Wolski and his QO
View Single Post
09-29-2011, 02:09 AM
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York
Originally Posted by
I knew this would be the response. This is fan-thinking, aka thinking by someone who can only remember players who made it, but forgets all those who did not.
At #15, a player has worse than 50-50 odds of making the NHL in any capacity as a regular player. This summer I posted the exact statistics from past drafts. If the player drafted at #15 does make it, he's most likely going to be a garbage role player, laughably far from the top-6.
A player drafted at #15 in a weak draft has MAYBE a 1 in 5 chance of being a top-6 forward.
The following are the #15 picks from 1997 to 2007. Of these 11 picks, Radulov is the only one I would call a top-6 player, and he's not proven either. If Wolski left at the same point of his career, people would also sing his praises. In their first two NHL seasons (2006-07 and 2007-08), Radulov had 95 points in 145 games while Wolski had 98 points in 143 games. Not necessarily comparing the two, but just making a point that Radulov wasn't exactly proven.
The other 10 players outright suck.
1997: Matt Zultek
1998: Mathieu Chouinard
1999: Scott Kelman
2000: Artem Kryukov
2001: Igor Knyazev
2002: Jesse Niinimaki
2003: Robert Nilsson
2004: Alex Radulov
2005: Ryan O'Marra
2006: Ty Wishart
2007: Alex Plante
(Players drafted in the last 3 years are too young to be judged, so I always exclude them.)
As you can see, #15 picks don't all become top-6. If you can get a high quality third liner with mid-first rounder, you are far ahead of 90% of the league. Expecting your #15 selection to become a top-6 forward is nothing more than buying into hype only to be disappointed.
That's all really quite irrelevant. Players not reaching their potential and players not having that potential are two different things. A lot of those players, specifically Chouinard, O'Mara, Nilsson, Radulov, Wishart and Plante had fairly large expectations. Not meeting them is not the same as not having the potential. Not to mention the fact that #10-30 is always going to have a high failure rate, because once you're outside of the top 10, you're going for boom or bust players. You're looking for players who can be an impact player, and acknowledging that they may not pan out. That's not the same as third line potential. How many of those players are playing on third lines?
Meanwhile, Plante still has the potential to be a good player, and ignoring the last 3 years (read: most relevant) is convenient since they include Erik Karlsson and Derek Forbort, who a LOT of people are very high on. Meanwhile, narrowing it down to the #15 pick specifically is an exercise in absolute futility, as it's not about the number you're picking at, it's about the range. No two drafts are the same. Try looking at the NHLers selected 13-17 (two picks in either direction) in the past 8 years.
Gormley, Forbort & Tarasenko (2010)
, Kassian &
(2007) McD was #12
(2005) M. Staal was 12, Kopitar was 11
Bold is a player who has made an impact at the NHL level. There were some debatable ones I excluded. The point is, when you're picking in the 15 range, you are NOT picking a player projected to be a third liner, and saying a pick from June IS projected to be a third liner, in September, is just inaccurate. If the argument/point you want to make is that we'll be lucky if Miller is capable of making an impact on the 3rd/2nd line within the next few years, fine. It's a different argument. There is simply no way a kid who was drafted 3 months ago at #15 is projected by "experts" to be a third liner right now though. If there's a red flag half way through his OHL season, or a big injury, or next year he's not taking a step forward, the expectations will likely drop, but RIGHT NOW, immediately after his draft, you can bet the organizations is "projecting" Miller to be a top six player.
Last edited by SERE 24: 09-29-2011 at
View Public Profile
SERE 24's albums
Find More Posts by SERE 24