Considering the list of 'top' line centres and how they were acquired that Pitrielli put together, the notion that you can use the BPA model to move laterally at a later date to fulfill roster requirements seems to be at an impasse. I'd be all for the Leafs targeting a centre in this years draft, paying a price, and drafting him, I might go so far to say they should try to do that for a few years.
Draft Pick Watch - WE PICKED NYLANDER!!1!!
- Thread starter L K
- Start date
Rebel_1812
New member
Tigger said:
I would be inclined to agree. Their is alot less trades and UFA signings of good players. This makes it more important to add the good players through the draft.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Ignore this, I regret even posting it. Blah blah stats nerds blah blah. Carry on.
Corn Flake
New member
Potvin29 said:
*facepalm* Is this another attempt for the numbers army to say they can do a better job than people who have been in the sport their entire lives?
Most of those Canucks drafts were indeed very miserable ones. I mean they got 10 NHL players in 12 drafts (I'm not counting the last 2)??!! I don't really think the Canucks are a good example to use when attempting to suggest that picking based on points is all you nee to do. If you took a team that was even average at draft success, I think you'd I think the stat-based picks which were misses in the sampling show a lot of guessing happens even with the point totals as the lone stat.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Corn Flake said:
What exactly are you facepalming? I didn't make any grand proclamations, and neither did the article. I wondered how well a team could realistically do that way, and in this example, using only one league, it's better than the people paid to scout.
Easy there big fella. Calculator nightmares are scary things.
Corn Flake
New member
Potvin29 said:
Hey Bill, take a chill pill... wasn't directing it at you. Was facepalming the end of that article.
The conclusion section pretty much points to the idea you don't need a scouting staff.. just use 3 stat columns and you are golden. Like I said, the Canucks are a very good example of bad drafting, clearly.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Corn Flake said:
It doesn't. At all. As the stat nerds are often told, "watch the games," and in this case, "read the articles."
I'm saying it's funny and I wonder how many other teams in the league it would work for because it suggests you're not getting good value out of your scouting department. Their conclusion is not that you don't need a scouting staff and I'm rather surprised you took it that way, unless you did not bother to read it. They clearly state that it is in reference to how terribly the Canucks scouting staff has performed and that it is sad that this simplistic method could have yielded better results in their case. There are tons of limitations to the article.
Bro, do you even scout?
Kin
New member
I remember someone, if memory serves it was Chuck Klosterman, saying that if you look at any NBA team's draft record outside of, like, the top 5 or something and replaced it with someone who just took the most well regarded player from either Duke or UConn every year then the Duke/UConn drafts would almost certainly be stronger.
So I suspect that this sort of thing might not be overly rare. The problem, I suppose, is that I'm not entirely sure what point is being made. The collection of players taken by that method are sort of superficially better as a group, I suppose, but the real flaw is revealed by this paragraph:
Well, yeah, I mean if you're just drafting forwards you'll get more games(12 forward games played per NHL game vs. 6 for defensemen and usually 1 per goalie) at an almost 2-1 spread. You'll also get more goals and points because that's by and large what forwards do. But if those are the quantifiable yardsticks for how good a draftpick is then that's a way of looking at things that sees Matt Stajan as a significantly better pick than Alex Edler and Corey Schneider as being not that valuable at all.
edited to add: Although it raises an interesting question about what to do with lower round picks maybe. If those are all just shots in the dark and this method might produce better than average results then it might be a thing to do(although you'd still want to somehow incorporate goalies and defensemen).
So I suspect that this sort of thing might not be overly rare. The problem, I suppose, is that I'm not entirely sure what point is being made. The collection of players taken by that method are sort of superficially better as a group, I suppose, but the real flaw is revealed by this paragraph:
Well, yeah, I mean if you're just drafting forwards you'll get more games(12 forward games played per NHL game vs. 6 for defensemen and usually 1 per goalie) at an almost 2-1 spread. You'll also get more goals and points because that's by and large what forwards do. But if those are the quantifiable yardsticks for how good a draftpick is then that's a way of looking at things that sees Matt Stajan as a significantly better pick than Alex Edler and Corey Schneider as being not that valuable at all.
edited to add: Although it raises an interesting question about what to do with lower round picks maybe. If those are all just shots in the dark and this method might produce better than average results then it might be a thing to do(although you'd still want to somehow incorporate goalies and defensemen).
Corn Flake
New member
Potvin29 said:
Bro I used to, actually. SO THERE!
I did read it - twice - and I still come away with the a tone that suggests this is a better way to draft than using scouts... or I'm hearing in the back of my head a number of very loud idiots on twitter who would take that article and spout that conclusion.. so it's a bit of that too.
To me the only stat, and it only works in hindsight, is games played at the NHL level to evaluate draft success. Doesn't work when you are actually drafting.
I think the article was just trying to show how awful Vancouver's scouting team has been over the past decade or so. They could have done that in a bunch of different ways really but chose one where they could have a little fun with it. It's obviously not trying to argue that NHL teams should approach their drafts like this.
bustaheims
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
That's what I get from it, too . . . and, maybe, sometimes, using an overly simplistic system like they did will be more successful than having poor scouts.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
If they could grab a guy who can become an elite two-way C I'd be over the moon. Just looking at a lot of the recent Cup winners...Chicago, LA, Boston...all 3 have a C like that. Toews has never cracked 76 points or been PPG in a regular season. Patrice Bergeron's high is 73, 8 years ago. Kopitar has been close to a PPG at times (81 points in 82 one season) but recently is in the 70-76 point range.
Seems like the most successful teams these days are driven by these types of players - don't have to consistently put up 80-90 points but be a force at both ends.
Seems like the most successful teams these days are driven by these types of players - don't have to consistently put up 80-90 points but be a force at both ends.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Andy007 said:
Only way I see him dealt is if they have to in order to keep Stastny. I'd let Stastny walk, personally, but if for some reason it came to that I could see signing Stastny and getting something for O'Reilly rather than keeping one and letting the other leave for nothing (but cap space).
Roy apparently loves O'Reilly, he ain't going anywhere.
L K
Active member
Potvin29 said:
Hell, my vote for best Leaf of all time (Sundin) was rarely >PPG with the Leafs. I think the biggest thing about being a star player is more about consistency out of the position. You need the two-way element out of your #1 (or he needs to be something unique like a punished power forward who can control the play for extended periods of time) but you need more consistency in their offense than a guy who goes off for 3-4 points and then disappears for 5 games at a time.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
L K said:
I would agree with that, although for the record, Sundin was above a PPG for his career as a Leaf.
Was PPG or above 8 of 13 seasons in Toronto and, I don't know if this has ever been mentioned before, but holy crap was he consistent (I'm aware it's been mentioned countless times).