HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

2011 NHL Entry Draft/Other Prospects (All NON-RANGERS Prospect Discussion - Part 3) ‎

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-07-2011, 10:56 AM
  #726
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
to get into the top 7-8 it will cost alot...the only reason to trade up into the 9-10 spot (besides obviously some slipping) would be if you felt 1 guy was clearly above the rest of that next 'group'. if you feel scheifele, mcneil, miller, bartschi, armia, and puempel are interchangable then you stay at 15 and take whoever is left...but if you think scheifele's potential separates him from the group then you might still look to move up to ensure that you get him.

and as far getting 'talent' and going with a high risk player. i have to question the upside potential of some of these high risk players. like with rocco, its not like other small players haven't been ranked high before. if everyone after #9 is 2nd and 3rd line talent and he is 1st line talent then wouldn't you think despite size he'd be ranked higher? I can see putting him lower than equal talents due to his size, but if his upside is really that much higher?
By some accounts he is one of the most talented players in the draft. So on talent alone he would go top 3. But if his size will prevent him from ever making it he has to drop. Just how far depends on how likely he is to bust.

Would you rather have a guy who is a 25% chance to be a 2nd liner, 55% chance to be a 3rd liner, and a 20% chance to bust....or a player who is a 20% chance to be a top 6 player and an 80% chance to bust? My numbers might be off a bit...but that's the general idea. Most people would rather draft a guy who is going to be an NHL player than one who probably won't.

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 11:06 AM
  #727
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
By some accounts he is one of the most talented players in the draft. So on talent alone he would go top 3. But if his size will prevent him from ever making it he has to drop. Just how far depends on how likely he is to bust.

Would you rather have a guy who is a 25% chance to be a 2nd liner, 55% chance to be a 3rd liner, and a 20% chance to bust....or a player who is a 20% chance to be a top 6 player and an 80% chance to bust? My numbers might be off a bit...but that's the general idea. Most people would rather draft a guy who is going to be an NHL player than one who probably won't.
in this case i'd take the 'safer' player without question...20% chance of being a top 6 player which could mean 2nd liner and you are giving the 1st guy a 25% chance to be a 2nd line player. and 80% chance of bust is pretty high...now if the swing for the fences pick was 33% chance of being an elite 1st liner thats different. then i'd risk the potential to bust

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 11:28 AM
  #728
Lion Hound
@JoeTucc26
 
Lion Hound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
oh i'm not doubting leslie and what she reported...just pointing out that there was no clarification on why the rangers don't like him. its possible that due to his size or maybe they don't like his attitude or something and they wouldn't want him at any point in the draft. also possible that they aren't interested in him at #15 because they know there will be players they like better still on the board, but later in the draft if we pick up an extra pick maybe its different.

it was more thinking out loud wondering why they don't like him...not doubting leslie's info that they don't in fact like him.
I gotcha!

You know what I would love to see? I side by side comparision of the following 4 players by someone who truly knows prospects.

Thomas vs Grimaldi vs Zuccarello vs Bourque

Or even just Thomas vs Grimaldi. Who is the better prospect at this point in the game. If Thomas was draft eligible today where would he rank in this class? Who has the higher upside? Who is the better goal scorer? Who is the more physical of the two etc.

Lion Hound is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 11:28 AM
  #729
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion Hound View Post
The people at ISS also hinted that the Rangers may have interest in Grimaldi. Personally, I like the high risk/high reward in drafting a guy like him. However i think the odds are stacked against him as there are what 4 guys already on the current squad under 6ft, plus a few solid prospects as well.

Callahan
Zuccarello
Avery
Drury
MDZ? Not sure if he's 6ft?

In the system
Bourque
Thomas

I guess the argument can certainly be made that they may shy away from him for lack of size however, you also have to figure this kid is probalby a couple of years away right? At that point it is almost certain that Drury will be gone. Likely that Avery will be gone too. That would leave Zucc, Bourque, Thomas. 4 potential forwards under 6ft all with a pretty good shot at making the team at the same time. Add Rocco...and you have the rebirth of Smurfs!

Incidentally, the Smurfs in the early 1980s were doing better than today's Rangers.

