2015 NHL Entry Draft

[herman]

I'm not an advanced metrics guy by any means (that's why I used a baseball term!).

Does this take into account line mates? Would Strome have higher numbers because he's on a better team/line? I'd be interested to know how many ES points he scored with McDavid on the ice. Were his linemates better than Marner's?

They're impressive numbers but without that info it's hard to really put the numbers in context.

I haven't done any of this research myself, but the premise of ignoring the 2nd Assist sounds like a way to control the linemate variable to a degree, using only surface stats. Obviously more data is required at all levels, but this casual glance highlights how big a gap there is between McDavid and the rest of the draft group (Eichel not shown as he is not in the CHL where the stats were gathered).

I haven't watched any of the OHL games so I can't even begin to surmise what context accounts for in these numbers.

Right. I didn't watch any games either so I have no idea if Strome played with McDavid. Figure that if he was it wouldn't be too hard to pick up a 1st or 2nd assist on a teammate who was picking up 4 pts per game.

With Marner and Strome's pt totals being so close I'd guess (total guess) that McDavid's influence on Strome's numbers would be enough to show Marner as the superior stand alone player (if that makes any sense) even without them playing a significant amount of time together. Conservatively I'd say Strome/McDavid connected for 30 of Strome's points.

Again I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows more/saw more of Strome's season.

Marner's speaks for itself IMO.

Strome played on the second line while McDavid anchored the top line. There was a 20ish game stretch where McDavid was out with the hand injury.

 

[Kin]

Something like "Second Assists are useless and not really indicative of talent at all" is where the analytics folks lose the plot a little. I understand what they mean, of course, that there isn't a repeatable pattern of scoring that shows up in second assists and would indicate a level of talent and that year to year variation in a player's scoring totals are reflected there heavily.

But we've all seen plays where second assists are important to what happens on the play, maybe even the most crucial play in the sequence. Sometimes they're displays of great skill, a great outlet pass or a tough win of a puck battle. I'm fine with minimizing their importance and recognizing the variables inherent in them but to reject them outright as being important to an offensive player's talent level is on it's face false and one of those few areas where "watch the game" is a legitimate retort.

 

[ZBBM]

Marner is not a center.

Marner is not a center.

Marner is not a center.

 

[ZBBM]

Something like "Second Assists are useless and not really indicative of talent at all" is where the analytics folks lose the plot a little. I understand what they mean, of course, that there isn't a repeatable pattern of scoring that shows up in second assists and would indicate a level of talent and that year to year variation in a player's scoring totals are reflected there heavily.

But we've all seen plays where second assists are important to what happens on the play, maybe even the most crucial play in the sequence. Sometimes they're displays of great skill, a great outlet pass or a tough win of a puck battle. I'm fine with minimizing their importance and recognizing the variables inherent in them but to reject them outright as being important to an offensive player's talent level is on it's face false and one of those few areas where "watch the game" is a legitimate retort.

Stralman's pass to Stamkos on the first goal last night being a case in point.

 

[Highlander]

Marner is not a Centre
but he has played on one Television.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Something like "Second Assists are useless and not really indicative of talent at all" is where the analytics folks lose the plot a little. I understand what they mean, of course, that there isn't a repeatable pattern of scoring that shows up in second assists and would indicate a level of talent and that year to year variation in a player's scoring totals are reflected there heavily.

But we've all seen plays where second assists are important to what happens on the play, maybe even the most crucial play in the sequence. Sometimes they're displays of great skill, a great outlet pass or a tough win of a puck battle. I'm fine with minimizing their importance and recognizing the variables inherent in them but to reject them outright as being important to an offensive player's talent level is on it's face false and one of those few areas where "watch the game" is a legitimate retort.

Isn't this something where you'd actually have to see the research yourself before you outright call it on its face false?  How is rejecting it outright without reading it any more legitimate than the person who did the research rejecting the premise that secondary assists aren't indicative of talent level.

It's very likely that the person who did the research agrees with everything you stated.  You can agree that individuals can make talented plays but also agree that obtaining secondary assists is not indicative of anything over the greater term.

Maybe the person above just interpreted a particular article differently or more extremely.  Take this (I don't know if this is the article, but it's one I found):

Most people agree that the primary assist is, on the whole, more valuable than the secondary assist.  That is not to say that secondary assists are useless, and in several cases they took more skill and made a bigger contribution to the goal than the primary assist.  For the most part however, the correlation year-to-year for primary assists is greater than that of secondary assists, according to Eric T of Broad Street Hockey.

As an aside, Jonathan Willis at the Cult Of Hockey disputes the notion that there is almost no correlation between the rate of secondary assists from one year to the next, showing far greater correlation, though still noting that primary assists had a ?stronger repeatability?, and hence likely require greater skill on the part of the player.

http://icenationuk.com/2014/03/17/interesting-numbers-primary-assists-in-the-nhl/

Nothing extremely crazy there or that requires much in the way of unique thought.

 

[Kin]

Isn't this something where you'd actually have to see the research yourself before you outright call it on its face false?  How is rejecting it outright without reading it any more legitimate than the person who did the research rejecting the premise that secondary assists aren't indicative of talent level.

It's very likely that the person who did the research agrees with everything you stated.  You can agree that individuals can make talented plays but also agree that obtaining secondary assists is not indicative of anything over the greater term.

Maybe the person above just interpreted a particular article differently or more extremely.  Take this (I don't know if this is the article, but it's one I found):

Nothing extremely crazy there or that requires much in the way of unique thought.

Sure. That's why I said the research behind it might be sound and why I understood the difference between what the research might show and the words I put in quotation marks there as being a more or less direct quote from what herman cited. I'm responding specifically to that phrasing but I'm very much open to some of the ideas that it might be based on.

