10.05.2010

Looking Back, Looking Forward


Oilers Season Previews are hard to digest right now. Quite honestly, the most accurate one I've read so far is McKenzie's Top 10 Prospects of 2011. The Org, barring miracle, has another tough slog and a near-rock bottom finish ahead of it this season. How do I know this? From what manner of witchcraft have gleaned this prognostication? Well, besides common sense, I've had a gander at the numbers. [EDIT: tweaked some syntax to clarify a couple points]


DSC00665


My hold on math is tenuous, but I managed to cobble together my opinion based on a rudimentary Excel spreadsheet and some basic division.

First, I listed every team that picked first overall in an NHL Entry Draft since the introduction of the Draft Lottery in 1995. Then, I determined where they finished the following year. The only aberration being 2005-06 when two teams were playing their first season pursuant to picking first overall (Washington and Pittsburgh, obviously). Then I determined, based on past results, the chances of where the 2010-11 Edmonton Oilers will finish.

Yr. of 1st OV Pick Team Next Yr.'s StandingReverse Order
2010EDM??
2009NYI265
2008TBL292
2007CHI2011
2006STL229
2005PIT292
2004WAS274
2003PIT292
2002CLB292
2001ATL301
2000NYI301
1999ATL281
1998TBL271
1997BOS918
1996OTT1611
1995OTT261

I think it's pretty clear what sort of conclusion we can begin to draw from this table: drafting First Overall appears to have very little impact on the team's results in the following season.

--5 times out of 15, the previous year's First Overall picker finished DFL. Interesting to note that every one of those instances happened pre-lockout.

--More significant? 9 times out of 15, teams were in the bottom 2 at the end of their post-1st-Overall-earning-season. When equipped with a first overall pick, teams have finished last or second last in a whopping 60% of the cases.

--The rest of the trends increase incidentally: 73.3% of the time, the highest drafting team finished in the bottom 5; 80% of the time they finished in the bottom 10; 93.3% of the time they finished in the Lottery (bottom 14). Do a quick subtraction and you find that the 1st Overall picking team has not received a lottery pick in only 6.7% of the cases.

--The sole team to ever finish out of the Lottery after drafting 1st Overall? The 1997-98 Boston Bruins. Joe Thornton only recorded 7 points in that year, so his rookie contribution was clearly a non-factor.

--To give this some context regarding the probability of drafting position based on the team's points results, take a look at an article by SLOW FRESH OIL's own Jesse R discussing draft probability from last season. Also, here's a table I lifted from the very handy NHLSCAP outlining the probability of draft position in the Lottery system (source):




Chance of Draft Position after the lottery

 Finish in Points

1

2

3

4

5


6

7

8

9

10

11

12


13

14

30

48.20%

51.80%


29

18.80%

42.00%

39.20%



28

14.20%

56.10%


29.70%


27

10.70%

66.70%

22.60%



26

8.10%

74.70%

17.20%


25


6.20%

80.70%

13.10%


24


4.70%

85.40%

9.90%


23



3.60%

89.00%

7.40%


22


2.70%

91.80%

5.50%



21


2.10%

94.00%

3.90%


20


1.50%

96.10%

2.40%


19


1.10%

97.60%

1.30%


18


0.80%

98.70%

0.50%

17











0.50%




99.50%

This table will hold more interest closer to springtime, but it can still provide some encouraging tidbits:

--Accounting for the bottom 2's 67% chance to pick 1st OV in the Lottery system, there is a 40.2% chance that the Oilers will draft from the same position in 2011 (using past results).

--If, in the past 15 NHL seasons, 1st OV teams have finished 2nd last in points 27% of the time. And, if the 2nd last place team has an 18.8% chance of drafting 1st OV, the Oilers have a 5% likelihood of receiving 2011's 1st OV while still accumulating more points than a team like-- oh, I don't know-- the Maple Leafs.

So it's not all bad.

NOTE: If you see any holes in my math, please let me know. I tried to keep things simple on my end to limit my mistakes, but I could very well be overlooking an obvious error.