View Single Post
08-21-2012, 08:29 PM
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
My point is that both St. Louis and Perrin chose paths in their hockey careers that were outside the the normal hockey path of the era. The scouting and drafting in 1994 reflected the skepticism of the day.
No kidding. But that skepticism was misplaced, that's the point. The purpose of a system such as this is to point out where such problems might lie. It looks at what the player actually did at the level he played and at the age he played, and compares him to other players who did the same, and what they did in their later careers.

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
As a result they took a step back during their pre draft careers to retain eligibility for the American university option. Effectively both suffered from some incompletes - no significant international competition, short season schedules, limited systems experience both in terms of playing and playing against, in their hockey resumee going into their draft year.
So the scouts had their reasons to overlook them, that much is obvious. The point is, were their reasons valid ones, were they strong enough to overcome the very impressive results the players did put up in the hockey they did play? That the league they played in was not exactly some backwater circuit, that they played against older players and still excelled, that players a year or two older than they were usually didn't put up such numbers, etc, etc.

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
As a result they were not well perceived from a risk standpoint by the NHL scouting/GM establishment given the incompletes and questions.
The system doesn't care what reasons you think you have for not seriously considering a player. It just picks the players it thinks you should seriously consider. If you fail to consider them, and they later win a Hart trophy, you should perhaps rethink something.

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
As for Iain's point. Hard to comment without seeing his data and appreciating how the incompletes are viewed or accounted for in the rankings.
They're not. The system only considers what the player actually did, not what he might have otherwise done. It can serve as a check to see if you might be putting way too much emphasis on what the player hasn't done, when what he actually has done is outstanding.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote