I also pointed out and will again for example in my theory so we took hart (top goalie or top 2 prospect in his draft year) so say we draft wallstedt this year (5 years later) and he’s a bust. Well because we invested in hart we still have a good goalie ( I do believe even tho he’s young he will be good) so you lost on a cycle as surely you will sometimes. You don’t need to hit everyone and you definitely won’t miss on everyone. As wallstedt is developing of it becomes clear in say year 4 he blows or injured or whatever you start the cycle over.
- Stayin alive

None of what you said addressed the issue I am bringing up. (And considering the length of that last post, that is amazing.) I disagree on other points with the contract and trading so you don’t have to pay, but let’s try my first issue again.

Why are the other goalie prospects, signed or drafted beyond the top goalie prospect each draft, not part of the evaluation in your theory? Chopped liver? The example I used since you were using the Hart and the Flyers is Ersson. It’s been three years since he was drafted, are you going to check his progress?

It’s really strange to me that you automatically discount his likelihood of being an NHL goalie just because he was not a census top goalie his draft year.

Ben Simmons just completely dominated that 3rd quarter. When he plays aggressive it is beautiful to see and the Sixers are unstoppable.

None of what you said addressed the issue I am bringing up. (And considering the length of that last post, that is amazing.) I disagree on other points with the contract and trading so you don’t have to pay, but let’s try my first issue again.

Why are the other goalie prospects, signed or drafted beyond the top goalie prospect each draft, not part of the evaluation in your theory? Chopped liver? The example I used since you were using the Hart and the Flyers is Ersson. It’s been three years since he was drafted, are you going to check his progress?

It’s really strange to me that you automatically discount his likelihood of being an NHL goalie just because he was not a census top goalie his draft year.
- NC Flyers Fan

Oh I see I think you’re taking it as that’s the only draft plan I think team should employ? No absolutely not do I believe that. I totally agree that team should still scout goalies in other rounds and if they have a goalie as bpa or want to take a swing on goalie later rounds by all means yea you do it. My theory of investing in round 1 every about 5 years is only to take advantage of fact most teams won’t even consider drafting in round 1 even for the top echelon goalie prospect. And I don’t just think Ersson can’t make it or just. Kindly discard it. He’s a 5th round pick and odds say less than 5% chance he does. It’s not to say he can’t. That doesn’t mean you can’t take a chance on those picks and try to develop them as every team should. Totally agree. My theory is just to give better odds to not only hit on a goalie but avoid having to pay the big contract.

I disagree about some of those examples you posted, though it is moot. The Wings win in 96 was with a stacked team from Federov to Lidstrom and a veritable pantheon of HOFers. They did not match Lidstrom against the LOD line, instead they played Fetisov and Konstantinov, and I understand this surprised the Flyers. The 2011 finals is something I recall quite well, and Boston outphysicaled the Canucks as thoroughly as Ducks had done the same against Sens a few years earlir.

But I don't want to get suckered into an argument on who did what when. Its not relevant. You feel Habs have as good a chance as any. This means, by definition, that they have at least a 50% chance of winning against Vegas. You should accept a wager on those odds then.

(Yes, risk aversion and yes threshold of monetary discomfort, but that's why I let you choose the lower bound of the wager).
- PT21

Murphy and Lidstrom played against the Legion of Doom. What surprised them was that they fronted them and denied them pucks instead of getting sucked into a physical battle down low.

And sorry, I don't get my rocks off of betting sports, much less with some nobody from the internet.

Oh I see I think you’re taking it as that’s the only draft plan I think team should employ? No absolutely not do I believe that. I totally agree that team should still scout goalies in other rounds and if they have a goalie as bpa or want to take a swing on goalie later rounds by all means yea you do it. My theory of investing in round 1 every about 5 years is only to take advantage of fact most teams won’t even consider drafting in round 1 even for the top echelon goalie prospect. And I don’t just think Ersson can’t make it or just. Kindly discard it. He’s a 5th round pick and odds say less than 5% chance he does. It’s not to say he can’t. That doesn’t mean you can’t take a chance on those picks and try to develop them as every team should. Totally agree. My theory is just to give better odds to not only hit on a goalie but avoid having to pay the big contract.
- Stayin alive

And I’ll add that realistically by year 3-4 of development how many goalies does a team usually have in system that has realistic remote chance of making nhl? Maybe 5ish at different levels in different leagues. At some point to further the development it nets to be dwindled because there’s only 1 net. I mean look what happens when you have say 3 guys developing and hit ahl time. 1 net 1 guy getting moved out. And at that one will back up.

If price post .920 save % habs wins series rather easily I think against Vegas. If price below that it’s anybody’s game. I think price stays relatively hot and habs win in 5-6 games. Plus swami told me habs in 6

I missed this one. Though LA was the 8th seed, a poster here pointed out on numerous occasions that this was misleading, as they had tremendous possession stats and they came on especially well the last part of the season.

That poster took his handle name from a battle axe used by native Americans. Do you by any chance know who I am referring to?
- PT21

Anybody who knows anything about analytics will tell you that goaltending and luck can easily negate any possession advantages. Possession being a 'controllable' and 'repeatable' aspect of the game is why people harp on it so much. Goaltending is highly variable. When a goalie is the zone, as Price is right now, all bets are off.

Quick had a .947 SV% in the Finals. They could have played team defense like the 2021 Flyers and still won that series.

None of what you said addressed the issue I am bringing up. (And considering the length of that last post, that is amazing.) I disagree on other points with the contract and trading so you don’t have to pay, but let’s try my first issue again.

Why are the other goalie prospects, signed or drafted beyond the top goalie prospect each draft, not part of the evaluation in your theory? Chopped liver? The example I used since you were using the Hart and the Flyers is Ersson. It’s been three years since he was drafted, are you going to check his progress?

It’s really strange to me that you automatically discount his likelihood of being an NHL goalie just because he was not a census top goalie his draft year.
- NC Flyers Fan

So I quickly (very quickly) just looked up 2015 nhl draft. That was and has prospects NOW with 5 years development. I believe 16 goalies were draft. A couple have had a cup of coffe I believe in a few nhl games but 2 have become relative full time player and starters. Samsonov(round 1-first goalie taken) and Blackwood (round 2-2nd goalie taken) they by reports were the top 2 goalie prospects that draft year. This isn’t to say none of the other goalies will not make it but it does show the % to my theory. I’m sure there will be years where a few more goalies make it from their draft class and I’m sure there will be years where the top prospects in those classes don’t pan out. But I just really find it hard to understand why with those top prospects gm’s (and fans) get uptight about taking a shot on top prospects in round 1. Especially when there are bust anyways at the other positions. I guess my * to my theory would be if you’re drafting really high say top 3 or 5 and say theirs a really good top goalie prospect like say hart was do I take him over a highly skilled prospect or dman that high? Probably not. Now if the prospect is as highly touted as like flower was or price then I would weigh that against the next years goalie projections and factor it all in. Its a rolling time table. Can be moved a little

Murphy and Lidstrom played against the Legion of Doom. What surprised them was that they fronted them and denied them pucks instead of getting sucked into a physical battle down low.

And sorry, I don't get my rocks off of betting sports, much less with some nobody from the internet.
- Tomahawk

1. Fine. I have very vague memories of that series as happened before I became a serious fan. It doesn't matter.

2. And certainly, this nobody from the Internet would have very little interest in getting your, or anyone's rocks off.

But such statements like "Habs have as good a chance as any" which, I suspect you know is rubbish (Vegas is offering +900 on the odds, by far the worst of the 4), cannot be falsified until you do in fact prove you really mean that by taking up such wagers. Though perhaps you shouldn't make a habit of it. Because while individual aberrant events happen, and Habs may end up winning it all, in the long run, the odds are always right, and you would lose your shirt

EDIT: I had it backwards. They were expecting to see Konstantinov and Fetisov, but faced Lidstrom and Murphy.

https://www.nhl.com/redwi...claim-the-cup/c-316527538

Didn't the Flyers draft Bobrovsky and then give up on him a bit too early? I think Bob has a Vezina trophy to his name, despite his recent struggles in FL.

EDIT: I just looked it up. Bob was not drafted. He was signed after 3 years in the KHL. And he won the Vezina twice (13, 17)
- Letterkenney

Bob had a ton of reg season success behind a d first torts system in the reg season. Not so much in the playoffs. If the flyers gave him the money Columbus did towards the tail end of his stay there w his lack of playoff success, many in here would have flipped. If they signed him to the contract Fl signed many in here would have roasted the Flyers like a marshmallow. Bob is no diff than Cechmanek...

Bob had a ton of reg season success behind a d first torts system in the reg season. Not so much in the playoffs. If the flyers gave him the money Columbus did towards the tail end of his stay there w his lack of playoff success, many on here would have flipped. If they signed him to the contract Fl signed many on here would have roasted the Flyers like a marshmallow. Bob is no diff than Cechmanek...
- Joe Nardone

Anybody who knows anything about analytics will tell you that goaltending and luck can easily negate any possession advantages. Possession being a 'controllable' and 'repeatable' aspect of the game is why people harp on it so much. Goaltending is highly variable. When a goalie is the zone, as Price is right now, all bets are off.

Quick had a .947 SV% in the Finals. They could have played team defense like the 2021 Flyers and still won that series.
- Tomahawk

Again, without getting sidetracked into historical debates, I disagree with this. Quick was phenomenal in that series but that was not emphatically an upset. And it is not just me saying so:

Look at the odds released by people who make a living out of this. Devils were the decided underdogs in that series:

https://newyork.sbnation....-devils-los-angeles-kings

You are an odd bird. You seem determined to embrace a weltanschauung that the world is so inherently random that it never congeals into probabilities, odds, patterns and so on. You clutch it to yourself like Linus' blanket.

I sometimes wonder why.

[quote=Joe Nardone]
Under my theory you probably would not need to pay that contract bob got 🤣

Marc and Eric Staal expected to sign with Carolina this summer.

I just made this up.

Marc and Eric Staal expected to sign with Carolina this summer.

I just made this up.
- SuperSchennBros

Fletcher is trying to sign Ryan Getzlaf as 3C, size and leadership.



I made this up too...

PT, icymi...one of those playoff impact wingers who just aren’t in your star category, but made my list.


https://www.nhl.com/news/...c-325293296?tid=287339198

Again, without getting sidetracked into historical debates, I disagree with this. Quick was phenomenal in that series but that was not emphatically an upset. And it is not just me saying so:

Look at the odds released by people who make a living out of this. Devils were the decided underdogs in that series:

https://newyork.sbnation....-devils-los-angeles-kings
- PT21

Kings first round matchup was David v Goliath. After that, they got just about the most favorable spread of opponents that anybody could have wished for. Kinda like Tampa last year, they only had to play one really good team.

You are an odd bird. You seem determined to embrace a weltanschauung that the world is so inherently random that it never congeals into probabilities, odds, patterns and so on. You clutch it to yourself like Linus' blanket.

I sometimes wonder why.
- PT21

I suggest you do some reading on the role of luck/variance in hockey and you'll understand.

Ben Simmons just completely dominated that 3rd quarter. When he plays aggressive it is beautiful to see and the Sixers are unstoppable.
- StepfordSam

As long as that man can simmer Young down a little bit, and he sure has despite the kid being electric, they should be okay. And of course Thybulle will chip in on that. He’s a defensive animal.

PT, icymi...one of those playoff impact wingers who just aren’t in your star category, but made my list.


https://www.nhl.com/news/...c-325293296?tid=287339198
- NC Flyers Fan

Well, lets look at this issue and compare it my 'theory' (it is really just a summary of existing data), since this has come up before.

1. My theory pertains only to ultimate cup winners. That has not been decided yet. So, irrelevant.

2. The theory states that cup winners very likely have critical players who were seen as superstars. It doesn't say that every important player will be a superstar. So, even if TB wins, and Killorn wins Cnn Smythe, it still won't be a refutation. Again irrelevant.

3. It also states that the chances those superstar players came from the top part of the draft is far, far higher than any similar set of draft positions. Again, irrelevant because of 1 and 2.

The theory is probabilistic, which means the only way it can be refuted is if there are a large fraction of times it turns out to be wrong. It will be wrong, for instance, if teams like Flyers or Habs (no superstars but quite deep) end up winning frequently, defeating teams like Avs, Tampa, etc.

That's not gonna happen. The sample set is large enough for me to be confident about that.

Bottom line: Alex Killorn's performance is irrelevant to my theory.

I suggest you do some reading on the role of luck/variance in hockey and you'll understand.
- Tomahawk

I am glad you used the term "variance". Variance is undefined unless there is a mean. That mean is precisely what I have been calling the odds, and is "my theory"

Now, you will undoubtedly claim the variance is high. So, lets look at the variance.

The Stanley Cup playoffs are a public event where all data, including performance, and wins/losses are measured. That public event is repeated every year, in almost identical circumstances, and there is no rigging I am aware of.

As such, it fits into the classic model of repeated random events. The law of large numbers states here that the more the repetitions, the lower the variance. As the number of repetitions keeps increasing, the variance keeps decreasing until it vanishes.

And that is exactly what the data is showing here. The reason you are finding all this randomness is because you are focusing on deviations in and of themselves, not looking at how rare such deviations are in terms of frequency (how many cups did the incandescent Hasek win for his Sabres?), and further, it appears, many of your deviations are not deviations at all.

You do not need to do any reading. You don't even need to know the rules of hockey. Just use publicly available data.

But you will keep arguing the unarguable, like MJL.

Kings first round matchup was David v Goliath. After that, they got just about the most favorable spread of opponents that anybody could have wished for. Kinda like Tampa last year, they only had to play one really good team.

- Tomahawk

I will drily note that the narrative has changed from "hot goalie can do anything including steal the team a SC" to favorable match-ups now....

Nolan Patrick needs to be traded, along with some tangible assets, if, the team if willing to go for it and compete for a Stanley Cup with their core players getting older #nuffsaid

Living in Detroit, they show a lot of replies and highlights of the 97 Stanley Cup Final against us. I gotta tell you, it’s really hard to watch. How far skating the wings were. Every pass, shot, tip, was perfect. We’re allowing 2 on 0’s. It’s still such a disappointment.

The only way I’m giving up Nolan Patrick is if the reports are true. He’s unhappy, kid wants a trade. I wouldn’t be surprised if his decision if wanted to be traded is more so fan treatment than anything within the organization. Brind’Amour said it himself, the players hear the fans and everything Patrick’s been through, I’d wanna leave too if they’re is a true lack of sympathy.

All this aside, Patrick can be a good piece to any trade the Flyers decision to make. Whether it for Jones or Eichel, he should help the deal go through.

1. Fine. I have very vague memories of that series as happened before I became a serious fan. It doesn't matter.

2. And certainly, this nobody from the Internet would have very little interest in getting your, or anyone's rocks off.

But such statements like "Habs have as good a chance as any" which, I suspect you know is rubbish (Vegas is offering +900 on the odds, by far the worst of the 4), cannot be falsified until you do in fact prove you really mean that by taking up such wagers. Though perhaps you shouldn't make a habit of it. Because while individual aberrant events happen, and Habs may end up winning it all, in the long run, the odds are always right, and you would lose your shirt

EDIT: I had it backwards. They were expecting to see Konstantinov and Fetisov, but faced Lidstrom and Murphy.

https://www.nhl.com/redwi...claim-the-cup/c-316527538
- PT21

Look, lets just put the cards on the table. We all know its going to be Vegas vs. Tampa. These are and have been the best two teams for the past couple of seasons and this year is no exception. Talent, speed and size wins all the time! I will say this year I am picking Vegas to hoist the cup, after their performance against Colorado in a very tough series.