I don't care how big Cally is, he doesn't play small. When you watch him on the ice, does it look like he's short? He's 5-11, good enough.

Drury and Avery will be gone (and again, neither plays small) by the time Rocco comes here. Zucca, Thomas and especially Bourque are all question-marks.

Let's say that two of them are here, are you saying we can't get a third small guy? So if today the Rangers could add a young Theo Fleury, are you saying they would not take him?

By the time Rocco is ready for top-6 duty, Gabby will likely be gone. Thomas is our only other RW with first line potential, but he's high risk. Grimaldi is also a RW with first line potential. The hope is that one of them becomes that star first line RW that we need.

Take Theo Fleury, Slats. Do it! We don't need anymore Brandon Prusts and Artem Anisimovs.

Beacon is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 11:51 AM
  #730
Orr Nightmare
Registered User
 
Orr Nightmare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Incidentally, the Smurfs in the early 1980s were doing better than today's Rangers.

I don't care how big Cally is, he doesn't play small. When you watch him on the ice, does it look like he's short? He's 5-11, good enough.

Drury and Avery will be gone (and again, neither plays small) by the time Rocco comes here. Zucca, Thomas and especially Bourque are all question-marks.

Let's say that two of them are here, are you saying we can't get a third small guy? So if today the Rangers could add a young Theo Fleury, are you saying they would not take him?

By the time Rocco is ready for top-6 duty, Gabby will likely be gone. Thomas is our only other RW with first line potential, but he's high risk. Grimaldi is also a RW with first line potential. The hope is that one of them becomes that star first line RW that we need.

Take Theo Fleury, Slats. Do it! We don't need anymore Brandon Prusts and Artem Anisimovs.
No we need more Peter Ferraro's.

Let me get this straight, Thomas is a high risk but Grimaldi isn't?

I would take a Dubinsky over a Gionta any there and lets be realistic, that is what we are comparing...McNeill is Dubi and Grimaldi is Gionta.

Fleury was picked in the 8th round it was a minimal risk for the Flames...

Orr Nightmare is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 04:11 PM
  #731
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Boyle View Post
no one will be willing to move those picks unless it is for massive overpayment.
But... but... if we add Valentenko, we can move up to draft a first liner... I read that here repeatedly from so many posters.

Beacon is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 04:24 PM
  #732
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
if everyone after #9 is 2nd and 3rd line talent and he is 1st line talent then wouldn't you think despite size he'd be ranked higher? I can see putting him lower than equal talents due to his size, but if his upside is really that much higher?

When Savard was 18, everyone knew he has All-Star potential. People openly discussed that he could be a Hall of Fame quality player. His OHL coach was quoted in the Blueshirt Bulletin when they profiled Savard shortly after the draft as saying that Savard can "score at will" in juniors.

The guy had 139 points as a 17 year old BEFORE being drafted.

But he slipped all the way to the 4th round because he was small and absolutely horrible defensively. (You hear that MDZ? You too can learn to play competent defense.)

The same year, the Rangers also drafted Dube. He too did not go in the first round despite getting over 100 points in his pre-draft season. He was regarded as a better prospect than Savard for about three years after they were drafted. He failed. Savard became an All Star.

That's how high-risk, high-reward works.

But to say that anyone who has much higher potential will always be drafted above players with limited potential is false.

If your high potential comes with even higher risk, you will not go high.

And that's why Sundstrom and Malhotra were drafted in the top-10, with everyone fully knowing their limited potential, whereas Savard went in the fourth round.

Sometimes a player with much higher potential is ranked far lower because his risk is so high.

Beacon is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 04:31 PM
  #733
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
By some accounts he is one of the most talented players in the draft. So on talent alone he would go top 3. But if his size will prevent him from ever making it he has to drop. Just how far depends on how likely he is to bust.

Would you rather have a guy who is a 25% chance to be a 2nd liner, 55% chance to be a 3rd liner, and a 20% chance to bust....or a player who is a 20% chance to be a top 6 player and an 80% chance to bust? My numbers might be off a bit...but that's the general idea. Most people would rather draft a guy who is going to be an NHL player than one who probably won't.

I would say:

Grimaldi: 15% chance of being a true first liner, 20% chance of being a second liner; 0% chance of being a third liner and 65% chance of total failure.

McNeill: 0% chance of being a first liner, 20% chance of being a second liner, 40% chance of being a third liner; 40% of being a total bust.

So that's the question: would you trade a 15% chance of getting a first liner for a 40% chance of getting a third liner. I wouldn't. I say go for the stars. We have plenty of third liners.

==================

Everyone who thinks these odds are low needs to review past drafts. Half of all first rounders do not become even third liners. About half are fourth liners and minor leaguers.

And this is a weak draft, so you should expect most of the first rounders outside of the top-10 to fail to make the NHL at all or as anything more than a 4th liner.

Beacon is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 04:34 PM
  #734
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Savard slipped because of his size, which placed him at a disadvantage at the time based on the way the game was played and officiated. Things have changed in that regard since the lockout. It is a lot more common to see skilled players of diminutive size being drafted higher.

NYR Sting is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 04:35 PM
  #735
ocarina
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Savard slipped because of his size, which placed him at a disadvantage at the time based on the way the game was played and officiated. Things have changed in that regard since the lockout. It is a lot more common to see skilled players of diminutive size being drafted higher.
Also, didn't he have huge attitude concerns? I know that they were apparent during his time here.

ocarina is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 04:56 PM
  #736
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 500
Review of the past draftees who went between #12 and #30 who scored over 300 points in their career outside the top dozen draftees:


1994: Ohlund
1995: Sykora
1996: Derek Morris, Zubrus, Briere, Sturm
1997: Hossa, Cleary, Morrow,
1998: Tanguay, Gagne, Gomez, Cheechoo
1999: Havlat
2000: Frolov, Boyes, Justin Williams,
2001: Hemsky, Derek Roy
2002: Alexander Semin

So that's 20 players. It took 9 years and 99 draft picks to get that that many third liners who were drafted between 12 and 30. And let's keep in mind, that 2011 is a weak year.


Most of the the players that became true top-6 were high-risk, high-reward like Hossa, Sykora, etc.


Last edited by Beacon: 06-07-2011 at 05:06 PM.
Beacon is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 05:02 PM
  #737
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Review of the past draftees who went between #12 and #30 who scored over 300 points in their career outside the top dozen draftees:

1990: Tkachuk, Smolinski, Chris Simon
1991: Kovalev, Naslund, Glen Murray, Rucinsky, McAmmond, Whitney, Palffy, Ozolinsh
1992: Gonchar, Straka, Mironov
1993: Deadmarsh, Jason Allison, Saku Koivu, Bertuzzi
1994: Ohlund
1995: Sykora
1996: Derek Morris, Zubrus, Briere, Sturm
1997: Hossa, Cleary, Morrow,
1998: Tanguay, Gagne, Gomez, Cheechoo
1999: Havlat
2000: Frolov, Boyes, Justin Williams,
2001: Hemsky, Derek Roy
2002: Alexander Semin

That's a dozen years. I will not count the more recent years because a lot of players just didn't play enough years to hit 300+ points.

Note that even in the "exceptional" 2003 draft, only 5 players drafted from #12 to #30 currently hit 300 points and another one (Kesler) who is close. Even in that exceptional year, most first rounders will never hit 300 points.

I know 300 points is a random figure I used. I just figured that if someone can hit 30-35 points a season for 8-10 years, they can be classified as a third liner.

Most of the players drafted from #12 to #30 never made the NHL on a regular basis. Most scored about 100-150 points over the course of a few seasons, and were done with the NHL.

That's 38 players out of 132 who were drafted from #12 to #30 in those dozen years. That means the odds of a player becoming at least a third liner were only 28.8%.

Most of these players were either third liners or crappy second liners that would bounce from team to team. (Think of someone like Wolski.)

And let's keep in mind, that 2011 is a weak year.


Most of the the players that became true top-6 were high-risk, high-reward like Hossa, Sykora, etc.
Wow, so you're looking at 1992-2002, which conveniently leaves out a tremendous counterpoint to this.

