Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
See, this is the fallacy. People keep saying that all the Stanley Cup winners of the last decade had previously drafted in the top 3. Well, 90 percent of the league has previously drafted in the top 3.
Put 29 white balls and three black balls in a bin. Then randomly draw a ball, note the colour, and put it back in the bin. The chances of drawing 10 white balls in a row are about 35%. That's not a strong enough correlation to establish a link, even for a sociologist. It's statistical noise.
That's ignoring the point that there is, in fact, a lottery, and no team has better than an 18.5% chance of winning in any given year. Since several teams are going through rebuilds (or just plain sucking) in any given year, your chances realistically are less than that, no matter how hard you try to suck.
Scorched-earth tactics very seldom win battles. But they do get you a lot of scorched earth that you can't use for years afterwards.
|
The goal is to win the Stanley Cup.
Since the modern era began in 2005/2006:
- Only two teams have won the Stanley Cup without a #1 or #2 draft pick on their team that was home grown. That's 88% of the Stanley Cup Champions in that window
- 10 of the 17 teams that won the Stanley Cup had more than one home grown top 4 picks on their team
- 9 of the 17 teams that won the Stanley Cup had more than one home grown top 3 picks on their team
- 0 teams have won the Stanley Cup without at least a #3 draft pick on their team
- Only 2 teams have won the Stanley Cup without a home grown player selected in the top 4.
I don't care about how you get there but the reality is you pretty much need to draft in the top-3 to win a Stanley Cup.