This day on February 8
None

Happy Birthday To: bone, kermitology, aseef26, Steve Smith, Woodbutcher, Nataliah

F.A.Q. Terms of Use F.A.Q. F.A.Q.
Members Members   Search Search     Register Register   Login Login   Home Home
 Oilers » Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again
Switch to flat viewSwitch to tree viewCreate a new topicSubmit Reply
 Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661414]
Sat, 05 December 2015 14:08 Go to next message
mazankowski  is currently offline mazankowski
Messages: 406
Registered: June 2006
Location: Kelowna BC

No Cups

This is an interesting read from Brophy at THN. I totally agree with him, and that the NHL should change their format and not allow for teams to pick #1 in consecutive years. However, he crucifies the Oilers within this article, like it's their fault they chose 1st 4 times. Wake up, Brophy! It's a lottery pal, and you don't think the Oilers would prefer a playoff spot to drafting #1 overall (okay maybe not last season but you get where I'm coming from)? And why bring this up mid season? What do you gain from this, other than embarrassing us Oiler fans, and knowing they cannot amend the draft procedure until the off season after the draft?

He even states within his article, that getting the #1 pick does not guarantee immediate success, as we have seen here in Edmonton. So that is the only argument against changing the current system. The Oilers are bad, and in some cases, the worst team in the league, and shouldn't this team have more opportunity to select first?

I don't know, but the way he wrote this article, went above and beyond simply getting his point across, and rather attacked the Edmonton Oilers. What say you guys?

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/nhl-must-prevent-oilers-fr om-getting-another-no-1-pick/



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661415 is a reply to message #661414 ]
Sat, 05 December 2015 14:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi  is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 16157
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

I'd be curious to know how many team could have picked #1 4 times in the past 6 years and what their best odds off getting 4 number 1's were. I don't any math to be done to know the Oilers theoretical chances were the best.

I disagree with this article, however. The number 1 draft picks for the Oilers has not been a reward it has been a lifeline from the SS Faint Hope. There's a difference between tanking for a draft pick and being completely hopeless at creating a hockey team.



Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661416 is a reply to message #661415 ]
Sat, 05 December 2015 14:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ragnarok73  is currently offline Ragnarok73
Messages: 7166
Registered: February 2011

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Sat, 05 December 2015 14:19

I'd be curious to know how many team could have picked #1 4 times in the past 6 years and what their best odds off getting 4 number 1's were. I don't any math to be done to know the Oilers theoretical chances were the best.

I disagree with this article, however. The number 1 draft picks for the Oilers has not been a reward it has been a lifeline from the SS Faint Hope. There's a difference between tanking for a draft pick and being completely hopeless at creating a hockey team.

They must think it all some sort of "master plan" by the OBC to tank for those picks. icon_rolleyes



"There's no greater springboard to development than failure." - Craig MacTavish, April 13/15.

5-14-6-1

"Sabres think the suck is their ally? They merely adopted the suck. The Oilers were born in it...molded by it."

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661418 is a reply to message #661416 ]
Sat, 05 December 2015 15:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Suomalainen  is currently offline Suomalainen
Messages: 2933
Registered: May 2002
Location: Boulder, CO

2 Cups

The trouble with #1 overall, is that most years, you have to take that consensus #1 guy. With the exception of this year, I don't know if having #1 overall was the best thing. (I love the other three guys, don't get me wrong, but at times I wonder)


97.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661420 is a reply to message #661414 ]
Sat, 05 December 2015 19:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
smyth260  is currently offline smyth260
Messages: 2737
Registered: November 2007

2 Cups

I think this is only coming out because the Oilers got the 4th one, and even more insult was that it was McDavid. Not many were writing articles after Yakupov. This article really isn't complaining about a team getting 2 consecutive picks, its a complaint that the Oilers got 4.

I think to write an article like this, you have to understand the odds. This will never happen again to a team. And if you went back in time to 2010-2015 and re-rolled the dice 50 times, the Oilers would not have gotten 4 1st overalls. Here is the math.

The odds of getting the 2010 first pick = 48.2%
The odds of getting the 2010 and 2011 first pick = 0.482*0.482 = 23.2 %
The odds of getting the 2010, 2011, and 2012 first pick = 0.482*0.482*0.188 = 4.36%
The odds of getting the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015 first pick = 0.482*0.482*0.188*0.115 = 0.50%

So they were lucky to draft two first overalls, and just crazy insanely lucky to get four of them. If you simulate our odds 200 times, the outcome where the Oilers get the 4 firsts only happens once. But really, they were lucky to have 2.

You might have a team who gets lucky, even with the new reduced odds, and get 2 consecutive first picks. Who cares if that happens? It's 2 picks. You will never see 3 in a row again if the odds stay the same. You will definitely never see 4/6 again without even more insane luck than we had. So I think the NHL has done fine adjusting the odds, and a rule is unecessary. Also, I don't think it's bad for the league if a team happens to pick consecutively. Why is it bad? The article doesn't suggest why, it's very poorly written.

[Updated on: Sat, 05 December 2015 19:52]


Clean house or bust

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661526 is a reply to message #661420 ]
Mon, 07 December 2015 09:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bigEfromGP  is currently offline bigEfromGP
Messages: 2077
Registered: July 2006
Location: GP, AB

2 Cups

smyth260 wrote on Sat, 05 December 2015 19:30

I think this is only coming out because the Oilers got the 4th one, and even more insult was that it was McDavid. Not many were writing articles after Yakupov. This article really isn't complaining about a team getting 2 consecutive picks, its a complaint that the Oilers got 4.

I think to write an article like this, you have to understand the odds. This will never happen again to a team. And if you went back in time to 2010-2015 and re-rolled the dice 50 times, the Oilers would not have gotten 4 1st overalls. Here is the math.

The odds of getting the 2010 first pick = 48.2%
The odds of getting the 2010 and 2011 first pick = 0.482*0.482 = 23.2 %
The odds of getting the 2010, 2011, and 2012 first pick = 0.482*0.482*0.188 = 4.36%
The odds of getting the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015 first pick = 0.482*0.482*0.188*0.115 = 0.50%

So they were lucky to draft two first overalls, and just crazy insanely lucky to get four of them. If you simulate our odds 200 times, the outcome where the Oilers get the 4 firsts only happens once. But really, they were lucky to have 2.

You might have a team who gets lucky, even with the new reduced odds, and get 2 consecutive first picks. Who cares if that happens? It's 2 picks. You will never see 3 in a row again if the odds stay the same. You will definitely never see 4/6 again without even more insane luck than we had. So I think the NHL has done fine adjusting the odds, and a rule is unecessary. Also, I don't think it's bad for the league if a team happens to pick consecutively. Why is it bad? The article doesn't suggest why, it's very poorly written.


I could be wrong here, but I am not sure if that math is correct.

It's similar to flipping a coin. If you flip a coin 9 times, and all nine times you get heads, what are the odds that you will get tails on the 10th time? 50% . The previous results do not have a bearing on what the future odds are.

Of course like I said, I could be wrong.



CrusaderPi wrote on Fri, 09 October 2020 13:17

CrudeRemarks wrote on Fri, 09 October 2020 13:00

The president thinks he has the ideal male body.
It's hard to disagree that he has the ideal male body.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661527 is a reply to message #661526 ]
Mon, 07 December 2015 09:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 22498
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

bigEfromGP wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 09:44

smyth260 wrote on Sat, 05 December 2015 19:30

I think this is only coming out because the Oilers got the 4th one, and even more insult was that it was McDavid. Not many were writing articles after Yakupov. This article really isn't complaining about a team getting 2 consecutive picks, its a complaint that the Oilers got 4.

I think to write an article like this, you have to understand the odds. This will never happen again to a team. And if you went back in time to 2010-2015 and re-rolled the dice 50 times, the Oilers would not have gotten 4 1st overalls. Here is the math.

The odds of getting the 2010 first pick = 48.2%
The odds of getting the 2010 and 2011 first pick = 0.482*0.482 = 23.2 %
The odds of getting the 2010, 2011, and 2012 first pick = 0.482*0.482*0.188 = 4.36%
The odds of getting the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015 first pick = 0.482*0.482*0.188*0.115 = 0.50%

So they were lucky to draft two first overalls, and just crazy insanely lucky to get four of them. If you simulate our odds 200 times, the outcome where the Oilers get the 4 firsts only happens once. But really, they were lucky to have 2.

You might have a team who gets lucky, even with the new reduced odds, and get 2 consecutive first picks. Who cares if that happens? It's 2 picks. You will never see 3 in a row again if the odds stay the same. You will definitely never see 4/6 again without even more insane luck than we had. So I think the NHL has done fine adjusting the odds, and a rule is unecessary. Also, I don't think it's bad for the league if a team happens to pick consecutively. Why is it bad? The article doesn't suggest why, it's very poorly written.


I could be wrong here, but I am not sure if that math is correct.

It's similar to flipping a coin. If you flip a coin 9 times, and all nine times you get heads, what are the odds that you will get tails on the 10th time? 50% . The previous results do not have a bearing on what the future odds are.

Of course like I said, I could be wrong.


I think that's how you look at it after the previous event happened, basically looking at each lottery individually and determining your chances to win (which would be exactly what the lottery odds are).

But if you were going to make a bet in 2010 that we would get #1 OA 4 times in the next 6 drafts, even knowing what the standings would look like in 2011 to 2015, I think you would use that 0.5% number to determine how much you should get for every dollar bet.



"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013

"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015

"In Brad we trust"
- All Oilers fans, Present Day

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661528 is a reply to message #661527 ]
Mon, 07 December 2015 09:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bigEfromGP  is currently offline bigEfromGP
Messages: 2077
Registered: July 2006
Location: GP, AB

2 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 09:48

bigEfromGP wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 09:44

smyth260 wrote on Sat, 05 December 2015 19:30

I think this is only coming out because the Oilers got the 4th one, and even more insult was that it was McDavid. Not many were writing articles after Yakupov. This article really isn't complaining about a team getting 2 consecutive picks, its a complaint that the Oilers got 4.

I think to write an article like this, you have to understand the odds. This will never happen again to a team. And if you went back in time to 2010-2015 and re-rolled the dice 50 times, the Oilers would not have gotten 4 1st overalls. Here is the math.

The odds of getting the 2010 first pick = 48.2%
The odds of getting the 2010 and 2011 first pick = 0.482*0.482 = 23.2 %
The odds of getting the 2010, 2011, and 2012 first pick = 0.482*0.482*0.188 = 4.36%
The odds of getting the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015 first pick = 0.482*0.482*0.188*0.115 = 0.50%

So they were lucky to draft two first overalls, and just crazy insanely lucky to get four of them. If you simulate our odds 200 times, the outcome where the Oilers get the 4 firsts only happens once. But really, they were lucky to have 2.

You might have a team who gets lucky, even with the new reduced odds, and get 2 consecutive first picks. Who cares if that happens? It's 2 picks. You will never see 3 in a row again if the odds stay the same. You will definitely never see 4/6 again without even more insane luck than we had. So I think the NHL has done fine adjusting the odds, and a rule is unecessary. Also, I don't think it's bad for the league if a team happens to pick consecutively. Why is it bad? The article doesn't suggest why, it's very poorly written.


I could be wrong here, but I am not sure if that math is correct.

It's similar to flipping a coin. If you flip a coin 9 times, and all nine times you get heads, what are the odds that you will get tails on the 10th time? 50% . The previous results do not have a bearing on what the future odds are.

Of course like I said, I could be wrong.


I think that's how you look at it after the previous event happened, basically looking at each lottery individually and determining your chances to win (which would be exactly what the lottery odds are).

But if you were going to make a bet in 2010 that we would get #1 OA 4 times in the next 6 drafts, even knowing what the standings would look like in 2011 to 2015, I think you would use that 0.5% number to determine how much you should get for every dollar bet.


Ah I see, that makes sense.



CrusaderPi wrote on Fri, 09 October 2020 13:17

CrudeRemarks wrote on Fri, 09 October 2020 13:00

The president thinks he has the ideal male body.
It's hard to disagree that he has the ideal male body.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661531 is a reply to message #661527 ]
Mon, 07 December 2015 10:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
benv  is currently offline benv
Messages: 1080
Registered: May 2006
Location: Edmonton

1 Cup

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 09:48



I think that's how you look at it after the previous event happened, basically looking at each lottery individually and determining your chances to win (which would be exactly what the lottery odds are).

But if you were going to make a bet in 2010 that we would get #1 OA 4 times in the next 6 drafts, even knowing what the standings would look like in 2011 to 2015, I think you would use that 0.5% number to determine how much you should get for every dollar bet.



That's not quite right either. What smyth260 computed was the exact probability (given where the Oilers finished) that they would win the lottery in each of 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015, which comes to 0.5%.

