Quote:
Originally Posted by ComixZone
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.
|
Only 11 teams have won the cup since 2005.
And it’s all a bit silly anyway as you’re missing what a top 3 pick usually means, which is a high quality homegrown player (usually, but not always with the above) on a team-friendly contract.
Calgary has (off the top of my head) two #5 picks and two #6 picks, all four of which are better than one of the players who went top 3 in their draft year. They also have a #104 pick that is better than the guy who went 1st overall in his draft year. They also have a #3 pick… in Gudbranson. Is Gudbranson the driver of whether they win the cup or not?
Correlation is having a top 3 pick. Causation is having league-leading players in their prime. You get the latter from the former, but that doesn’t mean the former gets you a cup. 14 different teams (almost all of them multiple times) have picked in the top 4 since 2002 without having anything to show for it. Because the pick position itself doesn’t matter, it’s the player you get. And while it increases your chances of getting a good player, it isn’t as necessary as you’re pretending it to be.