A Question of Value

[TheGuardian_]

7 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

lol at your 2016 characterization!    Patience.....

the check is in the mail.

 

You do know he is the only one of three selections in the top 16 not to have played 1 NHL game.

I understand waiting to see, I complain about some posters always giving the golden dream about all the prospects making a dent or being successful.

So I would ask, sincerely, do you expect him to be a top 4 dman in the next 2 years? I will add a caveat to that question, good enough to be a top 4 dman on say, Arizona or Buffalo? Who would he bump?

[tybarber]

As others have mentioned, the math for the expected total value of the picks is off, it shouldn't be "189%", or 100% for one Top 6 F/Top 4 D and 89% for another, I don't think anyone is taking issue with the probability associated with each pick. I unfortunately spent time trying to figuring it out, so if you are interested: There's a 93% chance they get at least one Top 6 F/Top 4 D, a 39% chance they get only two,  a 22% chance they get only 3, and a 3.8% chance they get four. 

 

Basically, I just listed the combinations in which they either get a Top 6 F/Top 4 D as "Yes" (Y) or "No" (N). So, with the four picks, there is one combination of getting all four Yes, YYYY and on combination of missing on all four, NNNN. Four combinations of 3 "Yes", YYYN, YYNY, YNYY, NYYY, 6 combinations of two "Yes", and so on. You just have to calculate the odds for each combination because the probability is different for each draft position. So, for example, the probability of the combination YYYN coming up is (59/100) * (59/100) * (49/100) * (78/100) [the probably that you get "No" is 1 - the probability you get yes, i.e. 100 - 21.7 or ~ 78] = 13.3 percent. So if you add up the probabilities for all the combinations of getting exactly three Top 6 F/Top 4 D, it is about a 22.4 percent chance. Of course these models are totally off base, and this really means nothing, these would only be useful for projecting what might occur in the future.

 

Bottom line, Benning has been solid at drafting, the one that seems to get a lot of heat is the Virtanen pick, but he was ranked pretty frequently around the 6 - 10 spot. And let's not forget about all the talk of "meddling" owners, this was a pick for a team with new management that had just missed the playoffs for the first time in a while and was losing image with the local fanbase after the Tortorella experiment, there's something about "Local kid picked by favorite team" that gains some of that back. Part of me kind of believes that Virtanen was an ownership pick. At the end of the day though, I'm on board with Virtanen, he's looking like he can be a solid NHL player, and if he works on his stick handling and shooting accuracy, he could be deadly. I noticed during warm-ups at a few games last year he was one of, if not the, hardest shots on the team (even more so than Brock, so it seemed), just lost some accuracy on it. I also noticed via instagram his stick handling coach is a guy I've played against at UBC, he's a local ball hockey player and stick handling coach, and the guy can handle a puck, better than most NHLers I would bet. And he has to turn the corner to being a pro, I think there's still some adolescence and irresponsibility with him, but he'll grow. 

 

Since it seems like two of these players (Boeser and Pettersson) will turn into Top 6/Top 4 NHL-ers, I think we can say they have beat the 'odds'* . 

 

*odds really mean nothing and are based on a bunch of averages of averages and probabilities that at the end of the day don't reflect the specific draft year or player.

[Nucker 67]

Picture it....the year 2000...BOS has the #7 OA. They draft a D (Lars Jonsson). He was eventually traded to PHI, where he played 8 NHL games (2 assists), and that was his NHL career.

 

This is just one example of a Top 10 pick not amounting to much in the NHL. It happens on occasion. I'm not concerned for Juolevi, as he has a high hockey IQ, and is developing properly (and not being thrown to the wolves as a kid). So, next time we start feeling bad about Jake or Olli, take a look at past drafts and around the league, check out the players that were drafted high and never made a dent in the NHL.

 

Jake and Olli are going to be very good, no worries here. Just requires a little patience.

 

 

[Rob_Zepp]

2 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

the check is in the mail.

 

You do know he is the only one of three selections in the top 16 not to have played 1 NHL game.

I understand waiting to see, I complain about some posters always giving the golden dream about all the prospects making a dent or being successful.

So I would ask, sincerely, do you expect him to be a top 4 dman in the next 2 years? I will add a caveat to that question, good enough to be a top 4 dman on say, Arizona or Buffalo? Who would he bump?

I do know that.  I also know that if he was, for example, a Bolt he would have played this year in almost all but certain likelihood.   There was no need for a Canuck team in the position it was in to rush him.   For a D prospect, you need to give him a chance to develop and drawing any sort of conclusion until at least D+4 year is very unwise.   

 

I am not sure about "next 2 years" as that depends on whatever else the team has to offer.   Right now, he is the most talented offensive Dman in the entire organization (that includes at NHL level...sorry to Mr. Edler....it speaks highly of OJ but also not a great commentary on what the Canucks have) and he would be above most of the "fill-ins" used last year.     As far as Arizona and Buffalo, different teams with different needs.   They have potentially damaged their one key D prospect just as they seemingly have damaged Domi's development - both appeared to have zero confidence in their games and showed large regressions.    

 

OJ will be in the top 4 of whatever NHL team has patient to allow him to get there.   Vancouver seems the most likely spot assuming the Canucks don't do something foolish.   Same with a guy like Sanheim in Philly.   D+5 is coming up for him and he is yet to be a regular but he will most certainly be a top 4 NHL guy in my opinion.    

 

It is not about who he (or the likes of Sanheim) bump, it is about those incumbents having to demonstrate they can keep their jobs when these guys are developed and ready for the NHL.   Boeser didn't 'bump' someone as much as a veteran simply didn't show enough to keep him out of the lineup.    

 

IF you can wait for it, you will be a massive OJ fan and forget your impatience.    

[TheGuardian_]

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I do know that.  I also know that if he was, for example, a Bolt he would have played this year in almost all but certain likelihood.   There was no need for a Canuck team in the position it was in to rush him.   For a D prospect, you need to give him a chance to develop and drawing any sort of conclusion until at least D+4 year is very unwise.   

 

I am not sure about "next 2 years" as that depends on whatever else the team has to offer.   Right now, he is the most talented offensive Dman in the entire organization (that includes at NHL level...sorry to Mr. Edler....it speaks highly of OJ but also not a great commentary on what the Canucks have) and he would be above most of the "fill-ins" used last year.     As far as Arizona and Buffalo, different teams with different needs.   They have potentially damaged their one key D prospect just as they seemingly have damaged Domi's development - both appeared to have zero confidence in their games and showed large regressions.    

 

OJ will be in the top 4 of whatever NHL team has patient to allow him to get there.   Vancouver seems the most likely spot assuming the Canucks don't do something foolish.   Same with a guy like Sanheim in Philly.   D+5 is coming up for him and he is yet to be a regular but he will most certainly be a top 4 NHL guy in my opinion.    

 

It is not about who he (or the likes of Sanheim) bump, it is about those incumbents having to demonstrate they can keep their jobs when these guys are developed and ready for the NHL.   Boeser didn't 'bump' someone as much as a veteran simply didn't show enough to keep him out of the lineup.    

 

IF you can wait for it, you will be a massive OJ fan and forget your impatience.    

One thing OJ has going for him is management has filled the roster with little guys, OJ will be the 2nd or 3rd biggest dman on the team.

That league he is playing in isn't really all that good, not up to AHL, KHL, SHL maybe close to the ECHL and he didn't exactly light it up.

[Rob_Zepp]

3 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

One thing OJ has going for him is management has filled the roster with little guys, OJ will be the 2nd or 3rd biggest dman on the team.

That league he is playing in isn't really all that good, not up to AHL, KHL, SHL maybe close to the ECHL and he didn't exactly light it up.

LOL - the league that isn't very good fielded a team that stomped Canada 5-1 the other day.    You make these interesting statements but I am willing to bet you have never watched TPS play live let alone another team in that league.   It is far from "bush" league hockey and I would easily put it up against KHL.   Skating is on par with SHL.    

 

Anyway, you are always entertaining with your glass three-quarters empty.  

 

Cheers.    

[TheGuardian_]

13 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

LOL - the league that isn't very good fielded a team that stomped Canada 5-1 the other day.    You make these interesting statements but I am willing to bet you have never watched TPS play live let alone another team in that league.   It is far from "bush" league hockey and I would easily put it up against KHL.   Skating is on par with SHL.    

 

Anyway, you are always entertaining with your glass three-quarters empty.  

 

Cheers.    

Don't mix up a country with a league, look up where those players played, 9 in the AHL/NHL, 4 from the KHL, 2 from the SHL and a whopping 4 from that league, 2 of which come from the top team in that league.

 

And they kicked the US's as* big time.

 

 

 

 

[komodo0921]

On 2018-05-12 at 6:07 PM, NewAbaddon said:

 

Long read so I appreciate those who attempt to take it in. I hope the factual payoff is worth it.

 

Are Benning's first selections in each draft of his tenure (Virtanen, Boeser, Juolevi, Pettersson) an area of weakness or strength? Some Canucks fans routinely complain about Benning missing out on Nylander/Ehlers or Tkachuk, and others celebrate possible home-runs like Boeser and Pettersson. How do we look at all these picks together, as a complete picture?

 

Among these picks are two 5th overalls, a 6th overall, and a 23rd overall. What is the expected haul of this crop of picks?

 

Scott Cullen's recent exposition of the value of draft picks from 1990 to 2013 (https://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-nhl-draft-pick-value-1.786131) is a useful tool for this, but far from perfect, as it contains certain quirks like further back draft picks being judged more valuable than earlier picks because of the somewhat random historical successes and failures of those slots.

 

So I made a very slight adaptation, and judged a pick's value by averaging its own value, and the value of the four picks around it, i.e. for pick number 14, I averaged its value with picks 12, 13, 15, and 16. Some might object to this, but it's at worst an imperfect modification of an imperfect model in the honest spirit of generating greater objectivity.

 

With this modification, the 5th overall pick has a historic value of producing a player with a 59.2% chance of becoming a top 6 F or top 4 D. The 6th overall pick has a 49.2% chance of becoming a top 6 F or top 4 D. The 23rd overall pick has a 21.7% chance of becoming a top 6 F or top 4 D. Some simple math follows: (2 x 59.2) + 49.2 + 21.7 = 189.3.

 

So these four picks have a historical value of producing at least one surefire top 6 F or top 4 D (100%), and then an 89.3 chance of producing another. That is their total historical value: one for sure top 6 F or top 4 D, another very likely, out of 4 total picks. But anything beyond that is not in the numbers at this point; it's just fan fever over the potential of draft picks and an overrating of the science aspect of drafting.

 

Thus far Benning has produced one 100% top 6 F or top 4 D in Boeser. All he needs to do is produce one more, and his first selections in the draft will be already surpassing their historical value. Out of Pettersson, Juolevi, and Virtanen, that will not be very difficult IMO, and if Juolevi becomes a top 4 D (a still likely outcome even among his largest detractors), and Pettersson a top 6 F (also likely at this point, barring catastrophe), then Benning will have greatly outperformed the historical value of his draft selections. A possible emergence of Virtanen down the road would just be icing on the cake to this statistical area of strength for Benning.

  

 

I definitely think JB deserves props for his drafting ability. 

Imo, the one thing that puts him above other gms is his ability to find quality prospects in the lower rounds.

A fifth-round pick in Gaudette made his improbable NHL debut at the end of last season and didn't look out of place. He also won the Hobey Baker. 

A fifth-round pick!

If he doesn't crack the lineup next season, I don't see it being long before he does.

Lukas who?

Jasek comes out of obscurity and puts up 7 points in 6 games with Utica. This is a kid who couldn't secure a top line spot with his team in the Czech League. Early indications show he could be a steal of the 2015 draft. 

Even a sixth rounder like Petrus Palmu is showing to be more than his 5'7" frame would seem to indicate.

Willie Lockwood, although injured, definitely has the compete level to provide the foundation for a potential NHL career and is another I have high hopes for.

JB, imo, is the perfect gm for a rebuilding team and, while I don't always agree with his selections, he has provided this team with a solid foundation of prospects and many reasons for us to be excited about the future of our team.

I can't wait for the 2018-2019 season to start.

[Rob_Zepp]

5 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Don't mix up a country with a league, look up where those players played, 9 in the AHL/NHL, 4 from the KHL, 2 from the SHL and a whopping 4 from that league, 2 of which come from the top team in that league.

 

And they kicked the US's as* big time.

 

 

 

 

Again, WATCH the league sometime and then come back and say what you think.   A whopping "4" from that league now....look where all the others played at some point.    It is a very competitive league and the teams that get into the playoffs would compete nicely in most any league in the world.   Clearly the NHL is the top league in the world but this is far from a league like ECHL like you imply......bloody far.

[IBatch]

On 2018-05-14 at 4:42 PM, tybarber said:

As others have mentioned, the math for the expected total value of the picks is off, it shouldn't be "189%", or 100% for one Top 6 F/Top 4 D and 89% for another, I don't think anyone is taking issue with the probability associated with each pick. I unfortunately spent time trying to figuring it out, so if you are interested: There's a 93% chance they get at least one Top 6 F/Top 4 D, a 39% chance they get only two,  a 22% chance they get only 3, and a 3.8% chance they get four. 

 

Basically, I just listed the combinations in which they either get a Top 6 F/Top 4 D as "Yes" (Y) or "No" (N). So, with the four picks, there is one combination of getting all four Yes, YYYY and on combination of missing on all four, NNNN. Four combinations of 3 "Yes", YYYN, YYNY, YNYY, NYYY, 6 combinations of two "Yes", and so on. You just have to calculate the odds for each combination because the probability is different for each draft position. So, for example, the probability of the combination YYYN coming up is (59/100) * (59/100) * (49/100) * (78/100) [the probably that you get "No" is 1 - the probability you get yes, i.e. 100 - 21.7 or ~ 78] = 13.3 percent. So if you add up the probabilities for all the combinations of getting exactly three Top 6 F/Top 4 D, it is about a 22.4 percent chance. Of course these models are totally off base, and this really means nothing, these would only be useful for projecting what might occur in the future.

 

Bottom line, Benning has been solid at drafting, the one that seems to get a lot of heat is the Virtanen pick, but he was ranked pretty frequently around the 6 - 10 spot. And let's not forget about all the talk of "meddling" owners, this was a pick for a team with new management that had just missed the playoffs for the first time in a while and was losing image with the local fanbase after the Tortorella experiment, there's something about "Local kid picked by favorite team" that gains some of that back. Part of me kind of believes that Virtanen was an ownership pick. At the end of the day though, I'm on board with Virtanen, he's looking like he can be a solid NHL player, and if he works on his stick handling and shooting accuracy, he could be deadly. I noticed during warm-ups at a few games last year he was one of, if not the, hardest shots on the team (even more so than Brock, so it seemed), just lost some accuracy on it. I also noticed via instagram his stick handling coach is a guy I've played against at UBC, he's a local ball hockey player and stick handling coach, and the guy can handle a puck, better than most NHLers I would bet. And he has to turn the corner to being a pro, I think there's still some adolescence and irresponsibility with him, but he'll grow. 

 

Since it seems like two of these players (Boeser and Pettersson) will turn into Top 6/Top 4 NHL-ers, I think we can say they have beat the 'odds'* . 

 

*odds really mean nothing and are based on a bunch of averages of averages and probabilities that at the end of the day don't reflect the specific draft year or player.

This so eloquently states what I've said several times, each year a GM goes into the draft expecting one good or solid roster player, digs deep to get the second one, and makes several late round flyers on the rest going for the second player.  Two roster players who play at least seven years in the NHL is a good draft, three exceptional and rare.

[IBatch]

46 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Again, WATCH the league sometime and then come back and say what you think.   A whopping "4" from that league now....look where all the others played at some point.    It is a very competitive league and the teams that get into the playoffs would compete nicely in most any league in the world.   Clearly the NHL is the top league in the world but this is far from a league like ECHL like you imply......bloody far.

This has been tested several times in the past by the Russian, or Soviet Union stacking the red Army Team and playing games against NHL teams.  In the seventies they played a few NHL teams basically having their way with them, until they played the cup champs PHI, they expected a tough and chippy game, which wasn't working each time players from the previous teams went out of position they got burned by the crisp passing game the Soviets played and it ended up odd man rushes and often a goal.  

 

Instead Shero had them

play a system, that was essentially opposite of how the Flyers were winning at the time (intimidation), the Soviets were confused and the skill of the Flyers took over they won.  

 

In the seventies and eighties the Red Army was better than the average NHL team, but as we know when you make a team out of the top NHLers, it usually was enough to beat them.

[Pete M]

7 minutes ago, IBatch said:

This has been tested several times in the past by the Russian, or Soviet Union stacking the red Army Team and playing games against NHL teams.  In the seventies they played a few NHL teams basically having their way with them, until they played the cup champs PHI, they expected a tough and chippy game, which wasn't working each time players from the previous teams went out of position they got burned by the crisp passing game the Soviets played and it ended up odd man rushes and often a goal.  

 

Instead Shero had them

play a system, that was essentially opposite of how the Flyers were winning at the time (intimidation), the Soviets were confused and the skill of the Flyers took over they won.  

 

In the seventies and eighties the Red Army was better than the average NHL team, but as we know when you make a team out of the top NHLers, it usually was enough to beat them.

The Soviets taught the NHLers how to train and get in shape. Prior to playing them, most NHLers came to training camp "out of shape" and really were not in the best shape possible.

Fast forward to now, all players now train like the Soviets or similar to them in order to stay in shape year round and be in the best shape possible.

 

 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Pete M said:

The Soviets taught the NHLers how to train and get in shape. Prior to playing them, most NHLers came to training camp "out of shape" and really were not in the best shape possible.

Fast forward to now, all players now train like the Soviets or similar to them in order to stay in shape year round and be in the best shape possible.

 

 

Absolutely.  Lafluer used to have a smoke between periods, Gretzky mentions in his book when he joined the elite Canadian team and played with him against the Soviets as a teenager.  His generation started taking better care of themselves, weight training became a big deal then, same with cardio on the bike, definitely influenced by the Soviets too.

 

That said they still were elite athletes, Gordie Howe was once fitness tested by a world renowned sports doctor, and he compared him to the best boxers of the time.  Right at the tippy top of the scale.  

 

Don't think you will find many smokers anymore though, good old Lafluer.  

 

 

[thrago]

Just going to say one thing you can't just add up all the percentages and that's the number. If your shooting a gun at a Target and you have a ten percent chance of hitting it. You have ten bullets doesn't mean you will hit the target once. If you are a good shot you might hit it 8 times if your not you might not hit it at all.

 

If you have 2 5th overall picks and one 6th and you are supposed to be a good drafter you best be getting more then 2 good players. 

 

Thing is it's kind of early to say. JV looks like a bad pick, not saying he is a bad player but it appears and it's still early that there was much better picks on the board.

 

BB clear cut grand slam for a 23 OA.

 

OJ looks promising really early still, probably a good pick but probably not the best pick.

 

EP super early but all indications are that it is another grand slam.

 

What I believe is really important is how many and to what degree his later picks do. This is how you build a winner.  

 

Later picks take longer to develop normally then high picks so we will have to wait a bit.  But if some of them start making the team and contributing in a meaningful way that's when we will really know how great Benning is at drafting.

[J.I.A.H.N]

I really like numbers..........you can shape them and bend them, the way you want them to read...............

 

Take in case a class I took once a long time ago, where the Instructor said that 15 % of the class would have 85% off the money we collectively had in our wallets and purses...........well we all dug in and counted our money, and generally, it was true......but not exact! And we pointed that fact out to the instructor, who answered by saying, "well on average it works!" lol 

 

I then asked..."well then, if we take the top 15 % of the class out of the equation, will the formula work again............well sadly, it did not! Not even close, and the instructor, quite defensively said "Well, again I said, on average!"

 

This took me to thinking about the coin flipping, and how the probability of the coin being heads 50% and tails 50%, so I googled this :

 

What's important to realize is that the probability of every sequence with the same "outcome" (total # of heads in a given # of trials) is the same. HHTT is as likely as HTHT or TTHH.

