View Single Post
Old
08-23-2012, 11:20 AM
  #65
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Well, this simplifies things quite a bit. Look where a very solid OHL player - Steve Sullivan was drafted in the 1994 NHL Entry Draft:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...sullist01.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/draf...994_entry.html

late 9th round.

Sullivan had better lead-up numbers in tougher leagues than St. Louis did in the leagues he played in.
Sullivan's OHL numbers are not better than St. Louis' ECAC numbers. That's the whole point of the system: a sophisticated analysis of which numbers are better. They may appear better superficially, but if you dig into them, they're not. That's what the system does: it digs into the numbers, to see if they're really as impressive as they might appear at first glance.

Steve Sullivan's numbers are simply not impressive, once you factor in his age. His career certainly exceeded what a numerical projection would have pegged him for. Of course, given that he was drafted 233rd overall in his final year of draft eligibility, his career also certainly exceeded what the scouts pegged him for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Yet your evaluation does not include Steve Sullivan who was/is 5'9" / 161 lbs, in the top 30 nor does your evaluation include the following late round picks in the top 30, goalies,Thomas, Hedberg, Nabokov, Vokoun, skaters Holmstrom, Boulton, Zednick, Berezin,Tarnstrom, Johnsson.

Miss rating 10+ and overrating 1 - Martin St.Louis is hardly an endorsement of your method/system.
Once again you're talking about players not in the top 30 of all players that year, as if the system believes they're not worth drafting. You're arguing from ignorance, because you're ignorant of what each of these players' ratings are.

On top of that fact, you're going about this wrongly in at least two major ways:

1. You're listing a bunch of players the scouts did not rate highly (drafted in the 200s), and then claiming the fact that my system does not rate them highly (although you don't actually know where it rates them) is a point against it. If this is a point against the system, it's also a point against scouting.

What you should be doing is looking at players that the system rates low but scouts rate high, and who turn out to have good careers. There are a good number of those.

Unfortunately, there are also a good number of players in just the opposite situation: rated low by the scouts, high by the system, good careers. Which leads to point #2.

2. You can't evaluate anything by just looking at a few players in a single draft year. Your analysis has to be thorough and systematic in order for it to be valid.

So, as for your 10/1 comment: you have no idea if those 10+ players are mis-rated, because you don't know where they're rated. And now you're saying that Martin St. Louis should not have been rated one of the best players available in 1994? I think his career suggests otherwise.

(Also, Eric Boulton? Really?)


Last edited by Iain Fyffe: 08-23-2012 at 11:21 AM. Reason: Grammar
Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote