to 17th

2015:
Buffalo 30th to 31st
Arizona 29th to 29th
Edmonton 28th to 23rd
Toronto 27th to R1
Carolina 26th to 21st

CONCLUSION
26% of NHL teams win at least one playoff round each season.
Out of the 45 teams that finished bottom five between 2006 and 2015, only 7 or 15% won a playoff round three years later.
Finishing bottom-5 gets a high draft pick, but is still a less likely path to success than higher finishes.

 

[BaseballCoach]

VALUE OF LOSING IN THE 1st ROUND

Teams that make the playoffs and lose in the first round have as a goal to do better or at least as well the following year.

Here are the results the following year for the 8 teams that lost in the 1st round each year:

2006
2 teams move up to top 8
3 teams stay in same position
3 teams fall out of playoffs

2007
2 teams move up to top 8
3 teams stay in same position
3 teams fall out of playoffs

2008
3 teams move up to top 8
2 teams stay in same position
3 teams fall out of playoffs

2009
3 teams move to top 8
1 team stays in same position
4 teams fall out of playoffs

2010
2 teams move up to top 8
3 teams stay in same position
3 teams fall out of playoffs

2011
3 teams move up to top 8
2 teams stay in same position
3 teams fall out of playoffs

2012
6 teams move up to top 8
1 team stays in same position
1 team falls out of playoffs

2013
3 teams move to top 8
1 team stays in same position
4 teams fall out of playoffs

2014
1 team moves up to top 8
2 teams stay in same position
5 teams fall out of playoffs

2015
4 teams move up to top 8
1 team stays in same position
3 teams fall out of playoffs

2016
2 teams move up to top 8
2 teams stay in same position
4 teams fall out of playoffs

2017
2 teams move to top 8
3 teams stay in same position
3 teams fall out of playoffs


SUMMARY
48% of teams finish out of the playoffs each season.
Out of 96 teams losing in the first round from 2006 to 2017, only 40% finished out of the playoffs the next season

26% of teams win at least one round of the playoffs each season
Out of 96 teams losing in the first round from 2006 to 2017, 34% won round the next season

52% of teams make the playoffs each season.
Out of 96 teams losing in the first round from 2006 to 2017, 60% made the playoffs the next season


CONCLUSION
It appears that making the playoffs, even if losing in the first round, brings better than average chances of making the playoffs again the next year, and significantly better than average chances of winning a round the next year

 

[BaseballCoach]

why do move the goal post all the time ?


YOU start by talking about bottom 5 and top 8... now you're switching to top 2 vs bottom 2 ? and out of the PO instead of bottom 5 ?

so, none of your calculations mean anything I guess.

No, they do.

I measured the chances of a team finishing in the "dreaded no man's land" making the finals the next season. You then compared that to finishing bottom-5. It wasn't me who tried to compare the odds of hitting two top spots with five bottom spots, that was YOU. I responded by levelling the field to 2 vs 2.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Your stats mean jack ****ing **** mate, no disrespect.

They mean nothing for the Habs now, next year and the ones following.
Habs are not gonna make the finals this year, or next year unless major additions are made.

I agree with you. Of course major additions are needed. I did not say otherwise. I'm showing the odds of teams that were able to improve in the past, based on their starting position the year before or three years before, depending on their time horizon (three years for bottom 5 teams, and next year for playoff teams and wanna-bes). No one said those teams improved by doing nothing.

 

[Kriss E]

I agree with you. Of course major additions are needed. I did not say otherwise. I'm showing the odds of teams that were able to improve in the past, based on their starting position the year before or three years before, depending on their time horizon (three years for bottom 5 teams, and next year for playoff teams and wanna-bes). No one said those teams improved by doing nothing.

Great, but again, it means nothing in regards to Habs.
We would be better off fighting to get a top pick than a 1st rd exit this year. That is why many people did not care to make the POs.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Great, but again, it means nothing in regards to Habs.
We would be better off fighting to get a top pick than a 1st rd exit this year. That is why many people did not care to make the POs.

How do you fight to get a top pick?

Also, which Habs team? The one that would be bottom-5 or the one that would make the playoffs? Because they are not the same team.

That's what people don't get. You hear things like "imagine if we had McDonaugh right now?"

Well you can imagine it if you want, but you can't just take the roster of today and add McDonaugh. Because everything else would have changed.

 

[Kriss E]

How do you fight to get a top pick?

Just a manner of speaking. Basically, I'd rather have moved some of our guys and see us lower in the standings than be a bubble team.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Just a manner of speaking. Basically, I'd rather have moved some of our guys and see us lower in the standings than be a bubble team.

The league is set up so that the compensation for sucking is less than what is guaranteed to alleviate the sucking. This is so teams don't compete to lose instead of compete to win.

If you move guys to suck, you would then have to replace the guys you moved. The odds are that won't work. But you can pray for a miracle.

 

[montreal]

Would you also want to puke if your family did not receive the maximum child benefits because you were not in the poorest quintile of families in the country?

so out of the questions I asked you just come up with some odd non hockey what if? You must have went back 10-15-20 pages to select my quote, and then don't even discuss what I said and just ask some odd question? What's the point?

 

[Kriss E]

The league is set up so that the compensation for sucking is less than what is guaranteed to alleviate the sucking. This is so teams don't compete to lose instead of compete to win.

If you move guys to suck, you would then have to replace the guys you moved. The odds are that won't work. But you can pray for a miracle.

I've already addressed this.
Timing is what matters. If you're expecting to contend soon, then you dont do that. If you are years away and are looking to change the core, as we have, then you are likely better off moving some guys to focus on solidifying your core.
The support crew isnt a priority at this point.
If we can't even replace our guys, none of it matters as whatever direction we take will lead to failure.

 

[BaseballCoach]

I've already addressed this.
Timing is what matters. If you're expecting to contend soon, then you dont do that. If you are years away and are looking to change the core, as we have, then you are likely better off moving some guys to focus on solidifying your core.
The support crew isnt a priority at this point.
If we can't even replace our guys, none of it matters as whatever direction we take will lead to failure.

In today's world where low-value contracts only last three years, you ALWAYS have to look to contend soon. Otherwise, your star players will be on $10M contracts while you still haven't won more than one playoff series.

We already know that even a star player like McDavid can't do it alone. If you move out too many complementary players (Top-9 forwards and top-4D) then you actually get further away from contention.

I don't want to replace the complementary players, just move them down the depth chart.

If Danault became our 3C and Gallagher our 2RW and Mete our 3LD, then we're talking!

 

[admiralcadillac]

why is it so ****ing hard to say Bergevin was lucky in ONE of the trades he made ? you're Bergevin fanatics and you can't stand the idea he would not be perfect or something ?

Do you [Mod] invent your own legion of bergevin fanatics?

The only fanatics I see are the ones desperate not to give him credit

Sounds like leafs fans

It's not an unreasonable position to accept that Bergevin has made bad moves along with good moves

 

[ECWHSWI]

No, they do.

I measured the chances of a team finishing in the "dreaded no man's land" making the finals the next season. You then compared that to finishing bottom-5. It wasn't me who tried to compare the odds of hitting two top spots with five bottom spots, that was YOU. I responded by levelling the field to 2 vs 2.

wrong.

the post is very clear. you told there's was 12 teams going from your "no mans land" to SCF the next year...

I then asked you how many went from your "no mans land" to bottom 5 (the other extreme you know) the next year...



didnt look as good as you thought is my guess... so you made brand new calculations.

 

[ECWHSWI]

Do you [Mod] invent your own legion of bergevin fanatics?

The only fanatics I see are the ones desperate not to give him credit

Sounds like leafs fans

It's not an unreasonable position to accept that Bergevin has made bad moves along with good moves

hey! your last sentence almost looks like a hockey comment, for once... congrat!

 

[admiralcadillac]

hey! your last sentence almost looks like a hockey comment, for once... congrat!

Maybe you can learn something from it

 

[Legend123]

I dont understand why people would not take short-term steps back (or short-term pain) for long-term enjoyment. We throw one season away, we are rewarded with years of elite talent, aka Last season and Kotkaniemi. Had we tanked, with the deep draft this season and next one, we would have a chance to build one of the best cores in the NHL and compete for a cup in an NHL where young players are now starting to dominate.
So not only are we entering a young player friendly era (unlike when the Oilers and Sabres undertook their centuries-long rebuild) we are entering a couple of high-end elite drafts, again unlike both those teams that had to cotempt themselves with relative mediocre talent as their top 3 picks (Yakupov, Reinhart, Hopkins, etc..)

 

[ECWHSWI]

Maybe you can learn something from it

did not last long, was it your first and last of the day ? or you plan to make another (almost) hockey comment before the day ends ?

 

[ECWHSWI]

I dont understand why people would not take short-term steps back (or short-term pain) for long-term enjoyment. We throw one season away, we are rewarded with years of elite talent, aka Last season and Kotkaniemi. Had we tanked, with the deep draft this season and next one, we would have a chance to build one of the best cores in the NHL and compete for a cup in an NHL where young players are now starting to dominate.
So not only are we entering a young player friendly era (unlike when the Oilers and Sabres undertook their centuries-long rebuild) we are entering a couple of high-end elite drafts, again unlike both those teams that had to cotempt themselves with relative mediocre talent as their top 3 picks (Yakupov, Reinhart, Hopkins, etc..)

because bad teams too have elite players, meaning getting another top pick pretty much guarantees the Habs would be bad...

or something along those lines.