Went to the Spitfires-Fronts game this afternoon. Not much to report really. I'm starting to like Logan Brown more and more. Still not enough physicality but he is starting to show he can create offence on his own and be a dynamic player. I'd like him with Dallas 1st or our 2nd.
Logan Stanley I do not like there however. Just not enough upside for me to use a pick that high. I do think he has high floor though. Late 2nd I'd be on board.
I cooled a tad on Sergachev. I had him rated on par with Chychrun for a while but not right now. The thing was he improved so much from oct-jan that I was expecting the development curve to continue like that all season. While he is still getting better and better the slope is more gradual and not on a meteoric rise anymore.
Kingston has no one worth drafting imo.
Last edited by druetetective; 03-06-2016 at 06:50 PM.
Some notes about the draft odds. Some of these websites aren't calculating them very well. For example lets say the worst team in the league wins the #1 pick which is the most likely outcome (20% chance). This alters the percentages for the next lottery. If the worst team wins (TOR in my example from todays standings) then the following percentages are in affect for the 2nd lottery:
If TOR wins we actually have a 14.38% chance of winning the 2nd lottery not the 11.4% tankathon says.
Now lets say EDM wins the 2nd lottery with the 16.88% chance. Then we'd have a 17.29% chance of winning the 3rd lottery not the 11.3% chance that tankathon says. Of course I'm giving the examples that end up giving us the highest chance just to show the disparity. The average result will be somewhere in the middle. But we should realize these tankathon odds are not calculated with everything in mind.
So if we did finish 3rd last we'd have a chance of picking top 3 somewhere between 43.17% and 34.8%. Not the 34.2% they say.
Has anyone come across a properly done percentage table that considers all combinations? I started working on a spreadsheet and have gotten the proper percentages for picks 1 and 2 but can't quite get #3 right because it involves a 3 dimensional matrix. I'm close, but can't quite get it to resolve. Will post it if I can get it right.
Has anyone come across a properly done percentage table that considers all combinations? I started working on a spreadsheet and have gotten the proper percentages for picks 1 and 2 but can't quite get #3 right because it involves a 3 dimensional matrix. I'm close, but can't quite get it to resolve. Will post it if I can get it right.
Look 7 posts up.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
Yes, the odds will change after the first lottery, but you can still calculate the overall odds of every possible outcome taking place beforehand.
Here are the initial odds for the first overall pick:[*]14.38%[*]13.29%[*]0.00%[*]12.71%[*]12.57%[*]12.43%[*]12.30%[*]12.23%[*]12.11%[*]11.92%[*]11.86%[*]11.79%
So, yes the odds change as more information becomes available, but you can still use the initial odds to calculate the possibility of every outcome happening and then determine how many times each team is likely to pick in any specific spot depending on all of those outcomes.
So pretty much 50% of the time we'll get first every time.
__________________
Living with Canucks fans since '86
Has anyone come across a properly done percentage table that considers all combinations? I started working on a spreadsheet and have gotten the proper percentages for picks 1 and 2 but can't quite get #3 right because it involves a 3 dimensional matrix. I'm close, but can't quite get it to resolve. Will post it if I can get it right.
Seriously?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
It still amazes me how the sons of a former player can both be so good. I sometimes wonder if it's mostly genes or practice? Or the mix of the two probably more likely but if Michael Nylander adopted 2 random babies would they make the NHL?
It still amazes me how the sons of a former player can both be so good. I sometimes wonder if it's mostly genes or practice? Or the mix of the two probably more likely but if Michael Nylander adopted 2 random babies would they make the NHL?
If we win the lottery and get 1st OA and the Coyotes go 2nd/3rd, and they really wanted to land Matthews for obvious reason. Would something like this work?
2nd OA + Perlini. Big, fast, skilled LW that can play behind Johnny.
Or 2nd OA + Merkley + 2nd rounder. Great playmaker for the 2nd line with probably Monahan in the future similar to the Monny/Johnny duo right now, and he's a local kid.
Add on Laine/Puljujarvi for our 1st line along with Gaudreau and Bennett. That would give us a very amazing and young top-6 core.
No. Take Matthews and move on. The team has never drafted first overall, you make the pick and you celebrate it as the building block needed to move forwards...not the building block needed to get the next first overall like those no good oilers.
