View Single Post
04-03-2008, 10:34 AM
Registered User
CapnCornelius's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,936
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Palinka View Post
The second part has nothing to do with the first. If he came from Pittsburgh and found a way to get Crosby, would you poo-poo it as "Yeah, but that's from the team he came from"?
Actually, it does and this quote sums up where you've gone off course from your initial premises (i.e. And as long as there are GMs in the world of hockey that refuse to look at basic scouting reports, there will always be an inefficient market where certain valuable skills are undervalued.)

None of the players you listed were "undervalued" with the possible exception of Hejda. And it is entirely relevant that Hejda was with Howson's Oilers...because the reason Howson found him wasn't his genius ability to look at a "basic scouting report" and find a diamond in the rough. It was inside knowledge.

As for the Crosby example, its quite a bit different since acquiring Crosby would require putting together one of the most brilliant trades of all time for an asset which clearly isn't undervalued.

Thus proving why offseason rankings are garbage. The Rangers made a big splash with Drury and Gomez, but how well has that panned out for them? Edmonton got Dustin Penner, Buffalo was given a ton of credit for keeping Thomas Vanek, and yet both are on the verge of elimination from the playoff race.
Last I checked, the Rangers are in the playoffs. Since they play the Isles twice, I suspect they will stay there. And that's really, all that matters in the regular season, make it to the playoffs. They have 3 of the best playoff performers of all time. They'll have as good of a shot as any team at the Cup. And, neither Edmonton or Buffalo help your arguments about "off-season rankings"--no one picked them to do even as well as they have. Edmonton has certainly exceeded expectations.

You make the mistake that looking at numbers automatically equates with "digging for inefficiencies", when that's hardly the case. There were a few years when Sergei Gonchar and Sergei Zubov scored as many points as Nicklas Lidstrom, but who would argue that they're equal? Heck, I think Tarnstrom was up there a year or two (02-03, maybe?).
Well, what is the case is that when guys play within the stats they have played at before and get paid similar to other comparable players you didn't find any inefficiency. Michael Peca played the same as he has in the past. He got paid the same as comparable players. Also, you picked kind of a bad example since there are other important stats for plus/minus. Go check out Tarnstrom's plus/minus the year he had those stellar points totals with Pittsburgh. Then try to argue he's equivalent to Lidstrom. Gonchar has also never done as well in the defensive zone as Lidstrom. Zubov's had some pretty good seasons defensively, but isn't quite as consistent as Lidstrom who has been a +40 or better in 4 seasons. Zubov's best year was a +28 back in Pittsburgh.

There may be fewer stats in hockey, but part of the reason is, the few stats that do exist tell us a lot about a players offensive and defensive abilities when read by someone who is also aware of the situation surrounding those stats--ex. Player X had a great plus minus that one year because he was paired with Player Y who is a defensive defenseman, etc. Howson has done an okay job with what he's been given, but let's not pretend he's been out finding diamond's in the rough to this point. Wilson and/or Rome might end up being solid NHL players...or career minor leaguers. And the rest of your list (with the exception of Hejda, who had just 39 games for any statistics to be pulled)? All they did was play to the potential that an amateur looking at their stats could have guessed.

CapnCornelius is offline   Reply With Quote