HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Pittsburgh Penguins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Top 10 Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-07-2012, 05:47 PM
  #26
#66
Registered User
 
#66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 10,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHWR View Post
That didn't take long...the old "have you even seen him play argument". Yeah...I've seen him play...a lot actually. He's a guy that benefitted immensely by playing with a much better partner, Joe Morrow. Pouliot has some real nice upside, but his deficiencies are a concern to me, especially for a guy who was a top 10 pick.

It didn't sound like you liked my 200 games parameter. So what constitutes a prospect becoming an NHL regular? To me, if you play +200 games, you've got close to 3 seasons so you're good...you play regularly.

I treat prospects like statistics because there is empirical data to support their success rates. There was a really good paper I read awhile ago that tracked the success rate of prospects drafted from 1990-99. It's interesting stuff and confirms a lot of what you might already think. I'll try and dig it up if I can.

It's funny because most of these prospects haven't even played a professional game, yet you're pretty sure they, along with most of our top end pro prospects, will play a significant yet to be determined number of games in the NHL. I've been around prospects long enough to know for every 5 or 10 guys that look like players one season, maybe 1 maxes out and duplicates that success in the NHL.

It's awesome you like our prospect this much, but you're hoping against hope on this one. There's no way we produce 7 NHL defensemen from this crop...it just doesn't ever happen. Even 3-4 would be a stretch to be honest.

So I'm dying to know. How many players in this top 10 become NHL regulars according to you? Please try not to have the percentage too laughably high.
I would love to see that and thanks for at least trying.

Is it a paper that come out during the past 10 years because drafting is so much different now?

#66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 06:29 PM
  #27
Ominous Grey
Registered User
 
Ominous Grey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 2,992
vCash: 500
I think a lot about these rankings is up to interpretation.

So, I will put my top-4 "sure things". This is not in any way indicative of skill-level or readiness. I just am the most confident (personally) about these four panning out and making an impact.

Morrow, Dumoulin, Maatta, Kuhnhackl.

Ominous Grey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 06:54 PM
  #28
Crafton
Liver-Eating Johnson
 
Crafton's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,510
vCash: 50
i'm kind of tired of trade-forum posters referring to all six guys with top four upside as blue-chip prospects and then getting blasted for it. it's a dumb term anyways and even if they are all really good prospects they aren't in the same category as the likes of Tarasenko/Granlund.

i'm excited to see our future parings:
Kris Letang - Marc-Edouard Vlasic
Duncan Keith - Keith Seabrook
Teppo Numminen - Brian Campbell
Dan Girardi

bonus points for matching the prospect with the wildest-dreams comparison

Crafton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 06:58 PM
  #29
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
You Suck McBain!
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 42,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHWR View Post
Yeah...that won't happen. Especially given than ~80% of our top 10 play the same position.

This is what I was talking about before. You're overrating out prospects like most posters do. Sure, 1st round picks have a higher success rate at cracking the NHL but the lower they get picked in the first, their chances for success drop significantly.

On average, roughly half of the players selected in the first round don't make it to 200 career games played. We've got 5 first rounders in our top 10 so historical data suggest half of them won't become NHL regulars. So in all likelihood 2-3 of our first rounders will fizzle out, and I think that Bennett and Pouliot are the front runners. Hence why my list ranks Morrow, Despres and Maatta in my top 3 then Pouliot and Bennett next followed by the next wave of prospects.

Could all 5 first rounders become NHL players? Sure, but it's not very likely to happen and there's even less of a chance that guys like Harrington and Dumoulin and Tangradi crack the roster for any extended period of time.

It's a numbers game. Always has been. So I wouldn't get my hopes up to see too many of the guys play for the Pens.
You can't really look at the numbers in a vacuum though.

In the voting board results, 8 of our Top 10 prospects are defensemen. Whatever anyone wants to say about our drafting and development, nobody would deny that we have a knack for producing NHL blueliners. I wouldn't be surprised if neither of our forward prospects made it, but all of our defense prospects will start off in arguably the best PMD factory in the league, and that gives them a leg up.

Also, Despres, Morrow, Strait, and Bortuzzo have already seen NHL action in some capacity, and each has looked anywhere from solid to very impressive, something that I don't think a look of teams can boast about their blueline pools. The international and club success of Maatta, Harrington, and Dumoulin would seem to bolster their chances, and Pouliot's a top 10 pick, and I'm sure the bust ratio on top 10 picks is lower than other 1st rounders.

I'm not saying all of the defensemen will become full-time NHLers, but suggesting that 6 out of those 8 would doesn't seem unreasonable to me, all things considered.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 07:32 PM
  #30
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,493
vCash: 500
This thread needs more Macaroni.

Darth Vitale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 07:34 PM
  #31
mrzeigler
Geno and Juss '13
 
mrzeigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 3,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHWR View Post
That didn't take long...the old "have you even seen him play argument". Yeah...I've seen him play...a lot actually. He's a guy that benefitted immensely by playing with a much better partner, Joe Morrow. Pouliot has some real nice upside, but his deficiencies are a concern to me, especially for a guy who was a top 10 pick.

It didn't sound like you liked my 200 games parameter. So what constitutes a prospect becoming an NHL regular? To me, if you play +200 games, you've got close to 3 seasons so you're good...you play regularly.

I treat prospects like statistics because there is empirical data to support their success rates. There was a really good paper I read awhile ago that tracked the success rate of prospects drafted from 1990-99. It's interesting stuff and confirms a lot of what you might already think. I'll try and dig it up if I can.

It's funny because most of these prospects haven't even played a professional game, yet you're pretty sure they, along with most of our top end pro prospects, will play a significant yet to be determined number of games in the NHL. I've been around prospects long enough to know for every 5 or 10 guys that look like players one season, maybe 1 maxes out and duplicates that success in the NHL.

It's awesome you like our prospect this much, but you're hoping against hope on this one. There's no way we produce 7 NHL defensemen from this crop...it just doesn't ever happen. Even 3-4 would be a stretch to be honest.

So I'm dying to know. How many players in this top 10 become NHL regulars according to you? Please try not to have the percentage too laughably high.
I can get crazy slicing and dicing and digging into numbers and averages, so I definitely know where you're coming from. But macro trends don't necessarily translate to micro scenarios ... not every top-10 prospect list of every team every year is going to track with league-wide 10-year averages. I haven't seen enough of this group to say if these guys are likely to be above average, below average or right on par with the historic average of that study, but I would be very interested to see what the outer edges of the bell curve are for the averages you're talking about and then hear where informed people project this group on that curve.

Also, I won't discount the possibility that league-wide changes in scouting technology/draft philosophy would change the 10-year percentages that the 1990s produced.

Another thing to consider is that not every player who doesn't reach 200 NHL games played comes up short because of personal failure. Injury can end or diminish a career, but a player whose career is ended/diminished because of injury should not, in hindsight, be considered to have been lesser of a prospect ... even though they never reached 200 NHL games, Michele Briere and Luc Bourdon, with hindsight, weren't any less-legit, less-NHL-likely prospects when drafted .... So I wouldn't be so rigid in sticking to averages that use a criterion (games played) that could be undercut by a factor (randomness of injury) that doesn't play a role in evaluating talent or projecting success ... While there's the temptation to counter with the myth of fragile players not being cut out for NHL careers, a numbers guy will know that players who are perceived to be injury prone (such as Gaborik prior to three years ago) or guy with a knack for not being injured (Jordan Stall during his first four years or so) are byproducts of averages, as well.

I have no problem agreeing with IHWR's view when projecting a league-wide cohort or, say, a decade of my team's drafts, but I also wouldn't rule out the likelihood of most of a group of 10 NHL prospects going on to have productive NHL careers.


Last edited by mrzeigler: 08-08-2012 at 09:39 AM. Reason: tidying up a few things
mrzeigler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 10:03 PM
  #32
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Magnifique 66 View Post
As I said before, when the trade happened I was sure 110% Shero was going to take Forsberg since he had slipped and was still on the board, anyways we won't know until a few years but let's just hope it all turns out well for us
I was so ****in happy for about 3 min after that Minny took Dumba because that meant we'd get Fors. When Shero picked DP I literally yelled at my TV.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 10:24 PM
  #33
End of Line
Moderator
Human After All
 
End of Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 19,527
vCash: 500
1a. Simon Despres
1b. Joe Morrow
3. Brian Dumoulin
4. Derrick Pouliot
5. Beau Bennet
6. Olli Maatta
7. Scott Harrington
8. Eric Tangradi
9. Das Kuhn
10. Teddy Bluegger

__________________

"I don't know what the stronger emotion would be, the joy of winning or the pain of losing"-Sidney Crosby.
End of Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 10:24 PM
  #34
jmelm
HFBoards Sponsor
 
jmelm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,419
vCash: 500
1. Morrow
2. Pouliot
3. Dumoulin
4. Harrington
5. Bennett
6. Despres
7. Maatta (and I only have Despres over Maatta because of NHL readiness, since I believe Maatta has the higher ceiling).


The reason why I have Despres ranked so low (and lower than most) is because I'm not convinced he has legit top-pairing potential.

jmelm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2012, 11:36 PM
  #35
zero8771
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHWR View Post
That didn't take long...the old "have you even seen him play argument". Yeah...I've seen him play...a lot actually. He's a guy that benefitted immensely by playing with a much better partner, Joe Morrow. Pouliot has some real nice upside, but his deficiencies are a concern to me, especially for a guy who was a top 10 pick.

It didn't sound like you liked my 200 games parameter. So what constitutes a prospect becoming an NHL regular? To me, if you play +200 games, you've got close to 3 seasons so you're good...you play regularly.

I treat prospects like statistics because there is empirical data to support their success rates. There was a really good paper I read awhile ago that tracked the success rate of prospects drafted from 1990-99. It's interesting stuff and confirms a lot of what you might already think. I'll try and dig it up if I can.

It's funny because most of these prospects haven't even played a professional game, yet you're pretty sure they, along with most of our top end pro prospects, will play a significant yet to be determined number of games in the NHL. I've been around prospects long enough to know for every 5 or 10 guys that look like players one season, maybe 1 maxes out and duplicates that success in the NHL.

It's awesome you like our prospect this much, but you're hoping against hope on this one. There's no way we produce 7 NHL defensemen from this crop...it just doesn't ever happen. Even 3-4 would be a stretch to be honest.

So I'm dying to know. How many players in this top 10 become NHL regulars according to you? Please try not to have the percentage too laughably high.
I think 7-8 will be come NHl regulars. You like to quote statistics sayings "on average this many players make the pros", well ya they do. But then you should also know there is a distribution. Considering the majority of our top 10 are first round picks or already #6 and #7 defensemen, we should fall at the top end of this distribution. Combine that with the fact we are considered to have one of the stongest set of defensive prospects if not the strongest, we should be at the top end of the distribution. For every system like Phillys who has 1-2 that will make it, there are some that should have 8-9.

I think 7-8 of our prospects will be NHL'ers barring injury

zero8771 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 12:04 AM
  #36
HandshakeLine
is probso trolling u
 
HandshakeLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 18,076
vCash: 500
IHWR, I'd be interested in seeing that paper too. I don't suppose you could give us a quick-and-dirty of its precis? What's the methodology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
I was so ****in happy for about 3 min after that Minny took Dumba because that meant we'd get Fors. When Shero picked DP I literally yelled at my TV.
Really. You don't say.

HandshakeLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 12:15 AM
  #37
Mr. T
Registered User
 
Mr. T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoGuins8711 View Post
I thought Pouliot was paired with Rutkowski most of the season?
Correct. Portland mixed it up a lot early in the season with their defense pairings, but he wasn't a regular partner of Morrow.

Mr. T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 12:29 AM
  #38
#66
Registered User
 
#66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 10,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmelm View Post
1. Morrow
2. Pouliot
3. Dumoulin
4. Harrington
5. Bennett
6. Despres
7. Maatta (and I only have Despres over Maatta because of NHL readiness, since I believe Maatta has the higher ceiling).


The reason why I have Despres ranked so low (and lower than most) is because I'm not convinced he has legit top-pairing potential.
IMO Despres is a strange kind of player. He's kind of like a mix of Paul Martin and Orpik. A big mobile defensive defenseman that has the skating ability to jump into plays. He can make a good outlet pass but I don't see him being a big point producer.

The reason why I drop him to #4 is because I think he runs around to much and makes some bone head give aways. I don't think he's as NHL ready as people think.

#66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 07:34 AM
  #39
JTG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Sierra Leone
Posts: 38,679
vCash: 500
I don't think he is either. Until he's pulling what Alex Goligoski and Kris Letang were doing in the AHL, I'd keep him there. Those two were CLEARLY playing at a level that was well below them.

JTG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 09:07 AM
  #40
IHWR
The Chiropractor
 
IHWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandshakeLine View Post
IHWR, I'd be interested in seeing that paper too. I don't suppose you could give us a quick-and-dirty of its precis? What's the methodology?
Basically they tracked every prospect drafted from 1990 to 1999...my numbers may be off because I'm going by memory but something like 2,500+ players we drafted and roughly 500 had played more than 200 career NHL games. Of those 500, just over 150 were selected in the first round. It works out to about a 60% chance of a first round pick playing more than 200 games. For players drafted in the second round the success rate dropped to about 25% and for every other round it's somewhere between 10-12%.

The paper I read, I can't even remember if it was a hard copy to be honest, wasn't anything mind blowing. It was basically just a collection of data over a decade to help identify trends. Some years were obviously better than others (1993 comes to mind).

If people want to straight up ignore numbers like these that's fine, anomalies definitely happen. Take Nashville for example, they've developed a boatload of NHL defensemen in the past 5-7 years. Take at look at their top 10 prospects in 2006:

1. Ryan Suter, D - 2003 1st round, 7th overall
2. Shea Weber, D - 2003 2nd round, 49th overall
3. Scottie Upshall, RW - 2002 1st round, 6th overall
4. Alexander Radulov, RW - 2004 1st round, 15th overall
5. Pekka Rinne, G - 2004 8th round, 258th overall
6. Ryan Parent, D - 2005 1st round, 18th overall
7. Kevin Klein, D - 2003 2nd round, 37th overall
8. Konstantin Glazachev, LW - 2003 2nd round, 35th overall
9. Teemu Laakso, D - 2005 3rd round, 78th overall
10. John Vigilante, F - FA signing

That's a pretty sick list that has developed some real star players for their franchise. On that list we have 4 first rounders, 3 second rounders and 3 others (a 3rd, a brilliant 8th and an FA signing) that consist of 5 defensemen, 4 forwards and 1 goalie.

Five players on that list have played 200 NHL games so far. 2 of those were first rounders (50% success rate), 2 of those were second rounders (66% success rate) and 1 of them falls into the "other" category (33% success rate). This is one of the more successful top 10 lists that I've come across and it yielded a 50% success rate by developing 5 NHL regulars. Now, the players it did produce (Suter, Weber, Upshall, Rinne and Klein), 3 are legit star players while the other two are probably slotted in as role players or supporting depth guys.

Anyone wanna guess why I picked to look at the 2006 Preds Top 10 list on HF? Ray-Ray was assistant GM while all these players were drafted/acquired.

People just seem to have really bought in to the Pens strategy in the early rounds (BCDA - Best CHL Defensemen Available) and I agree, they've bagged some good prospects in the past 4 years. But while you're watching and judging these prospects based on their play, keep in mind that they're still prospects and could bust out at any moment with no rhyme or reason. Ryan Parent was a mid first round pick and was praised in the same breath as Suter and Weber. He managed to play 22 games in the AHL last season and was subsequently loaned to Canada to play in the Spengler. It just happens sometimes and could easily become the fate of any player on our list.

IHWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 09:12 AM
  #41
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 32,583
vCash: 500
the thing with those kind of stats is they are only really useful when looking at the 2500 type numbers. They are all but meaningless when looking at a sample of 10 players. Not saying every one will turn into an NHL regular, but those stats don't tell me they won't. Especially when you consider the fact that 5 of the guys in our top 10 list are considered close to NHL ready. Most of those busts from your report probably never even got to that point. Again, I'm not saying all 5 of them will make it. But the stats you are giving are almost completely useless when judging individuals who have already done more than the averages say they should. If someone did a similar study with players who are considered as close to NHL ready as Despres is right now I bet the numbers come out differently.


