carpandean

There was a little more to it than that. Here, maybe this will help: ;)

Not sure anyone caught what I did there.

Yeah, even in the best case (finish 30th), there's an 80% chance that some other GM is saying, "With the Number One overall pick in the 2015 NHL Entry Draft, the ..." The question is, whether we are guaranteed to pick 2nd if that happens (finish 30th), have a 23% chance (conditional on not picking first) of picking 2nd (finish 29th) or have no chance of picking 2nd (finish 28th or better.) As I've stated elsewhere, the chance of getting one of the top two is: 30th - 100% 29th - 33.5% 28th - 11.5% 27th - 9.5% 26th - 8.5% 25th - 7.5% ...

No it ain't.

Yeah, clearly apus hasn't heard how good Jack Eichel is. If McDavid weren't ahead of him being referred to as the next Crosby, Eichel would be the coveted prize touted as (arguably) the best prospect since Crosby. You finish last, there's 100% chance that you get a projected generational player. The problem is if you finish 29th, then it's 13.5% chance of McDavid and 20% chance of Eichel (basically, 1 in 3 chance of a potentially generational player), with the other 2/3 dropping you to a very good, probably top-pairing, some chance of franchise, defenseman in Noah Hanifin. Finish 28th (hopefully, the worst case scenario at this point), it's 11.5% McDavid, 0% Eichel, 33.5% Hanifin and 55% your choice of one of three very good (but likely not elite) forward prospect (Marner, Strome, Crouse) or a similarly-billed defense prospect (Provorov).

Not sure what I'd do for the remaining 20 games, as a whole, but I would be very clear that if I see Neuvirth in net at the start of one of the games against the Coyotes, EVERYONE IS FIRED!!!!!!!!!

Basically, it seems like ... McDavid would have been the consensus #1 pick in any draft since 2005. Eichel would likely have been the #1 in each, consensus in many, but up for debate in a couple (e.g., 2008). Hannafin might not have been the #1 pick even last year.

Fixed. :sick:

Makes up for all those years of being angry when they lost games against bad teams with the playoffs on the line while we were cheering for winning. :P

So, it wasn't bad enough for them to hurt their points advantage and their ROW advantage, but Gionta had to toss in an EN with 2 seconds left to help cut into that goal differential lead, too. :doh:

And Rangers break 3-3 tie with just over 2 minutes left in regulation against Arizona.

:wallbash:

Any "value of picks" discussion that lumps the whole first round together isn't very useful. I would break it down into at least three distinct groups, which would have less in common with each other than the final four rounds have between them.

There's a Complaint Thursday thread to complain about people putting trade speculation in the trade deadline thread ... and for complaining about people jumping on you for putting trade speculation in the trade deadline thread ... and for complaining about how you got jumped on as a new poster ... and ...

First, you have to judge a trade on the information available at the time. When it went down, any GM in the league would have rated Cody much higher on "offensive potential" than Zack. Second, before this season, Cody was far more productive than Zack. He was averaging a fairly consistent 20-25G, 25-30A, ~50P (per 82GP) pace versus Zack's maybe (less consistent, so based mainly off of last season) 15G, 15-20A, 30-35P pace. This season, Cody has a scoring on 3.7% of shots, whereas Zack is scoring on 19.6%. Neither one of those is sustainable. I would still be willing to bet that Cody has a 50P season again before Zack does (even after scaling for GP.) It just may have to be somewhere else for him to get his head on straight.

Unless GMTM is comfortable drafting 4th this summer, Lindback better get some starts.

Doesn't quite work that way. Unless the Islanders fall out the playoffs (not going to happen with .500 hockey), then their pick, as well as St. Louis', will be determined by where they finish in the playoffs, first, then their regular season record. Going off of memory, it goes: first two round losers in reverse order of regular season position (except division winners, if any, draft latest, even their record was worse than a non-division winner), conference finals losers in reverse order of regular season performance, SC loser, SC winner. The PT winner could then draft anywhere between 27th-30th and the last team to squeak into the playoffs could still draft as late as 30th.

Should work the other way, too, even if it is your own goalie ...

Agreed. The top-bottom two-tone was pretty neat, but they would have looked better with gray (silver) pants.

Also, while Corsi might be an important stat for player evaluation, it's still going to be behind Goals/Assists/Points. So, taking a lot of bad shots might not be worth it, since it will hurt the latter. As TBP said, it will probably affect marginal players the most, since the won't be scoring anyway, so they might as well pump the Corsi.

I was thinking that the second part is basically ... you can't measure a system without affecting it and, thus, tainting your measurements.

Don't know if "turned into" is the right term ... seems to imply that it was originally going a different direction. This season was a planned loss since early last season.

They need to change the wording for SAT Rel on NHL.com: Shot attempts Rel = Shot attempts for player - Shot attempts for team when player is not on the ice Unfortunately (confusingly), they have a stat, SAT For, and another stat, SAT. The former is only shots attempts by the player's team while the player is on the ice; the latter is the net shot attempts (player's team SA - opponent's SA) while the player is on the ice. SAT Rel is based on the SAT stat, not the SAT For stat. In other words, "Shot attempts for player" is actually the SAT stat (net shots attempted) while player is on the ice, not the SAT For stat for the player, and likewise for the team. The funny thing is that the Sabres' players dominate this stat, since it subtracts off one really big negative number from a smaller negative number. For example, Deslauriers has a STAT of -309, but leads the league with a STAT Rel of +712. In other words, while there have been 309 more shot attempts against than shot attempts for while he was on the ice, there were actually 1,021 more shots against than shots for while he wasn't on the ice. Seems pretty useless to not scale each by TOI or something like that.

Sounds like a joint venture between nhl.com and hockeyfights.com. Some combination of size (height, weight), hits, roughing minors, fighting majors, strength of opponents, average fight-card rating, etc. Then, of course, you have to figure out what correlates to winning: a team's top rated NQ players, the average (over the roster or by TOI) NQ rating, the interaction of NQ and Corsi/Fenwick relative (a.k.a., the Gordie Howe Effect), ... ETA: 7,777th post!

Straight up for Auston Matthews? (Side note: wouldn't the joke name for Las Vegas be Lost Wages?) Yeah, but one big takeaway that might be important is how well he played right before his contract expired versus right after he signed the new one. You want to judge him on how he plays there, but that limits your observations to a time period in which he is playing for a contract. Basically, what you see may not be what you get.