HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

Trevor Timmins Part III

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-18-2017, 03:41 PM
  #176
jaffy27
From Russia wth Pain
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Orleans
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotProkofievian View Post
I don't blame Timmins for every miss. You can't be a great scout unless you make some unconventional picks, and misses are part of the job. Missing on a 3rd rounder is also not the end of the world. It's actually expected. But Crisp over Buchnevich? I just don't see what argument there could have been for that, even at the time.

Now we have to play against that ****ing kid tonight.
Buchnevich would've been nice for sure. But I'm happier that Timmins went with Lehkonen in the second round over missing out on Buchnevich in the third round.

Did you have Lehkonen in the second when it came to us picking? Maybe Rangers should've went with Andrighetto instead of Buchnevich.....iit's a game we can play all day long.

And yes, habs should've taken Buchnevich.....oh well....

jaffy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 03:55 PM
  #177
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 16,155
vCash: 500
It's interesting that we still don't know if 2012 and 2013 were good drafts.

Hudon, McCarron, De La Rose, Fucale, Andrightto, all of unknown potential.

Galchenyuk and Lehkonen have made it, though we don't know how good they're going to be.

They might end up being terrific drafts.

Reliably assessing Timmins drafting in the Bergevin remains a very speculative game.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 03:57 PM
  #178
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 7,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaffy27 View Post
Buchnevich would've been nice for sure. But I'm happier that Timmins went with Lehkonen in the second round over missing out on Buchnevich in the third round.

Did you have Lehkonen in the second when it came to us picking? Maybe Rangers should've went with Andrighetto instead of Buchnevich.....iit's a game we can play all day long.

And yes, habs should've taken Buchnevich.....oh well....
Yep, I had Lehkonen in the second. He was actually trending as a first rounder for a bit until his concussion. I thought we wouldn't get him after we took Fucale and de la Rose, but when he made it to our 3rd pick in that round I was pretty stoked.

For one of our first seconds I wanted Zykov. He's been good, recently. I'll be patient with Fucale and de la Rose, though. Picking 1-2 NHLers per draft is great work for a scouting team and it looks like Timmins has already picked 3, one of whom just scored 18 goals in his first year. That's pretty good work.

NotProkofievian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 04:05 PM
  #179
yianik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
What if Timmins sees no great potential centres available with the 30th overall pic?
You don't take a center. With the 31st pick.

yianik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 04:36 PM
  #180
jaffy27
From Russia wth Pain
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Orleans
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotProkofievian View Post
Yep, I had Lehkonen in the second. He was actually trending as a first rounder for a bit until his concussion. I thought we wouldn't get him after we took Fucale and de la Rose, but when he made it to our 3rd pick in that round I was pretty stoked.

For one of our first seconds I wanted Zykov. He's been good, recently. I'll be patient with Fucale and de la Rose, though. Picking 1-2 NHLers per draft is great work for a scouting team and it looks like Timmins has already picked 3, one of whom just scored 18 goals in his first year. That's pretty good work.
That's good because I didn't even know who he was lol (Lehkonen)

DLR has more goals then Zykov, but who knows, that could change.

McCarron, Lehkonen, Andrighetto are all looking like thell make it. Still have Fucale, Reway that could possibly make it. That's one hell of a draft considering. I was wrong about Gregoire, still some time maybe.....

My guess is Lehkonen will pot at least 24 next year....maybe 30

jaffy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 04:39 PM
  #181
L4br3cqu3
U mad ?
 
L4br3cqu3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: La Tuque
Country: United Nations
Posts: 3,964
vCash: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It's interesting that we still don't know if 2012 and 2013 were good drafts.

Hudon, McCarron, De La Rose, Fucale, Andrightto, all of unknown potential.

Galchenyuk and Lehkonen have made it, though we don't know how good they're going to be.

They might end up being terrific drafts.

