View Single Post
Old
01-31-2013, 01:32 PM
  #47
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 3,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mopigeons View Post
Thanks for the links!

Scott Cullen's analysis I was familiar with, definitely one of the things that piqued my interest in the subject. I'm looking to go a little bit deeper though, and probe into the later rounds, and also perhaps try to establish something more concrete in terms of a draft pick/player's contribution to a team.

For that, the second link has proved useful (http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports..._NHL_Draft.pdf). While similar in scope to what I was looking at, the study looks at years 1988-97; whereas I'd like to broaden that horizon to something closer to 1980-today.

One of the challenges I'm facing is in assessing whether to evaluate draft picks by selection rank, round, or some adjusted factor.

I'm leaning towards an adjusted rank, given that the number of teams and rounds in the draft changed on a rather regular basis particularly through the 80s and 90s until the last CBA was signed in 2005.

I'm also facing some challenges with what metrics to use to properly evaluate players. Given that I'd like to go back to the 80s if possible (to get a broader sense of a "modern era" of hockey), I can't seem to find much data other than the commonly available offensive statistics (goals, assists) for skaters, which aren't my favourite, but might have to do if I want to include those years. I believe ice time only starts being tracked in the late 90s, which hinders my ability to use that data unless I also constrict the time frame.

If I do end up using the full timeframe I'd originally wanted (1980 onwards), then so far, I was partial to using this method to evaluate offensive statistics for skaters: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=589911

If anyone has any insight, or if I've overlooked any info on boards, please feel free to share!
Very interesting.. I'd love to see what you come up with.

The only thign i'd caution against using a time frame that goes all the way back to the 80's is i think you'll find success rate considerablly different, so using the two in a combined pool will skew "relevent"/recent numbers to seem less succesful.

It is the big issue with an event that happens once a year, the changes in the nature of the game, drafting, scouting, development all play apart so that the data your studieing from the 80's is from a very different creature then what your studying in the last 10 years.

just important to keep this in mind.

Grind is offline   Reply With Quote