View Single Post
Old
10-20-2011, 04:26 PM
  #42
firstroundbust
lacks explosiveness
 
firstroundbust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Parts Unknown
Country: United States
Posts: 5,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post

Draft boards are ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, but determining that ranking does not ignore institutional need. That doesn't mean that, even though there are no top tier defensemen available at a certain pick, a team that needs defense will reach for one, skipping a much higher quality forward. It simply means that if (based on some skill/risk/expectation rating) Huberdeau is rated a 9.43 and Larsson is rated a 9.44, they're effectively the same rating. Huberdeau is ranked first because his position is one of greater need, and there is a perception that top pairing talent defensemen can be found later in the draft. Now, if Larsson is rated 9.44 and Strome is rated 9.15, and your team really needs a center but doesn't greatly need a defenseman, you pick Larsson anyway because the gap is actually significant.
I don't think this is necessarily true, unless you are trying to convey some top secret info. I just can't see the need positionally over riding the proposed value, especially in the first round.

And to be honest, purely conjecture here, I don't think NHL teams look at their cupboard and go "we are lacking *enter position here*, we better draft some." Depth can be achieved any number of ways, and it also may mean dealing from a surplus positionally.

Quote:
The important thing to note is this ranking is all done prior to the draft. This isnt' some discussion on the floor. It's simply the fact that weight is given to position of need because there is need in those positions. Want proof? In the 2011 draft, the top 9 teams each drafted a players by position of need. While some of the particular names slid around (coughSchiefeleCouturiercough) prior to the Wild's pick, each team grabbed what they were expected to grab.
Might be more coinIcidence. I made reference to the concensus order by the pundits earlier, but generally (blanket statement here) there is typically rankings and draft order correlate.

Quote:
RE: Tiers - Ranking prospects in tiers absolutely happens. Reference Becoming Wild for this as well "That's why you don't trade up, we got one of our two guys." You put your players into tiers to determine whether to move up or down in the draft. It's your pick and the last guy in your tier was just picked so you have five or six guys ranked approximately the same. That means you try to trade down, because the team 5 picks back probably has one guy left in that last tier, and you know you'll still get one of "your guys" 5 picks later. If there's no one in the right range looking to trade up, you just grab the guy at the top of the list. It's not any sort of moving at the draft table, it's due dilligence to be prepared for when a trade offer comes your way, or needs to be sent out.
I agree with this, just not for the first 30-60 picks, or where the scouts perceive dropoffs in talent. It may vary from year to year, depending on the depth of the draft.

IN SUMMARIUM, I see the point you're trying to make, but I just don't believe that position holds as much significance as you do.

firstroundbust is offline