Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
Yet 12% of those Cup-winning teams did NOT have a top-3 pick. How do you explain that? By your theory, they should have won nothing.
The fact is, MOST teams, winners and losers alike, have at least one top-3 pick on the roster. It's irrelevant to winning. It's no truer than the old superstition that teams with European captains couldn't win the Stanley Cup, which was formed in the days when hardly any NHL teams had European captains. Well, if you eliminate 90% of the teams from consideration, you'll probably eliminate 90% of the championships, too. That's how these things work – when there is no correlation.
Nothing to do with what I said, but you cling to that narrative and ignore everything else. You appear to be good at that.
|
Ok, fine, but could either of those teams have won if their best player walked prior?
The thing people are arguing is that it would be next to impossible to build your way to a championship team post best player walking. They gave it their shot to try to be Boston or St Louis, didn’t happen with their best core player. With him gone, it is just a fool’s errand to try to be that long shot that might somehow do it against all odds. Our better odds are leveraging assets, building back through the draft and prospects attained.