Effectively all Vezina winners from the last ten played seasons were viewed as having NHL potential. The round they were drafted fairly reflects how long they would take to reach their optimum NHL performance.
I feel like a fool for getting roped into this argument, but here's what you said:
Watching major junior, university, minor pro, European or Midget AAA goalies or players and it is fairly easy to evaluate NHL potential or success looking forward.
And here is the result of that "fairly easy" task as performed by industry professionals between 1994 and 2004. The column labeled "drafted" is goalie-exclusive in order to give us a clean look at how the goalie talent each class was perceived at the beginning.
1994
Name
NHL GP
Drafted
Awards
Vokoun
680
23
Theodore
633
5
Hart, Vezina, 2nd AS
Nabokov
605
22
1st AS
Turco
543
9
2nd AS
Thomas
378
20
Vezina x2, 1st AS x2, Smythe
Hedberg
354
21
Cloutier
351
4
Grahame
224
24
Storr
219
1
Fichaud
95
2
1995
Name
NHL GP
Drafted
Awards
Kiprusoff
599
12
Vezina, 1st AS
Giguere
557
1
Smythe
Biron
500
2
Denis
349
4
Boucher
324
3
Johnson
309
16
Mason
306
14
Toskala
266
10
Aubin
218
8
Bierk
47
24
1996
Name
NHL GP
Drafted
Awards
Garon
323
2
Esche
186
12
Valiquette
46
20
1997
Name
NHL GP
Drafted
Awards
Luongo
727
1
2nd AS x2
Aebischer
214
13
13
Clemmensen
152
17
Holmqvist
99
14
Hurme
76
7
Noronen
71
2
1998
Name
NHL GP
Drafted
Awards
Raycroft
280
14
Niittymaki
234
16
Labarbera
160
5
Sabourin
57
10
Sauve
32
3
1999
Name
NHL GP
Drafted
Awards
Miller
460
17
Vezina, 1st AS
Anderson
294
8
Auld
237
4
Leighton
104
21
Caron
95
12
Prusek
57
20
2000
Name
NHL GP
Drafted
Awards
Lundqvist
468
22
Vezina, 1st AS
Bryzgalov
385
3
2nd AS
DiPietro
315
1
Cechmanek
212
19
2nd AS
Ellis
165
5
Tellqvist
113
6
2001
Name
NHL GP
Drafted
Awards
Anderson
294
7
Huet
272
29
Budaj
259
6
Smith
229
21
Gerber
229
31
Emery
207
10
Leclaire
173
1
Markkanen
128
16
Nurminen
125
24
Blackburn
63
2
Bacashihua
38
3
2002
Name
NHL GP
Drafted
Awards
Ward
414
2
Smythe
Lehtonen
344
1
Harding
117
6
Norrena
100
27
McElhinney
69
24
Deslauriers
62
4
Toivonen
61
3
2003
Name
NHL GP
Drafted
Awards
Fleury
434
1
Halak
204
27
Howard
192
3
Elliott
180
29
Crawford
122
2
2004
Name
NHL GP
Drafted
Awards
Rinne
250
30
2nd AS
Dubnyk
101
2
Schneider
68
4
Montoya
57
1
Ramo
48
19
Greiss
38
10
I trust I won't be accused of "cherry picking" a full decade's worth of data.
So, you have the simple task of showing us which season's results prove that NHL scouts (and with few exceptions, the hockey world as a whole) found it "easy" to evaluate NHL career potential by viewing goalies at the amateur levels.
TL;DR guide to the data above:
- No. of times the #1 goalie actually turned out to be have the best career in his class: 2 (Luongo, Fleury)
- No. of times the #1 didn't even meet the 30-GP threshold: 3 (1996, 1998, 1999)
- No. of times that a goalie taken <15th turned out to have the best career in his class: 4 (1994, 1999, 2000, 2004)
- No. of times that each of the top-3 goalies met the 30-GP threshold: 4 (1995, 2001, 2002, 2003)
- No. of times that 3 or more goalies chosen <15th met the 30-GP threshold: 3 (1994, 1999, 2001)
- No. of Vezinas won by top-5 goalies: 1 (Theodore)
- No. of Vezinas won by goalies drafted <10th: 5 (Thomas x2, Miller, Kiprusoff, Lundqvist)
If the above doesn't show that goalie development is utterly unpredictable, I don't know what else could. Someone better at math than I am could undoubtedly apply a formula to show that the distribution of success compared to draft-age evaluations is just a little better than random. I'd even go a step beyond, and say it's probably the least predictable of all the positions in major sports.
Last edited by tarheelhockey: 12-09-2012 at 12:22 PM.
If you didn't do it the first time through, go back over them again and mentally include the draft positions of all the goalies that aren't listed. A draft like 2002 looks well-scouted in the format above... but then you consider that there were 18 busts between Harding and McElhinney...
THH - nice charts but irrelevant to the point you artificially created and are now contesting.
At no point did I mention "drafted" you did.
For the time frame under consideration, all of the Vezina, Jennings, AST goalies were drafted. The 1980s era where a Belfour or a Joseph could sneak thru the NHL Entry Draft are long gone.
So the filtering system that is the NHL Entry Draft is fairly efficient.
THH - nice charts but irrelevant to the point you artificially created and are now contesting.
At no point did I mention "drafted" you did.
What better measure is there for judging the efficacy of talent evaluation? Let me know where you want to start instead.
Quote:
For the time frame under consideration, all of the Vezina, Jennings, AST goalies were drafted. The 1980s era where a Belfour or a Joseph could sneak thru the NHL Entry Draft are long gone.
So the filtering system that is the NHL Entry Draft is fairly efficient.
That's high praise for a system that missed Hiller, Roloson, Backstrom, Bobrovsky, Niemi and Gustavsson. Only a division's worth of NHL starters as of a couple of seasons ago.
In any case, the draft's record makes it quite clear that it's not "easy" to predict goalies' futures based on amateur play, and that was my only point. If it were easy, we wouldn't see #1 overall picks turning out to be average, 7th rounders turning out to be legends and undrafteds having solid careers.
What better measure is there for judging the efficacy of talent evaluation? Let me know where you want to start instead.
That's high praise for a system that missed Hiller, Roloson, Backstrom, Bobrovsky, Niemi and Gustavsson. Only a division's worth of NHL starters as of a couple of seasons ago.
In any case, the draft's record makes it quite clear that it's not "easy" to predict goalies' futures based on amateur play, and that was my only point. If it were easy, we wouldn't see #1 overall picks turning out to be average, 7th rounders turning out to be legends and undrafteds having solid careers.
I think you are speaking about evaluating how good of a pro a goalie will be and Canadiens1958 is talking about evaluating whether or not a youngster has pro potential, period.
I think you are speaking about evaluating how good of a pro a goalie will be and Canadiens1958 is talking about evaluating whether or not a youngster has pro potential, period.
tarheel named several goalies with a pro career who went undrafted thought.
What better measure is there for judging the efficacy of talent evaluation? Let me know where you want to start instead.
That's high praise for a system that missed Hiller, Roloson, Backstrom, Bobrovsky, Niemi and Gustavsson. Only a division's worth of NHL starters as of a couple of seasons ago.
In any case, the draft's record makes it quite clear that it's not "easy" to predict goalies' futures based on amateur play, and that was my only point. If it were easy, we wouldn't see #1 overall picks turning out to be average, 7th rounders turning out to be legends and undrafteds having solid careers.
The issue is rather straightforward - Top Goaltenders. The goalies you list were not drafted BUT they were never chosen to represent their country at the WJC level either - considering they represent Canada, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Russia, this is a pretty good indication that there was a consensus perception that they were iffy prospects during their NHL Entry Draft eligibility. All are interchangeable parts quality at best.
Dwayne Roloson was a weak Jr B goalie at the age of 20:
Efficacy of the NHL Entry Draft. Keeping things simple, using the latest version, 7 rounds, 30 picks per round = 210 players. app 25 goalies drafted per year.
An NHL organization has 50 pro contracts - 23 at the NHL level, 27 in affiliates plus they retain rights to unsigned draftees. So an organizations needs 4-6 goalies signed to pro contracts.
Efficacy is simply a function of how many starters an organization drafts over a fixed period of time. Montreal drafting the likes of Theodore,Garon, Vokoun, Halak, Price between 1994 and 2005 is very impressive.
I think you are speaking about evaluating how good of a pro a goalie will be and Canadiens1958 is talking about evaluating whether or not a youngster has pro potential, period.
That's true. Although they are almost all European (seen less by NA scouts) and its possible that's a reason they slip through the draft.
On hold for Mr. Canadiens' response.
Key point is that none of the goalies listed played on their national WJ teams. So neither group of scouts saw qualities that were requisite to play on the WJ team or merit a NHL Entry Draft pick.
The issue is rather straightforward - Top Goaltenders. The goalies you list were not drafted BUT they were never chosen to represent their country at the WJC level either - considering they represent Canada, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Russia, this is a pretty good indication that there was a consensus perception that they were iffy prospects during their NHL Entry Draft eligibility.
And consensus was wrong. All the goaltenders listed (and the list was not exhaustive) turned out to be much better than the scouts and national program administrators expected. Correct?
Quote:
All are interchangeable parts quality at best.
That depends on whether you're measuring them against successful NHL goalies or the entire prospect pool. They are definitely not interchangeable parts with the majority of goalies in their draft classes.
Quote:
Dwayne Roloson was a weak Jr B goalie at the age of 20:
Which reinforces the point about extreme variability in goalie development and success.
Quote:
Efficacy is simply a function of how many starters an organization drafts over a fixed period of time. Montreal drafting the likes of Theodore,Garon, Vokoun, Halak, Price between 1994 and 2005 is very impressive.
Absolutely. They scored some very impressive steals in the lower rounds while the other 29 teams were wasting picks on guys with no future in the league, 2003 being a great example. Clearly it wasn't "easy" to predict the future of the 26 guys who went ahead of Halak, or he would have been picked ahead of at least 25 of them.
Is the claim really being offered up that it's easy to tell who the successful goaltenders will be at the time of their draft age, and that the evidence supporting this claim is the large number of goaltenders who weren't drafted or played for their WJC teams, but starred in the NHL?
Is the claim really being offered up that it's easy to tell who the successful goaltenders will be at the time of their draft age, and that the evidence supporting this claim is the large number of goaltenders who weren't drafted or played for their WJC teams, but starred in the NHL?
Claim is offered in post #190, in response to a comment about evaluating competition looking backward. Claim copied below
__________________________________________________ _____
How so? Watching major junior, university, minor pro, European or Midget AAA goalies or players and it is fairly easy to evaluate NHL potential or success looking forward.
__________________________________________________ _____
In any NHL Entry Draft app 25 goalies are drafted. Generous estimate would be maybe 5% of eligible goalies in the hockey playing world. The remaining undrafted goalies with rare exceptions are never heard from again. Usually they are not chosen for WJ teams either.
The NHL Entery Draft for a specific year,offers a snapshot of the consensus top 25 or so goalie candidates for future NHL positions.More or less the elite. Later if organizational spots are open, non-drafted free agents may get a look.
Basically it is fairly easy to tell which goalies are not future NHL candidates by the time they reach 18.
Posters cite Dwayne Roloson who by the age of 18 had played all of 44 Jr B and C games. another 57 Jr B games total by the age of 20 before going to an NCAA school for four years. No NHL team would draft such a goalie. If he develops on someone else's nickle they will have a look later.
Basically it is fairly easy to tell which goalies are not future NHL candidates by the time they reach 18.
If you're saying it's easy to tell, for the most part, which goalies will be candidates in the sense of being worth a draft pick then I would agree with that.
If you're saying it's easy to tell, for the most part, which goalies will be candidates in the sense of being worth a draft pick then I would agree with that.
Effectively although the DNDs, do not draft are easier to determine.
When goalies get drafted in a specific NHL Entry Draft or why certain teams do not draft goalies in a given year are separate issues.
I'm a little surprised to see Billy Smith leapfrog over both Fuhr and Lehman - if for no other reason, than the results of the previous round. Didn't seem like anyone made a really strong case for him.
Guess we're maxing out at 23 voters now, which is fine.
Lehman finishes 4th despite having the most 1st place votes.
It's interesting that Lehman went from 3 points behind Thompson to 27, and from 3 ahead of Hainsworth to 14 behind, and from 24 points ahead of smith to 1 behind.
That's a total of 66 spots lost to those three goalies, and only 11 of those can be accounted for by the new goalies (Holmes, Giacomin, Vachon) being ranked ahead.
What in the hell? How did Billy Smith get ahead of Fuhr? I'm sorry, but that just strikes me as incorrect. He's better than I initially thought, but I didn't think he would go this round, or would be the #4 guy at best...
Billy Smith 3rd? wow... I had everyone but Vachon ahead
and how does Giacomin get 14 N/R? he had 2 1st and 3 2nd team AS! Thats AS MUCH as: Smith, Fuhr, and Vachon combined. Put him on the Isles or Oilers and he gets 4 Cups or MORE
Last edited by intylerwetrust: 12-17-2012 at 11:54 AM.
The most surprised I've been by the results in any round so far. Strange not to see Fuhr and Smith next to each other. The difference seems to be that 6 voters had Fuhr from somewhere from 8th-10th, while only 1 had Smith in that range. I'd be interested to hear why that is.
What in the hell? How did Billy Smith get ahead of Fuhr? I'm sorry, but that just strikes me as incorrect. He's better than I initially thought, but I didn't think he would go this round, or would be the #4 guy at best...
I voted Billy Smith 5th, so its not like I think it's a travesty that he was added. But I would like to hear from someone who voted him in their top 3.
The most surprised I've been by the results in any round so far. Strange not to see Fuhr and Smith next to each other. The difference seems to be that 6 voters had Fuhr from somewhere from 8th-10th, while only 1 had Smith in that range. I'd be interested to hear why that is.
2 more people had Smith 7th, which would also be right next to Fuhr, so really it appears that 3 voters for sure had those two apart by quite a bit, although it could have been more
All I said was "food for thought". 
