Toggle sidebar

Speculation: 2023-24 Sharks Roster Discussion

coooldude said:
Dude, you are very wrong here. Let me explain clearly so that everyone is on the same page.
  • There is a lottery. You can watch the 2024 one here for anyone interested.
  • There are 14 ping pong balls with numbers 1-14 on them loaded into a machine.
  • Teams are allocated blocks of 4-digit numbers.
  • Ping pong balls are drawn 1 by 1 to get a 4 number combination. There are 1,001 possible 4 number combinations.
  • One combination (in 2024, it was 11, 12, 13, 14) is designated as a "redraw" so there are 1,000 possible 4 number combinations allocated to the worst 16 teams.
  • This lottery happens twice, once for the first overall pick and once for the second overall pick.
The 32nd team (likely us) has enough numbers allocated us to have an 18.5% chance at "winning" the first lottery. All other teams get allocated the other 81.5%, with the one caveat that the 12-16th worst teams can only jump 10 spots, and therefore if they win the first lottery, they jump up 10 and the 32nd worst team gets the 1st overall pick. This is how we get to 25.5% chance that the Sharks win the first lottery.

Note: there is a 74.5% chance that THE FIELD "wins" the first lottery. It may be a small number for any individual team, but it is not a small number in aggregate. There are 1000 numbers, and 185 of them say "SHARKS" next to them, 70 of them say "NOT SHARKS BUT SHARKS WIN 1OA", and the other 745 numbers say "NOT SHARKS" next to them.

I repeat, there is a 74.5% chance that we do NOT win the first lottery. That is not a small number, that is a big number.

THEN, there is a second lottery for place #2 with the remaining teams. They do the same thing - 4 balls, check against the numbers. Since we have an 18.8% chance of picking 2OA, this means we have a 25.2% chance of winning the second lottery. This is because the team that already won is out, and in this case you still have remaining teams up to #12 that could move up to 2OA.

Again... in the 74.5% chance that we do not win the first lottery, we also have a 74.8% chance we do not win the second lottery. 74.5% X 74.8% = 55.7%.

I do not understand how anyone could interpret this any other way.
Click to expand...
That's fine. This is all fine but when the ball actually drops for the lottery, the first column is all that actually matters and the team most likely to win is the Sharks. That's what actually matters for the specific scenario of a single lottery draw, period. Anything beyond that is conflating the process and the math.
 
  • Like
Reactions: STL Shark
Uh, wouldnt the % to draw second or third depend on who wins the first lottery? If Chicago wins 1st overall, that removes them and their 13.5% out of the second drawing, if Anaheim wins it would only remove their 6%
 
With Chychrun, asking for trades with two different franchises is a red flag to me. Very much feels like the defense version of Dubois, or Laine. I'm not much for gambling, but I would be willing to bet that after 3 or 4 seasons, he's no longer with the organization that signs him this summer. On top of that, his injury history is no small concern for me as he's only had one season of more than 68 games played. Granted, that was last season, and he'll likely eclipse that mark again this year.

I largely have the same cautionary sentiment towards Ekblad. PEDs, and the reasoning behind them aside, his play has been declining for several years now. By the end of a long term contract, I believe we would be looking at Vlasic-esque levels or wasted cap space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vortexx and coooldude
Mr Fahrenheit said:
Uh, wouldnt the % to draw second or third depend on who wins the first lottery? If Chicago wins 1st overall, that removes them and their 13.5% out of the second drawing, if Anaheim wins it would only remove their 6%
Click to expand...
Yes and No.
Just like last year when the Sharks won the 2nd place lottery (twice), they do a re-draw, and the re-draw has the same odds.
So in your example, if Chicago wins 1st overall, there is a 13.5% chance the 2nd place lottery gets re-drawn, but it doesn't change any other teams overall odds of winning.

Didn't realize I was going to kick off so much probability talk :laugh:
FWIW I don't expect anybody we pick at 1, 2, or 3 to be on the Opening Night roster except maybe Misa if they think Smith is ready to take over 2C duties and can pair Misa with Wennberg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vortexx, Star Platinum, NiWa and 1 other person
Emperor Joe Thornton said:
Yes and No.
Just like last year when the Sharks won the 2nd place lottery (twice), they do a re-draw, and the re-draw has the same odds.
So in your example, if Chicago wins 1st overall, there is a 13.5% chance the 2nd place lottery gets re-drawn, but it doesn't change any other teams overall odds of winning.

Didn't realize I was going to kick off so much probability talk :laugh:
FWIW I don't expect anybody we pick at 1, 2, or 3 to be on the Opening Night roster except maybe Misa if they think Smith is ready to take over 2C duties and can pair Misa with Wennberg.
Click to expand...

The chance of winning each second draw stays, almost, the same, but since the team that won the first draw cannot win the second, the chance for every team increases proportionally and depending on which team won the first draw
 
Jargon said:
Not sure why we need to follow Zetterlund and comment on whether he’s doing well or poorly. Is it so we don’t feel bad that we don’t have him anymore? I appreciated having him on the team and all the work he did for us, I don’t need to cheer for him to fail.
Click to expand...
People feel the need to justify the outrage spilled over the last place team trading a replaceable middle-6 winger who couldn't come to contractual terms and avoid arbitration at the deadline so he has to be monitored to continue flexing the hate muscle

Similarly, Ostapchuk is now the team's designated sin eater (*whispers* even though he's clearly always been a nothing throw-in player in a trade that was primarily about cap flexibility and was built around a 2nd round pick *finished whispering*)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jargon
coooldude said:
Just goes to show -- advanced stats are far from fully baked if you can get such different answers from different reputable sources.
Click to expand...
Because for the most part, isn't expected stats just basically a if they shoot from this spot on the ice it should be a goal x amount of times?

That in it self can be up to personal opinion.
 
Barrie22 said:
Because for the most part, isn't expected stats just basically a if they shoot from this spot on the ice it should be a goal x amount of times?

That in it self can be up to personal opinion.
Click to expand...
In a very general sense, yes, but this is more or less accurate (and more or less subject to "personal opinion") depending on the metric used.
 
Cas said:
In a very general sense, yes, but this is more or less accurate (and more or less subject to "personal opinion") depending on the metric used.
Click to expand...
MoneyPuck does some additional analysis based on what else just happened in recorded stats -- e.g. where the last shot came from, change in angle (big changes in angle in very little time = higher xG), or "flurry adjusted" goals where if you have a bunch of shots in succession, the xG of each actually goes down.

You can read more about it here, quite interesting, they list the factors in their xG model... but the game of Hockey is quite subjective and chaotic which is why all these stats should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm sure there isn't even agreement on the coding of what's happening in game, as model inputs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBeard
weastern bias said:
People feel the need to justify the outrage spilled over the last place team trading a replaceable middle-6 winger who couldn't come to contractual terms and avoid arbitration at the deadline so he has to be monitored to continue flexing the hate muscle

Similarly, Ostapchuk is now the team's designated sin eater (*whispers* even though he's clearly always been a nothing throw-in player in a trade that was primarily about cap flexibility and was built around a 2nd round pick *finished whispering*)
Click to expand...

I still actually disagree that Ostapchuk is a throwaway player, I think they see him as a prospect to be molded. But yes in the rest.
 
coooldude said:
Just goes to show -- advanced stats are far from fully baked if you can get such different answers from different reputable sources.
Click to expand...
Ottawa was also down 5-0 pretty much the entire game. Who cares what anyone's numbers look like in that scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
adding hide avatars option

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom