HFBoards

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

simple BPA thoroughly debunked this year

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-27-2004, 07:36 AM
  #1
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,561
vCash: 500
simple BPA thoroughly debunked this year

Going back to the ages-old argument, it seems clear from this year's first round that the simple-minded BPA theory that many people float and that the media likes to translate too loosely from their soundbites seems to have been thoroughly debunked.

Perhaps there are some "categories of BPA", at least:

1 - clear BPA (picking the absolutely best player with biggest upside, completely regardless of position)

2 - well-rounded BPA (picking a player who may possess some "intangibles" or an all-around game that makes him the best player available, although not necessarily the most purely talented or the one with the highest upside)

3 - positional BPA (picking one of the best players available, but directly ignoring players of a certain position for players of a position of greater identified organisational need)

4 - personal favourite BPA (picking a guy totally off the board just 'cuz you like him)

5 - size/toughness BPA (picking a guy for size and toughnes)

There may be more categories. And of course, I know every scout has their own opinions and who are we to really question who is or is not the "BPA", even after breaking it down in these categories. But, fwiw...


Like I was saying, it works at the top of the draft, but after that... forget about it!

1 - Ovechkin: clear BPA
2 - Malkin: clear BPA
3 - Barker: clear BPA
4 - Ladd: well-rounded BPA
(past here down to #11 you have to think teams were ignoring the clear BPA - Tukonen to address their needs or personal favourites)
5 - Wheeler: personal favourite BPA
6 - Montoya: clear BPA pick, since NYR don't need a goalie
7 - Olesz: well-rounded BPA
8 - Picard: personal favourite BPA over Tukonen
9 - Smid: positional BPA, clearly not BPA over Tukonen
10 - Valabik: positional/size toughness BPA
11 - Tukonen: true BPA pick (they probably wanted a goalie, but had to take Tukonen)
12 - Thelen: hybrid BPA: hometown, positional need, *and* perhaps clear BPA
(past here down to #17 teams were ignoring BPA - Schwarz to address needs or personal favourites)
13 - Stafford: well-rounded BPA (clearly ignoring Schwarz because of their goaltending depth)
14 - Dubnyk: personal favourite/positional BPA
15 - Radulov: clear BPA but also positionally-tinged
16 - Nokelainen: personal favourite BPA
17 - Schwarz: clear BPA
18 - Chipchura: well-rounded BPA
19 - Korpikoski: clear BPA (but notice how Calgary didn't pick this supposedly "clear" BPA and instead traded down for a personal favourite)
20 - Zajac: clear BPA
21 - Wolski: clear BPA
22 - Kaspar: personal favourite BPA (they traded up to get him)
23 - Meszaros: clear BPA
24 - Chucko: personal favourite BPA
25 - Schremp: clear BPA
26 - Schneider: clear BPA
27 - Schultz: positional BPA
28 - Fistric: size/toughness BPA
29 - Green: clear BPA
30 - Rogers: size/positional BPA?

Of course, it gets much worse in the 2nd round. But anyway, it was a pretty interesting exposition of drafting strategy by some notable management teams. Look at TB taking Rogers, or Dallas trading down past Meszaros, Schremp, etc... obviously teams look at a lot more than just pure simplistic talent.

Roughly speaking fwiw, anyway. (Not taking this very seriously).

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
06-27-2004, 07:39 AM
  #2
velimiiro
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 875
vCash: 500
Best player availible means NOTHING a very simple reason... just look at Daigle.... jsut because a player is ranked #1 or whatever doesn't mean he will even play in the NHL...

velimiiro is offline  
Old
06-27-2004, 07:50 AM
  #3
Bleu Blanc & Rouge
Registered User
 
Bleu Blanc & Rouge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 197
vCash: 500
That 2nd round yesterday was one of the strangest I've ever seen in any draft, regardless of sport.


When I saw Ray Bourque's kid go 3rd in the 2nd round, I knew it was going to be an interesting day

Bleu Blanc & Rouge is offline  
Old
06-27-2004, 08:22 AM
  #4
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
So, Blind Gardien, if the round went differently,would the theory have been bunked ?

As I was typing I realized I stole this line though I have no idea where ? I guess I just bunked my own dimwittedness.

mcphee is offline  
Old
06-27-2004, 08:36 AM
  #5
Artie
Registered User
 
Artie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Montreal, Que
Country: Italy
Posts: 4,101
vCash: 500
I think the order of the picks this year may be more a reflection of the talent pool. As evryone has been saying, after the top 2 picks it was a crap shoot. I don't think there was real consensus amongst the teams on the BPA.

Artie is offline  
Old
06-27-2004, 08:41 AM
  #6
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
So, Blind Gardien, if the round went differently,would the theory have been bunked ?
The theory is total bunk anyway you look at it.
Quote:
As I was typing I realized I stole this line though I have no idea where ? I guess I just bunked my own dimwittedness.
Your "dimwittedness" is also total bunk.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
06-27-2004, 09:06 AM
  #7
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,727
vCash: 500
The theory of BPA is very real. It doesn't mean all teams practice it, however.

It' not the term BPA that is in contention. It's the term "best".

The best player availaable can be a number of things. How much upside does a player have? How safe is he? How long before he is in our lineup? These are all questions the scouts ask themselves but organizations prioritize differently.

Traditionally, common conventions are that BPA means not putting your teams' needs ahead of the player's quality. Seen that way, I garantee you a good number of teams practice the BPA theory, especially early in the draft.

There comes a time (more often than we like) where you simply don't know which of a group of players (it can be 2 but it can also be easily 5) is the better one. So you break them down by needs this time. And thus the BPA theory is still respected.

Goaltenders are usually the position where teams respect the BPA theory the least. Some teams just feel they can't afford to have too many or too little goalies.

having said all that, not all teams practice the theory all the time. I personally swear by it. It is the only option in smart management.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
06-27-2004, 09:21 AM
  #8
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
The theory of BPA is very real. It doesn't mean all teams practice it, however.
Or more precisely that not all teams practice it all the time. Or better still, *all* teams (approximately all anyway) practice it sometimes, and *all* teams throw it out the window sometimes. Which pretty much debunks it as a universally applied approach, anyway.
Quote:
It' not the term BPA that is in contention. It's the term "best".

The best player availaable can be a number of things. How much upside does a player have? How safe is he? How long before he is in our lineup? These are all questions the scouts ask themselves but organizations prioritize differently.
Exactly the point of about 2 million debates we've had on this board on the topic.
Quote:
Traditionally, common conventions are that BPA means not putting your teams' needs ahead of the player's quality. Seen that way, I garantee you a good number of teams practice the BPA theory, especially early in the draft.
Very early on, yes, and also there seems to be a concentration towards the lower end of the 1st round when the famous "player we didn't expect would be there but we had to take" falls through.
Quote:
There comes a time (more often than we like) where you simply don't know which of a group of players (it can be 2 but it can also be easily 5) is the better one. So you break them down by needs this time. And thus the BPA theory is still respected.
Exactly. But I guess you've just missed most of the debate. It can even be about 50 players who are equivalently BPA after a certain point in the draft. Or 100 after another point. With such a wide window, and with so many teams with different perspectives, and a finite amount of knowledge about a player, the whole point of the debate (in my clouded vision) is that it's just stupid for teams to talk about taking "the best player available", and it's unfortunate that fans get caught up in the idea without considering all the variables such as you have outlined. Note that the title of this thread is the SIMPLE BPA theory is debunked.
Quote:
having said all that, not all teams practice the theory all the time. I personally swear by it. It is the only option in smart management.
As long as you're clear on what it is you're swearing to, that's fine. Anybody in their right mind would swear to it.


Last edited by Blind Gardien: 06-27-2004 at 09:24 AM.
Blind Gardien 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 07:58 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.