Reliably assessing Timmins drafting in the Bergevin remains a very speculative game.
In fact, it's been speculative before Bergevin, ever since the legendary 2007 draft. But some posters here will try their best to convince you he didn't have the necessary picks, development screw his picks (that's mainly on the GM, but still), that it's too soon to evaluate them (2013 and on, I could concede, they're still pretty young, but before that ?), and so on.

One of the best amateur scouts in the game (like he's still named around these parts), would have more internally developed kids on the team. Oh, and 'games played' is a bogus stat.

I just hope he would draft more 'pure skill kids who are bad in their zones' than 'safe ones', defense can be taught, skill can't. I know it's -very- early, but I still have trouble understanding how they thought drafting Pezzetta instead of Sokolov was a good idea, I'm all about size and grit, but not above skill, especially when we're in dire need of it. But that's just one weak hindsight example, I know Sokolov was drafted in the 7th round, that Pezzetta might become an NHLer and Sokolov a bust, just wayyyy too early, but drafting high-risk high-reward kids is a rather good idea in the late rounds, I think ?

Still remember Timmins praising Vejdemo like if he was the second coming... still early, but doesn't exactly look good.

L4br3cqu3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 05:49 PM
  #182
montreal
Global Moderator
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 31,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by L4br3cqu3 View Post
In fact, it's been speculative before Bergevin, ever since the legendary 2007 draft. But some posters here will try their best to convince you he didn't have the necessary picks, development screw his picks (that's mainly on the GM, but still), that it's too soon to evaluate them (2013 and on, I could concede, they're still pretty young, but before that ?), and so on.

One of the best amateur scouts in the game (like he's still named around these parts), would have more internally developed kids on the team. Oh, and 'games played' is a bogus stat.

I just hope he would draft more 'pure skill kids who are bad in their zones' than 'safe ones', defense can be taught, skill can't. I know it's -very- early, but I still have trouble understanding how they thought drafting Pezzetta instead of Sokolov was a good idea, I'm all about size and grit, but not above skill, especially when we're in dire need of it. But that's just one weak hindsight example, I know Sokolov was drafted in the 7th round, that Pezzetta might become an NHLer and Sokolov a bust, just wayyyy too early, but drafting high-risk high-reward kids is a rather good idea in the late rounds, I think ?

Still remember Timmins praising Vejdemo like if he was the second coming... still early, but doesn't exactly look good.
So picking less and lower isn't going to impact your drafting? I don't see it is trying to convince people as it is I don't think a lot of posters don't have a clue about the draft. How can they, as we just sit here and watch games but don't know what goes on behind the scenes.

I am one of those that think our development sucks and needs a major upgrade, not just on the coaching side but management calling up 19/20 years that aren't ready has got to stop. I watch a ton of our AHL teams and don't know how anyone that watches them consistently wouldn't be concerned with how things go down there. I could easily be wrong, maybe the development is going great and it just appears to suck to me and the coaching staff in the AHL is actually doing a great job despite all the questionable moves they make/do.

I'm also one of those that say you should wait 5 and then 10 years before really looking at the draft. Most will not see the NHL until 4/5 years until after the draft anyway and if you look at when this kids hit their prime it's a good 8-10 years from the day they were drafted, so to me it makes sense to look at it when they are in their prime years to see what you got vs what you might have.

montreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 05:52 PM
  #183
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 16,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
So picking less and lower isn't going to impact your drafting? I don't see it is trying to convince people as it is I don't think a lot of posters don't have a clue about the draft. How can they, as we just sit here and watch games but don't know what goes on behind the scenes.

I am one of those that think our development sucks and needs a major upgrade, not just on the coaching side but management calling up 19/20 years that aren't ready has got to stop. I watch a ton of our AHL teams and don't know how anyone that watches them consistently wouldn't be concerned with how things go down there. I could easily be wrong, maybe the development is going great and it just appears to suck to me and the coaching staff in the AHL is actually doing a great job despite all the questionable moves they make/do.

I'm also one of those that say you should wait 5 and then 10 years before really looking at the draft. Most will not see the NHL until 4/5 years until after the draft anyway and if you look at when this kids hit their prime it's a good 8-10 years from the day they were drafted, so to me it makes sense to look at it when they are in their prime years to see what you got vs what you might have.
Do you object only to the extended stints, such as that DLR got under Therrien to punish Eller, or also yo the short 1-3 game tests meant to give the young guys a taste of the NHL?

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 05:57 PM
  #184
Whitesnake
Stormbringer
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 66,744
vCash: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
So picking less and lower isn't going to impact your drafting? I don't see it is trying to convince people as it is I don't think a lot of posters don't have a clue about the draft. How can they, as we just sit here and watch games but don't know what goes on behind the scenes.

I am one of those that think our development sucks and needs a major upgrade, not just on the coaching side but management calling up 19/20 years that aren't ready has got to stop. I watch a ton of our AHL teams and don't know how anyone that watches them consistently wouldn't be concerned with how things go down there. I could easily be wrong, maybe the development is going great and it just appears to suck to me and the coaching staff in the AHL is actually doing a great job despite all the questionable moves they make/do.

I'm also one of those that say you should wait 5 and then 10 years before really looking at the draft. Most will not see the NHL until 4/5 years until after the draft anyway and if you look at when this kids hit their prime it's a good 8-10 years from the day they were drafted, so to me it makes sense to look at it when they are in their prime years to see what you got vs what you might have.
If that's your analysis, and I don't doubt that it is, you must be demanding, ON THE SPOT, the firing of Marc Bergevin. As he seems fine with everything that goes down there and might actually have Lefebvre back next year. A guy like Bergevin who doesn't see all of the things you are seeing.....he clearly doesn't belong in the position that he is in. No?

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2017, 06:02 PM
  #185
montreal
Global Moderator
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 31,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Do you object only to the extended stints, such as that DLR got under Therrien to punish Eller, or also yo the short 1-3 game tests meant to give the young guys a taste of the NHL?
I'm always against 19/20 years in the NHL unless they dominate in the AHL. I don't know anything about Therrien trying to punish Eller, sounds like a conspiracy theory as I was never an Eller fan and don't get why so many liked him as he was very frustrating player imo. DLR, McCarron, Leblanc, Tinordi, Beaulieu, all called up too soon imo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
If that's your analysis, and I don't doubt that it is, you must be demanding, ON THE SPOT, the firing of Marc Bergevin. As he seems fine with everything that goes down there and might actually have Lefebvre back next year. A guy like Bergevin who doesn't see all of the things you are seeing.....he clearly doesn't belong in the position that he is in. No?
No, for one thing, as i said I could easily be wrong. I sit behind the computer so I don't know what goes on. I can only base it off what I see our AHL do on the ice, the choices that the coaching staff makes but who's to say management isn't behind those stupid decisions. Maybe they had the great idea to move Scherbak to center after just returning from injury for most of the season. Maybe they wanted him put with the youngest player on the team for much of the year.

Also just because you make a mistake in one area doesn't mean that you can't do well in others. I think he's done a great job with the trades, adding cheap depth and has shown he's got brass stones to make a major trade like Subban or to fire Therrien and replace him with CJ.

montreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2017, 03:30 AM
  #186
BrimStone64
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Maybe not Brown but Jost....I,d have no problem with that.
Or McLeod...he's having a great playoff

BrimStone64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2017, 06:35 AM
  #187
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainiac View Post
BPA is a stupid idiom. You know the scouts' evaluations are imprecise anyways. Why bother about BPA if you can't even measure who's actually the real BPA?
It's *precisely* because you can't measure the real BPA down the line that you're aiming for the best player available in the draft.

There's a risk associated with drafting. You're not just trying to decide between that 1st line player or that second line player. You're picking between many prospects, a lot of which may bust and never play a meaningful game at the NHL level.

You can't see the term "BPA" as just meaning the projected quality of the player at the NHL level. BPA is also a lot about "Best chance of actually making it".