Last edited by Ogrezilla: 08-08-2012 at 09:20 AM.
Ogrezilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 09:52 AM
  #42
IHWR
The Chiropractor
 
IHWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogrezilla View Post
the thing with those kind of stats is they are only really useful when looking at the 2500 type numbers. They are all but meaningless when looking at a sample of 10 players. Not saying every one will turn into an NHL regular, but those stats don't tell me they won't. Especially when you consider the fact that 5 of the guys in our top 10 list are considered close to NHL ready. Most of those busts from your report probably never even got to that point. Again, I'm not saying all 5 of them will make it. But the stats you are giving are almost completely useless when judging individuals who have already done more than the averages say they should. If someone did a similar study with players who are considered as close to NHL ready as Despres is right now I bet the numbers come out differently.
You're blending two lines of thinking though. Despres's "NHL readiness" wouldn't be factored in to anything besides his own success. So if you'd like to think he has a better chance of becoming a regular NHL player because of this then that's fine. Like I said, I think 3 players (up to 4 or 5 is also entirely possible) will be NHL regulars and I agreed that Despres is one of the more likely candidates based on his development so far. I never said no one will amount to anything.

The other side of the argument tracks players from when they are drafted, not two or three years after the fact. You don't need to insert things like development when judging a group on the whole if you use a long enough timeline because those things get filtered out anyways.

Think of it this way and I'll concede a point in the process...let's say Despres's development and play so far increases his probability for success. Being a first rounder his 60% chance of success based on historical data could rise to 75% or 80% or whatever (there's no tangible way to calculate the increase so I'm just using these numbers to illustrate a point). Is it possible to assume that there might be another prospect from the first round of the 2009 draft who's probability for success could have decreased by the same amount based on lack of development? Or even in house, is it possible to say that other Pens prospects could be moving in the opposite direction on the spectrum? For sure...it will always start to balance out. Good drafting definitely plays a factor in things though...but that's all hindsight. Remember when Noah Welch was NHL ready?

This has resulted in more of an exercise in managing expectations. If people on these boards expect to see 7-8 NHL players develop out of this group, they will likely be very disappointed. Understanding the success rate of prospects is something that posters on here typically aren't good at so when I see people blowing their butts at how many players we're sure to develop out of this group it just frustrates me.

IHWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 10:19 AM
  #43
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 32,583
vCash: 500
my point was that Despres having a higher than normal chance to become an NHL regular in no way shape or form has any effect on any other player anywhere. I'm sure the averages work out how you are saying when you have 2500 players like the study you looked at. But those averages are 100% meaningless when scaling down to a 10 player sample size. So yes, I will choose to ignore them because they are not worth using.

Do I think they will all pan out? No. I honestly don't have any clue who will. But I do know that the numbers you are using doesn't actually support anything on this scale.

Having half of our top 10 prospects being on that cusp of making the NHL -- where their chance of succeeding is surely higher than the averages you are giving -- gives our group a higher chance than average. If Bortuzzo or Tangradi or Despres stick in the NHL this year, the other guys in our prospect pool shouldn't start worrying because statistics say their chance of making the NHL just dropped.


Last edited by Ogrezilla: 08-08-2012 at 10:37 AM.
Ogrezilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 10:27 AM
  #44
Shady Machine
Registered User
 
Shady Machine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,401
vCash: 500
Good points IHWR. But, let's look at it this way. If you were to look at Strait and Bortuzzo when they were drafted and said "gee their likelihood of making it to the NHL is 12%" then yeah it's absurd to say we could have 7 NHL regulars out of this list. But, we are several years later and they, unlike many of our other draft picks in similar rounds in recent years, are close to NHL ready and will likely gain some role on an NHL team in the near future. Will they hit the 200 game threshold? I'm not sure, but your analysis needs to be done on "10 best prospects that were just drafted".

So what we are looking at is the best from the 2nd and 3rd rounds (aka the 10-12% or close to) and 1st rounders (with a 60% success rate).

Considering that, we have 1st rounders:
Despres
Morrow
Maatta
Bennett
Pouliot

So 60% of that would be 3. One of those is close to NHL ready as it is so I'd say that's a pretty reasonable estimate.

Then we have 2 second rounders in Dumoulin and Harrington. Dumoulin is considered close to NHL ready and Harrington has performed very well and been somewhat of a surprise but I'll say one of these 2 make it. So now we are at 4.

Then take into account Tangradi has already played 43 games and is still a prospect so he is likely to hit that 200 mark. I'll also take one of Strait and Bort.

That brings the total to 6, which I think in this case is very reasonable and potentially conservative. Injuries can play a role in this, but we can't possibly know how that will play out so it's not really worth discussing. Id be interested to know how many of that 2500 drafted had careers seriously hampered by injury because that would shed more light on the discussion.

Looking at the statistical trends is important, but it doesn't tell the whole picture. On the surface saying "6-7 out of these 10 players will make the NHL" seems really optimistic given where they were drafted. But when you break it down with the year they were drafted, how far along some are in their development, etc. it is totally reasonable.

Shady Machine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 10:35 AM
  #45
zero8771
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHWR View Post
If people want to straight up ignore numbers like these that's fine, anomalies definitely happen.
Again. You are using statistics to prove your point and you don't seem to understand them.

1. A sample size of 10 is incredibly small compared to the 2500 in the study, small enough sample size that I'm betting with the standard deviation it makes these numbers useless

2. The study you are quoting is completely irrelevant. Two completely different types of data. You are comparing the success of EVERY PLAYER DRAFTED (9 rounds too back then) VS a teams accumulated top 10 prospects. Do you not see how your statistics have absolutely zero to do with how many of our top 10 should make it? In fact in a club with over 40 prospects, you basically SUPPORT that all of our top 10prospects should be NHL regulars

3. 30-40% success rate ON AVERAGE means very little, you need to consider standard deviation and variance

4. 9 rounds drafted vs 7 rounds drafted (+2 more teams) means thats the success rate should increase

Honestly #2 is the big one. Completely apples to oranges. Quit using irrelevant, vague, and unreferenced statistics to project our top 10. If you have opinions on the players go ahead, but at this point your statistics mean next to nothing

zero8771 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 10:40 AM
  #46
Le Magnifique 66
Let's Go Pens
 
Le Magnifique 66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
I was so ****in happy for about 3 min after that Minny took Dumba because that meant we'd get Fors. When Shero picked DP I literally yelled at my TV.
It seemed logical since we lacked that forward and we had just traded Staal. We will have to wait and see, i'll give Shero the benefit of the doubt but I hope he didn't screw this up

Le Magnifique 66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 10:41 AM
  #47
zero8771
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHWR View Post
It works out to about a 60% chance of a first round pick playing more than 200 games. For players drafted in the second round the success rate dropped to about 25% and for every other round it's somewhere between 10-12%.
This just reinforces why you cant even come close to applying the average of 2500 players(1/9th of them first round, 1/9th second round, etc) making it, to a teams top 10 prospects.

zero8771 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 10:48 AM
  #48
IHWR
The Chiropractor
 
IHWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogrezilla View Post
my point was that Despres having a higher than normal chance to become an NHL regular in no way shape or form has any effect on any other player anywhere. I'm sure the averages work out how you are saying when you have 2500 players like the study you looked at. But those averages are 100% meaningless when scaling down to a 10 player sample size.
Well then find me some examples that show otherwise. Show me a top 10 list generated by Hockey's Future or as voted by some of the boards here or produced by someone that graduated 70-80% of their players to the NHL. I've looked and they don't exist without multiple top 3 picks being included and even then they aren't as successful as you'd think.

Here's the Pens from 2005:

1. Sidney Crosby
2. Evgeni Malkin
3. Marc-Andre Fleury
4. Ryan Whitney
5. Noah Welch
6. Maxime Talbot
7. Colby Armstrong
8. Johannes Salmonsson
9. Sergei Anshakov
10. Andy Chiodo

That lists contains 3 players selected in the top 2 of their respective drafts, 4 in the top 5 and 5 first rounders in total. This list produced 6 players.

Here's Chicago in 2007:

1. Jonathan Toews
2. Patrick Kane
3. Cam Barker
4. Troy Brouwer
5. Jack Skille
6. Dustin Byfuglien
7. Dave Bolland
8. Danny Richmond
9. Evan Brophey
10. Igor Makarov

3 top 3 picks, this list pumped out 6 NHL players so far with Skille on track to crack 200 possibly 8 years after being drafted.

I'm literally just pulling from teams that had a bevy of high draft picks in a row, which our list doesn't have.

But yeah...maybe I'm wrong this time. It could happen that we absolutely hit one out of the park with these 10 and nearly all of them go on to have careers in the NHL. It just happens so little that odds are that isn't the case. It doesn't mean you can't still enjoy our prospects or have your favorites or whatever. I'm just speaking for the other side on this one and trying to show that people here might be letting their excitement about our prospects breed unrealistic expectations.

Believe me, as a Pens fan, I'd love to see all these guys crack the lineup and contribute.

IHWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 10:52 AM
  #49
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,459
vCash: 500
My top five:

Morrow
DP
Despres
Tangradi
Harrington

This is based on talent and likelihood to play in the NHL.

I am excluding Dumoulin because I haven't seen him play, so obviously I can't rank him.

Morrow is easily the best prospect and there isn't much left to say about him that I haven't already said. He does it all and has no real weaknesses that worry me. All that he needs is time to learn the system.

DP is a young kid that has the most overall talent of any of the Pens prospects. He is really young and I believe by the time he hits 20, people will be drolling over him.

Despres is an exceptional skater for his size and if he develops the mental side of his game, he can be a very good #2.

Tangradi is this teams #1 fwd prospect, not BB. He has size, skill, a resilient attitude and a very good work ethic.

Harrington is easily the most heady player of the lot and his sound positional play and calm demeanor under pressure has all the makings of a quiet, highly effective #4.

Maatta has a plethora of talent, but he makes some bone headed decisions and his skating is awkward. I have to see how he performs in a bigger role this season before I feel comfortable thinking he will be a legit NHLer.

BB also has a lot of skill, but people ranking him ahead of Tangradi just see him as the shiny new toy IMHO. He has some real skating issues that need worked out, as I have said time and again. Can he fix these issues? Maybe... But I am severly concerned about his skating. Until I see him thrive, not in the A, but in the NHL, his skating will always worry me. Basically he may not be cut out for the NHL because of skating issues, not skill.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-08-2012, 10:58 AM
  #50
IHWR
The Chiropractor
 
IHWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by boardin087 View Post
Again. You are using statistics to prove your point and you don't seem to understand them.

1. A sample size of 10 is incredibly small compared to the 2500 in the study, small enough sample size that I'm betting with the standard deviation it makes these numbers useless

2. The study you are quoting is completely irrelevant. Two completely different types of data. You are comparing the success of EVERY PLAYER DRAFTED (9 rounds too back then) VS a teams accumulated top 10 prospects. Do you not see how your statistics have absolutely zero to do with how many of our top 10 should make it? In fact in a club with over 40 prospects, you basically SUPPORT that all of our top 10prospects should be NHL regulars

3. 30-40% success rate ON AVERAGE means very little, you need to consider standard deviation and variance

4. 9 rounds drafted vs 7 rounds drafted (+2 more teams) means thats the success rate should increase

Honestly #2 is the big one. Completely apples to oranges. Quit using irrelevant, vague, and unreferenced statistics to project our top 10. If you have opinions on the players go ahead, but at this point your statistics mean next to nothing
Fantastic. Then show me a team that's produced NHL players from their top prospects at an 80% clip then.

I'm completely aware of the difference between the group and the few. But the fact remains, those numbers come very close to holding true because every team's list of the few prospects is made up of the group. So yeah, it'll vary from team to team slightly and yeah focusing on the top 10 should do nothing more than increase those odds slightly, but there are so few instances where the 70-80% success rate that you're crossing your fingers for here exists. You obviously don't enjoy my theory on graduating prospects because it conflicts with your beliefs on this current group. I admitted...yeah...anomalies happen all the time when dealing with intangible parameters and maybe this is the case here. I'm just using the very limited research available to formulate my thoughts on prospects I've watched play and everything is telling me this list isn't as special as people think.

Or let's just do this. Bump this thread in 3 or 5 years or whatever and tell me how wrong I am then.

IHWR 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 11:04 AM.

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.