GMs with Hall of Fame Player Backgrounds Compared to Other Career Metrics - A Case For The Tank

I'd like to discuss HoF players turned GMs, because I'm wondering if they have it in their DNA to allow a team to tank. Being competitive at all costs is what served them well as players. But that doesn't always work for GMs, and certainly not for GMs that started as HoF players. And what I think we ultimately need is for Yzerman to jump into this all-but-inevitable rebuild with both feet.

The ghost of Scotty Bowman is calling out for Yzerman to become more than just a one-way GM...

To help make my case, here are some fuzzy numbers - the estimated success rates (based on a number of factors like tenure, cups, playoff appearances) of GMs by background/career trajectory, along with success as defined by playoff appearances, plus some other interesting stuff and opinions extracted from anal cavities:

1. The Capologist / Long-Tenured Assistant GM
   • Definition: Served 5+ years managing salary cap, contract structures, and collective bargaining compliance under the tutelage of a veteran GM before being tapped.
   • Estimated Overall Success Rate: ~75%
   • Success Rate by Playoff Appearances: ~75%
   • Success rate with top 3 picks: ~55%
   • Where it shines: When a team needs even decision-making and avoidance of catastrophic mistakes.
   • Description: Keeping the ship steady.
2. The Amateur Scouting Director
   • Definition: 10+ years evaluating teenage prospects in-person, managing draft boards, and coordinating amateur scouting departments.
   • Estimated Overall Success Rate: ~55%
   • Success Rate by Playoff Appearances: ~55%
   • Success rate with top 3 picks: ~75%
   • Where it shines: Teams left in a messy state of affairs.
   • Description: Shrewd moves.
3. The Analytics / Data Science Director
   • Definition: Mathematical, sports science, or predictive modeling backgrounds before transitioning to roster management.
   • Estimated Overall Success Rate: ~45%
   • Success Rate by Playoff Appearances: ~50%
   • Success rate with top 3 picks: ~40%
   • Where it shines: Teams in a messy state, but require some out-of-the-box thinking to identify opportunities and value instead of old-boy-network culture.
   • Description: Moneyball.
4. Hall of Fame Players
   • Definition: Pretty self-explanatory.
   • Estimated Overall Success Rate: ~35%
   • Success Rate by Playoff Appearances: ~40%
   • Success rate with top 3 picks: Who knows? Small sample size (5).
   • Where it shines: Teams that are in need of a culture change, management of egos.
   • Description: Institutional power.
5. Former Player-Agents
   • Definition: Pretty self-explanatory.
   • Estimated Overall Success Rate: ~30%
   • Success Rate by Playoff Appearances: ~70%
   • Success rate with top 3 picks: Who knows? Small sample size (2).
   • Where it shines: When an organization has a powerful scouting infrastructure that can make up for lack of GM experience in exchange for powerful negotiation skills and insight.
   • Description: Scorched earth? Fox in the hen house?

You all probably notice the obvious as well: Hall of Fame players are only slightly more successful overall than choosing chaos by hiring Former Player-Agents.

Most organizations appear to recognize that a HoF Player is meant to manage a locker room full of egos, not a tanking team, so they don't often draft top 3. Further, the success rate by playoff appearances alone makes Former Player-Agent a pretty respectable choice compared to HoF Player backgrounds.

Again, I'm just making the point that the cases when HoF Player GMs are effective isn't because they're OK with losing, but that is what this team actually needs. I submit that basically any other background category would typically be a better choice for GM of this team when Steve Yzerman was hired in that position. He could still buck trends, but the track record certainly hasn't borne this out.

Critical questions:

• Would you have considered the Red Wings of 7 years ago to need a culture change? If not, then what does Yzerman bring that makes him more than a typical GM with a HoF Player background?
• If you had your druthers, which of these categories would you have chosen for the team based on the state of the roster 7 years ago if Yzerman had not been available? What about now if Yzerman were to suddenly resign?
• Considering over 80% of modern Stanley Cup champions feature a core player drafted in the Top 2, and the teams with multiple cups had multiple top 3 picks, would the long-term contender Yzerman is attempting to build not require playing the kids and trading away all the vets to maximize lottery odds?
• Isn't it about time the NHL's fake lottery system finally benefits the most beloved logo in NHL history after shafting us repeatedly? They changed the draft lottery rules during a single year to shaft this team in 2020, shouldn't they give us some of that sweet, sweet Leafs/Devils/Flyers/etc "luck" now to make it up to us? This is tongue-in-cheek, but c'mon!

In a nutshell, considering the data I pulled out of my feelings and cursory fact-checking, I'm in the gotta-tank-now category. It's either:

1. We wait 3 more years to let this strategy finally yield results.
   • Risk: Finding out Yzerman just doesn't have it in him to win with this organization, causing another rebuild anyway.
   • Worst-case scenario: ~6 more years of sucking, no top 3 draft picks despite losing.
2. Rip the band-aid off now by playing the kids, trading vets, and getting a Top 3 draft position or two (since pro-scouting doesn't appear to be Yzerman's strength and tanking gives him his best chance of succeeding through the draft).
   • Risk: Yzerman fails and a rebuild to the rebuild to the rebuild starts.
   • Worst-case scenario: ~6 more years of sucking, no top 3 draft picks despite losing.

Conclusion: Both of the worst-case scenarios are "~6 more years of sucking, no top 3 draft picks despite losing." Not great. All the worst parts of the Bible. However, we've established a long track record of the current strategy not working.

Therefore, #2 seems like the no-brainer by comparison because it has the best chance of creating a winner in as short a time as possible by letting Yzerman draft without relying on more of the "jerseys" signings and trades.