That's why a lot of teams ignore their positionnal needs. They think (rightly so) they don't have that luxury when drafting prospects.

Vlad The Impaler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2017, 09:52 AM
  #188
Puck Luck Run Amok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The void
Country: Canada
Posts: 349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It's interesting that we still don't know if 2012 and 2013 were good drafts.

Hudon, McCarron, De La Rose, Fucale, Andrightto, all of unknown potential.

Galchenyuk and Lehkonen have made it, though we don't know how good they're going to be.

They might end up being terrific drafts.

Reliably assessing Timmins drafting in the Bergevin remains a very speculative game.
Yes and No. It's not like the scouting staff has changed all that much under Bergevin's regime but in analyzing Timmins draft record, it's not exactly close to being good enough to explain the amount of defenders on this site.

Since that 2007 Draft there's been three prospects that have become real everyday players. Beaulieu, Gallagher and Galchenyuk. The only impressive pick of those three being the 5th round steal of Gallagher. Klefbom was drafted after Nate and Galchenyuk was the only real option at 3.

Post-Bergevin? Well it's not exactly his finest work.

2016: Sergachev is the only pick with any legit shot at being a full time NHLer so far and tbqh, McAvoy (#14) and Jost (#10) seem like MUCH better prospects.

2015: Juulsen, whose looking like at best a #4 but more likely a #6 D-man who will likely make the big leagues. However they missed out on 2 better D-Man along with Beauvillier. He's followed by a whole lot of nothing.

2014: Scherbak looks like a bust and every player picked after him in the 1st look MUCH better at this point. Jake Evans might be his one decent pick in that draft but we'll see. Not that he's projected to be better than a 3rd or 4th liner (another MB special)

2013: McCarron looks like a 4th liner, which is shameful considering Shea Theodore was picked right after him. JDLR is a bust who might be a 4th liner on an expansion team, Fucale is also a bust but Lehkonen looks like he'll be a solid staple for the 3rd/2nd line for the next few years. Andrighetto looks like he's found his stride in Colorado and could be seen a decent pick who needed a better development path (which is often the case under our AHL staff).

2012: Outside of Galchenyuk, nothing. Maybe Hudon but he's not going to be playing here...

Overall I'd rate Drafting a C to C-. Below average at best.

Development has to be a D-. Beyond mediocre.

Puck Luck Run Amok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2017, 11:26 AM
  #189
LastWordArmy
Registered User
 
LastWordArmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,118
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaP View Post
dman of the year in the OHL means nothing.

I mean look at the list of past winners https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Kaminsky_Trophy

All pretty bad dmen.
Aaron Ekblad
Dougie Hamilton
Ryan Ellis
Jake Muzzin
Drew Doughty
Marc Staal

All pretty bad dmen.

LastWordArmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2017, 12:41 PM
  #190
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 7,633
vCash: 500
Just a thought: the job of a scout is to make a list which ranks players based on their expected pay off for the team. The expected payoff is a function of both the prospect's likelihood of achieving their potential, and the potential itself. Every year every scout in the entire NHL assigns a ranking to a lot of players who will have no NHL future. Every team only has a few picks every year. One possible metric for judging a scout would be a mean absolute difference between the rank of a player in a draft class after the results are in, and the rank that the scout assigned said player on draft day. Given the reality that each team gets very few picks which represent samples of the scouts' draft lists, relative to this metric it's quite possible for a scout to have a terrible draft, but a good draft list.

For example, Boston gets huge props for drafting Anders Bjork and Timmins gets looks of consternation for the Koberstein pick. We can assume from the draft that Timmins had Koberstein ranked ahead of Bjork. However, that doesn't mean that Boston had Bjork ranked higher than Timmins had him. Perhaps Timmins had Bjork right behind Koberstein (which is still bad), and perhaps he had Bjork ranked even higher than Boston had him ranked. Relative to the proposed metric, Timmins would have a positive score compared to Boston who actually made the better pick.

This is called quantization error. Each draft pick the scout makes is a ''sample'' of their list. There may even be error in the sampling. Consider the case where a scout has player A ranked ahead of player B, but the GM tells the scout, as Bergevin did to Timmins in 2015, to get a dman, and it just so happens that player B is a dman and player A is not. That introduces error in the sampling process.

It's quite obviously impossible to infer a scout's entire list from their draft picks, but we can still learn some things. We learn a lot from a scout's first round pick, and we learn even more the higher that pick is.

Of the things we have learned about Timmins' rankings that I wish he did differently is that I wish he ranked offensive players, Russians in particular, higher, and lesser skilled but larger, tougher, more physical good ol' Canadian boys lower. Reason being that after a certain point in the draft, you're mostly ranking busts anyways. Might as well rank the busts who could potentially score lots of goals higher.

NotProkofievian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2017, 02:03 PM
  #191
BrimStone64
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It's interesting that we still don't know if 2012 and 2013 were good drafts.

Hudon, McCarron, De La Rose, Fucale, Andrightto, all of unknown potential.

Galchenyuk and Lehkonen have made it, though we don't know how good they're going to be.

They might end up being terrific drafts.

Reliably assessing Timmins drafting in the Bergevin remains a very speculative game.
Imagine this team if Galchenyuk had developed like a Mark Scheifele or Ryan Johnsen did? Be a dynasty level club. But then again, maybe not as Therrein likely still be here. Just be a hole at head coach instead of centerman then

BrimStone64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2017, 11:28 AM
  #192
le_sean
Registered User
 
le_sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 19,468
vCash: 612
Molson needs to open the chequebook and get Tim Murray as part of the Habs scouting department.

le_sean is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2017, 11:16 PM
  #193
Seb
Michel Therrien
 
Seb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: England
Posts: 12,113
vCash: 50
Defended him for a long time and I still think he's valuable, but it's time to move on. I don't think he's the one responsible for the prospect to stagnate early, but he surely isn't helping anything. It's been long enough to think about parting ways.

Drafting character guys and gym rats helps a lot, but the team has lacked skills for YEARS.

Seb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2017, 01:22 AM
  #194
TheBuriedHab
Registered User
 
TheBuriedHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,610
vCash: 500
2003 Kostisyn BUST
2004 Chipchura BUST
2005 Price FRANCHISE GOALIE
2006- Fisher BUST
2007 McDonough TOP PAIRING DMAN
2007 Pacioretty FIRST LINE WINGER
2008 No pick
2009 LeBlanc BUST
2010 Tinordi BUST
2011 Beaulieu BUST
2012 Galchenyuk BUST???
2013 McCarron BUST???
2014 Sherbak ????

TheBuriedHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2017, 01:29 AM
  #195
SergeConstantin74
Always right.
 
SergeConstantin74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,784
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBuriedHab View Post
2003 Kostisyn BUST
2004 Chipchura BUST
2005 Price FRANCHISE GOALIE
2006- Fisher BUST
2007 McDonough TOP PAIRING DMAN
2007 Pacioretty FIRST LINE WINGER
2008 No pick
2009 LeBlanc BUST
2010 Tinordi BUST
2011 Beaulieu BUST
2012 Galchenyuk BUST???
2013 McCarron BUST???
2014 Sherbak ????
We're disappointed but you can't call Chucky a bust lol. He's the 2nd best forward from that draft.

SergeConstantin74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2017, 02:45 AM
  #196
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 7,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBuriedHab View Post
2003 Kostisyn BUST
2004 Chipchura BUST
2005 Price FRANCHISE GOALIE
2006- Fisher BUST
2007 McDonough TOP PAIRING DMAN
2007 Pacioretty FIRST LINE WINGER
2008 No pick
2009 LeBlanc BUST
2010 Tinordi BUST
2011 Beaulieu BUST
2012 Galchenyuk BUST???
2013 McCarron BUST???
2014 Sherbak ????
Bro, you can't call NHL players busts. Doesn't work like that.

NotProkofievian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2017, 02:56 AM
  #197
ProspectsFanatic
Artturi Lehkonen
 
ProspectsFanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,522
vCash: 500
The 2007 draft alone made Timmins an above average scout, then, a decade of failures made him bellow average. Could be worst, but its pretty bad. Even I did better with my personal draft at MTL draft picks position tbh.

ProspectsFanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2017, 04:15 AM
  #198
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotProkofievian View Post
Just a thought: the job of a scout is to make a list which ranks players based on their expected pay off for the team. The expected payoff is a function of both the prospect's likelihood of achieving their potential, and the potential itself. Every year every scout in the entire NHL assigns a ranking to a lot of players who will have no NHL future. Every team only has a few picks every year. One possible metric for judging a scout would be a mean absolute difference between the rank of a player in a draft class after the results are in, and the rank that the scout assigned said player on draft day. Given the reality that each team gets very few picks which represent samples of the scouts' draft lists, relative to this metric it's quite possible for a scout to have a terrible draft, but a good draft list.

For example, Boston gets huge props for drafting Anders Bjork and Timmins gets looks of consternation for the Koberstein pick. We can assume from the draft that Timmins had Koberstein ranked ahead of Bjork. However, that doesn't mean that Boston had Bjork ranked higher than Timmins had him. Perhaps Timmins had Bjork right behind Koberstein (which is still bad), and perhaps he had Bjork ranked even higher than Boston had him ranked. Relative to the proposed metric, Timmins would have a positive score compared to Boston who actually made the better pick.

This is called quantization error. Each draft pick the scout makes is a ''sample'' of their list. There may even be error in the sampling. Consider the case where a scout has player A ranked ahead of player B, but the GM tells the scout, as Bergevin did to Timmins in 2015, to get a dman, and it just so happens that player B is a dman and player A is not. That introduces error in the sampling process.

It's quite obviously impossible to infer a scout's entire list from their draft picks, but we can still learn some things. We learn a lot from a scout's first round pick, and we learn even more the higher that pick is.

Of the things we have learned about Timmins' rankings that I wish he did differently is that I wish he ranked offensive players, Russians in particular, higher, and lesser skilled but larger, tougher, more physical good ol' Canadian boys lower. Reason being that after a certain point in the draft, you're mostly ranking busts anyways. Might as well rank the busts who could potentially score lots of goals higher.
Brilliant. Also implies that a good gm should collect the head scout's draft lists every year and evaluate his head scout on the lists for say the last 5 years.

Thus analysing your scout on overall judgement rather than only his picks.

The only hitch is that you don't have the other 29 head scouts lists.

Really brilliant. You should write bergy on this. Not joking.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2017, 05:59 AM
  #199
Habs100
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
It's interesting that we still don't know if 2012 and 2013 were good drafts.

Hudon, McCarron, De La Rose, Fucale, Andrightto, all of unknown potential.

Galchenyuk and Lehkonen have made it, though we don't know how good they're going to be.

They might end up being terrific drafts.

Reliably assessing Timmins drafting in the Bergevin remains a very speculative game.

In the Juulsen draft, Bergevin told Timmins to get him a defenseman in the first round. I don't know how Bergevin goes away from the best player available, especially when we sorely need offense.

Habs100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2017, 06:36 AM
  #200
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 7,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Brilliant. Also implies that a good gm should collect the head scout's draft lists every year and evaluate his head scout on the lists for say the last 5 years.

Thus analysing your scout on overall judgement rather than only his picks.

The only hitch is that you don't have the other 29 head scouts lists.

Really brilliant. You should write bergy on this. Not joking.
You really only need something which can stand in for an ''average'' list which should be simple enough to come by. You only want to know if you're doing better or worse compared to some reasonable ranking.

I'd be surprised if they weren't doing something like this already, honestly. How else would they know how to adjust their valuations of players?

NotProkofievian is online now   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 06:40 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.