Matthews is tr best player available, you take the best player available.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
No. Take Matthews and move on. The team has never drafted first overall, you make the pick and you celebrate it as the building block needed to move forwards...not the building block needed to get the next first overall like those no good oilers.
Matthews is tr best player available, you take the best player available.
What happens if you don't believe Matthews is the BPA? Believe it or not, not everyone's draft list looks like Bob McKenzie's or Central Scouting's. This is one of things that the Internet blogosphere echo-chamber has established; the belief that there is some master list that all teams draft from. This isn't the case. There is a great deal of variation in lists. It isn't as bad as baseball or football, but the variation is enough that a clear consensus in a close draft year like this one is probably unlikely.
Also, a move like the one suggested is not out of the realm of possibilities. Depending on what the Flames wanted in return the Coyotes could easily address that need and make it worth while to trade away the first pick. Seriously, if you were given the opportunity to have Matthews or have Laine and your pick of one or two players from the Coyotes prospect pool, you take Laine and the player(s). You talk about building blocks but ignore the obvious of grabbing two major building blocks at positions of weakness over one at a position of strength. I'll take a good distribution of quality players through out the lineup than a bunch of assets at the same position. That is how you build a winner.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
If we win the lottery and get 1st OA and the Coyotes go 2nd/3rd, and they really wanted to land Matthews for obvious reason. Would something like this work?
2nd OA + Perlini. Big, fast, skilled LW that can play behind Johnny.
Or 2nd OA + Merkley + 2nd rounder. Great playmaker for the 2nd line with probably Monahan in the future similar to the Monny/Johnny duo right now, and he's a local kid.
Add on Laine/Puljujarvi for our 1st line along with Gaudreau and Bennett. That would give us a very amazing and young top-6 core.
I wouldn't do Perlini because I don't think he's that good.
What happens if you don't believe Matthews is the BPA? Believe it or not, not everyone's draft list looks like Bob McKenzie's or Central Scouting's. This is one of things that the Internet blogosphere echo-chamber has established; the belief that there is some master list that all teams draft from. This isn't the case. There is a great deal of variation in lists. It isn't as bad as baseball or football, but the variation is enough that a clear consensus in a close draft year like this one is probably unlikely.
Also, a move like the one suggested is not out of the realm of possibilities. Depending on what the Flames wanted in return the Coyotes could easily address that need and make it worth while to trade away the first pick. Seriously, if you were given the opportunity to have Matthews or have Laine and your pick of one or two players from the Coyotes prospect pool, you take Laine and the player(s). You talk about building blocks but ignore the obvious of grabbing two major building blocks at positions of weakness over one at a position of strength. I'll take a good distribution of quality players through out the lineup than a bunch of assets at the same position. That is how you build a winner.
I know not every list is the same but it seems like the only lists out there that don't have Matthews at the top are the ones trying to be different. I mean I've seen a list with Pulljajarvi at 8 or something. From what I've seen Matthews is by far the best player out there and he plays the most important forward position, you can move a center to the wing but you can't always move a winger to center.
Another issue with all of this is that there's the assumption that the coyotes would give up a lot just to get Matthews. Arizona has started to improve their team and maybe they really like all the players that they have. They may also be some of the people you mentioned that don't see that big of a difference between 1-3 and if they do see a difference it may only be a 3rd round pick to move up kind of difference.
As I said, I think Matthews is head and shoulders above the other 2 (who are still pretty amazing) and IMO you have to take the quality over the quantity. The teams the Flames have put together in the past had more of a quantity feel to them with all the 20 goal scorers and depth at every position. The team seemed like it was a bunch of ok players with 2 or 3 stars and really only 1 forward who was a star. I don't think that's how you build a winner, I actually think that's how you build teams we've had in the past. If you look at the teams who've won a cup recently, they've all drafted first overall or very close and that's because they took the BPA. I spoke of building blocks but and picked quality because in order to build something properly, you need a good foundation and Matthews has the makings of great player who could actually be the best player on the team, he's a guy you build around. The next guys are amazing guys and could be guys like that too but I think it's better to have more guys you build around then guys that you use to build around others (if that makes sense).
So unless Arizona is willing to over pay (and it would have to be more than just their first rounder and 1 player, I'm talkingi a huge over payment) I think you take Matthews. I guess I did make it sound like there was no way to do it but again the whole "anything's possible" comes into play.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
