HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Prospects
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Prospects Discuss hockey prospects from all over the world and the NHL Draft.

Draft 2004: Really that weak?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-31-2004, 09:41 PM
  #1
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,390
vCash: 500
Draft 2004: Really that weak?

I keep hearing a lot of talk that this draft is terrible, weak, thin, whatever. And while I respectfully disagree, I realize that it's no 2003. At the same time, I don't think it's nearly as bad as 2002 was supposed to be.

That said, was 2002 really that bad? Look at just some of the players that are looking like real high quality prospects or young NHLers:

Nash, Lehtonen, Bouwmeester, Pitkanen, Whitney, Upshall, Lupul, Bouchard, Ballard, Eminger, Semin, Higgins, Grebeshkov, Paille, Babchuk, Steen, Ward, Toivonen, Deslauriers, Stoll, Harding, Daley, LeNeveu, Koltsov, Stajan, Hudler, Fleischmann, among others that we're guaranteed to hear from in the near future.

Not too bad for a draft with no talent.

I don't think we should get too down on the 2004 draft. I'm sure there's even more talent than this available.

Seachd is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 09:49 PM
  #2
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
Yeah it's ********... i'd say it's average. I think 75% of the first round picks are NHL-bound... 80% of th 2nd round players. 2nd round is VERY safe this year. '05 will be a junior '03.

BobMarleyNYR is online now  
Old
05-31-2004, 09:56 PM
  #3
kovalchuk17atl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 310
vCash: 500
'05 will be pretty much another '03 from what I hear, but for '04...

Why people say these drafts are weak is beyond me. The only way to say that is 5 years later when most players are busts or something, like the '99 draft (which was supposed to be an incredibly strong draft..go figure). It could turn out to be a strong draft, an average draft, or a weak draft.

kovalchuk17atl is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 09:57 PM
  #4
guitaraholic*
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMarleyNYR
Yeah it's ********... i'd say it's average. I think 75% of the first round picks are NHL-bound... 80% of th 2nd round players. 2nd round is VERY safe this year. '05 will be a junior '03.
If 75% of the players drafted in the first round this year are NHL-bound then you'd have one of the best drafts of the last 10 years. According to a quick look I gave at the first round picks for the years 1990 to 1999 showed that on average half of the kids drafted in the first round fail to make it to the NHL. In only one draft year in 10 was there a signifigantly higher rate of NHL careers of kids picked that year. So statistically speaking the chances that 75% of the kids picked in the first round this year play in the NHL are very low.

guitaraholic* is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 10:08 PM
  #5
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
..... ok......

BobMarleyNYR is online now  
Old
05-31-2004, 10:09 PM
  #6
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 110,423
vCash: 5602
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovalchuk17atl
'05 will be pretty much another '03 from what I hear, but for '04...

Really...please enlighten us about who you hear will be around

GKJ is offline  
Old
05-31-2004, 10:11 PM
  #7
kovalchuk17atl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Really...please enlighten us about who you hear will be around
It's not an accurate analogy, I only know the top 2 picks so far lol.

kovalchuk17atl is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 12:01 AM
  #8
db23
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,272
vCash: 500
If anyone remembers, 1999 was supposed to be a great draft and 2000 was supposed to be weak. In fact the 2000 draft looks much better than 1999, so I wouldn't put much stock in the "experts" prognostications.

This draft has Cam Barker who is bigger, younger, and has better stats than Jay Bouwmester did in 2002 playing for the same junior team. Barker is rated just the third or fourth best prospect. A.J. Thelen is bigger, younger, and had much better NCAA stats than Ryan Suter who was the top rated collegiate skater a year ago. Suter was taken 7th overall, and Thelen is rated to go around 15th this year. There is no problem at all with this draft. I think it is at least as deep as a year ago.

db23 is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 12:08 AM
  #9
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by db23
If anyone remembers, 1999 was supposed to be a great draft and 2000 was supposed to be weak. In fact the 2000 draft looks much better than 1999, so I wouldn't put much stock in the "experts" prognostications.

This draft has Cam Barker who is bigger, younger, and has better stats than Jay Bouwmester did in 2002 playing for the same junior team. Barker is rated just the third or fourth best prospect. A.J. Thelen is bigger, younger, and had much better NCAA stats than Ryan Suter who was the top rated collegiate skater a year ago. Suter was taken 7th overall, and Thelen is rated to go around 15th this year. There is no problem at all with this draft. I think it is at least as deep as a year ago.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Stats don't tell the whole picture. You only need to look as far as the fact that Zherdev got more points in fewer games at the same age as Ovechkin to see that.

I like this draft, but 2003 it isn't.

Seachd is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 12:45 AM
  #10
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
The problem is that people call a draft : Weak or deep based on the 1st round mostly.

2004 is as good as 2003 for the 1st round & could turn as a heavyer draft even if we saw the top 4 of 2003 already in the NHL.

I think that the players in the 2003 draft were safer to be an NHL players sometime in the future than the 2004 class.

As for the 3rd-4th round, the 2003 draft ''should'' win this hands down because it's start to becoming thin to find a future safe NHL pick in this draft.

So overall I think 2004 is a ''normal'' draft where you can possibly find some GEM in the 2004 draft class but it's gonna be mostly because the player had a lot of dedication/determination to be a better player than expected when he was draft.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 12:55 AM
  #11
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 guitaraholic
If 75% of the players drafted in the first round this year are NHL-bound then you'd have one of the best drafts of the last 10 years. According to a quick look I gave at the first round picks for the years 1990 to 1999 showed that on average half of the kids drafted in the first round fail to make it to the NHL. In only one draft year in 10 was there a signifigantly higher rate of NHL careers of kids picked that year. So statistically speaking the chances that 75% of the kids picked in the first round this year play in the NHL are very low.
Actually, about 90% of 1st round picks make it to the NHL at some point in their career. About 75% of all 1st round picks will play in 100+ NHL games.

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 09:24 AM
  #12
Gwyddbwyll
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 10,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
That said, was 2002 really that bad? Look at just some of the players that are looking like real high quality prospects or young NHLers:

Nash, Lehtonen, Bouwmeester, Pitkanen, Whitney, Upshall, Lupul, Bouchard, Ballard, Eminger, Semin, Higgins, Grebeshkov, Paille, Babchuk, Steen, Ward, Toivonen, Deslauriers, Stoll, Harding, Daley, LeNeveu, Koltsov, Stajan, Hudler, Fleischmann, among others that we're guaranteed to hear from in the near future.
Generally speaking the top 4 seemed to me to be reckoned as good as any year's draft. Once you got beyond Nash, Lehtonen, Bouw and Pitkanen the quality dropped off fast. Not too many of those guys left are stunning prospects and quite a few on the list werent in the 1st round but are later round gambles that seem to have paid off. That's how it was seen as a weak draft.. you can virtually already name 50% of the 1st round as failing to live up to expectations and more will follow.

Gwyddbwyll is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 12:09 PM
  #13
guitaraholic*
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathFromAbove
Actually, about 90% of 1st round picks make it to the NHL at some point in their career. About 75% of all 1st round picks will play in 100+ NHL games.
I'll dispute these facts but I think that's aside the point. If all it takes is to play 100 or so games at the NHL level for a first round pick not to be considered a flop or a bust then you and I have different sets of expectations for first round picks, I guess.

guitaraholic* is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 12:17 PM
  #14
Gwyddbwyll
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 10,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathFromAbove
Actually, about 90% of 1st round picks make it to the NHL at some point in their career. About 75% of all 1st round picks will play in 100+ NHL games.
I did a little research into this once. I looked at the success rate in each round over 7 years of the draft in the 1990's. I didnt go any further back since drafting has changed significantly. But I found the success rate was much less than 75% although I used my own subjective judgement as to whether they were a success rather than a number. I think it was around 33-50%. I'll dig up the research later since Im at work.

Gwyddbwyll is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 08:00 PM
  #15
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 guitaraholic
I'll dispute these facts but I think that's aside the point. If all it takes is to play 100 or so games at the NHL level for a first round pick not to be considered a flop or a bust then you and I have different sets of expectations for first round picks, I guess.
I'm not giving a definition for "flop". You can define it however you want and use the statistical data to show what percentage flop according to your definition.

Your post said that if 75% we're NHL bound, it would be one of the best drafts ever. I meant only to show that 90% of all 1st round picks are "NHL bound" at some point in their career. You can "dispute" the definition of flop all you want (keeping in mind I never gave nor intended to give a definition for flop), but you can't dispute the statistical data. The 100+ games played I mentioned only to let you know that what was 75% was the number of 1st round picks that played 100 or more NHL games in their career.

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
06-01-2004, 08:04 PM
  #16
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 Stevex
I did a little research into this once. I looked at the success rate in each round over 7 years of the draft in the 1990's. I didnt go any further back since drafting has changed significantly. But I found the success rate was much less than 75% although I used my own subjective judgement as to whether they were a success rather than a number. I think it was around 33-50%. I'll dig up the research later since Im at work.

Here's a link to my post in another thread that provides the research. These numbers are based on drafts 1963-1995. Kind of how the above poster was trying to provide a definition for "flop", I provide no definition for "success rate". You make your own definition - these are just the raw numbers.

I have every single pick in every round for each draft categorized by: round, overall draft position, position of player, games played in NHL, year, team, and am working on adding league drafted from. With each year that goes by, I add another year to the data and the corresponding games played to those players still active.

David A. Rainer 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 10:02 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.