To compute the probability that they would win at least 4 times in the 6 years, you have to take into account all the possibilities (22 total: 15 ways to win 4, 6 ways to win 5, and 1 way to win 6). Just for fun, I did the math and came up with 2.75%.

So there was just under a 3% chance (based on where they finished) the Oilers' would get 4 (or more) 1st overalls in the 6 years. This is just the Oilers of course, and the probability that "a team" would get 4 in this time period is higher. The probability that a team will get 4 in 6 over a large period would be then even higher.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that what happened is hardly as a big a fluke as smyth260 is making it seem. It certainly not out of the question that it could happen again.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661535 is a reply to message #661531 ]
Mon, 07 December 2015 11:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 22498
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

benv wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 10:27

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 09:48



I think that's how you look at it after the previous event happened, basically looking at each lottery individually and determining your chances to win (which would be exactly what the lottery odds are).

But if you were going to make a bet in 2010 that we would get #1 OA 4 times in the next 6 drafts, even knowing what the standings would look like in 2011 to 2015, I think you would use that 0.5% number to determine how much you should get for every dollar bet.



That's not quite right either. What smyth260 computed was the exact probability (given where the Oilers finished) that they would win the lottery in each of 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015, which comes to 0.5%.

To compute the probability that they would win at least 4 times in the 6 years, you have to take into account all the possibilities (22 total: 15 ways to win 4, 6 ways to win 5, and 1 way to win 6). Just for fun, I did the math and came up with 2.75%.

So there was just under a 3% chance (based on where they finished) the Oilers' would get 4 (or more) 1st overalls in the 6 years. This is just the Oilers of course, and the probability that "a team" would get 4 in this time period is higher. The probability that a team will get 4 in 6 over a large period would be then even higher.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that what happened is hardly as a big a fluke as smyth260 is making it seem. It certainly not out of the question that it could happen again.


Yeah, guess I went too broad saying 4 in 6 in general, rather than those specific 4 that we did win :)

As for it happening again. We achieved this by being one of the worst managed teams in pro sports history. I think David Staples worked out the average points/season for a team since Katz took over was 84, the 2nd worst team over that span averaged 74, and we averaged 64! (forget the exact numbers but I'm pretty sure it was 10 point difference between 2nd worst and average and 2nd worst and us). That gave us awesome odds in almost every draft the last 6 years, and it also may help us match and even break the playoff drought record.

Will we ever see such a horribly run team again? And with the reduced lottery odds, for the worst teams, the odds become even harder to match the Oilers lottery magic.

I think Kevin Lowe would need to become a POHO for another team to see it again personally.



"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013

"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015

"In Brad we trust"
- All Oilers fans, Present Day

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661544 is a reply to message #661531 ]
Mon, 07 December 2015 12:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
smyth260  is currently offline smyth260
Messages: 2737
Registered: November 2007

2 Cups

benv wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 09:27


To compute the probability that they would win at least 4 times in the 6 years, you have to take into account all the possibilities (22 total: 15 ways to win 4, 6 ways to win 5, and 1 way to win 6). Just for fun, I did the math and came up with 2.75%.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that what happened is hardly as a big a fluke as smyth260 is making it seem. It certainly not out of the question that it could happen again.


I think it's reasonable to say, even considering your odds of winning any 4 out of 6 first picks or more, that 2.75% odds would be a big fluke if that happened. You don't think so?

You are correct though, to better demonstrate my point I should have considered winning at least 4 of any 6 instead of focusing on probability of the outcome that actually happened.

Especially with the new reduced odds being substantially lower than what the Oilers had in 2010 and 2011, I'd comfortably bet my life savings that 4/6 or more will never happen again.

[Updated on: Mon, 07 December 2015 12:38]


Clean house or bust

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661546 is a reply to message #661544 ]
Mon, 07 December 2015 13:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
benv  is currently offline benv
Messages: 1080
Registered: May 2006
Location: Edmonton

1 Cup

smyth260 wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 12:35

benv wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 09:27


To compute the probability that they would win at least 4 times in the 6 years, you have to take into account all the possibilities (22 total: 15 ways to win 4, 6 ways to win 5, and 1 way to win 6). Just for fun, I did the math and came up with 2.75%.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that what happened is hardly as a big a fluke as smyth260 is making it seem. It certainly not out of the question that it could happen again.


I think it's reasonable to say, even considering your odds of winning any 4 out of 6 first picks or more, that 2.75% odds would be a big fluke if that happened. You don't think so?

You are correct though, to better demonstrate my point I should have considered winning at least 4 of any 6 instead of focusing on probability of the outcome that actually happened.

Especially with the new reduced odds being substantially lower than what the Oilers had in 2010 and 2011, I'd comfortably bet my life savings that 4/6 or more will never happen again.



But remember that the 2.75% applies to one team in one particular 6 year period. Over the next century there's going to be a lot of "6 year periods" and lots of teams with the chance to do it, so the likelihood it will happen eventually are not as bad as you think.

A few years ago, there was a famous hand at the World Series of Poker, where a player was knocked out of the tournament when his quad aces were beaten by a royal flush:



The commentators quote the odds of this happening are 2.7 billion to 1, but it's actually closer to about 800 million to 1. But the fact that there have been countless millions of hands of poker dealt, means that the fact that this happens sometimes is not such a big deal. Every week you can look at the lotto 6/49 numbers drawn and say "There was a 14 million to 1 chance that those exact 6 numbers would be drawn" and you will always be right. But obviously there's nothing special about it since "something" had to be drawn.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661547 is a reply to message #661546 ]
Mon, 07 December 2015 14:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 22498
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

benv wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 13:53

smyth260 wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 12:35

benv wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 09:27


To compute the probability that they would win at least 4 times in the 6 years, you have to take into account all the possibilities (22 total: 15 ways to win 4, 6 ways to win 5, and 1 way to win 6). Just for fun, I did the math and came up with 2.75%.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that what happened is hardly as a big a fluke as smyth260 is making it seem. It certainly not out of the question that it could happen again.


I think it's reasonable to say, even considering your odds of winning any 4 out of 6 first picks or more, that 2.75% odds would be a big fluke if that happened. You don't think so?

You are correct though, to better demonstrate my point I should have considered winning at least 4 of any 6 instead of focusing on probability of the outcome that actually happened.

Especially with the new reduced odds being substantially lower than what the Oilers had in 2010 and 2011, I'd comfortably bet my life savings that 4/6 or more will never happen again.



But remember that the 2.75% applies to one team in one particular 6 year period. Over the next century there's going to be a lot of "6 year periods" and lots of teams with the chance to do it, so the likelihood it will happen eventually are not as bad as you think.

A few years ago, there was a famous hand at the World Series of Poker, where a player was knocked out of the tournament when his quad aces were beaten by a royal flush:



The commentators quote the odds of this happening are 2.7 billion to 1, but it's actually closer to about 800 million to 1. But the fact that there have been countless millions of hands of poker dealt, means that the fact that this happens sometimes is not such a big deal. Every week you can look at the lotto 6/49 numbers drawn and say "There was a 14 million to 1 chance that those exact 6 numbers would be drawn" and you will always be right. But obviously there's nothing special about it since "something" had to be drawn.


Only 1 lottery per year though, so you're really limiting the pool of events for something rare to happen. And with the new rules to flatten odds, and possibly more expansion teams bringing even more parity into the league to keep teams bouncing in and out of playoffs more. Don't think we'll be seeing this again in our lifetime. We already wouldn't have if the rules of the last draft existed the year Jersey won the lottery.

Same caveat though, if Lowe becomes POHO of another NHL team, all bets are off icon_biggrin

I wonder how many teams the last 6 years actually had a non-zero shot at getting 4 #1 overalls. Would guess it's less than 4 or 5.

[Updated on: Mon, 07 December 2015 14:14]


"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013

"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015

"In Brad we trust"
- All Oilers fans, Present Day

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661569 is a reply to message #661547 ]
Tue, 08 December 2015 14:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 18385
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 14:04

benv wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 13:53

smyth260 wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 12:35

benv wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 09:27


To compute the probability that they would win at least 4 times in the 6 years, you have to take into account all the possibilities (22 total: 15 ways to win 4, 6 ways to win 5, and 1 way to win 6). Just for fun, I did the math and came up with 2.75%.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that what happened is hardly as a big a fluke as smyth260 is making it seem. It certainly not out of the question that it could happen again.


I think it's reasonable to say, even considering your odds of winning any 4 out of 6 first picks or more, that 2.75% odds would be a big fluke if that happened. You don't think so?

You are correct though, to better demonstrate my point I should have considered winning at least 4 of any 6 instead of focusing on probability of the outcome that actually happened.

Especially with the new reduced odds being substantially lower than what the Oilers had in 2010 and 2011, I'd comfortably bet my life savings that 4/6 or more will never happen again.



But remember that the 2.75% applies to one team in one particular 6 year period. Over the next century there's going to be a lot of "6 year periods" and lots of teams with the chance to do it, so the likelihood it will happen eventually are not as bad as you think.

A few years ago, there was a famous hand at the World Series of Poker, where a player was knocked out of the tournament when his quad aces were beaten by a royal flush:



The commentators quote the odds of this happening are 2.7 billion to 1, but it's actually closer to about 800 million to 1. But the fact that there have been countless millions of hands of poker dealt, means that the fact that this happens sometimes is not such a big deal. Every week you can look at the lotto 6/49 numbers drawn and say "There was a 14 million to 1 chance that those exact 6 numbers would be drawn" and you will always be right. But obviously there's nothing special about it since "something" had to be drawn.


Only 1 lottery per year though, so you're really limiting the pool of events for something rare to happen. And with the new rules to flatten odds, and possibly more expansion teams bringing even more parity into the league to keep teams bouncing in and out of playoffs more. Don't think we'll be seeing this again in our lifetime. We already wouldn't have if the rules of the last draft existed the year Jersey won the lottery.

Same caveat though, if Lowe becomes POHO of another NHL team, all bets are off icon_biggrin

I wonder how many teams the last 6 years actually had a non-zero shot at getting 4 #1 overalls. Would guess it's less than 4 or 5.


Given that until the last three years only the bottom 5 teams could win the first overall, here's how that breaks down:

Shots at #1 pick over last 6 years (winners in brackets):

6 - Oilers (4)
5 - Panthers (1)
4 - Blue Jackets, Islanders
3 - Avalanche (1), Hurricanes, Sabres, Devils, Coyotes
2 - Bruins*, Senators, Maple Leafs*, Predators, Flames, Jets, Flyers, Stars
1 - Canadiens, Lightning, Canucks, Capitals, Sharks, Kings

*Bruins have only qualified by stats once, but held the Maple Leafs 2nd overall pick in 2010

**It's virtually certain that a couple of the long odd teams over the past 3 seasons traded their 1st round pick and I've not counted for that other than the Seguin pick.

Unless the Avalanche, Hurricanes, Sabres, Devils or Coyotes held other people's picks in years where they weren't lottery teams already, there are just four teams that even had a shot at picking first overall four times in the last six years.



"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireLowe #FireChiarelli #FireBobbyNicks #FireKeithGretzky #FireKenHolland #FireTippett

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661578 is a reply to message #661569 ]
Tue, 08 December 2015 15:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 22498
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 08 December 2015 14:06


Given that until the last three years only the bottom 5 teams could win the first overall, here's how that breaks down:

Shots at #1 pick over last 6 years (winners in brackets):

6 - Oilers (4)
5 - Panthers (1)
4 - Blue Jackets, Islanders
3 - Avalanche (1), Hurricanes, Sabres, Devils, Coyotes
2 - Bruins*, Senators, Maple Leafs*, Predators, Flames, Jets, Flyers, Stars
1 - Canadiens, Lightning, Canucks, Capitals, Sharks, Kings

*Bruins have only qualified by stats once, but held the Maple Leafs 2nd overall pick in 2010

**It's virtually certain that a couple of the long odd teams over the past 3 seasons traded their 1st round pick and I've not counted for that other than the Seguin pick.

Unless the Avalanche, Hurricanes, Sabres, Devils or Coyotes held other people's picks in years where they weren't lottery teams already, there are just four teams that even had a shot at picking first overall four times in the last six years.



Wow, thanks for that breakdown Adam. So, only oilers managed to have a chance all 6 years and 4 total could have done 4/6 but with far smaller odds than we had thanks to our perpetual sucking. For sure some bad teams stay bad for long periods, but it takes a whole new level of incompetence in management to achieve that today with the parity and the cap floor and ceiling.

[Updated on: Tue, 08 December 2015 15:26]


"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013

"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015

"In Brad we trust"
- All Oilers fans, Present Day

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661587 is a reply to message #661578 ]
Tue, 08 December 2015 17:48 Go to previous message
CrusaderPi  is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 16157
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Tue, 08 December 2015 15:22

Adam wrote on Tue, 08 December 2015 14:06


Given that until the last three years only the bottom 5 teams could win the first overall, here's how that breaks down:

Shots at #1 pick over last 6 years (winners in brackets):

6 - Oilers (4)
5 - Panthers (1)
4 - Blue Jackets, Islanders
3 - Avalanche (1), Hurricanes, Sabres, Devils, Coyotes
2 - Bruins*, Senators, Maple Leafs*, Predators, Flames, Jets, Flyers, Stars
1 - Canadiens, Lightning, Canucks, Capitals, Sharks, Kings

*Bruins have only qualified by stats once, but held the Maple Leafs 2nd overall pick in 2010

**It's virtually certain that a couple of the long odd teams over the past 3 seasons traded their 1st round pick and I've not counted for that other than the Seguin pick.

Unless the Avalanche, Hurricanes, Sabres, Devils or Coyotes held other people's picks in years where they weren't lottery teams already, there are just four teams that even had a shot at picking first overall four times in the last six years.



Wow, thanks for that breakdown Adam. So, only oilers managed to have a chance all 6 years and 4 total could have done 4/6 but with far smaller odds than we had thanks to our perpetual sucking. For sure some bad teams stay bad for long periods, but it takes a whole new level of incompetence in management to achieve that today with the parity and the cap floor and ceiling.

It would be extremely difficult to do a historical comparisons of awful teams because of expansion and loser point and various other changes, but over a large enough sample size each game should essentially be a coin flip 50/50 shot of winning. The fact that the Oilers have been the worst team in the league by roughly ten points since Katz took over is a damning indictment on the EIG's, their faith in Lowe, Katz doubling down on him, and his overall leadership of a hockey team. I really believe that without the oil boom from 2001-14 (not including 2009) the Oilers would have left town.



Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661550 is a reply to message #661544 ]
Mon, 07 December 2015 14:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Prophet  is currently offline Prophet
Messages: 265
Registered: June 2002
Location: Calgary

No Cups

smyth260 wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 12:35

benv wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 09:27


To compute the probability that they would win at least 4 times in the 6 years, you have to take into account all the possibilities (22 total: 15 ways to win 4, 6 ways to win 5, and 1 way to win 6). Just for fun, I did the math and came up with 2.75%.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that what happened is hardly as a big a fluke as smyth260 is making it seem. It certainly not out of the question that it could happen again.


I think it's reasonable to say, even considering your odds of winning any 4 out of 6 first picks or more, that 2.75% odds would be a big fluke if that happened. You don't think so?

You are correct though, to better demonstrate my point I should have considered winning at least 4 of any 6 instead of focusing on probability of the outcome that actually happened.

Especially with the new reduced odds being substantially lower than what the Oilers had in 2010 and 2011, I'd comfortably bet my life savings that 4/6 or more will never happen again.


Yeah, 4/6 would be pretty statistically unlikely moving forward with the new odds even if a team had the worst record for 6 straight years.

However, does it really make much difference if the Oilers had lost every lottery (assuming it went to the next most likely team, or most likely in the years the Oilers moved up) and had picked 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 6th, 3rd, 3rd.

Seguin, Landeskog, Murray, Nurse, Draisaitl, Strome vs.
Hall, Nugent-Hopkins, Yakupov, Nurse, Draisaitl, McDavid

McDavid kind of skews the comparison - but most years the drop-off between 1 and 2 is pretty minor.





"They will play what I tell them to play, for I am the mayor of Albuquerque"

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661567 is a reply to message #661531 ]
Tue, 08 December 2015 13:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 18385
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

benv wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 10:27

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 09:48



I think that's how you look at it after the previous event happened, basically looking at each lottery individually and determining your chances to win (which would be exactly what the lottery odds are).

But if you were going to make a bet in 2010 that we would get #1 OA 4 times in the next 6 drafts, even knowing what the standings would look like in 2011 to 2015, I think you would use that 0.5% number to determine how much you should get for every dollar bet.



That's not quite right either. What smyth260 computed was the exact probability (given where the Oilers finished) that they would win the lottery in each of 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015, which comes to 0.5%.

To compute the probability that they would win at least 4 times in the 6 years, you have to take into account all the possibilities (22 total: 15 ways to win 4, 6 ways to win 5, and 1 way to win 6). Just for fun, I did the math and came up with 2.75%.

So there was just under a 3% chance (based on where they finished) the Oilers' would get 4 (or more) 1st overalls in the 6 years. This is just the Oilers of course, and the probability that "a team" would get 4 in this time period is higher. The probability that a team will get 4 in 6 over a large period would be then even higher.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that what happened is hardly as a big a fluke as smyth260 is making it seem. It certainly not out of the question that it could happen again.


If you were looking at the possibility of this happening again though, wouldn't you have to adjust the odds? And with your calculation are you counting on the team finishing the same as the Oilers did (last, last, 2nd last, 7th last, 3rd last, 3rd last)?

If someone finished dead last four years in a row, the specific odds of them winning all four lotteries would be .2x.2x.2x.2 = 0.16%. The odds are a little better if you give it 6 years to accomplish four times and I acknowledge my stats courses are very long in my past now so I've forgotten a lot of this math, but to me, the odds of another team being as bad as the Oilers have been AND as lucky as they've been? I highly doubt we'll ever see another team have 4 first overalls in six years in our lifetimes without requiring any additional changes to the rules.

[Updated on: Tue, 08 December 2015 14:27]


"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireLowe #FireChiarelli #FireBobbyNicks #FireKeithGretzky #FireKenHolland #FireTippett

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661568 is a reply to message #661567 ]
Tue, 08 December 2015 14:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
benv  is currently offline benv
Messages: 1080
Registered: May 2006
Location: Edmonton

1 Cup

Adam wrote on Tue, 08 December 2015 13:47



If someone finished dead last four years in a row, the specific odds of them winning all four lotteries would be .2x.2x.2x.2 = 1.6%. The odds are a little better if you give it 6 years to accomplish four times and I acknowledge my stats courses are very long in my past now so I've forgotten a lot of this math, but to me, the odds of another team being as bad as the Oilers have been AND as lucky as they've been? I highly doubt we'll ever see another team have 4 first overalls in six years in our lifetimes without requiring any additional changes to the rules.



All I'm trying to say is that just because the probability of something is small, it's still likely to happen over a long period of time given enough opportunities. As I said the probability of the Oilers getting 4 first overalls given where they finished is just under 3%, and the probability that some team would do it would be higher. This is hardly super unlikely.

