Hoss Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 I think that was the first post from Deluca that wasn't just an attempt to say the opposite of what everybody else is saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 If it is seriously the first time you heard it described as luck then you need to read a little more. Take a look at some of the guys Detroit has drafted ahead of the guys that they hit on and tell me there isn't a little luck involved. Datsyuk, Zetterberg, they are no different then Tom Brady. If the team knew how they were going to pan out they wouldn't have let 30 teams have more then 5 chances at them before picking them. A little luck, I'm not gonna go back upthread, but I think TBPhD described it as "huge" luck. No one delivers that many playoff victories over that length of time with luck, the sample size is just too large for random variations like luck to be a "huge" factor. I think that was the first post from Deluca that wasn't just an attempt to say the opposite of what everybody else is saying. Saying this team might be good is absolutely the contrarian position right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 A little luck, I'm not gonna go back upthread, but I think TBPhD described it as "huge" luck. No one delivers that many playoff victories over that length of time with luck, the sample size is just too large for random variations like luck to be a "huge" factor. You're either looking at the question the wrong way or taking what I'm trying to say the wrong way. Making the playoffs 20 straight years is not, in and of itself, luck-based success. But looking at it like that is ignoring an event (or three, in this case) which was luck-driven: drafting a top-5 all time Dman and two possible HoF centers in the middle-late rounds of the draft, in close enough proximity where they all share a playing prime. Making the playoffs each year, to say nothing of 20 consecutive years, was not luck, those were great teams. But the greatness of those teams was dependent upon a series of events which had a massive luck component. Again, getting Lidstrom, Datsyuk and Zetterberg where the Wings got them was either grand luck or total incompetence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeanbe Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 Not saying that Arizona is going to move but they really could use a player that can fill the seats. Most other teams that are bad are still filling the arena's. Not so in Phoenix. That's my reasoning. I live in PHX and there is no way he puts butts in the seats. The arena is in a horrible place and it's not worth my time to fight traffic to go out there, If the arena was built in the east valley it wouldn't be so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 Saying this team might be good is absolutely the contrarian position right now. Was referring to his post about people getting too crazy about three preseason games on Reinhart. The post about the playoffs was definitely trying to be contrarian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 You're either looking at the question the wrong way or taking what I'm trying to say the wrong way. Making the playoffs 20 straight years is not, in and of itself, luck-based success. But looking at it like that is ignoring an event (or three, in this case) which was luck-driven: drafting a top-5 all time Dman and two possible HoF centers in the middle-late rounds of the draft, in close enough proximity where they all share a playing prime. Making the playoffs each year, to say nothing of 20 consecutive years, was not luck, those were great teams. But the greatness of those teams was dependent upon a series of events which had a massive luck component. Again, getting Lidstrom, Datsyuk and Zetterberg where the Wings got them was either grand luck or total incompetence. What are the odds that essentially all of the eastern block great players for a decade went to one team is luck? They were late round because there was risk. That they were good and the team with the foresight to put great scouts in Russia has very little to do with luck. They made their own luck. Random variation had little to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 What are the odds that essentially all of the eastern block great players for a decade went to one team is luck? They were late round because there was risk. That they were good and the team with the foresight to put great scouts in Russia has very little to do with luck. They made their own luck. Random variation had little to do with it. So you are saying is that Detroit knew these guys were that good but because of risk involved with picking these guys they decided to draft 3 or 4 guys they knew had very little chance of making the team before pulling the trigger on the future hall of famers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 Who stole Deluca's username? This post is way too reasonable. What do I have to be negative about? Over the past year I have pretty much gotten everything I could ask for. Status Quo is gone and the roster has been stripped down and is in the process of being rebuilt by a GM I can have faith in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 So you are saying is that Detroit knew these guys were that good but because of risk involved with picking these guys they decided to draft 3 or 4 guys they knew had very little chance of making the team before pulling the trigger on the future hall of famers Are you saying they got lucky drafting from Eastern Europe for a decade? They had misses too, but they set themselves up for the hits by scouting where no one else really was. They made their own "luck". That those three guys happened to be the guys may be random, but some of them were going to come over, and they were going to have a huge advantage because their "throwaway" picks suddenly had value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 What do I have to be negative about? Over the past year I have pretty much gotten everything I could ask for. Status Quo is gone and the roster has been stripped down and is in the process of being rebuilt by a GM I can have faith in. It's good to have you