View Single Post
Old
12-14-2012, 01:52 PM
  #33
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian54 View Post
It could potentially be biased by teams - if they rank choices by the 'round' they estimate them to go in as opposed to a straight forward list. You may see some small differential between say pick 62 and pick 82 in round 3. But as you say, pretty much all the analyses are round by round, making it impossible to tell.

I also think that the abberations seen in pick 16, and the odd variation in blocks 5-10, 11-15, 16-20 and 21-25 are most likely due to the small sample size. Which is really unavoidable here.

Otherwise really good. Ideally a spilt could be done - chance of being elite, chance of being good, chance of being mediocre, chance of busting
.
Totally... again with something that happens so rarely it's impossible to ever get a good handle on it (as stated, by the time you've reached a reasonable sample size, your spanning 15-20 years and its a whole new ball game).


I'd like to try and qualify some theories i have about the returns not diminishing in the expected curve.

2 of which being
1) a lot of "late risers" push into the top 10, where players with a better/longer track record are dropped for players with a "newer" track record
2) Teams stick with "safer" players from 5-10, and are more willing to risk it on boom/bust picks from 10-15 or 20.

Now those are pure speculation, but a breakdown of catagories (Elite[stamkos/crosby], Star[firstline], good[top6], career[3rd], bust[4th and depth players]) could be used to explore theory 2 (IE: if we found that 10-15 creates more "good" to "elite" players, but also has more complete busts, and that almost all of picks 5-10 were "good" and "career" players, it could validate this)

Grind is offline   Reply With Quote