Try looking at 2006 and 2007. Scouting is a much different thing today than it was in the 90s. Scouting is a much more involved and serious matter. A lot more money is pumped into scouting, and a lot more work is being done. It's too early to tell with the 2010, 2009, and even 2008, but in 06 and 07, a lot more impact players were taken in the first round, and some who haven't may be late bloomers. They are still relatively young players.

Also 300 points leaves out goaltenders and defensive defensemen.

NYR Sting is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 05:04 PM
  #738
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
I would say:

Grimaldi: 15% chance of being a true first liner, 20% chance of being a second liner; 0% chance of being a third liner and 65% chance of total failure.

McNeill: 0% chance of being a first liner, 20% chance of being a second liner, 40% chance of being a third liner; 40% of being a total bust.

So that's the question: would you trade a 15% chance of getting a first liner for a 40% chance of getting a third liner. I wouldn't. I say go for the stars. We have plenty of third liners.

==================

Everyone who thinks these odds are low needs to review past drafts. Half of all first rounders do not become even third liners. About half are fourth liners and minor leaguers.

And this is a weak draft, so you should expect most of the first rounders outside of the top-10 to fail to make the NHL at all or as anything more than a 4th liner.

based on those stats i agree with you...i'd rather take the 15% chance of being a 1st liner and 35% chance of being a top 6 over 20% chance of being a 2nd liner. only problem is that you are just pulling those stats out of the air and there is no way to quantify them for real, other than to prove you hate mcneil cause to say he has a 0% chance of being a top line player is laughable. i'm not gonna say its high but 0% come on.

i'm not disagreeing with your overall theory, but do think that you are understating the potential upside of anyone not named rocco BIG time to prove your point.

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 05:09 PM
  #739
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 500
Let's do the same with forwards who scored 500+ points because that's the minimum one can expect of a consistent top-6 player over the course of his career.



1994: -
1995: Sykora
1996: Briere
1997: Hossa
1998: Tanguay, Gagne
1999: Havlat
2000: -
2001: -
2002: -

So that's 6 players in those 9 years. Almost half the time, not a single player drafted from 12 to 30 becomes a 500-point producer over the course of his career.

Note that 500 points is not that huge. That would be an average of only 42 points per season for a dozen years from the age of 21 to 33.

That's not a spectacular career. That's just... ok.

Beacon is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 05:13 PM
  #740
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Wow, so you're looking at 1992-2002, which conveniently leaves out a tremendous counterpoint to this.

Try looking at 2006 and 2007. Scouting is a much different thing today than it was in the 90s. Scouting is a much more involved and serious matter. A lot more money is pumped into scouting, and a lot more work is being done. It's too early to tell with the 2010, 2009, and even 2008, but in 06 and 07, a lot more impact players were taken in the first round, and some who haven't may be late bloomers. They are still relatively young players.

Also 300 points leaves out goaltenders and defensive defensemen.
Actually, I miscounted it. It wasn't 38, it was actually 27.

2006 and 2007 is not different. We just have higher hopes. Like we always do.

Every time some rookie has a half-way decent season, everyone thinks he'll be a star. Then, he peters out and becomes Wolski and Frolov half the time.

The only reason I picked that period is that those players had their full careers end.

Scouting is not different today. Scouting is scouting. Maybe the Rangers got better scouts, but that means that some other teams are worse. League-wide, scouting remained the same since the mid-to-late 1990s. (The only difference was in the early 1990s when teams only started scouting Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union.)

Beacon is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 05:25 PM
  #741
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 500
Let's look just at the 2003 draft. It was an exceptionally good year, we can all agree on that. It's been 8 years since the draft. Let's say it took these guys 3 years go make their rookie season, so that leaves another 5 years to put points up.

Only 6 put up 200 points, which would be an average of 40 points over 5 years.

Another 4 players were defensemen.

So out of the 15 forwards who went between #12 and #30 in the exceptional 2003 draft, only 6 have averaged 40 points or more per season.

In fact, only 9 out of 15 forwards got 100 points in the 8 years since they were drafted. If they played 4-5 season, that's only 20-25 points season. Again, in the exception 2003 draft.

You can't possibly argue that 2011 is projected to be a better draft than 2003. Anything can happen, but to expect that is not reasonable.

Beacon is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 05:28 PM
  #742
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Scouting is not different today. Scouting is scouting. Maybe the Rangers got better scouts, but that means that some other teams are worse. League-wide, scouting remained the same since the mid-to-late 1990s. (The only difference was in the early 1990s when teams only started scouting Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union.)
As someone that has dealt with scouts, I would say that you couldn't be more wrong. Much has changed about scouting, particularly the attention paid to the Nordic countries and Finland. The organization of scouting has shifted radically. Depending on the level of competence and execution of the staff involved, scouting has generally become a significantly more efficient process.

NYR Sting is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 05:30 PM
  #743
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 18,694
vCash: 500
Yeah. If anybody thinks we'd be able to get Henrik Lundqvist in the 7th round next year, you're nuts. That alone tells you scouting has evolved.

BlueshirtBlitz is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 05:37 PM
  #744
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueshirtBlitz View Post
Yeah. If anybody thinks we'd be able to get Henrik Lundqvist in the 7th round next year, you're nuts. That alone tells you scouting has evolved.
Anything can happen, but we are talking about odds. Notice that I always call for stockpiling picks precisely because you never know who's there.

When the Rangers acquired McCabe, I was pretty much the only one unhappy for one specific reason - we gave up a third rounder.

My point isn't that we should give up and not draft. But that you can't expect a specific player to be what the hype says.

The best way to draft is to have as many picks as possible, not to rely on one player you hope will turn into Getzlaf, but who'll most likely turn into Prust.

That's why I was calling for a rebuilding all these years - because we needed more picks.

That's why I think it's better to trade down and get a few more picks. The players on the board are not likely going to be top-6 forwards. But if you get enough of those high-risk, high-reward guys, suddenly your odds of pulling someone good skyrocket.

Beacon is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 05:47 PM
  #745
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
As someone that has dealt with scouts, I would say that you couldn't be more wrong. Much has changed about scouting, particularly the attention paid to the Nordic countries and Finland. The organization of scouting has shifted radically. Depending on the level of competence and execution of the staff involved, scouting has generally become a significantly more efficient process.

Would you say that it's likely that 2011 first round will produce more and better players than 2003 did?

Only 9 out of 15 forwards drafted from 12 to 30 that year scored 100+ points; only 6 scored 200+ points; only Getzlaf and Perry scored over 0.8 points per game (good job Anaheim!).

So there there were 2 first line quality players, 4 second liners, 3 role players and 6 busts.

Would you say it's likely that the weak 2011 draft will be better than the exceptionally strong 2003 draft? Did scouting get that much better in just a few years?

Beacon is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 05:49 PM
  #746
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 500
Btw, I love how when you prove something with statistics, people will cite the few exceptions as some sort of proof.

That's like telling someone, "you know, it's wiser to invest in diversified mutual funds run by professionals than to buy lottery tickets" and after showing statistics of past success and failure being told, "hey, what about that guy I saw on TV who just won $300 million? How about that?"

The exception to the rule, that rare guy who does something totally unexpected, does NOT disprove the statistical rule.

(Sorry for using an analogy. I know there are some here who can't comprehend them.)

Beacon is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 06:10 PM
  #747
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Btw, I love how when you prove something with statistics, people will cite the few exceptions as some sort of proof.

That's like telling someone, "you know, it's wiser to invest in diversified mutual funds run by professionals than to buy lottery tickets" and after showing statistics of past success and failure being told, "hey, what about that guy I saw on TV who just won $300 million? How about that?"

The exception to the rule, that rare guy who does something totally unexpected, does NOT disprove the statistical rule.

(Sorry for using an analogy. I know there are some here who can't comprehend them.)
But you aren't proving anything with statistics. You're proving that you don't have the information necessary to see why the statistics you've provided can't be applied to the current situation.

If this was 2002, your statistics would be relevant.

Will 2011 produce more impact players than 2003? Probably not, but then again 2003 is one of the greatest draft years of all-time. Still. your question again isn't relevant. We aren't discussing the quality of the players available, but rather the quality of the scouting. The evolution of scouting will mean that fewer players fall through the cracks. Will it happen on occasion? Without a doubt, but the eyes of scouts are wider than ever these days.

NYR Sting is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 06:18 PM
  #748
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 18,694
vCash: 500
To be honest, i'm a little confused. What exactly are we arguing here? That we should trade back, trade up, stay pat?

BlueshirtBlitz is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 06:49 PM
  #749
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueshirtBlitz View Post
To be honest, i'm a little confused. What exactly are we arguing here? That we should trade back, trade up, stay pat?
Basically, people here think that they can get a big guy who plays an all-around game who has a significant chance of being a star or at least a top-6 forward.

The point I was trying to make was that they way, way overestimate the odds of that. The reality is that anyone who is relatively safe is likely to be no more than a third liner or a borderline 2-3 liner, and has higher odds of being a fourth liner than a second liner.

Thus, in drafting someone like McNeil, you are not getting Getzlaf, you are most likely getting Boyle or worse.

Sure, anything can happen. A 7th round pick (Lundqvist) could become better than the first over in the same year (DiPietro), but that is the exception and not the rule.

Therefore, when you have a prospect with first line potential, even though he has probably a 70% chance of being a total bust, you go for it because there's that 10%-15% chance that he'll be a star.

It's better than getting someone who has a 50% chance of being a third liner, and almost no chance of being a star.

Sure, the odds are not great for Rocco, but it's not as if everyone else on the board is going to be what fan hype says they will be. Half will not make it at all, and only 20% will become top-6.

Rocco has a better shot at being top-6 and will likely be the only one left on the board at #15 who has a significant shot at being a star. And I really don't care how great McNeill's odds are of becoming a nice third liner. We have Boyle, we have Prust, we have Hagelin, we have plenty of these guys.


Last edited by Beacon: 06-07-2011 at 07:05 PM.
Beacon is offline  
Old
06-07-2011, 07:00 PM
  #750
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
But you aren't proving anything with statistics. You're proving that you don't have the information necessary to see why the statistics you've provided can't be applied to the current situation.
How so? The logic you are using is that past results can never prove anything. Really?!

Let's use an analogy. How do doctors know if a pill has a high chance to help their patient? Because it worked in the past. How do lawyers know that a certain argument has a high chance of helping their client? Because it worked in the past.

The past does not prove things, but it's the best guide we have for things like the draft.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
If this was 2002, your statistics would be relevant.
By your argument, nothing can prove what are reasonable expectations going forward. 2002 only applies to 2002 and that's it. But that's false. If you take a decade of past drafting, the average is a pretty solid way of looking what to expect.

I suspect that if the past showed something that you wanted to see, you would not think it's irrelevant. But fans like to focus on a few big "hits" like Getzlaf and forget all those dozens of players who never made it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Will 2011 produce more impact players than 2003? Probably not, but then again 2003 is one of the greatest draft years of all-time.
And yet, 2003 produced less "hits" than people expect for 2011. As you can see, even in 2003, most players did not become top-6. And 2011 is not even an average draft. It's a weak one.

In most weak drafts, there were 0-2 draftees who became second liners or better over the course of a significant number of years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Still. your question again isn't relevant. We aren't discussing the quality of the players available, but rather the quality of the scouting. The evolution of scouting will mean that fewer players fall through the cracks. Will it happen on occasion? Without a doubt, but the eyes of scouts are wider than ever these days.
No, we are discussing the draft, not the scouting. My point was always that fans over-estimate what to expect.

A nice, safe, all-around prospect would not last to #15 if he had a significant chance of being a solid top-6 player because the quality of draftees is nowhere near as high as the hype suggests.

More realistically, at #15 either a player will be safe (McNeill) or have star potential (Rocco), but not both.

People can reject Grimaldi, that's fine. But they can't reject Grimaldi because they think that McNeill has a reasonable chance of being a top line player. He doesn't. And if GMs/scounts think he does, then he will not get out of the top-5. Especially in a weak draft.

Beacon is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.