Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
Here are some far more basic statistics:
Source: Byron Bader |
Those numbers don't prove the claim being made, but let's take a look at them anyway.
Picks 1-5: 5 picks per year, 45.5% chance of a star, average of 2.275 stars per year.
Picks 6-10: 5 picks, 17.8% chance, 0.89 stars per year.
Picks 11-20: 10 picks, 7.1%, 0.71.
Picks 21-30: 10, 8.3%, 0.83.
2nd round: 30, 2.4%, 0.72.
3rd round: 30, 2.1%, 0.63.
4th and 5th rounds: 60, 1.2%, 0.72.
6th round: 30, 0.4%, 0.12.
Average number of stars per draft: 6.895
Average number of stars taken in the top 5 picks: 2.275
Percentage of stars who are drafted in the top 5: 33.0%
A fortiori, the percentage of stars taken with the top 3 picks is still lower.
There is plenty of talent available without drafting in the top 3. The question is whether
trying to draft top-3 (which means deliberately trying to be the worst team in the league) is worth the increased odds of drafting a star in any given year.
If you stumble once in a while and draft early, like Colorado, that's one thing. If you win the lottery against long odds, like Edmonton in 2015, that's another thing. Neither of those is the same as deliberately wrecking your team in the hopes that you will eventually draft enough talent to make up for what you pissed away.
Anyway, none of this addresses the basic question, which was whether teams with one or more top-3 picks have a better chance to win the Stanley Cup than teams without.
Here's a hint for you, Granteed: When I used the term ‘basic statistics’, I meant the branch of mathematics. In particular, I was referring to the method of establishing a correlation, which nobody here has done.
In your response, you used the phrase ‘basic statistics’ to mean something like ‘simple data’. So you did not address either the subject or the content of my claim. For someone who claims to be heavily into advanced stats, this is a shocking lapse.
