View Single Post
08-21-2012, 09:04 PM
Registered User
Canadiens1958's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,776
vCash: 500
After the Fact

Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
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.

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.

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.

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.
But you and the system were not there in 1994 advocating for the selection of of Martin St.Louis and Eric Perrin. You are just Monday morning quarterbacking the old drafts.

If the system works, time capsule today, the eligible non-drafted 2012 players and predict their career paths in the NHL. Five. ten years from now we will have an answer.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote