HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

*HF Story* Kings NEW Top 20 Prospect Rankings

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-01-2005, 04:53 PM
  #51
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
The 1999 draft was bad. Not 1996 bad but bad nonetheless. You know it's bad when you're using a player like Commodore as an example of one of the best picks after number 18 (you'd be better off using players like Zetterberg, Malone, and Erat).
I didn't say this but when I compare Karlsson I compare him to guys who might possibly have been picked instead of him. Talking about Zetterberg instead is fine but it's unrealistic to think that the Kings (or any team) may actually have picked him there. It may have been a good pick, but just about the only GM with the nads to make those kinds of off the board picks is Lamoriello...and his record with those kinds of picks in the FIRST round hasn't been very good.

Quote:
The 2000 draft had little depth. Here are the results of the 2000 draft re-do for picks 21-40. Link
Agreed. But there isn't anyone from the 2001 draft who has had the impact of the 2000 picks I mentioned. Having a plethora of mediocrity (2001 draft) is not very impressive IMO and is probably less impressive than alot of nobodies and a few studs (2000).

Quote:
The 2001 draft has a lot of good prospects. They may not have had an impact yet, but they have not had the development time that the 1999 or 2000 picks have had. The 2001 draftees have only had three years in which they could have made an impact on their NHL team. Apply the same standards to the 1999 and 2000 drafts and none of Commodore, Leopold, Hale, or Martin make any impact of their NHL team (within three years of their draft). If you use Boynton's original draft year (1997), he doesn't make an impact either.
Agreed. And that's why I say it's too early to say the 2001 draft was better. RIGHT NOW, it's definitely not better IMO. And it sounds like you're saying that it's better based only on the potential of guys who simply haven't failed (or succeeded) yet. IMO, that's not a basis for saying 2001 was better.....not until those prospects have actually accomplished something.

Quote:
The 2001 draft has a lot of players drafted after 18 that could be making an impact: Morrison, Gleason, Perezhogin, Tyutin, Cammalleri, Spiller (and if we're using Sutherby's 11 points in 71 game season or Pettinger's 12 ponts in 71 game as the basis for making an impact, then some of these 2001 players already have made impacts). More very solid prospects like Roy, Grigorenko, Armstrong, Goc, Ehrhoff. And overagers like Zidlicky, Cajanek, Nurminen, Huet, Gerber, and Markkanen have already helped their clubs.
Agreed. They might be...could be...may be. But they haven't. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think the 2001 draft will ultimately prove to be better or worse than 1999, 2000 or 2002. But as of RIGHT NOW, it hasn't been.

But IMO the real argument (when discussing the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the Karlsson pick) isn't whether the overall draft was good or bad...deep or shallow. It's whether there was another player who the Kings REALISTICALLY should have chosen at that spot. For example I think it would be silly to argue that the Kings should have chosen Zidlicky with that pick...even if he turns out to be the best player taken at #18 or after. Why? Because he simply isn't the TYPE of player you use the #18 pick on. At least a successful GM wouldn't do that.

Having said that, in retrospect it's probably a foregone conclusion that Gleason and Morrisonn were probably the best options with that pick. But they had plenty of risk too so I have no complaints with the Karlsson pick. Furthermore, I think the fact that Lamoriello passed over most everyone we talk about in favor of a SERIOUS longshot in Foster is pretty good evidence that none of them were that highly thought of.

jt is offline  
Old
09-01-2005, 05:16 PM
  #52
Sam
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
I didn't say this but when I compare Karlsson I compare him to guys who might possibly have been picked instead of him. Talking about Zetterberg instead is fine but it's unrealistic to think that the Kings (or any team) may actually have picked him there. It may have been a good pick, but just about the only GM with the nads to make those kinds of off the board picks is Lamoriello...and his record with those kinds of picks in the FIRST round hasn't been very good.

. . . . . . . .

But IMO the real argument (when discussing the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the Karlsson pick) isn't whether the overall draft was good or bad...deep or shallow. It's whether there was another player who the Kings REALISTICALLY should have chosen at that spot. For example I think it would be silly to argue that the Kings should have chosen Zidlicky with that pick...even if he turns out to be the best player taken at #18 or after. Why? Because he simply isn't the TYPE of player you use the #18 pick on. At least a successful GM wouldn't do that.

Having said that, in retrospect it's probably a foregone conclusion that Gleason and Morrisonn were probably the best options with that pick. But they had plenty of risk too so I have no complaints with the Karlsson pick. Furthermore, I think the fact that Lamoriello passed over most everyone we talk about in favor of a SERIOUS longshot in Foster is pretty good evidence that none of them were that highly thought of.
I agree that it's too early to tell on a lot of the 2001 picks, but it is generally regarded as the best draft from 1999-2002 (if you want to put out a poll on the polls and petition board, go right ahead). I wasn't arguing that the Kings should have taken Zidlicky in the first round of 2001 or Zetterberg high in 1999 but rather mentioning picks after 18 that turned out to have an impact. The main problem with the Karlsson pick is, as you say, "whether there was another player who the Kings REALISTICALLY should have chosen at that spot." I'm not going to bother wondering about the "if only the Kings had taken the guy who went 156th overall with their first rounder" but about the guys taken right after the Kings selections. In the case of both Karlsson and Steckel, you'd want four of the next five guys picked over the guy the Kings selected. Morrison, Goc, Armstrong, and Gleason in the case of Karlsson and Spiller, Roy, Shishkanov, and Popovic in the case of Steckel. That is the frustrating part of the Kings 2001 first round.

Sam is online now  
Old
09-01-2005, 05:48 PM
  #53
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
I agree that it's too early to tell on a lot of the 2001 picks, but it is generally regarded as the best draft from 1999-2002 (if you want to put out a poll on the polls and petition board, go right ahead).
It being too early to tell is why I disagree with you when you say it's the better than 1999, 2000 and 2002. And I'm not one who cares much about opinions of evaluating the quality of a draft (good or bad) BEFORE the draftees prove themselves (or not). I still think that RIGHT NOW, 1999 and 2000 are better than 2001. But who knows what another year or two of playing will do for the class of 2001?

Quote:
I wasn't arguing that the Kings should have taken Zidlicky in the first round of 2001 or Zetterberg high in 1999 but rather mentioning picks after 18 that turned out to have an impact. The main problem with the Karlsson pick is, as you say, "whether there was another player who the Kings REALISTICALLY should have chosen at that spot." I'm not going to bother wondering about the "if only the Kings had taken the guy who went 156th overall with their first rounder" but about the guys taken right after the Kings selections. In the case of both Karlsson and Steckel, you'd want four of the next five guys picked over the guy the Kings selected.
I disagree. I think that we're a good two years away from knowing that. If Karlsson came over RIGHT NOW, played very well as a 3rd liner in Manchester for a couple seasons and then went to LA and played on the 3rd line then I think he's a successful pick.

Quote:
Morrison, Goc, Armstrong, and Gleason in the case of Karlsson and Spiller, Roy, Shishkanov, and Popovic in the case of Steckel. That is the frustrating part of the Kings 2001 first round.
Agree about Steckel. CLEARLY and with 20/20 hindsight, ANYONE would have been a better pick. But I do think Steckel was still a solid pick in that he had good upside and you have to take a risk. It's not as if Roy, Shishkanov and Popovic didn't have significant risk.

But I don't agree about Karlsson. Armstrong isn't likely to do much IMO and Goc is VERY MUCH a work in progress. Gleason would obviously have been a better pick and I think a few people thought so at the time. But I also remember reading that there were serious questions about his attitude. I'm just not a Roy fan and I don't think he will be much of an NHLer. Morrisonn we'll have to see about, but I like what he's done so far. I have no problems with the Karlsson pick, as I think that given the choices at the time EVERY player available had some pretty significant risk. It just so happens that some of them look like they'll be better. I honestly don't think that it was a "bad" decision...just one that didn't work out. Even moreso, though, I think that one of the main reasons is that Karlsson just isn't coming over. I think if he came over we would know for sure if he could cut it.

Although 2001 looks like a bad draft for the Kings, I think the decision-making was fine. I don't think we, as fans, have the right to expect that all picks will work out...just that the people making the picks use sound judgment and make good decisions. I think they did just that.

jt is offline  
Old
09-01-2005, 06:02 PM
  #54
Sam
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
I disagree. I think that we're a good two years away from knowing that. If Karlsson came over RIGHT NOW, played very well as a 3rd liner in Manchester for a couple seasons and then went to LA and played on the 3rd line then I think he's a successful pick.



Agree about Steckel. CLEARLY and with 20/20 hindsight, ANYONE would have been a better pick. But I do think Steckel was still a solid pick in that he had good upside and you have to take a risk. It's not as if Roy, Shishkanov and Popovic didn't have significant risk.

But I don't agree about Karlsson. Armstrong isn't likely to do much IMO and Goc is VERY MUCH a work in progress. Gleason would obviously have been a better pick and I think a few people thought so at the time. But I also remember reading that there were serious questions about his attitude. I'm just not a Roy fan and I don't think he will be much of an NHLer. Morrisonn we'll have to see about, but I like what he's done so far. I have no problems with the Karlsson pick, as I think that given the choices at the time EVERY player available had some pretty significant risk. It just so happens that some of them look like they'll be better. I honestly don't think that it was a "bad" decision...just one that didn't work out. Even moreso, though, I think that one of the main reasons is that Karlsson just isn't coming over. I think if he came over we would know for sure if he could cut it.
Quick question. Have you seen Karlsson play in the last two years? There's a reason he wasn't playing much with Frolunda. Goc and Armstrong both put up 50+ points in the AHL last year. Goc had an impressive short stint in the playoffs with San Jose in 2003-04 and is penciled into their opening day line-up. Put up either Goc vs. Karlsson or Armstrong vs. Karlsson polls in the poll and petition board, and Karlsson will lose by a landslide. Goc and Armstrong are simply better prospects.

Sam is online now  
Old
09-01-2005, 06:12 PM
  #55
Reaper45
Registered User
 
Reaper45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Bay
Country: United States
Posts: 30,728
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Reaper45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
Quick question. Have you seen Karlsson play in the last two years? There's a reason he wasn't playing much with Frolunda. Goc and Armstrong both put up 50+ points in the AHL last year. Goc had an impressive short stint in the playoffs with San Jose in 2003-04 and is penciled into their opening day line-up. Put up either Goc vs. Karlsson or Armstrong vs. Karlsson polls in the poll and petition board, and Karlsson will lose by a landslide. Goc and Armstrong are simply better prospects.
I know that because of the lockout, Karlsson was dropped to the 4th line, and down to the lower league due to Frolunda's abundance of NHL talent. Also I remember hearing something about Karlsson's coach not playing him during the season becuase of his rough playing style, but then during the playoffs when that sytle is needed is when he got his ice time.

Also I think that putting him in polls against Armstrong and Goc would be unfair. They're playing in NA, where many posters have been able to see them. It's not the same with Karlsson.

Reaper45 is offline  
Old
09-01-2005, 06:35 PM
  #56
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
Quick question. Have you seen Karlsson play in the last two years? There's a reason he wasn't playing much with Frolunda. Goc and Armstrong both put up 50+ points in the AHL last year. Goc had an impressive short stint in the playoffs with San Jose in 2003-04 and is penciled into their opening day line-up. Put up either Goc vs. Karlsson or Armstrong vs. Karlsson polls in the poll and petition board, and Karlsson will lose by a landslide. Goc and Armstrong are simply better prospects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reaper45
I know that because of the lockout, Karlsson was dropped to the 4th line, and down to the lower league due to Frolunda's abundance of NHL talent. Also I remember hearing something about Karlsson's coach not playing him during the season becuase of his rough playing style, but then during the playoffs when that sytle is needed is when he got his ice time.

Also I think that putting him in polls against Armstrong and Goc would be unfair. They're playing in NA, where many posters have been able to see them. It's not the same with Karlsson.
What he said...word for word.

Besides I have to say that I don't put alot of trust in polls on a board where people propose trades like Kovalchuk for Morrow, Kapanen, 1st rounder...or Frolov, Belanger, and Gleason...or Sturm, Cheechoo, and a second...or Ryder,Komisarek,1st....or straight up for Redden...or straight up for Nash. I mean come on...votes by these people are supposed to (in)validate an opinion?

The other problem...and it's a problem I've had with HF for YEARS...is that soooo many people here get all happy over the offensive potential of a player and just ignore the (un)likelihood that he'll reach it...and ignore the defensive deficiencies...and ignore the size factor. I just don't see where Armstrong is much of a prospect. I think the same of Cammy and most of the time I just get HAMMERED. HFers also tend to love the prospects they're closest to...so N.A. HFers like prospects playing in N.A. more, which makes sense because they can see them or at least get info about them where it's alot harder with Euros.

jt is offline  
Old
09-01-2005, 06:44 PM
  #57
Sam
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
What he said...word for word.

Besides I have to say that I don't put alot of trust in polls on a board where people propose trades like Kovalchuk for Morrow, Kapanen, 1st rounder...or Frolov, Belanger, and Gleason...or Sturm, Cheechoo, and a second...or Ryder,Komisarek,1st....or straight up for Redden...or straight up for Nash. I mean come on...votes by these people are supposed to (in)validate an opinion?

The other problem...and it's a problem I've had with HF for YEARS...is that soooo many people here get all happy over the offensive potential of a player and just ignore the (un)likelihood that he'll reach it...and ignore the defensive deficiencies...and ignore the size factor. I just don't see where Armstrong is much of a prospect. I think the same of Cammy and most of the time I just get HAMMERED. HFers also tend to love the prospects they're closest to...so N.A. HFers like prospects playing in N.A. more, which makes sense because they can see them or at least get info about them where it's alot harder with Euros.
So I take it as you did not see Karlsson play at development camp. There are reason beyond Karlsson's style of play not meshing in the SEL or NHLers coming over as to why Karlsson doesn't play that much. If development camp had taken place after the draft and the Kings roster sheet said Seymour instead of Karlsson, you wouldn't be able to recognize the difference (aside from Seymour shooting left-handed).

Sam is online now  
Old
09-01-2005, 10:02 PM
  #58
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
So I take it as you did not see Karlsson play at development camp. There are reason beyond Karlsson's style of play not meshing in the SEL or NHLers coming over as to why Karlsson doesn't play that much. If development camp had taken place after the draft and the Kings roster sheet said Seymour instead of Karlsson, you wouldn't be able to recognize the difference (aside from Seymour shooting left-handed).
No, but I do have friends in Norway (where I was born) who have seen him play. And they aren't nearly as critical of him. And because he's been one of the most talked-about Kings prospects for several years I've read a ton about him...and again, most people who have actually seen him play aren't as critical of him. He is by NO means a top prospect and it looks like his upside now is a 3rd liner, but I still think he was a solid pick at the time...and I don't think there's anyone who was taken within, oh, 30 picks after him who could be described as a top prospect either. Look sometimes players take longer to develop...it sure took Datsyuk a long time to come over and while I certainly not comparing them as players, developmentally who knows...?

jt is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 10:15 AM
  #59
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
I disagree. I think that we're a good two years away from knowing that. If Karlsson came over RIGHT NOW, played very well as a 3rd liner in Manchester for a couple seasons and then went to LA and played on the 3rd line then I think he's a successful pick.
why do u think a first rounder with 3rd line upside is a successful pick? would u really be happy trading a 1st round draft pick for a 3rd liner?

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 10:29 AM
  #60
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Look at all the failed 1st rounders and tell me that simply getting an NHLer from the #18 pick isn't a success. Look at the 1999 and 2000 drafts and tell me how many of the players taken from #18 on are better than 3rd rounders.

I would LOVE for the Kings to get a 1st or 2nd liner with every 1st rounder but that simply isn't how the draft works. There was an article about 5 yrs ago in a season preview (I think the former stats guy at tsn-ca did it) and statistically, after the top 10 picks, teams are more likely to get a guy who is AT BEST a 4th liner in the NHL but more likely won't play more than a handful of meaningful NHL games (i.e. Matt Higgins and Jaro Svejkovsky) and won't be a useful NHLer.

So saying that the only way a team can consider it's mid- to late-first rounder a "success" is to beat those pretty bad odds and get a legit 1st or 2nd liner is just being unrealistic. Those who think that will be disappointed MOST of the time...because statistically it simply doesn't work out that way.

EDIT: I just re-read you post and you twisted what I said. I don't think a pick at #18 with 3rd round upside is a successful pick (at least not in most drafts). A pick at #18 who ACTUALLY PLAYS WELL ON THE 3RD LINE is a successful pick IMO...even moreso when most of the players picked shortly after him don't end up contributing significantly to their teams (which remains to be seen).

jt is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 11:56 AM
  #61
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,348
vCash: 500
I think that if a first round pick becomes a regular on an NHL roster (even if it is just a 4th line guy) then the pick is deemed a success. Too many 1st round picks never get past the AHL.

Unless ofcourse you are talking about a first overall pick. Then anything lower than a 2nd line player is probably considered a bust.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 04:37 PM
  #62
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,878
vCash: 500
u kno, i would love to see those statistics on 1st rounders. cause if the chances of gettin a 2nd liner and better thorugh a first rounder is as slim as u guys make it out to be, i dont really get why we keep our 1st rounders at all. casue we can pretty much get a really solid 2nd line player with pretty much any 1st rounder.

thats not to say i would do it, just a thought. and ya, i kno it was a weak draft, but im not sure if u are referring to all drafts or that particular one.

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 04:56 PM
  #63
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur
u kno, i would love to see those statistics on 1st rounders. cause if the chances of gettin a 2nd liner and better thorugh a first rounder is as slim as u guys make it out to be, i dont really get why we keep our 1st rounders at all. casue we can pretty much get a really solid 2nd line player with pretty much any 1st rounder.

thats not to say i would do it, just a thought. and ya, i kno it was a weak draft, but im not sure if u are referring to all drafts or that particular one.
If it was a paper magazine, I'll see if I can dig it out of my garage but I don't think it was.

tsn.ca used to have this guy who did stats analysis and I'm pretty sure that's where I read it. He would prove certain preconceived ideas (like winning a Cup is dependent upon drafting/developing your own youth) and disprove others (like home ice "advantage" in the playoffs). It was a GREAT column and if it's still there I can't find it.

It's not that the odds are THAT slim, but they're significantly worse than 50/50 and IMO that means it's unreasonable to expect teams to draft 1st or 2nd liners most of the time with picks outside the top 10. There was also a study out of the University of Hamilton in Canada that studied draft picks and how successful they are based on games played and points scored. Their conclusion was that once you got outside the top 10, there was almost no statistical difference between the rest of the 1st round and the 2nd or 3rd rounds. There was a difference between rounds 4 and later but it was much smaller than their hypothesis or what most people would have thought. I'll see if I can dig that up too.

As for why to keep 1st rounders, it's because the ability to pick an IMPACT player goes down with later rounds. While the odds of getting an impact player in the 1st round isn't very good, the odds of getting one even later are significantly worse. And trading away 1st rounders means NEVER having a shot at the top 10, which is where the vast majority of impact players are chosen...particulary in the top 5.

jt is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 04:58 PM
  #64
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
I think that if a first round pick becomes a regular on an NHL roster (even if it is just a 4th line guy) then the pick is deemed a success. Too many 1st round picks never get past the AHL.

Unless ofcourse you are talking about a first overall pick. Then anything lower than a 2nd line player is probably considered a bust.
Speaking strictly statistically, anything lower than a 2nd liner in the TOP 5 is a bust, but an argument could be made that it's anything lower than a 1st liner.

jt is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 06:08 PM
  #65
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,348
vCash: 500
Just look at the Kings current roster.

Tim Gleason..............1st round pick
Dustin Brown.............1st round pick
Alexander Frolov........1st round pick
Jeremy Roenick..........1st round pick
Mathieu Garon...........2nd round pick
Valeri Bure................2nd round pick
Mike Cammalleri.........2nd round pick
Mattias Norstrom.......2nd round pick
Jason Labarbera........3rd round pick
Eric Belanger.............4th round pick
Trent Klatt................4th round pick
Joe Corvo.................4th round pick
Lubomir Visnovski.......4th round pick
Ryan Flinn................5th round pick
Aaron Miller..............5th round pick
Craig Conroy.............6th round pick
Derek Armstrong........6th round pick
Tom Kostopoulos........7th round pick
Luc Robitaille.............9th round pick
Pavol Demitra............9th round pick
Sean Avery...............Not Drafted
Nathan Dempsey........Not Drafted

Only 4 1st round picks could be on the opening night roster. That is assuming that both Brown and Gleason make the cut.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 07:44 PM
  #66
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
Look at all the failed 1st rounders and tell me that simply getting an NHLer from the #18 pick isn't a success. Look at the 1999 and 2000 drafts and tell me how many of the players taken from #18 on are better than 3rd rounders.
This one is right up my alley.

Of all #18 overall draft picks between the years 1979 (advent of the "modern" draft) through 1995...

16 of the 17 (94.1%) played at least 1 game in the NHL.
12 forwards and 5 defensemen.
Average career length of forwards: 353 games played

With 16 of 17 making it to the NHL, I think simply getting an NHLer is a little under-optimistic. The average pick will play in 353 games which is a pretty high amount when you look at average career lengths of all draftees. 5 of the 12 forwards played in 700 or more games.

In other words, does anyone even see Karlsson as meeting the standard of an average #18 overall pick? I don't.

I think he is a bust even if he does make it to the NHL in some limited capacity. But you win some and you lose some. That's the nature of the draft. The goal is to win more than you lose better than everyone else.

__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research

Last edited by David A. Rainer: 09-02-2005 at 07:56 PM.
David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 07:45 PM
  #67
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer
This one is right up my alley.

Of all #18 overall draft picks between the years 1979 (advent of the "modern" draft) through 1995...

16 of the 17 (94.1%) played at least 1 game in the NHL.
12 forwards and 5 defensemen.
Average career length of forwards: 353 games played

With 16 of 17 making it to the NHL, I think simply getting an NHLer is a little under-optimistic. The average pick will play in 353 games which is a pretty high amount when you look at average career lengths of all draftees. 5 of the 12 forwards played in 700 or more games.

In other words, does anyone even see Karlsson as meeting the standard of an average #18 overall pick? I don't.

I think he is a bust even if he does make it to the NHL is some limited capacity. But you win some and you lose some. That's the nature of the draft. The goal is to win more than you lose better than everyone else.
The Chart baby!!! The Chart!

 
Old
09-02-2005, 07:54 PM
  #68
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
I think that if a first round pick becomes a regular on an NHL roster (even if it is just a 4th line guy) then the pick is deemed a success. Too many 1st round picks never get past the AHL.

Unless ofcourse you are talking about a first overall pick. Then anything lower than a 2nd line player is probably considered a bust.
Here's another one. This is a huge myth about the first round people.

Between the years 1979 and 1995, there were 376 first round picks. 350 of the 376 (93.1%) picks made it to the NHL for at least 1 game for an average of 554 games played in the NHL.

The break down is as follows:

0 GP: 26
1-100 GP: 60
101-200GP: 28
201-300GP: 27
301-400GP: 15
401-500GP: 25
501-600GP: 38
601-700GP: 38
701-800GP: 26
801-900GP: 28
901-1000GP: 12
1001+ GP: 53

Hell, you're more likely to get someone with a career of 1001 games played than you are to get someone who never reaches the NHL by better than 2:1.

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 07:57 PM
  #69
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn
The Chart baby!!! The Chart!
Got it on excel spreadsheet. Instant access baby!!

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 08:05 PM
  #70
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer
Here's another one. This is a huge myth about the first round people.

Between the years 1979 and 1995, there were 376 first round picks. 350 of the 376 (93.1%) picks made it to the NHL for at least 1 game for an average of 554 games played in the NHL.

The break down is as follows:

0 GP: 26
1-100 GP: 60
101-200GP: 28
201-300GP: 27
301-400GP: 15
401-500GP: 25
501-600GP: 38
601-700GP: 38
701-800GP: 26
801-900GP: 28
901-1000GP: 12
1001+ GP: 53

Hell, you're more likely to get someone with a career of 1001 games played than you are to get someone who never reaches the NHL by better than 2:1.
Your stats are undeniable. But still about 23% play in 100 or less games. So basically 1 in 4 players selected in the first round will not play more than 1 season in the NHL.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 08:23 PM
  #71
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
Your stats are undeniable. But still about 23% play in 100 or less games. So basically 1 in 4 players selected in the first round will not play more than 1 season in the NHL.
Right, which is basically where I see Karlsson ending up.

Even if we just trim off all those draftees that played in 100 or less games in the NHL as being inconsequential, that still leaves you with nearly a 75% chance of landing what you might term an "NHLer". If all you're looking for is an "NHLer" to be a success, then your standards need to be a little higher.

Even if you want to set a threshold where 50% of the draftees will exceed the threshold and 50% will not (defining those who exceed as a success and those who don't as a bust), the GP threshold would be 515.

You can never predict the future with 100% certainty but I don't see Karlsson as reaching the 515 GP threshold or 353 GP threshold for #18 overall picks. In other words, the Kings had a coin's flip chance of finding someone to reach this threshold. They are likely not going to get that out of Karlsson. So they did not win the coin flip. So he might be termed a "bust". But again, every GM drafts busts from time to time. This is in no way an indictment of DT.

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 09:02 PM
  #72
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer
Right, which is basically where I see Karlsson ending up.

Even if we just trim off all those draftees that played in 100 or less games in the NHL as being inconsequential, that still leaves you with nearly a 75% chance of landing what you might term an "NHLer". If all you're looking for is an "NHLer" to be a success, then your standards need to be a little higher.

Even if you want to set a threshold where 50% of the draftees will exceed the threshold and 50% will not (defining those who exceed as a success and those who don't as a bust), the GP threshold would be 515.

You can never predict the future with 100% certainty but I don't see Karlsson as reaching the 515 GP threshold or 353 GP threshold for #18 overall picks. In other words, the Kings had a coin's flip chance of finding someone to reach this threshold. They are likely not going to get that out of Karlsson. So they did not win the coin flip. So he might be termed a "bust". But again, every GM drafts busts from time to time. This is in no way an indictment of DT.
It has been said here a few times. It is hard sometimes to measure the potential of an 18 year old kid. Even with the best scouts in the world it is too difficult to predict what will happen in the few years between the time a player is drafted and the the time they should be ready for the NHL. Attitudes change, work ethics evolve (or devolve), personal problems arise or physical development exceeds (or fails to meet) expectations.

In retrospect it is easy to criticize Taylor or any other GM for not getting a player like Datsyuk who was selected 171st in the 98 draft. The Kings selected Zizka with the 163rd pick. But it really just an educated guess.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 09:04 PM
  #73
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
It has been said here a few times. It is hard sometimes to measure the potential of an 18 year old kid. Even with the best scouts in the world it is too difficult to predict what will happen in the few years between the time a player is drafted and the the time they should be ready for the NHL. Attitudes change, work ethics evolve (or devolve), personal problems arise or physical development exceeds (or fails to meet) expectations.

In retrospect it is easy to criticize Taylor or any other GM for not getting a player like Datsyuk who was selected 171st in the 98 draft. The Kings selected Zizka with the 163rd pick. But it really just an educated guess.
Preaching to the choir.

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 10:53 PM
  #74
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer
This one is right up my alley.

Of all #18 overall draft picks between the years 1979 (advent of the "modern" draft) through 1995...

16 of the 17 (94.1%) played at least 1 game in the NHL.
12 forwards and 5 defensemen.
Average career length of forwards: 353 games played

With 16 of 17 making it to the NHL, I think simply getting an NHLer is a little under-optimistic. The average pick will play in 353 games which is a pretty high amount when you look at average career lengths of all draftees. 5 of the 12 forwards played in 700 or more games.

In other words, does anyone even see Karlsson as meeting the standard of an average #18 overall pick? I don't.

I think he is a bust even if he does make it to the NHL in some limited capacity.
This is some great analysis and it can spur an awful lot of interesting analysis. I think the relevant questions here are:

1) How does the Kings' pick at #18 compare to other #18 picks in the draft? The issues with a question this narrow is that the comparison does not contemplate the depth of this draft vs other other drafts. Naturally, a more shallow draft will yield a lesser prospect at #18 than a deeper draft.

2) Should the Kings have selected someone else with the #18 pick? The issues with this question include: What was the goal with that pick? Would it have been better to pick a "safe" guy who would likely play in the NHL but was almost sure NOT to be a top 6er or even an "impact" bottom 6er? Or would it have been better to take a higher risk, higher reward player? In other words, Karlsson (higher risk, higher reward) vs Goc (lower risk, lower reward)?

I deal with stats at my job and I think the median is a more relevant number than the mean. That keeps a guy like Ken Daneyko from totally skewing the numbers. I don't know what that'll do to the numbers. But I don't think comparing "the #18 pick" is really dispositive because it doesn't consider the depth or shallowness of the given drafts.

IMO, the only legitimate question is #2. And for that, the only true answer is to look at the players selected in the next, oh, 30 picks or so from that year. And IMO, only Gleason has proven enough to date to say that the Kings would be significantly better off had they chosen him.

Of course the x factor in all this is that if Karlsson never comes over, it's really impossible to say whether the pick was a good one or a bad one. NO GM can predict if a player will chose never to leave Europe.

By the way, here's that McMaster University in Hamilton report I was talking about: http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/e...ve/2000-04.pdf

jt is offline  
Old
09-02-2005, 10:55 PM
  #75
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer
Here's another one. This is a huge myth about the first round people.

Between the years 1979 and 1995, there were 376 first round picks. 350 of the 376 (93.1%) picks made it to the NHL for at least 1 game for an average of 554 games played in the NHL.

The break down is as follows:

0 GP: 26
1-100 GP: 60
101-200GP: 28
201-300GP: 27
301-400GP: 15
401-500GP: 25
501-600GP: 38
601-700GP: 38
701-800GP: 26
801-900GP: 28
901-1000GP: 12
1001+ GP: 53

Hell, you're more likely to get someone with a career of 1001 games played than you are to get someone who never reaches the NHL by better than 2:1.
Can you break it down by players chosen after the 10th pick? That's what the tsn guy did.

jt 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 12:25 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.