back. :thumbsup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 A little luck, I'm not gonna go back upthread, but I think TBPhD described it as "huge" luck. No one delivers that many playoff victories over that length of time with luck, the sample size is just too large for random variations like luck to be a "huge" factor. Saying this team might be good is absolutely the contrarian position right now. Considering how often the majority on this board gets it wrong, I would say "contrarian" is the only way to go. ;) It's good to have you back. :thumbsup: Thanks, but I haven't changed, the Sabres have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 Thanks, but I haven't changed, the Sabres have. And for that we are thankful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 And for that we are thankful. Good times ahead, that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 What do I have to be negative about? Over the past year I have pretty much gotten everything I could ask for. Status Quo is gone and the roster has been stripped down and is in the process of being rebuilt by a GM I can have faith in. Forgive my response, it was just different than the norm. I've sided with you more than most, glad the franchise has finally aligned with your views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 What do I have to be negative about? Over the past year I have pretty much gotten everything I could ask for. Status Quo is gone and the roster has been stripped down and is in the process of being rebuilt by a GM I can have faith in. This. It will take time, but the necessary steps have been taken and I Murray seems to be made of the right stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 This. It will take time, but the necessary steps have been taken and I Murray seems to be made of the right stuff. Think about now compared to a year ago. The Sabres were going into a season with Regier,Rolston everyone wondering if Vanek and Miller will be resigned or dealt. IMO, this franchise is going into this season with clear focus and direction which is something many have felt the franchise has been without for many seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 What I look forward most to is next season, most of our prospects are a year away from breaking out. Include a 2015 top 5 pick to that mix and the 2015-2016 is going to be fun. Meanwhile for this season, i think the guys will lay the groundwork by becoming a hardworking, hardhitting team again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 So you are saying is that Detroit knew these guys were that good but because of risk involved with picking these guys they decided to draft 3 or 4 guys they knew had very little chance of making the team before pulling the trigger on the future hall of famers Tons of luck involved in any successful draft. Some drafts you have better odds of hitting 31 Black in Roulette. Good times ahead, that's for sure. Agree. Just disagree on the timetable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 Tons of luck involved in any successful draft. Some drafts you have better odds of hitting 31 Black... But can you really point to luck when guys do it over and over for a decade? The gambling analogy is perfect. Poker involves a fair amount of luck, but it's not the same 12 guys at the final table of the WSOP events because they are simply more lucky. They're there because they make choices to set up their own luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 So you are saying is that Detroit knew these guys were that good but because of risk involved with picking these guys they decided to draft 3 or 4 guys they knew had very little chance of making the team before pulling the trigger on the future hall of famers Exactly this. Risk or no risk, any team would gladly take HoF players over career AHLers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 But can you really point to luck when guys do it over and over for a decade? The gambling analogy is perfect. Poker involves a fair amount of luck, but it's not the same 12 guys at the final table of the WSOP events because they are simply more lucky. They're there because they make choices to set up their own luck. Drafting is just the raw material, development is equally important in that it maximizes your poor odds.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 Think about now compared to a year ago. The Sabres were going into a season with Regier,Rolston everyone wondering if Vanek and Miller will be resigned or dealt. IMO, this franchise is going into this season with clear focus and direction which is something many have felt the franchise has been without for many seasons. Of course, GMTM still has to make the right calls on players -- at this point, nobody knows if guys like Reinhart, Neuvirth, Gionta, Moulson, Fasching, Carrier, etc. will turn out to have been good decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 But can you really point to luck when guys do it over and over for a decade? The gambling analogy is perfect. Poker involves a fair amount of luck, but it's not the same 12 guys at the final table of the WSOP events because they are simply more lucky. They're there because they make choices to set up their own luck. Detroit gets credit for going to an area few other teams were. Detroit does not get credit for thinking "best case 4th liner" was a better pick multiple times than "best case HoF" would have been. Back then the draft was an even bigger crap shoot than it is now, so I don't buy the "they avoided until round 5 because of risk" argument even a little bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 TBPhD, I'm shocked that you can look at the success over that sample size and conclude random variation. Shocked. I agree on the development part mentioned above as well, and that's even less luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 TBPhD, I'm shocked that you can look at the success over that sample size and conclude random variation. Shocked. I agree on the development part mentioned above as well, and that's even less luck. I'm shocked you think I'm arguing pure random variation. Shocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.