View Single Post
05-22-2013, 03:22 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,361
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by RayzorIsDull View Post
So I can do 09-10 in another year. I see you never addressed the 08 findings. What kind of formula should be made 08 3-5 round was poor and their careers are over in the league. Should I go back to 07, 06?
Didnt' comment on my Marner post either...

And you haven't addressed my comments on the Ruperts and Josh Anderson, (that was the 4th time I've mentioned them).

Haven't commented on my statement that the teams that are the most successful, are the guys you always see in the rinks.

(I dont care if you do, we get it, lets just move on to your formula)

There is no way to fix that formula. Games played doesn't speak to impact. It also doesn't speak to the player that they drafted and the value that player brings. One year of one player has more value then three year of another. It also takes away any player who makes the NHL at 18 or 19. Your ignoring teams with poor development models. It also ignores teams with strong existing rosters who don't have room for players. Mississauga didn't have room for Eric Diotati for two years, he made the team last year after 2 attempts. If he was drafted by Erie, maybe he makes it after one year? He all of a sudden fits your system...nothing changed thou....he didn't become better or worse....
Come to think of it, no goalie will ever fit into that formula...they don't play every game do they....

This is after 15 minutes of breaking it down...what happens after you give me an hour?

Your also ignoring, or ignorant to teams goals when drafting. The goal is to get 5-6 players who one day may play a 2 to 5 years with you. Those players generally come within the top 60-80, but also comes somewhere else. Why was this player drafted? What was the purpose? Why did he fail? Was he a strategic pick? Did they trade the pick. 4th rounds are known as the 'risk pick' round. Teams often take risk picks on top US guys, or committed guys from Ontario. Owen Sound did it with Cam Hackett.

I guess Connor Carrick is always a bad pick by Guelph. US program guy for two years, 12th round pick that was traded for two thirds. Guelph's head scout shouldn't have driven to the US to see if he had value or not, he's only played a single year. Your formula doesn't give much credit for Guelph turning the 12th into two 3rds....

You can't become a draft expert without ever following the draft...thats the issue.

Want to know the BEST way to see what teams have good development models? The ones who find value in the draft and the ones who make intelligent decisions. Look at the rosters...if the team is filled with picks of their own, ones that played a year or two at lower levels, worked with the team and now are pieces of a quality hockey program. Thats the easiest way to know. You can't sit on a sideline and nitpick things with, (heres that word again) zero context.

Last edited by Tigers1992: 05-22-2013 at 03:43 PM.
Tigers1992 is offline   Reply With Quote