So to compute the probability of landing 500,000 heads in 1,000,000 trials, you have to calculate the probability of obtaining 1 particular sequence with this outcome and then multiply it be the number of different sequences with the same outcome.

The sequence of first landing 500,000 heads and then 500,000 tails is such a sequence. The odds of getting it are 0.5^500,000 * (1 - 0.5)^500,000 = 0.5^1,000,000

The number of sequences of 1 milion flips with exactly 500,000 heads is given by the so-called binomial coefficient, which in this case evaluates to 1000,000! / (500,000! * 500,000!) and which is an enormous number (unsurprisingly). (The "!" symbol denotes the factorial which is the product of all numbers less than or equal to the given number, so 4! = 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 = 24)

Regular calculators can handle neither the extremely low probability of a single sequence or the very large number of possible sequences with the same outcome. So we go to Wolfram Alpha: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.5%5E1000000+*+Combinations%281000000%2C500000%29

The result: about 0.08%

Note that the above also holds for situations where the outcome of an individual trial is not a 50-50 split between two options. It can also be used for things like calculating the chance of throwing exactly 100 6's in 600 dice rolls (spoiler alert: it's 4.37%)

The general formula to compute the chance of M successes happening in N trials where in a single trial the probability of success is P is: P^M * (1 - P)^{N - M} * N! / (M! * (N - M)!)

 

My point is, what ever averages you use, are just that "averages"...........they are a simplified answer to a more complexed question, and a more complexed answer.............(read above...on a simple 50 / 50 question)

 

So, my answer to the original poster is...........yes, you are correct, that is "one" answer. It just matters how large of group you are using for your calculation, and your margin of error, and how you then round off...........

 

But I like where he was going, and the debate it has created.....

[thrago]

24 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

I really like numbers..........you can shape them and bend them, the way you want them to read...............

 

Take in case a class I took once a long time ago, where the Instructor said that 15 % of the class would have 85% off the money we collectively had in our wallets and purses...........well we all dug in and counted our money, and generally, it was true......but not exact! And we pointed that fact out to the instructor, who answered by saying, "well on average it works!" lol 

 

I then asked..."well then, if we take the top 15 % of the class out of the equation, will the formula work again............well sadly, it did not! Not even close, and the instructor, quite defensively said "Well, again I said, on average!"

 

This took me to thinking about the coin flipping, and how the probability of the coin being heads 50% and tails 50%, so I googled this :

 

What's important to realize is that the probability of every sequence with the same "outcome" (total # of heads in a given # of trials) is the same. HHTT is as likely as HTHT or TTHH.

So to compute the probability of landing 500,000 heads in 1,000,000 trials, you have to calculate the probability of obtaining 1 particular sequence with this outcome and then multiply it be the number of different sequences with the same outcome.

The sequence of first landing 500,000 heads and then 500,000 tails is such a sequence. The odds of getting it are 0.5^500,000 * (1 - 0.5)^500,000 = 0.5^1,000,000

The number of sequences of 1 milion flips with exactly 500,000 heads is given by the so-called binomial coefficient, which in this case evaluates to 1000,000! / (500,000! * 500,000!) and which is an enormous number (unsurprisingly). (The "!" symbol denotes the factorial which is the product of all numbers less than or equal to the given number, so 4! = 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 = 24)

Regular calculators can handle neither the extremely low probability of a single sequence or the very large number of possible sequences with the same outcome. So we go to Wolfram Alpha: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.5%5E1000000+*+Combinations%281000000%2C500000%29

The result: about 0.08%

Note that the above also holds for situations where the outcome of an individual trial is not a 50-50 split between two options. It can also be used for things like calculating the chance of throwing exactly 100 6's in 600 dice rolls (spoiler alert: it's 4.37%)

The general formula to compute the chance of M successes happening in N trials where in a single trial the probability of success is P is: P^M * (1 - P)^{N - M} * N! / (M! * (N - M)!)

