View Single Post
Old
08-23-2012, 03:15 PM
  #68
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,738
vCash: 500
Date of Birth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Go to Hockey Prospectus. There's a whole series of articles there, as I've mentioned before. Read to your heart's content.


What you seem to suggesting is that since Eric Boulton is not listed in the top 30 players that year, there's a problem with the system.

If these players are red flags for the system, they're also red flags for scouting. You keep missing that point. You can't point to players that the system misses if the scouts also miss them, as evidence that the system is inferior to scouting.


Now this is entirely possible. But it's also easily justified. A player's birth date is extremely important when evaluating his junior numbers. Just massively important. If you don't properly consider the player's age, you will see impressive numbers where they're actually humdrum. This could be a big part of the problem here: you're greatly underrating the importance of age in these evaluations.

If you study the numbers in depth, this is one of the biggest lessons you'll learn: a player's age is one of the most important factors to consider when evaluating his numbers.

And it's also extremely important to consider which league the player is in when looking at his age. Being 19 years old in major junior has a very different effect on the raw stats than does being 19 years old in the NCAA.


He has a rating. It's just a very low one. Much like the scouts had for him apparently.
Players have to impress by the age of 17-18 in terms of the draft. 19 is too old.

Daniel Alfredsson was a 6th round pick as a 22 year old in the 1994 draft. No one picked him in the draft when he was first eligible.Neither was Nicklas Lidstrom.

Nothing new about the age factor - when the player was born during the hockey year ,In the sixties, the organization I played for and many other used this to balance house league teams Year was divided into quarters and the teams were balanced in proportion. Hockey organizations and jurisdictions recognized this in the seventies.Lead by Ontario, categories were divided into minor - first year and major - second year in a category.At the novice level the gap is much larger than at the junior level.

Also true in education and acceptance to advanced programs - date of birth in the academic year is a strong determining factor.

Scouts recognized this years ago. The gentleman that ran our organization scouted the Quebec minor leagues and juniors.

Scouts and organized hockey are well aware of the weaknesses inherent in their models and systems. They are also aware of their successes.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote