So we can all ready count both of those first round picks as hits? Based on what, the 3 games that York has played in the NHL?
Is there more opportunity for misses in the first round, the more times a GM drafts?

So what you're telling me is that the players that you list there, show more promise than Provorov, Konecny, Sanheim, Hart, Allison, Farabee and Frost?
- MJL

I know what you are trying to do here, and thats why i said....or you actually said who looks "promising" and i answered, now you change it to saying they are hits....anyway

I think they look promising, how can that be wrong if its an opinion. You may not and thats your opinion.

And i am not saying they look more promising than provy etc. I am saying Fletchers drafts have looked good to me, 2 for 2. Its a good average. You forgot to mention JOB, Rubstov, Ratcliffe who he traded up for. Those are big high pick misses.

They'll get an opportunity sure but most likely, both will be back in juniors although I'm not sure what Foerster's age will be at the start of the season.

So now we've disproved the statements that Fletcher draft picks seem more promising and that Fletcher moves players up quicker.
- MJL

Who disproved this, and how?

A lot of people are high on Bobby Brink as well, but I am not one of them. I think his lack of skating ability will stop him from succeeding at the next level. Hope I'm wrong of course.
- jd250

Brink has to show me a lot more that what he has for me to get on the train. I don't see it. Was hoping hed look better at the Jrs. But we shall see, there is time to turn it around

They'll get an opportunity sure but most likely, both will be back in juniors although I'm not sure what Foerster's age will be at the start of the season.

So now we've disproved the statements that Fletcher draft picks seem more promising and that Fletcher moves players up quicker.
- MJL

Foerster wont be 20 until January '22
Wisdom wont turn 20 until June '22

This brings me back to the question I asked a few days ago. Players like Foerster and Wisdom, it doesn't seem fair that they have to go back to juniors after proving they can succeed at the AHL level.

There should be some sort of exemption in place for these exact circumstances. A one time only exemption due to the the extraordinary circumstances that occurred this past season.

I know what the purpose of the rule is, the CHL doesn't want to lose all their good players. But in this case, just this one year, an exception needs to be made.
- MBFlyerfan

They have proven they can hold their own in a short sample size. A full season with more AHL vets in the league maybe it is a diff story.

That being said I agree with the exemption part. The rules need to be reviewed and updated though not sure the junior leagues want that to happen.

I dont think its really about teams moving on from him.

Boston traded him because they couldnt come to an agreement on a new contract.

Flames seemed to deal him because of personality issues however I have heard nothing but nice things about Hamilton. He has been described as quiet, introverted, shy and kind of keeps to himself. Now another thing that has been said that when the team goes out for dinner and does group things, he doesnt participate and goes off and does his own thing. Maybe that rubs people the wrong way?

I suspect the change from Carolina is his own choice. I think he's told CAR that he will be testing FA and CAR is trying to get something out of it
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

How many times was Pronger traded? No big deal he has moved around to a few teams.

I know what you are trying to do here, and thats why i said....or you actually said who looks "promising" and i answered, now you change it to saying they are hits....anyway

I think they look promising, how can that be wrong if its an opinion. You may not and thats your opinion.

And i am not saying they look more promising than provy etc. I am saying Fletchers drafts have looked good to me, 2 for 2. Its a good average. You forgot to mention JOB, Rubstov, Ratcliffe who he traded up for. Those are big high pick misses.
- bradster

Okay, point taken there. I made it into more than you were saying there but you still in my opinion have not justified saying which you did, that Fletcher's drafts look more promising than Hextall's. That was the context of the conversation. Not that York and Foerster just looked promising as players.

Every GM is going to have misses. I didn't forget to mention any player. What I mentioned is that we don't have the info to know still who will ultimately wind up a miss of a number of Hextall's picks. If we can't do that for Hextall, how can we legitimately make the comparison? We can't. That's the point.

Who disproved this, and how?
- bradster

If was disproved by the evidence. There is no evidence that proves that Fletcher's drafts are more promising than Hextall's. Nor is there evidence that Fletcher moves players up faster than Hextall. Again, Fletcher has only been the GM for two seasons now and is entering his 3rd. Hextall was GM for 4 years and his first year started 7 years ago. It's an unfair comparison in many ways.

Okay, point taken there. I made it into more than you were saying there but you still in my opinion have not justified saying which you did, that Fletcher's drafts look more promising than Hextall's. That was the context of the conversation. Not that York and Foerster just looked promising as players.

Every GM is going to have misses. I didn't forget to mention any player. What I mentioned is that we don't have the info to know still who will ultimately wind up a miss of a number of Hextall's picks. If we can't do that for Hextall, how can we legitimately make the comparison? We can't. That's the point.
- MJL

Every GM will have misses, you need to limit those first round misses. I don't even count 2nd round as misses, if you get a really good player in the 2nd, that's a bonus. But German and JOB are clearly misses. And I am giving him a pass on Patrick. I think he was the consensus 1-2 pick. But if i'm keeping score Chuck is 2 for 2 in first round and Ron is 4-2 not including the dude of Patrick. Again, not saying they are hits, but Chucks top picks look promising ,more promising that HExtalls thats for sure ..

If was disproved by the evidence. There is no evidence that proves that Fletcher's drafts are more promising than Hextall's. Nor is there evidence that Fletcher moves players up faster than Hextall. Again, Fletcher has only been the GM for two seasons now and is entering his 3rd. Hextall was GM for 4 years and his first year started 7 years ago. It's an unfair comparison in many ways.
- MJL

Thats hilarious, its disproved because you said so LOL. There is evidence, Fletcher moved Hart up right away. And Hart did well.

They'll get an opportunity sure but most likely, both will be back in juniors although I'm not sure what Foerster's age will be at the start of the season.

So now we've disproved the statements that Fletcher draft picks seem more promising and that Fletcher moves players up quicker.
- MJL

Foerster will turn 20 on Jan 18, 2022. However he can play now for the Phantoms and I think will have a shot to make the big club, depending on how the off season goes with him and with Fletcher. For your other comment, we'll see how it goes with York, Foerster and Wisdom. If they are playing for the big club next year or ripping it up in the AHL, I think there is a case to be made that Fletcher has done a better job drafting so far. Come to think of it, Farabee is another example of a player that I believe would not be in the NHL at 19 if Hextall was still at the helm. You at least agree that Fletcher seems more willing to bring these kids up compared to Hextall.

This brings me back to the question I asked a few days ago. Players like Foerster and Wisdom, it doesn't seem fair that they have to go back to juniors after proving they can succeed at the AHL level.

There should be some sort of exemption in place for these exact circumstances. A one time only exemption due to the the extraordinary circumstances that occurred this past season.

I know what the purpose of the rule is, the CHL doesn't want to lose all their good players. But in this case, just this one year, an exception needs to be made.
- MBFlyerfan

Neither of them will have to go back to juniors, since come September both players will be over 19 years old, so both can stay with the Phantoms. But as I stated, both might make the big club next year. Its not like the Flyers have studs on their 3rd and 4th lines currently.

Every GM will have misses, you need to limit those first round misses. I don't even count 2nd round as misses, if you get a really good player in the 2nd, that's a bonus. But German and JOB are clearly misses. And I am giving him a pass on Patrick. I think he was the consensus 1-2 pick. But if i'm keeping score Chuck is 2 for 2 in first round and Ron is 4-2 not including the dude of Patrick. Again, not saying they are hits, but Chucks top picks look promising ,more promising that HExtalls thats for sure ..
- bradster

By JOB, do you mean O'Brien? If so, your statement that he is clearly a miss is not correct. That is unknown at this time. Again, you're counting York and Foerster when that is still unkown. Again, keep making statements that are not supported by facts. It's okay to have an opinion but I challenge that opinion.

Again, I will ask you how is York and Foerster considered more promising than Provorov, Sanheim, Konency, Farabee and Frost? I won't count Hart, Allison and Lindblom.

Brink has to show me a lot more that what he has for me to get on the train. I don't see it. Was hoping hed look better at the Jrs. But we shall see, there is time to turn it around
- bradster

Yes, he just has to tweak a few things, like learn how to skate

Neither of them will have to go back to juniors, since come September both players will be over 19 years old, so both can stay with the Phantoms. But as I stated, both might make the big club next year. Its not like the Flyers have studs on their 3rd and 4th lines currently.
- jd250

The age requirement is 20, not 19.

If was disproved by the evidence. There is no evidence that proves that Fletcher's drafts are more promising than Hextall's. Nor is there evidence that Fletcher moves players up faster than Hextall. Again, Fletcher has only been the GM for two seasons now and is entering his 3rd. Hextall was GM for 4 years and his first year started 7 years ago. It's an unfair comparison in many ways.
- MJL

Hart and Farabee are prime examples of players that would not have been allowed by Hextall to play in the NHL as quick as they have under Fletcher. You really can't argue this point, its a fact.

Neither of them will have to go back to juniors, since come September both players will be over 19 years old, so both can stay with the Phantoms. But as I stated, both might make the big club next year. Its not like the Flyers have studs on their 3rd and 4th lines currently.
- jd250

The age limit is 20. Read Bills answer in the next blog.

By JOB, do you mean O'Brien? If so, your statement that he is clearly a miss is not correct. That is unknown at this time. Again, you're counting York and Foerster when that is still unkown. Again, keep making statements that are not supported by facts. It's okay to have an opinion but I challenge that opinion.

Again, I will ask you how is York and Foerster considered more promising than Provorov, Sanheim, Konency, Farabee and Frost? I won't count Hart, Allison and Lindblom.
- MJL

Its a miss so far, but he can change it. For you not to consider that a miss makes me wonder how you are judging to protect hextall. He is the highest drafted player that year to not yet play an NHL game, so it sure doesnt look good. But you can judge how you want. He is clearly a miss right now.

Hart and Farabee are prime examples of players that would not have been allowed by Hextall to play in the NHL as quick as they have under Fletcher. You really can't argue this point, its a fact.
- jd250

Truth

Thats hilarious, its disproved because you said so LOL. There is evidence, Fletcher moved Hart up right away. And Hart did well.
- bradster

No, not because I say so. You hilariously claim that York and Foerster show more promise than Hextall's picks. My claims are based on the evidence. I counter with Provorov, Konecny, Sanheim and Farabee who are already in the NHL compared to York who has played a grand total of 3 NHL games

There is evidence with Hextall. He put both Provorov and Konecny directly in the NHL straight out of juniors at 19 years of age.

My opinion is based on the facts. Although you are certainly entitled to an opinion, it is not based on facts. The facts do not support your opinion. They support mine.

Every GM will have misses, you need to limit those first round misses. I don't even count 2nd round as misses, if you get a really good player in the 2nd, that's a bonus. But German and JOB are clearly misses. And I am giving him a pass on Patrick. I think he was the consensus 1-2 pick. But if i'm keeping score Chuck is 2 for 2 in first round and Ron is 4-2 not including the dude of Patrick. Again, not saying they are hits, but Chucks top picks look promising ,more promising that HExtalls thats for sure ..
- bradster

Wait ... I want to make something clear .. Jay O'Brien is the REAL DEAL! Living in Boston I get to watch a lot of BU hockey, if I choose to, and this year I chose to watch because I wanted to see how this kid was developing. He will have another great season at BU and then I predict (barring injury) you will see him playing on the Flyers before the end of next season.

In my mind, the two biggest 1st round misses for Hextall are Nolan Patrick and German Rubtsov, the NoPa pick having the worst impact to the franchise.

By JOB, do you mean O'Brien? If so, your statement that he is clearly a miss is not correct. That is unknown at this time. Again, you're counting York and Foerster when that is still unkown. Again, keep making statements that are not supported by facts. It's okay to have an opinion but I challenge that opinion.

Again, I will ask you how is York and Foerster considered more promising than Provorov, Sanheim, Konency, Farabee and Frost? I won't count Hart, Allison and Lindblom.
- MJL

I said i thought provy bee and those players were good picks. But its the 1st round misses that i dont like. I didnt say they were more promising than any of them. You keep trying to change my wording. If hextall didnt have those awful first round misses, i would be happy. and JOB was a reach and a miss. makes it even worse. No one had him rated that high, but Hextall thinks he knows better and it shows he doesnt.

Hart and Farabee are prime examples of players that would not have been allowed by Hextall to play in the NHL as quick as they have under Fletcher. You really can't argue this point, its a fact.
- jd250

No, it's not a fact. It's an opinion. Now I will grant you, if I look at the situation, and how each GM has operated to this point and what they're philosophies are. I can have an opinion that Hextall MIGHT have kept them down longer. Might have. Factually, we have no way of knowing. As I said to you previously also, the situation with the team is also a factor. How the team is playing, injuries. It's position in the playoff race.

Wait ... I want to make something clear .. Jay O'Brien is the REAL DEAL! Living in Boston I get to watch a lot of BU hockey, if I choose to, and this year I chose to watch because I wanted to see how this kid was developing. He will have another great season at BU and then I predict (barring injury) you will see him playing on the Flyers before the end of next season.

In my mind, the two biggest 1st round misses for Hextall are Nolan Patrick and German Rubtsov, the NoPa pick having the worst impact to the franchise.
- jd250

Maybe he is, but he hasnt played a game yet, when everyone drafter before him has and lots drafted after him, we shall see. I hope he turns it around. But its another reason to not draft a player that high, you arent getting anything from him now, while other teams high draft picks are contributing.

I do know what odds means, but I think the mistake you are making is you are equating proven mathematical odds, e.g. toss coin multiple times and over time you will have an equal amount of heads and tails, with Vegas odds, which are designed SOLELY to maximize their return on the betting of a game or event. For example, when Vegas sets odds on a Football game, they are setting the line so that they get an equal amount of bets on both sides, thus they maximize their return since they only pay out one side. So when Vegas makes one hockey team the favorite to win the cup, how much they are favored by compared to other teams is manipulated to get an even spread of bets. My point is, Vegas odds are not true or proven mathematical odds.

Also considering the coin flip example, its a truth that if you toss a coin enough times you will get an equal amount of heads and tails. However if you toss a coin 10 times or even less, you might see 8 heads to 2 tails. Thus it is in sports. If Vegas plays Montreal 100 times, they probably win 80 times. But in a 7 game series, anything can happen. Odds do not apply when you have such a small sample size. In this case, odds are nothing more than a prediction.
- jd250

JD250, thank you for you well written answer.

There are however, two rookie large conceptual errors you make: regarding bookies and regarding odds applied to single instances. Please allow me to try to address the issue as succinctly as I can, for I am sure I can easily correct the issues.

1. Vegas: You are right about the way that Vegas makes it money. Not by taking a position, but by adjusting odds so as to equalize betting volume across both sides. Could those odds turn out to be inaccurate in a single instance? Sure. But could there be a systematic bias? No. That money grubbing way that Vegas sets its odds is in fact the most scientific, rational way to calculate sports odds chances.

Because suppose there was a systematic bias. Which way is it? Lets choose any one kind or error, say, Vegas overestimates the odds of victory for the more favored team. Then, over a period of time, it will find that the balance of bets is going against the favored team. It will end up NOT equalizing volume, and therefore not maximizing revenue. Then, it will make the correction of lowering the odds.

Such market forces are by far the best predictor we have for events. In the stock market and in political betting markets and in sports, they are not perfect, but they are the best.

2. Regarding the example you choose, of the 7 games VGK-Habs series, in any single instance of a game, a series, a coin flip, anything can happen. But anything can happen does not mean everything is equally likely! There are degrees of likelihood even in that single instance. You are conflating anything can happen with everything is likely to happen.

Think of the roll of a single die. You have two choices: you guess it will come up 1-5 or it will come up exactly 6. Could you get a 6 in the single roll? Sure you could. But is it as likely as getting 1-5? Ofc not! If you had to choose between 2 options (by say, putting money on a bet), would you choose 6, or would you choose 1-5? Ofc you would choose the latter!