[News] LeBrun/Dreger - Flames open for Business

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Spurs

Are other fans this delusional when it comes to their teams that they will ignore clear facts to defend the terrible approach, that has clearly been shown not to work, that their team has taken and justify staying mediocre?

And equally as bad as math ? Probably in Edmonton at least

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy14

2 out of the last 15 didn't draft in the top 2 isn't a ringing endorsement for the "you don't need to draft high to win a cup" reasoning.

I repeat for the umpteenth time: HOW MANY OF THE TEAMS THAT DRAFTED IN THE TOP 2 NEVER EVER WON ANYTHING?!!!!

Learn what a correlation is!

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Nobody is defending the Flames here. Nobody. We're taking issue with a particularly lazy and stupid take on what makes a team win the Stanley Cup.

Still waiting on you to tell us the #1 factor to winning a cup.

If it isnt drafting a player 1st or second overall who is a star , what is the number one thing it takes.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Spurs

They shouldn't.

But how far back are we going to go? That Detroit Red Wings team was built in an NHL that is much different from what we have now. The core of Datsyuk, Lidstrom, Zetterberg was drafted at a time when teams did not do the same level of scouting in Europe as they did now. Do you think it is likely or even possible a team is getting that level of players now?

Just because they developed into the top players that they were doesn't mean that they would have been drafted in the top 2,3 or even top 10 in their draft years. Maybe Lidstrom? It's not like European players weren't picked in the 1st round or top echelon of the 1st round. The same year Lidstrom was picked saw fellow countryman Mats Sundin picked 1st overall. You'd think more people than just Detroit's scouts would have noticed Lidstrom when going over to view Sundin. Yes, scouting is better but if Lidstrom showed well back then he would have gone much higher.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I repeat for the umpteenth time: HOW MANY OF THE TEAMS THAT DRAFTED IN THE TOP 2 NEVER EVER WON ANYTHING?!!!!

Learn what a correlation is!

2 teams draft first and second every year . Mathematically at most 50% could win the cup if perfectly correlated at most !

[Fourteen FTW]

The question to ask is what correlation is there (if any) between having a team filled with high draft picks On your team and winning the cup. Some one with more time in their hands than me can probably math (excel) this out in a fun filled evening. If there is a positive correlation, the next question is how different is that make up vs ALL the teams that have not won. That is more work.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I dont think you understand what a blueprint for success means.

It doesn't mean every team that follows it wins. It means if you don't follow it, you very rarely win.

CORRELATION.

You have not established a CORRELATION.

Two teams. Out of the last 15. Play those odds if you want.

HOW MANY TEAMS OVERALL DID NOT HAVE PLAYERS DRAFTED TOP 2?!!!!

What is your percentage chance of winning a cup WITH as compared to WITHOUT your arbitrary criterion? It is NOT THAT MUCH DIFFERENT.

You don't ####ing get it, do you? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Fourteen FTW

The question to ask is what correlation is there (if any) between having a team filled with high draft picks On your team and winning the cup. Some one with more time in their hands than me can probably math (excel) this out in a fun filled evening. If there is a positive correlation, the next question is how different is that make up vs ALL the trams that have not won. That is more work.

That is PRECISELY the question. But Jason14h and Spurs can't see that it even IS a question.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Was there no cap in 2008?

The team wasn't created in a bubble in 2008.

You don't get to say ‘YOU CAN ONLY EVER POSSIBLY WIN THIS WAY,’ and then just dismiss the exceptions.

Explaining why the exceptions exist isn't dismissing them. Vegas had a unique situation where the teams in the league clearly mishandled the expansion draft which resulted them getting talent in ways we never could. They started out with zero cap issues which also helped them add talent.

Ignoring this as though the Flames can do the same things is silly.

So has every other team. That's the point!!!!!!!

No not every other team, the Flames for example don't have a top 5 draft pick they made on their roster.

He wasn't THE big star, or he would have won the Conn Smythe. Jason14h's damn fool theory does not allow for the existence of players like Marchessault.

How does it not allow for the existence of other players? That is completely made up by you, and Eichel easily could have won the Conn Smythe and nobody would have batted an eye. Basing an argument on a vote by media is a pretty thin way to decide things.

I repeat: He is not saying that you need elite talent to win the Stanley Cup. He is saying that it ONLY counts as elite talent if you draft it with the TOP TWO PICKS. And then he ignores all the top-two picks that never won anything, and the teams that won the Cup without having top-two picks. His entire argument is totally illogical, and it comes from ignoring this bit which I posted earlier:

He never said that though. Not once.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

2 teams draft first and second every year . Mathematically at most 50% could win the cup if perfectly correlated at most !

WRONG. Because teams are not restricted to having only one top-2 draft pick on their roster. It is quite mathematically possible for every top-2 pick to be on a Stanley Cup winner during his career. It just doesn't happen.

[Fourteen FTW]

I would guess great playoff goaltending is probably more statistically significant.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That is PRECISELY the question. But Jason14h and Spurs can't see that it even IS a question.

More flat out lies.

Can you make a post without completely making #### up.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That is PRECISELY the question. But Jason14h and Spurs can't see that it even IS a question.

But I never said there was a correlation to having any high picks . I said there was a correlation between having a drafted 1st or 2nd overall pick

You keep changing the statement to “high drafted players “

I’ve never once said that. I am very very clear that the drop off from 1st and 2nd to even 3-5 overall is huge

You need a franchise player to win the cup - and those are found in the top 2 picks

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I repeat for the umpteenth time: HOW MANY OF THE TEAMS THAT DRAFTED IN THE TOP 2 NEVER EVER WON ANYTHING?!!!!

Learn what a correlation is!

I think you’re the one who doesn’t understand. You might want to do some reading on necessary and sufficient conditions.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by Fourteen FTW

The question to ask is what correlation is there (if any) between having a team filled with high draft picks On your team and winning the cup. Some one with more time in their hands than me can probably math (excel) this out in a fun filled evening. If there is a positive correlation, the next question is how different is that make up vs ALL the teams that have not won. That is more work.

First who said anything about a team filled with high draft picks? That was not the argument made.

But what has been shown is that without one extreme example or going back 15 years you can't find a team that won without a top 5 pick they made on their team. That doesn't guarantee you win a Cup with one of those guys, something nobody has said or even suggested, but its hard to argue that without one of those a team is going to win the Cup.

Sure it is possible to be the exception but what is the chances of that? Is that the way a team should look to build by trying to become the exception?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

WRONG. Because teams are not restricted to having only one top-2 draft pick on their roster. It is quite mathematically possible for every top-2 pick to be on a Stanley Cup winner during his career. It just doesn't happen.

Again you keep going back to players changing teams . I am talking about a correlation between players drafted by those picks ON THE TEAm THAT DRAFTED THEM . Just keep putting words in my mouth cause it’s a stat you like !

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Spurs

The team wasn't created in a bubble in 2008.

No, but the team that won without the cap had been dismantled to be compliant. You don't just get to dismiss it as if it didn't count.]

Explaining why the exceptions exist isn't dismissing them.

It is if you are trying to state a rule.

Vegas had a unique situation where the teams in the league clearly mishandled the expansion draft which resulted them getting talent in ways we never could. They started out with zero cap issues which also helped them add talent.

Now do St. Louis.

Ignoring this as though the Flames can do the same things is silly.

NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THE GODDAMN FLAMES HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No not every other team, the Flames for example don't have a top 5 draft pick they made on their roster.

They have had – Bennett. They never won with him.

Every single team has been in that position. Most of them did not win anything while they were in that position.

How does it not allow for the existence of other players? That is completely made up by you,

No, it's me seeing a connection that you don't grasp.

and Eichel easily could have won the Conn Smythe and nobody would have batted an eye. Basing an argument on a vote by media is a pretty thin way to decide things.

As opposed to basing your argument on a vote by scouts cast when the players were 18 years old and had never played a pro game?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Again you keep going back to players changing teams . I am talking about a correlation between players drafted by those picks . Just keep putting words in my mouth cause it’s a stat you like !

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG JESUS H. FLIPPING CHRIST!!!!!

Pittsburgh won the Cup with FOUR, count 'em, FOUR top-two picks on their roster, and they drafted them all themselves. There is no goddam rule that a team can only have one top-two pick! Therefore, it is not impossible for EVERY top-two pick to be on a winning roster, whether they ever change teams or not. IT JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN.

And you have not established ANY correlation, because you have TOTALLY FAILED TO EXAMINE THE NULL HYPOTHESIS. Learn some statistics!

[Jason14h]

We’re not talking about the Flames ? I thought the entire discussion was the Flames path to a Stanley cup starts with getting a top 2 pick ! That was always my point !

[Fourteen FTW]

@spurs - you state “ you can't find a team that won without a top 5 pick they made on their team.”

How many teams that lost have at least one top 5 pick they picked?

You may be able to prove its likely you need one to win. It is unlikely you prove having one does anything to stop you from losing.