HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Anyone else feel DW redeemed himself this year?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-10-2013, 05:45 PM
  #101
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
As pointed out ages ago by a writer, using a pure CSB ranking will get you a below average team. There are some orgs that have better batting averages over time and it isn't close. Using my old study which covered 13 years, it went from a low of around 17 to a high of 35 NHL players in the time period. And there is a lot of consistency in who cranks quantity, who cranks quality, who cranks dmen, who cranks goalies, who cranks wings and who cranks centers. Individually, they will all miss and hit. Success should be judged only on batting averages. "Crapshoot" indicates that there are NO averages.
Still waiting to see this study. You are referencing it all the time. It isn't a matter of doubt, but a matter of inspecting and analyzing the study to see if there are any flaws in it. Without seeing how it was conducted, and how biased it may be, the results (which, again, you are pulling from memory which is an added complication) are meaningless.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 05:47 PM
  #102
CupfortheSharks
Registered User
 
CupfortheSharks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
I'm not slighting against DW here. I'm just pointing out that tenure isn't the determining factor for knowledge...but if he had forgotten more than we'll ever know, why hasn't that knowledge been put to use to get the team and region a Stanley Cup. Seems like it wouldn't be much of an issue for someone who apparently knows so much more.
He's forgotten more than posters on an internet hockey board will likely ever know. He's competing with other hockey professionals. Each team hires the best hockey minds they can find. They pay them very well, give them lots of resources, and put a ton of pressure on them to succeed.

You (and others here including myself) aren't one of those guys. If you REALLY know better than DW, why aren't you gettng paid for your hockey knowledge? There are 30 teams out there looking for an edge.

CupfortheSharks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 05:58 PM
  #103
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
As pointed out ages ago by a writer, using a pure CSB ranking will get you a below average team. There are some orgs that have better batting averages over time and it isn't close. Using my old study which covered 13 years, it went from a low of around 17 to a high of 35 NHL players in the time period. And there is a lot of consistency in who cranks quantity, who cranks quality, who cranks dmen, who cranks goalies, who cranks wings and who cranks centers. Individually, they will all miss and hit. Success should be judged only on batting averages. "Crapshoot" indicates that averages are meaningless.
Crapshoot indicates that you can have pick #8, by all measures make the right pick and still have the player become a bust. It happens a lot and to good evaluation teams. That doesn't mean you can't make an assessment or "average". It just means it's very difficult to weigh all the factors and come to a complete and accurate conclusion and "luck" plays a significant part.

And I would love to see any study on teams drafting history. My guess is they are few and far between if a decent one can be found at all, because it is a very very very hard metric to come by and you will get arguments as to what the criteria and measurements should be ad nauseam.

__________________

"This is not a nick or a scratch, this is an open wound" - Doug Wilson.
Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 06:12 PM
  #104
CupfortheSharks
Registered User
 
CupfortheSharks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
And I would love to see any study on teams drafting history.
Some in this thread: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1421613

Mostly focused on games played which is not the whole picture but the Sharks show pretty well.

Lots of posters here like to bash the Sharks drafting and development. I think they were poor as a young orginization but are now one of the better teams in the NHL. I think if other posters here took the time to look at highs AND LOWS of other teams they would have a better opinion of the Sharks.

CupfortheSharks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 06:14 PM
  #105
DuckEatinShark
GET ALL THE PPs!!!!
 
DuckEatinShark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 5,397
vCash: 50
McLellan has not redeemed himself unless we go back to the WCF.

DuckEatinShark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 06:24 PM
  #106
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupfortheSharks View Post
Some in this thread: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1421613

Mostly focused on games played which is not the whole picture but the Sharks show pretty well.

Lots of posters here like to bash the Sharks drafting and development. I think they were poor as a young orginization but are now one of the better teams in the NHL. I think if other posters here took the time to look at highs AND LOWS of other teams they would have a better opinion of the Sharks.
So I see rankings of #2(last 1999-2009 years), 5(all time), 4(2003-2009), and 11 (all time). Not bad. Not all the studies are perfect.

Just glancing at the draft players, I'd say that in San Jose could compete with anybody when it comes to the late rounds. They are very competitive in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. In the top half of the first round, they are probably as good as anyone else in the top-10 when taking out the early struggles with Fat Baloon and Zyuzin. From 10-30 they are probably average to below average, especially in recent years.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 06:25 PM
  #107
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupfortheSharks View Post
Some in this thread: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1421613

Mostly focused on games played which is not the whole picture but the Sharks show pretty well.

Lots of posters here like to bash the Sharks drafting and development. I think they were poor as a young orginization but are now one of the better teams in the NHL. I think if other posters here took the time to look at highs AND LOWS of other teams they would have a better opinion of the Sharks.
Thanks for the link. I've already seen three different assessments and 3 different ways to assess

But it's all good information for what it is. Still haven't seen one that gives weight to 1rst round successes vs 7th round successes and a 7th round success that becomes a legit first liner vs a 1rst round pick that becomes a 3rd line agitator. That's why these things are so hard. So many ways to judge and so many rules to be agreed to.

Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 06:33 PM
  #108
Evincar
Your Final Judgement
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckEatinShark View Post
McLellan has not redeemed himself unless we go back to the WCF.
How about the franchise's first Cup final appearance?

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 06:33 PM
  #109
CupfortheSharks
Registered User
 
CupfortheSharks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
Thanks for the link. I've already seen three different assessments and 3 different ways to assess

But it's all good information for what it is. Still haven't seen one that gives weight to 1rst round successes vs 7th round successes and a 7th round success that becomes a legit first liner vs a 1rst round pick that becomes a 3rd line agitator. That's why these things are so hard. So many ways to judge and so many rules to be agreed to.
Yep. None of those are even close to perfect but they are still interesting.

CupfortheSharks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 06:53 PM
  #110
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupfortheSharks View Post
Some in this thread: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1421613

Mostly focused on games played which is not the whole picture but the Sharks show pretty well.

Lots of posters here like to bash the Sharks drafting and development. I think they were poor as a young orginization but are now one of the better teams in the NHL. I think if other posters here took the time to look at highs AND LOWS of other teams they would have a better opinion of the Sharks.
I would still have the Sharks in the top 15. When I did my thing, there were 15 teams that were bad and not comparable.

The most easily accessed and a series of studies that has some thought behind it is Cullen's stuff on TSN. It doesn't get into team comparisons too much, but his premises are well thought out. You would have to get a series of his thoughts on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
Crapshoot indicates that you can have pick #8, by all measures make the right pick and still have the player become a bust. It happens a lot and to good evaluation teams. That doesn't mean you can't make an assessment or "average". It just means it's very difficult to weigh all the factors and come to a complete and accurate conclusion and "luck" plays a significant part.

And I would love to see any study on teams drafting history. My guess is they are few and far between if a decent one can be found at all, because it is a very very very hard metric to come by and you will get arguments as to what the criteria and measurements should be ad nauseam.
As I said, individually it can be a crapshoot. But crapshoot is an awful word for overall performance. And you can definitely see patterns as in the Sharks love for size, sometimes overlooking motivation in pursuit of size when there are clear red flags (Bernier, Kaspar, Wishart). If you overlook the red flags, then you have to make sure that the org will compensate (be able to work with motivationally challenged players). It is an issue of integration and the GM is certainly in charge of that integration.

In terms of my study, I used a counting performance of NHL players drafted and modified it for the total value of draft picks expended. A team wouldn't be penalized for always picking late and it was easily obvious which teams devalued picks in pursuit of acquiring players (St. Louis and Toronto's lack of pick value was so low that it couldn't be solely attributed to success in the standings). That was one way of looking at it. I used a cutoff of 3 years post-draft. I wouldn't do it again with less than 5 years. And, I wouldn't assess goalie drafting with less than 8 years.

Another way of assessing scouting performance would be to take each pick for each team and assess subsequent picks. I would award positive value for selecting the best player with that pick and the 3 subsequent up to pick #15. From #15 to #60, I would award positive value for the best of that pick plus the 5 subsequent. After #60, I would test against the 10 subsequent. Use a scale of 1 to -1 for the relative value of players (eg if all were busts, then a score of 0, if a subsequent pick in the range was a better player -1, if a tie then 0, if best player 1). Add bonus points for picks resulting in elite players (first line/first pairing) as it is easily evident that they have the strongest effect on team performance. Check the averages for all orgs. I think this method would address the issue of a comparison of orgs and it does compensate for a lack of picks. It does address the herd mentality of scouting. Feel free with your thoughts regarding the method.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 08:26 PM
  #111
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,051
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupfortheSharks View Post
He's forgotten more than posters on an internet hockey board will likely ever know. He's competing with other hockey professionals. Each team hires the best hockey minds they can find. They pay them very well, give them lots of resources, and put a ton of pressure on them to succeed.

You (and others here including myself) aren't one of those guys. If you REALLY know better than DW, why aren't you gettng paid for your hockey knowledge? There are 30 teams out there looking for an edge.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it's merely an assumption. It's a safe one by and large but still one nonetheless. The problem with DW in particular is that he never hired the best hockey minds he could find. He used mostly what was already here and filled some holes left behind. I certainly can't see DW scouring the earth searching for the best of the best for each of those spots. Most people in his position have a circle that they pull from rather than truly looking for an edge.

It's a fallacy to believe that just because one doesn't get paid for their knowledge on a certain subject that it means their knowledge isn't up to par with those that do. It's a case by case situation and the NHL's is widely known like most sports leagues to be an old boy's club. It's why guys like JK have a hard time cracking that spot in this league.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 08:26 PM
  #112
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,813
vCash: 500
@easy

Your formula makes my head hurt.

I'll just put this here since I've done it. This is everybody still playing (except goalies) drafted starting with Marleau. If I've missed somebody please let me know, so I can update my copy.

Entry Year Player Draft Year Draft#
1997 Patrick Marleau Drafted 1997 1rst round 2nd
1998 Scott Hannan Drafted 1997 1rst round 23rd
1999 Brad Stuart Drafted 1998 1rst round 3rd
2001 Mikael Samuelsson Drafted 1998 5th round 145th
2003 Christian Ehrhoff Drafted 2001 4th round 106th
2005 Matt Carle Drafted 2003 2nd round 47th
2005 Milan Michalek Drafted 2003 1rst round 6th
2005 Steve Bernier Drafted 2003 1rst round 16th
2005 Marcel Goc Drafted 2001 1rst round 20th
2005 Josh Gorges Undrafted 2004  
2006 Douglas Murray Drafted 1999 8th round 241rst
2006 Marc-Edward Vlasic Drafted 2005 2nd round 35th
2006 Ryane Clowe Drafted 2001 6th round 175th
2007 Joe Pavelski Drafted 2003 7th round 205th
2007 Torrey Mitchell Drafted 2004 4rth round 126th
2008 Devin Setoguchi Drafted 2005 1rst round 8th
2009 Jason Demers Drafted 2008 7th round 186th
2009 Fraser Mclaren Drafted 2007 7th round 203rd
2010 Justin Braun Drafted 2007 7th round 201rst
2010 Logan Couture Drafted 2007 1rst round 9th
2010 Andrew Desjardins Undrafted Signed 2008
2010 Jamie McGinn Drafted 2006 2nd round 36th
2010 Nick Bonino Drafted 2007 6th round 173rd
2011 Tommy Wingels Drafted 2008 6th round 177th
2012 Charlie Coyle Drafted 2010 1rst round 28th
2012 Matt Irwin Undrafted 


Last edited by Led Zappa: 05-10-2013 at 08:51 PM.
Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 08:32 PM
  #113
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
I'll just put this here since I've done it. This is everybody still playing (except goalies) drafted starting with Marleau. If I've missed somebody please let me know, so I can update my copy.
Forgot Samuelsson, Ehrhoff, and Coyle.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 08:35 PM
  #114
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
Forgot Samuelsson, Ehrhoff, and Coyle.
Thanks! I'll update it.

What is Samuelsson's first name?

Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 08:36 PM
  #115
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
Thanks! I'll update it.

What is Samuelsson's first name?
Mikael.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 08:52 PM
  #116
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
Mikael.
Done.

Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 09:51 PM
  #117
MarleauApologist
fun must be alwalys
 
MarleauApologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,361
vCash: 500
Oh wow, never knew Sammy was a Sharks draft pick.

MarleauApologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 10:21 PM
  #118
CupfortheSharks
Registered User
 
CupfortheSharks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
It's a fallacy to believe that just because one doesn't get paid for their knowledge on a certain subject that it means their knowledge isn't up to par with those that do.
You are right. It really comes down to knowledge and experience. If you haven't logged a massive amount of hours in and around hockey rinks, playing, coaching and scouting...and haven't been part of the inner workings of an NHL franchise and understand all the things that go on behind the scenes...then you don't REALLY know what's the best thing to do.

I have a 15 year old son. We get into discussions where he tells me how the world is and how it should be. He is smart and can put together solid reasoning to support his views. Sometimes he nails it and sometimes he misses completely because he doesn't have enough experience and the wisdom that comes from it.

I look at us second guessing DW as the same thing. Most of us lack the depth of hockey knowledge that is required to work for an NHL team. We also don't really know whats going on out of the public eye. So, at best, our conclusions are based on assumptions. At worst, they just plain know more about hockey than we do.

CupfortheSharks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 10:24 PM
  #119
CupfortheSharks
Registered User
 
CupfortheSharks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I would still have the Sharks in the top 15. When I did my thing, there were 15 teams that were bad and not comparable.
When you did your thing. Who were the top 5 teams??

CupfortheSharks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 10:31 PM
  #120
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
It's a fallacy to believe that just because one doesn't get paid for their knowledge on a certain subject that it means their knowledge isn't up to par with those that do.
But in this case it's not... I have yet to read a single opinion from this group of DW haters that passes the smell test...

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 10:33 PM
  #121
SonomaShark
The sidebar is suck
 
SonomaShark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,130
vCash: 50
13 of those 26 draftees played for the Sharks this season.

SonomaShark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:29 PM
  #122
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,051
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
But in this case it's not... I have yet to read a single opinion from this group of DW haters that passes the smell test...
I'm sure plenty consider me a DW hater. I'm not. I recognize his success is better than a great deal than most. His one blemish as a GM is that lack of a Cup. Right now, he is the St. Louis Blues of old. Lots of very good teams but no Cup and thus not anywhere near as much credit as he ought to for what he's done. All I hate about the guy is there are known and consistent weaknesses to his management and very little has changed with these issues during his time.

I also don't agree with the thought that just because we may not know as fans who would be better that it means there isn't someone that could be. Front office personnel are a lot more anonymous than players so they're much more difficult to judge. GM's and coaches are easy. They're based on results. Potential replacements, especially if you're looking for something new and not a retread, is much more difficult when most don't have actual job experience as a GM.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 01:16 AM
  #123
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupfortheSharks View Post
You are right. It really comes down to knowledge and experience. If you haven't logged a massive amount of hours in and around hockey rinks, playing, coaching and scouting...and haven't been part of the inner workings of an NHL franchise and understand all the things that go on behind the scenes...then you don't REALLY know what's the best thing to do.

I have a 15 year old son. We get into discussions where he tells me how the world is and how it should be. He is smart and can put together solid reasoning to support his views. Sometimes he nails it and sometimes he misses completely because he doesn't have enough experience and the wisdom that comes from it.

I look at us second guessing DW as the same thing. Most of us lack the depth of hockey knowledge that is required to work for an NHL team. We also don't really know whats going on out of the public eye. So, at best, our conclusions are based on assumptions. At worst, they just plain know more about hockey than we do.
A fantastic analogy that could only come from the parent of a 15-year-old.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 01:35 AM
  #124
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
@easy

Your formula makes my head hurt.

I'll just put this here since I've done it. This is everybody still playing (except goalies) drafted starting with Marleau. If I've missed somebody please let me know, so I can update my copy.
Just like the thought of redoing my spreadsheet makes mine hurt. The formulas connecting the data to the ratings are busted. Figure over 60 hours to fix. I would rather have a fresh go at it with better premises/formulas. There are a lot of premises such as benchmarks for level of play and equates for dmen and forwards. Personally, I equate first pair dmen to first line forwards, 2nd pairing to second line and third pairing falling between 3rd and 4th line forwards. I would have to add to my previous study as it only included drafted players (no signed players).

I would count everyone on opening day rosters. I wouldn't count McLaren unless he shows up on the Leafs roster on opening day next season. The Sharks are still over 23, but they gained with Bonino, Irwin and McLaren (in your assessment) going full time. You could also use 21 instead of 23 if you wanted to eliminate goalies altogether. I got my 23 count last year. Eliminating goalies makes it far easier. I would count players drafted before 97 (eg Whitney for the Sharks) as some are still playing and the 21/23 average depends on counting all players in the league on opening day. This counting method is the simplest for measuring team efficacy in drafting/development.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 02:05 AM
  #125
CupfortheSharks
Registered User
 
CupfortheSharks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,102
vCash: 500
Not cool


Last edited by CupfortheSharks: 05-11-2013 at 09:11 AM. Reason: I was drunk last night when I posted it
CupfortheSharks is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 02:52 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.