 

My point is, what ever averages you use, are just that "averages"...........they are a simplified answer to a more complexed question, and a more complexed answer.............(read above...on a simple 50 / 50 question)

 

So, my answer to the original poster is...........yes, you are correct, that is "one" answer. It just matters how large of group you are using for your calculation, and your margin of error, and how you then round off...........

 

But I like where he was going, and the debate it has created.....

You stole the words right out of my mouth.

[IBatch]

8 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

I really like numbers..........you can shape them and bend them, the way you want them to read...............

 

Take in case a class I took once a long time ago, where the Instructor said that 15 % of the class would have 85% off the money we collectively had in our wallets and purses...........well we all dug in and counted our money, and generally, it was true......but not exact! And we pointed that fact out to the instructor, who answered by saying, "well on average it works!" lol 

 

I then asked..."well then, if we take the top 15 % of the class out of the equation, will the formula work again............well sadly, it did not! Not even close, and the instructor, quite defensively said "Well, again I said, on average!"

 

This took me to thinking about the coin flipping, and how the probability of the coin being heads 50% and tails 50%, so I googled this :

 

What's important to realize is that the probability of every sequence with the same "outcome" (total # of heads in a given # of trials) is the same. HHTT is as likely as HTHT or TTHH.

So to compute the probability of landing 500,000 heads in 1,000,000 trials, you have to calculate the probability of obtaining 1 particular sequence with this outcome and then multiply it be the number of different sequences with the same outcome.

The sequence of first landing 500,000 heads and then 500,000 tails is such a sequence. The odds of getting it are 0.5^500,000 * (1 - 0.5)^500,000 = 0.5^1,000,000

The number of sequences of 1 milion flips with exactly 500,000 heads is given by the so-called binomial coefficient, which in this case evaluates to 1000,000! / (500,000! * 500,000!) and which is an enormous number (unsurprisingly). (The "!" symbol denotes the factorial which is the product of all numbers less than or equal to the given number, so 4! = 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 = 24)

Regular calculators can handle neither the extremely low probability of a single sequence or the very large number of possible sequences with the same outcome. So we go to Wolfram Alpha: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.5%5E1000000+*+Combinations%281000000%2C500000%29

The result: about 0.08%

Note that the above also holds for situations where the outcome of an individual trial is not a 50-50 split between two options. It can also be used for things like calculating the chance of throwing exactly 100 6's in 600 dice rolls (spoiler alert: it's 4.37%)

The general formula to compute the chance of M successes happening in N trials where in a single trial the probability of success is P is: P^M * (1 - P)^{N - M} * N! / (M! * (N - M)!)

 

My point is, what ever averages you use, are just that "averages"...........they are a simplified answer to a more complexed question, and a more complexed answer.............(read above...on a simple 50 / 50 question)

 

So, my answer to the original poster is...........yes, you are correct, that is "one" answer. It just matters how large of group you are using for your calculation, and your margin of error, and how you then round off...........

 

But I like where he was going, and the debate it has created.....

I'm sure the 79 draft evened out with the Sedins draft which was abysmal...look at the quality and quantity of guys that came out that year compared to what haul the Sedins year (Patrick Stephan first overall, well there was Zetterberg late I think that year)well under the 50% top six guys average the OP accurately states.  

 

Also the year after the lockout was a great draft year too, so we're the first few in the eightees, loaded with hall of fame legends.  

 

That's something to consider, every five years or so there is a very good draft, every ten years or so an exceptional draft.  We have just come off an exceptional and very good draft, then last years which is too early to tell but seems rather ho-hum average so far,  this year a bit better than normal. 

 

Bennings drafting should also be critiqued based on the quality of the draft year, did he do better than the average that year based on ADP (average draft position, he should be drafting better players that a team like PIT) or did he do a little worse or did he s@#t the bed.

 

Its not as Rosey as some  suggest when that's considered, he's drafting above average compared to all the drafts all-time average, but when considering the quality of the draft years individually and ADP is he batting .500, or is he a little behind.   

 

Its early yet given OJ may or may not be an impact top four guy (sure he might make our top four, but where would he play in a team like NSH, or a team like SJ, the best, pretty good etc)

and JV was playing like a top six guy the last ten games but will it stick.

 

Two year from now better data will be in to really have enough a sample x time available to judge Bennings drafting, but so far it looks average based on draft position AND the quality of the drafts, if some later picks stick then he will move up.

 

Tryamkin and likely Gaudette, Demko , Dahlen and one of Lind or Jonah G. likely will make the show, which would make Benning a very good drafter ( and better trader for Burrows).  Pettersson most definitely will make the NHL, probably next year.

[mephnick]

The 2014 Draft was terrible. There were like 10 decent players taken in the first round and half of those were outside the top 10. The likely future best player (Pasta) was taken late.

 

The fact that we ended up with a question mark with Virtanen puts us roughly with everyone else that year. Thankfully he's at least trending upwards unlike Bennett or Dal Colle.

[J.I.A.H.N]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

I'm sure the 79 draft evened out with the Sedins draft which was abysmal...look at the quality and quantity of guys that came out that year compared to what haul the Sedins year (Patrick Stephan first overall, well there was Zetterberg late I think that year)well under the 50% top six guys average the OP accurately states.  

 

Also the year after the lockout was a great draft year too, so we're the first few in the eightees, loaded with hall of fame legends.  

 

That's something to consider, every five years or so there is a very good draft, every ten years or so an exceptional draft.  We have just come off an exceptional and very good draft, then last years which is too early to tell but seems rather ho-hum average so far,  this year a bit better than normal. 

 

Bennings drafting should also be critiqued based on the quality of the draft year, did he do better than the average that year based on ADP (average draft position, he should be drafting better players that a team like PIT) or did he do a little worse or did he s@#t the bed.

 

Its not as Rosey as some  suggest when that's considered, he's drafting above average compared to all the drafts all-time average, but when considering the quality of the draft years individually and ADP is he batting .500, or is he a little behind.   

 

Its early yet given OJ may or may not be an impact top four guy (sure he might make our top four, but where would he play in a team like NSH, or a team like SJ, the best, pretty good etc)

and JV was playing like a top six guy the last ten games but will it stick.

 

Two year from now better data will be in to really have enough a sample x time available to judge Bennings drafting, but so far it looks average based on draft position AND the quality of the drafts, if some later picks stick then he will move up.

 

Tryamkin and likely Gaudette, Demko , Dahlen and one of Lind or Jonah G. likely will make the show, which would make Benning a very good drafter ( and better trader for Burrows).  Pettersson most definitely will make the NHL, probably next year.

Which is exactly my point...why having a little fun.......good points, IBatch !

[kloubek]

On 5/12/2018 at 7:59 PM, Crabcakes said:

I think a lot of people are crying because they see other picks having success before Benning's picks.

I agree, but your post is more about them having success EARLIER - implying that perhaps Virtanen is just taking longer.  (And it DOES appear he has taken longer to learn the game at the NHL level, although I don't believe he is as good as the other guys you mentioned).

 

MY take on it is that it is super easy to cherry pick other players Benning could have had now that we can see what they amounted to, but this isn't to say he made a *bad* pick as much as it is to say he made the *wrong* pick in hindsight.  For example: In 2014 he could have picked Dal Colle, or Fleury.  Both of which would have been huge mistakes.  That same year Dallas picked Honka which also looks like a poor choice.  

 

My point is that you can't just look at what players are obviously having better (and yes - earlier) success.  Yes, I do think that as one dimensional as he is that Nylander is the better player.  What about Pastrnak?  He was passed over by 24 teams before he was snagged by Boston.  Does that mean that the GMs of all these teams suck?  No.  Drafting is a gamble... sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.  And even though he is starting to come along, I feel we largely lost with picking Virtanen.  That's ok though because I STILL see Virtanen being a big part of this team albeit likely in a 3rd line role.  Isn't the worst pick he could have selected, and it was actually one of the safest picks given Jake's speed and size.

 

At the end of the day, I am generally comfortable with Benning's picks.  Could he have done better with some of these picks?  Sure.  But that'll happen.  He's also found some real gems in Gaudette and Boeser, and it looks like Pettersson was far and away the best choice for that draft class as well.  Overall, I'd say he's done far better than average.