You are right that the Oilers' probability was much probably much higher than any team in history do to their poor performances lately, but that's hardly unprecedented either. Bad teams tend to stay bad for a while so they keep getting those high draft opportunities. And the new draft rules will make such a repeat performance less likely.

You're probably right that it will never happen in our lifetime though.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661571 is a reply to message #661568 ]
Tue, 08 December 2015 14:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 18385
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

benv wrote on Tue, 08 December 2015 14:06

Adam wrote on Tue, 08 December 2015 13:47



If someone finished dead last four years in a row, the specific odds of them winning all four lotteries would be .2x.2x.2x.2 = 1.6%. The odds are a little better if you give it 6 years to accomplish four times and I acknowledge my stats courses are very long in my past now so I've forgotten a lot of this math, but to me, the odds of another team being as bad as the Oilers have been AND as lucky as they've been? I highly doubt we'll ever see another team have 4 first overalls in six years in our lifetimes without requiring any additional changes to the rules.



All I'm trying to say is that just because the probability of something is small, it's still likely to happen over a long period of time given enough opportunities. As I said the probability of the Oilers getting 4 first overalls given where they finished is just under 3%, and the probability that some team would do it would be higher. This is hardly super unlikely.

You are right that the Oilers' probability was much probably much higher than any team in history do to their poor performances lately, but that's hardly unprecedented either. Bad teams tend to stay bad for a while so they keep getting those high draft opportunities. And the new draft rules will make such a repeat performance less likely.

You're probably right that it will never happen in our lifetime though.


I don't know - I think I did a post here about a year ago showing that this decade of Oilers hockey was the worst decade in hockey history based on results. While teams are bad for a period of time, the chances of them being just as bad as the Oilers is low to begin with - they'd have to be epically poor - and then on top of that with lower odds of hitting the lottery than the Oilers had in the Hall, Nuge and Yak draft years - to me it's a lot harder to imagine than you're suggesting.

That said, I see where you're coming from. 3% over a 6 year period means that there would be a likelihood of this happening once in 180 years...



"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireLowe #FireChiarelli #FireBobbyNicks #FireKeithGretzky #FireKenHolland #FireTippett

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661572 is a reply to message #661567 ]
Tue, 08 December 2015 14:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
smyth260  is currently offline smyth260
Messages: 2737
Registered: November 2007

2 Cups

And now with reduced odds, a team's best chance of drafting 1st overall twice in a row is 4% providing that team comes in last twice in a row. So going back to the article, I think the NHL's new odds will be effective at stopping teams from getting two in a row. It may happen once or twice within the next 50 years but it will not be the norm like people expect it to be. The Oilers' fortunes have set expectations for people that this will happen again and again. I see no need for a rule to eliminate something we might see once or twice in our lifetime.


Clean house or bust

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661580 is a reply to message #661572 ]
Tue, 08 December 2015 15:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
benv  is currently offline benv
Messages: 1080
Registered: May 2006
Location: Edmonton

1 Cup

smyth260 wrote on Tue, 08 December 2015 14:18

And now with reduced odds, a team's best chance of drafting 1st overall twice in a row is 4% providing that team comes in last twice in a row. So going back to the article, I think the NHL's new odds will be effective at stopping teams from getting two in a row. It may happen once or twice within the next 50 years but it will not be the norm like people expect it to be. The Oilers' fortunes have set expectations for people that this will happen again and again. I see no need for a rule to eliminate something we might see once or twice in our lifetime.


I didn't realize it was it that small. That is a huge reduction--compare to the 23% chance the Oilers had in 2010 and 2011. Assuming the NHL keeps these rates, what the Oilers accomplished will now be a 1 in several hundred years event, rather than 1 in 30-40 years.

Oh and to just make a comment on the original article--it is pure garbage by Brophy, and not the first time he's taken unwarranted cheap shots at Edmonton (recall he was the one who defended Pronger after his trade request by saying basically "Edmonton sucks and is cold--would you want to play there?" I'm paraphrasing). I'm really surprised the Hockey News would print such a poorly written article.

[Updated on: Tue, 08 December 2015 15:58]


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661581 is a reply to message #661580 ]
Tue, 08 December 2015 16:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mightyreasoner  is currently offline mightyreasoner
Messages: 3499
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

3 Cups

benv wrote on Tue, 08 December 2015 15:54

I'm really surprised the Hockey News would print such a poorly written article.


Is The Hockey News really relevant anymore? I can't recall the last time I went there before this. I'm sure they are thrilled for the pageviews.

All in all, it's a pretty irrelevant article written at an irrelevant time. I don't expect the Oilers to finish at the bottom, and I don't expect they'll be winning the first overall pick. If Brophy was really bent out of shape, he should have written this in the summer when something could have been done about it. But as demonstrated here, it's pretty much sheer luck the Oilers have had, none greater than last spring. The NHL has more or less closed this happening again with the draft lottery.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661583 is a reply to message #661581 ]
Tue, 08 December 2015 16:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 22498
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Tue, 08 December 2015 16:00

benv wrote on Tue, 08 December 2015 15:54

I'm really surprised the Hockey News would print such a poorly written article.


Is The Hockey News really relevant anymore? I can't recall the last time I went there before this. I'm sure they are thrilled for the pageviews.

All in all, it's a pretty irrelevant article written at an irrelevant time. I don't expect the Oilers to finish at the bottom, and I don't expect they'll be winning the first overall pick. If Brophy was really bent out of shape, he should have written this in the summer when something could have been done about it. But as demonstrated here, it's pretty much sheer luck the Oilers have had, none greater than last spring. The NHL has more or less closed this happening again with the draft lottery.


If the leafs really wanted to win a lottery or 2 they could have thrown that Babcock money at one of Lowe, Tambo or MacT. Or all of the above even if they wanted to be sure.


I don't think leaf fans will get over us winning the McDavid lottery for a long time. I expect if our team starts to win the theme will shift to how anything we win should have an asterisk next to it. Right now, it's easier to stick with the Oilers are losers and should be punished for it theme.



"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013

"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015

"In Brad we trust"
- All Oilers fans, Present Day

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661533 is a reply to message #661526 ]
Mon, 07 December 2015 10:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
AndersonRules  is currently offline AndersonRules
Messages: 436
Registered: April 2008
Location: Shawnee, Oklahoma (OKC ar...

No Cups

bigEfromGP wrote on Mon, 07 December 2015 09:44

smyth260 wrote on Sat, 05 December 2015 19:30


The odds of getting the 2010 first pick = 48.2%
The odds of getting the 2010 and 2011 first pick = 0.482*0.482 = 23.2 %
The odds of getting the 2010, 2011, and 2012 first pick = 0.482*0.482*0.188 = 4.36%
The odds of getting the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015 first pick = 0.482*0.482*0.188*0.115 = 0.50%




I could be wrong here, but I am not sure if that math is correct.

It's similar to flipping a coin. If you flip a coin 9 times, and all nine times you get heads, what are the odds that you will get tails on the 10th time? 50% . The previous results do not have a bearing on what the future odds are.

Of course like I said, I could be wrong.


You are wrong. The math is correct. Probability for a combination of events is derived from the product of the respective probability for each individual event - fairly elementary probability theory. BigE got it precisely right.

For your coin flip example, you are absolutely right - the probability you'll get tails the 10th time is 50%. But the probability you will get 9 heads followed by a tails on the 10th flip is 1 over 2 to the power of 10 - one half multiplied by itself ten times = 1/1024, or less than one-tenth of one percent.
Your analogy works better if you say, "Regardless of previous drafts, Edmonton's chances of getting McDavid were 11.5%" - but the probability of that result AS WELL AS winning the three previous lotteries, is 0.5%



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661421 is a reply to message #661414 ]
Sat, 05 December 2015 19:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jds308  is currently offline jds308
Messages: 1290
Registered: September 2007
Location: Summerland

1 Cup

The article is sour grapes on so many levels. If it wasn't McDavid in the last draft and all of TO figured the league owed him to the leafs, it wouldn't be an issue.

Also, the fact that the writer insinuates Buffalo was more deserving after tanking is absurd. The Oilers winning was pure luck, not by design like Buf was trying for. Buf deserved McD the least imo.



I make music:
Undermaker442

308 Media Group

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661426 is a reply to message #661421 ]
Sat, 05 December 2015 20:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi  is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 16157
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

jds308 wrote on Sat, 05 December 2015 19:49

The article is sour grapes on so many levels. If it wasn't McDavid in the last draft and all of TO figured the league owed him to the leafs, it wouldn't be an issue.

Also, the fact that the writer insinuates Buffalo was more deserving after tanking is absurd. The Oilers winning was pure luck, not by design like Buf was trying for. Buf deserved McD the least imo.

Exactly. The Oilers were just awful because they were run by incompetent boobs. The Sabres tried to be that bad.



Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661429 is a reply to message #661426 ]
Sat, 05 December 2015 21:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mazankowski  is currently offline mazankowski
Messages: 406
Registered: June 2006
Location: Kelowna BC

No Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Sat, 05 December 2015 19:41

jds308 wrote on Sat, 05 December 2015 19:49

The article is sour grapes on so many levels. If it wasn't McDavid in the last draft and all of TO figured the league owed him to the leafs, it wouldn't be an issue.

Also, the fact that the writer insinuates Buffalo was more deserving after tanking is absurd. The Oilers winning was pure luck, not by design like Buf was trying for. Buf deserved McD the least imo.

Exactly. The Oilers were just awful because they were run by incompetent boobs. The Sabres tried to be that bad.



I think the point he is trying to make, is that teams should not receive consecutive first overall picks, which I am all for. The NBA has a rule like this if I do recall, although I'm sure their lottery weight is much different etc. Either way, his point gets lost in his tirade about the Edmonton Oilers being an awful franchise. Broph, we get it, we're not the Blackhawks here, remind us again. This makes him look like a poor journalist, and in a piece such as this, using us as evidence to prove your point is completely acceptable. However, attacking the organization for being lucky is insane. Blame the rule makers for the system, not the teams forced to abide by those rules.

Brophy's attitude seems to suggest that the Oilers made sure they were continuously bad to keep having a chance at getting #1. And instead of it being a lottery, it was a game of capture the flag with the other bottom feeders. 4/5 for raising a great issue when it comes to retooling the lottery system, but 0/5 in execution in his illustration of this issue.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661430 is a reply to message #661429 ]
Sat, 05 December 2015 21:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi  is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 16157
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

Well I agree with his first point. The Oilers are bad. I disagree with the second which is the league should punish a team for being bad in consecutive years. Now, if his argument is the draft is stupid and so is the draft lottery I'll listen to suggestions on how to make it better.


Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661431 is a reply to message #661430 ]
Sat, 05 December 2015 21:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jds308  is currently offline jds308
Messages: 1290
Registered: September 2007
Location: Summerland

1 Cup

CrusaderPi wrote on Sat, 05 December 2015 20:16

Well I agree with his first point. The Oilers are bad. I disagree with the second which is the league should punish a team for being bad in consecutive years. Now, if his argument is the draft is stupid and so is the draft lottery I'll listen to suggestions on how to make it better.


Agreed. He should write an article about how he does not think the draft/lottery system is working for his liking. Blaming the Oilers is ignorant. I would feel the same if it was the Flames with the 4 1st overalls. And yeah instead of ripping an organization because of how ping pong balls wound up, suggest some alternatives. That would at least make the article hold some integrity.



I make music:
Undermaker442

308 Media Group

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661432 is a reply to message #661430 ]
Sat, 05 December 2015 21:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mazankowski  is currently offline mazankowski
Messages: 406
Registered: June 2006
Location: Kelowna BC

No Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Sat, 05 December 2015 20:16

Well I agree with his first point. The Oilers are bad. I disagree with the second which is the league should punish a team for being bad in consecutive years. Now, if his argument is the draft is stupid and so is the draft lottery I'll listen to suggestions on how to make it better.



See, and this is the debate this article should bring forth, instead it gets lost on his chirp the Oilers train.

I'm of the thinking that the system isn't broken, rather just dumb luck has been responsible (along with losing) for the Oilers getting the 1st pick so often. One way to eliminate this, is to not allow consecutive 1st picks. Other than that, there is always a chance it can occur.

Brophy also states that some drafts are better than others when it comes to the #1 pick, which is entirely true. His point of Erik Johnson one year, to Patrick Kane the next, is a good one, which promotes that you should not penalize a team for having consecutive firsts in my opinion. In keeping with this point, compare the Oilers situation to the Pittsburgh Penguins:

Now, the Pens didn't draft consecutive 1st overalls, but one could argue Malkin was a 1st overall pick in most years. Even so, they picked #1 in 2003, #2 in 04, #1 in 05, and #2 in 06. Two of those picks were Super Star centers, one was a #2 C, and the other was an elite franchise goaltender.

Did Broph mention the Penguins at all in his article? The Oilers situation to me isn't even as good as the Penguins. Sure, we got an elite LWer, a Super Star C in the making, a good 2 way top 6 C, and a top 6 RWer, but give me a franchise goalie ahead of RNH or Yak at this point.





Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661433 is a reply to message #661432 ]
Sat, 05 December 2015 23:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi  is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 16157
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

I've always felt the whole idea of a draft was kind of absurd. Could you imagine if the top graduate of the U of A medical program was drafted by Lac La Biche because their hospital performed horribly last year and unless he wants to go to Russia he's stuck there for 7 years? We all sort of accept that professional sport operates with its own set of rules because they're special, I guess. But it bothers me that the best junior players are essentially punished by being the best of their class by being sent to the worst teams and in the case of the Oilers the worst, most dysfunctional franchise. If Hall gets drafted by a competent team could you imagine how much more money he would make on his second and third contracts? So they invented the draft lottery to keep teams from intentionally tanking (which worked less than well last year) but it opened up the possibility for the Oilers to beat the odds and win 4 of 6 when they should have drafted 1, 1, 2, and 3. I guess the answer is more arbitrary rules?

This is why I hate the Leafs as much as the Flames and Canucks (and Habs). Everyone gets nervous going back and playing in the T dot and then the media starts talking crap and we all have to pretend to care.



Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661434 is a reply to message #661433 ]
Sat, 05 December 2015 23:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Oilerman53  is currently offline Oilerman53
Messages: 554
Registered: September 2007
Location: LLoyd

No Cups

Last year was a total fluke, the Oilers were the only team out of four who wasnt openly trying to tank for McDavid. Arizona, Buffalo and Toronto basically gave up towards the end of the season and made moves to make them as bad as possible. Just another Toronto homer looking to smear the Oilers, if Toronto won the lottery McDavid would be halfway to a nervous breakdown.


McDavid just might surpass Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr and heck even Elvis!

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661437 is a reply to message #661433 ]
Sat, 05 December 2015 23:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
smyth260  is currently offline smyth260
Messages: 2737
Registered: November 2007

2 Cups

The draft is a good thing for the league I think. It attempts to prop up bottom teams to keep the whole league competitive. It would be pretty boring if good teams got the good junior players. The bottom teams would have to really luck out with the lesser juniors or be ahead of the curve to compete.

Taylor Hall may make more money if he goes to a good team initially but that is because the Oilers have failed to build success around him. Does Stamkos, Crosby, Ovechkin, Kane, or Malkin make more money? They all started with bad teams but have done pretty well for themselves in under 7 years. I don't think they see it as punishment.

[Updated on: Sat, 05 December 2015 23:49]


Clean house or bust

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661439 is a reply to message #661437 ]
Sun, 06 December 2015 00:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi  is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 16157
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

Well, we won't know for sure until Hall signs his 3rd contract, put I suspect it'll be somewhat underwhelming.


Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661444 is a reply to message #661414 ]
Sun, 06 December 2015 04:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Estevan  is currently offline Estevan
Messages: 3
Registered: August 2007
Location: Bowness Alberta

No Cups

When I first read this article I could not believe that THN would allow such a horribly written piece to be published. Mike Brophy is seen to be ranting against the Edmonton Oilers hockey team and the fans of the Oilers. There is nothing interesting about this article.

It is obvious that the article that the posters on this site read, was not the same article that I read. His original post was chalk full of incorrect information and was obviously not spell checked or edited for factual errors. if you reopen the new article and filter down to the first ten comments you will get some of the story. This article was pulled and rewritten after about one hour.

1. Scott McLellan is listed as one of the five previous oiler coaches.
2. The Blue Jackets drafted Eric Johnson in 2006.
3. Brophy failed to include Mario Lemieux and Dale Hawerchuck as players who had won the Calder cup and drafted first overall.
4. Spelling mistakes throughout

This article was more about hating the Oilers and there fans than it was about the fixing (if it needs fixing) the NHL draft system.

It is my hope that those eastern hockey writing ba$tards freeze in the dark.






Edmonton is the heartland of hockey and Calgary is my home. It's all good!

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661448 is a reply to message #661444 ]
Sun, 06 December 2015 09:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mazankowski  is currently offline mazankowski
Messages: 406
Registered: June 2006
Location: Kelowna BC

No Cups

Estevan wrote on Sun, 06 December 2015 03:03

When I first read this article I could not believe that THN would allow such a horribly written piece to be published. Mike Brophy is seen to be ranting against the Edmonton Oilers hockey team and the fans of the Oilers. There is nothing interesting about this article.

It is obvious that the article that the posters on this site read, was not the same article that I read. His original post was chalk full of incorrect information and was obviously not spell checked or edited for factual errors. if you reopen the new article and filter down to the first ten comments you will get some of the story. This article was pulled and rewritten after about one hour.

1. Scott McLellan is listed as one of the five previous oiler coaches.
2. The Blue Jackets drafted Eric Johnson in 2006.
3. Brophy failed to include Mario Lemieux and Dale Hawerchuck as players who had won the Calder cup and drafted first overall.
4. Spelling mistakes throughout

This article was more about hating the Oilers and there fans than it was about the fixing (if it needs fixing) the NHL draft system.

It is my hope that those eastern hockey writing ba$tards freeze in the dark.






I actually noticed a few mistakes as well Estevan, with the Erik Johnson to Columbus being the one that popped when I first read it. Doesn't help his credibility, and obviously they don't have an editor going over web content. But I agree, a farce of an article.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Oilers Shouldn't get #1 Again [message #661523 is a reply to message #661414 ]
Mon, 07 December 2015 06:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Hibernia  is currently offline Hibernia
Messages: 1069
Registered: October 1998
Location: Sin John's

1 Cup

Is the Hockey News even relevant anymore?

click-bait is what I see.

Then again, SportsNet themselves isn't much better. Their lead story this morning is about an AHL goalie, ffs.



Twitter: @AitchOil

Send a private message to this user  

 
Previous Topic:Review: Dallas @ Edmonton (Game #27)
Next Topic:GDT: Buffalo @ Edmonton (Game #28)
Oilers NHL Minors Speculation For Sale 


Copyright © OilFans.com 1996-2022.
All content is property of OilFans.com and cannot be used without expressed, written consent from this site.
Questions, comments and suggestions can be directed to oilfans@OilFans.com
Privacy Statement


Hosted by LogicalHosting.ca