View Single Post
Old
08-23-2012, 11:59 AM
  #66
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,458
vCash: 500
Specifics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
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.


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?)
Your comments lack specifics. Name the players that support your contentions like I have named the players that illustrate my points.

The 10 not rated in the top 30 are simply red flags given that at least 9 players you list cannot justify their rating in your top 30 given the glaring omissions from the middle - which I have not listed, or late rounds.

Rather obvious comparing the dates of birth Sullivan July 6, 1974, St. Louis June 1975, Jose Theodore September 16, 1976, Limited sampling to illustrate, that your system rates the date of birth in the draft year as more important than most evaluation systems do.

Eric Boulton has over 600 NHL games for better or worse and was an August 17,1976 birth, 1 month older than Theodore, so he should have been on your radar.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote