True value/impact of a top 10 pick in your lineup today
View Single Post
01-24-2011, 03:16 AM
Join Date: Apr 2009
Okay, I'll go through this again, slowly and carefully.
The point in question is the popular belief that in order to win cups, you need to have high draft picks which you use to build the main core of your cup winner. This is also known as the "Tank to win" theory.
The OT defined "a high draft pick" as a top 10 pick. As you would have seen if you had paid attention when you were reading, I didn't agree with this definition, but since it was being used as the point of reference, I referred to it nonetheless.
My point was further that it does not in fact seem to be the case that there is any significant correlation between icing a cup winner and possessing a core built up with own high picks - generally the core of cup-winning teams consist primarily of players drafted lower than this, traded for or signed.
Hence, there seems no good reason to assume that you neccessarily must have a core acquired in this way in order to win cups.
Among the many things this argument does
imply are these: That top ten picks aren't valuable, that first-round picks aren't important, that you don't need first-round picks to win cups, that drafting isn't important to winning cups.
For some reason, this does not prevent you from assuming that arguing against these is somehow relevant to this discussion. To this you add gems of logic such as this:
Also, discounting a former top 10 picks contribution to a team simply because they were drafted by another team in a thread about the value of top 10 picks doesn't seem the most logical course.
I have to admit that this is one particular brain fart that I find genuinely fascinating, and it's not just you committing it either. It seems perfectly logical provided you don't think about it very carefully. The problem of course is that "top ten pick" isn't a kind of player, but a way to acquire a player - and what the discussion concerns is whether that particular way of acquiring players gives you access to a kind of talent you can't otherwise get.
Once someone is traded, it is 100% irrelevant to that issue whether he was drafted 1st overall or signed as an undrafted College FA. In fact, choosing to include them directly contradicts the basic point you would be trying to prove, which is that you need high draft picks in order to assemble a winner (why would you, if such players can be acquired via trade?). "Players drafted in the top ten" (or in the top 5 or whatever) include everything from total busts to superstars. To argue that what number of players with that background you have on a team says anything about that team is simply plainly nonsensical. The issue is "by what means was a winning core assembled"?
You chose to go through the list of teams that have won the cup in the past 20 years, set 2 standards that
a) they must be drafted by the team that won
b) they must be picks 1 through 9 , not 11 or 12... pick #10 is a high pick, #11 is not.
I think you'll find you are going to encounter that particular problem no matter where you put the cut-off point, so unless you propose to define ALL draft picks as "high", that isn't actually an argument.
and then after discovering that this wasn't necessarily the case a decade ago when teams were not governed by a cap, and trading was far more prevalent jump to the conclusion that top 10 picks aren't as valuable as most people think?
"Not neccessarily the case"? It was the case with one, single team. It also was not the case with 3 out of 5 of the post-lockout winners. Which means that so far there is no case for any proposition that you must have a series of top draft picks to win.
If the point of your post was to show that you can use hockeydb to look up when players were drafted and who won the cup that year, then well done. If it was to show drafting isn't the only key to winning, that's common sense. If you're in any way trying to draw a correlation between your post and the actual value/impacts of top 10 picks, you have some sketchy logic there.
You seem to suffer from delusions of adequacy. Your attempts to demonstrate my "sketchy logic" have been textbook pieces of illogicity or worse. You have yet to even respond meaningfully to points made, and being called names is the least of your problems.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Qvist