So I'm not rejecting the research. Just the way that got put. I appreciate that might seem like a small thing to focus on given the larger point but the person who wrote that is obviously a smart person who would know better. 

 

[AvroArrow]

Marner is not a center.

Marner is not a center.

Marner is not a center.

Is this tongue-in-cheek, or are you being serious?

Just in case it's the latter, I'd have to say it's not definitive whether or not he'll be a center in the NHL, but he's absolutely capable of playing center and has done in his Junior career.  I believe he was playing center during the playoffs where he amassed hefty point totals very quickly.

 

[ZBBM]

Marner is not a center.

Marner is not a center.

Marner is not a center.

Is this tongue-in-cheek, or are you being serious?

Just in case it's the latter, I'd have to say it's not definitive whether or not he'll be a center in the NHL, but he's absolutely capable of playing center and has done in his Junior career.  I believe he was playing center during the playoffs where he amassed hefty point totals very quickly.

Totally serious. Many are projecting him to play the wing. If you are going to spend a 4 on a center you want somebody who without question is going to be a centerman in the NHL. Marner is not.

 

[Tigger]

If you think Marner is going to be the better player, should probably take him.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

If you think Marner is going to be the better player, should probably take him.

Totally agree.

 

[Tigger]

Strome looks fine but most goals and assists seem to be in close and at a slower speed. I doubt he'd get the time in the NHL to make a good portion of these plays:

This might be something to Strome's benefit to me, that he shows an ability to play in front of the net, watching the playoffs now that's a definite positive attribute. From what I know I'd take Marner of the two but then I've not seen them play much.

 

[bustaheims]

If you think Marner is going to be the better player, should probably take him.

Agreed, but, if there you don't think there's going to be any real difference in terms of what the two players will contribute towards a winning team, you take Strome because he's much more likely to end up playing the more valuable position.

 

[bustaheims]

Just in case it's the latter, I'd have to say it's not definitive whether or not he'll be a center in the NHL, but he's absolutely capable of playing center and has done in his Junior career.  I believe he was playing center during the playoffs where he amassed hefty point totals very quickly.

He's only been a part-time centre in junior and is officially listed as a RW. It's really unlikely that he ends up playing centre in the NHL if he's not doing so full-time as a junior. It's much more likely he's a centre in the same way that Kessel was - not well suited for it, but capable of it because he's the best player on his line.

 

[Bullfrog]

If you think Marner is going to be the better player, should probably take him.

Agreed, but, if there you don't think there's going to be any real difference in terms of what the two players will contribute towards a winning team, you take Strome because he's much more likely to end up playing the more valuable position.

I disagree. I think the whole concept that centre is a more valuable position is a bit overblown. Perhaps still valid, but not an overly important decision. If their potential is basically equal, I take the better skater every time.

 

[Kin]

He's only been a part-time centre in junior and is officially listed as a RW. It's really unlikely that he ends up playing centre in the NHL if he's not doing so full-time as a junior. It's much more likely he's a centre in the same way that Kessel was - not well suited for it, but capable of it because he's the best player on his line.

But when you sat he's not well suited to it, what do you mean? Is it just a size thing? I'm genuinely curious. I've never been the most X's and O's savvy so I don't know what it is about a fast, skilled, apparently defensively responsible winger(which the scouting reports seem to describe Marner as) that would make him ill-suited to playing up the middle. Is it familiarity with the position?

Because like I said elsewhere if you figure both guys are still a year if not two away from the NHL that seems like time that could be spent learning the ins and outs of the position if he's physically capable of it.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Perhaps LK can expand on this, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Marner playing centre for the Knights next season (assuming that he isn't in the NHL). I think a big reason why he's been on the wing with them is because they've had more veteran options available down the middle. And it's not like he was performing poorly on the wing. But their trade of Michael McCarron already left a pretty big gap for the Knights down the middle, and Marner filled that for them during the playoffs (he actually requested the move back to centre before the playoffs began). Christian Dvorak likely won't be returning next season, so both of their top-6 centres to start the year won't be back. Saying he definitely won't be a centre seems like a pretty short-sighted thing to say. Especially since as Nik notes, he has a lot of the attributes a good centre needs.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

If you think Marner is going to be the better player, should probably take him.

Agreed, but, if there you don't think there's going to be any real difference in terms of what the two players will contribute towards a winning team, you take Strome because he's much more likely to end up playing the more valuable position.

I disagree. I think the whole concept that centre is a more valuable position is a bit overblown. Perhaps still valid, but not an overly important decision. If their potential is basically equal, I take the better skater every time.

I think you're contradicting yourself - it's a bit overblown, but still valid, but not overly important? 

Centre has the normal offensive responsibilities but is also expected to go deep into their own zone (not patrol the half-wall and out as a winger roughly does) and help out the D.  A very good two-way C can be extremely important to a team, and the fact that their D responsibilities are so much more than wingers means their ability to impact the game at both ends is so much greater.  A winger is more or less confined to an area on D (in theory) while a C is expected to go all over the rink for his D responsibilities.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Seeing as it's a term that's getting tossed around an awful lot these days, for kicks does anybody have any good examples they've come across of the egregious use of the term "generational talent"?  I heard a Detroit fan on the radio a couple of days ago call Patrick Kane a generational talent.  I mean, just how short are human generations these days, anyway?

 

[freer]

Seeing as it's a term that's getting tossed around an awful lot these days, for kicks does anybody have any good examples they've come across of the egregious use of the term "generational talent"?  I heard a Detroit fan on the radio a couple of days ago call Patrick Kane a generational talent.  I mean, just how short are human generations these days, anyway?

A generation is considered to be 8 years.