View Single Post
Old
12-17-2012, 10:49 AM
  #36
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
I'd also urge people to be careful when evaluating old drafts. There reaches a point where things start to normalize but before say 1992 there was still a pretty big stigma about drafting Soviet and Czechoslovakian players. It led to a lot of unpredictability about whether or not said players would even be able to make it over, which led to a lot of elite level players even then slipping. 90 for example had Jagr, who was the consensus #1 or #2 player in the draft IIRC, ending up at #5, Kozlov in the 3rd, Zhamnov in the 4th, and Zubov in the 5th. Even 5 years later there's no way that happens.

91 had Kovalev at #15 and Ozolinsh at #30 for similar reasons.

It's the biggest reason I typically use 1994 as my base date when I do these compilations. Though an argument can certainly be used for 1992 as well with Hamrlik, Yashin, Kasparaitis, Petrovicky, and Nazarov all going top 10, with Gonchar and Straka also being first rounders.

And any Soviet Bloc pick from before 1989 can't be taken seriously when using it to make a list like this. The guy that was arguably the best goalie of all time was taken in the 10th round in 1983 for that reason.
this is definitely the biggest roadblock to creating a truly comprehensive study to drafting/likely-hood/etc. With such small sample sizes done so infrequently, any attempt at gathering a large amount of data gets undermined by changing outside factors over the necessary time frame. Changes in bias's have had a pretty major role in what types of players get drafted how, not to mention what types of players are able to be successful.

really the most you can get for a study of draft picks in a similar set of bias's and that have fully developed by the current date, is going to be about 6-8 years max- not nearly enough to establish anything solid.

Grind is offline   Reply With Quote