herman
Well-known member
Britishbulldog said:Chris said:Where is this posted (or is there a link)? Don't remember seeing it. This is something I was wondering about the other day.Britishbulldog said:Significantly Insignificant said:So I was having this discussion with a colleague at work about first round draft duds. The discussion went down the train of thought that with all of the advanced scouting and metrics available to teams nowadays that the chances that a team totally misses the boat on a 1st overall selection are smaller than they were say 25 - 35 years ago. This isn't to say that a Crosby will be drafted in every draft, but rather misses like Patrick Stefan and Pat Falloon ( not a first but picked 2nd before Neidermeyer at 3rd) will become less and less frequent. What say the minds of tmlfans.ca?
I am with Potvin29's article he showed where just drafting the highest scoring players available will basically be the best choice. Once in a while it flops and once in a while a player off the chart turns out great but those are so infrequent that a team should not even consider it.
http://thehockeywriters.com/the-nhl-has-a-scouting-problem/
Using Pearson?s r correlation we found that the NHL?s Central Scouting Staff rankings compared to those players? NHL games played only had a correlation of -0.19 (or ?No or negligible relationship?). When using very simple metrics such as a prospect?s draft-year points/game, the correlation with NHL games played is much higher, at 0.41 (or ?Strong positive relationship?).
This is absolutely mind blowing
I found it interesting where the Leafs have sometimes simply drafted for the size of a player thinking that size can't be taught.
Hopefully those days are over.
Thanks, Britishbulldog/Potvin29. I didn't catch it the first time it came up. It seems to me that speed and PPG are some pretty easy surface metrics to rely on for draft success.