2013 NHL Entry Draft: Buffalo Sabres Select...

[qwksndmonster]

I feel like we should sticky this, as it seems every time Grigs' name comes up, somebody suggests Rochester.

Well Rochester is just so :censored: perfect for him. I hate that rule.

[dudacek]

Sorry, but I can't remember the source of this, it may be what you guys are referring to above.

But it was my understanding that kids born in the first few months of the year have an advantage over their peers growing up simply because they are often significantly further along in their development than those they a interacting with - a December 2008 kid is literally 80 per cent of a January 2008 kid.

[deluca67]

they can't put him in Rochester next season. Like last season, it is Buffalo or Quebec. He'll be in Buffalo next year unless he's dealt.

Then keep him in Quebec. The kid has a long way to go until he is NHL ready. A year in Quebec and another in the ROC and let's see where he is then.

[sicknfla]

Here in Florida baseball is king. Your birthday plays a huge role in a kids development. I will try to explain quickly.

 

The deadline that determines a kids league age is April 30. So if my kid is 13 and was born on April 30 he can play 13u. If he is 13 and born on May 1 he must play 14u. So, obviously, all your studs are generally the kids that were born as close to April 30 as possible. Not that they are any better than the kid born on May 1 - he just is playing with kids that are up to 364 days younger than him.

 

In baseball your school year will then level that out somewhat. For instance, my son is a young 11u player in 5th grade. Most of his teammates are older 11u players in 6th grade. As they get older colleges will strictly be looking at them by their grade. In the hockey draft it is purely by league age.

 

So, a kids birthday is a big thing to look at when you are talking about their development. My 18 yr old that got drafted by the Sabres may be 364 days younger than your 18 yr old drafted by the Bruins. Right now, your 18 yr old should be further along developmentally than mine.

 

That being said, if our sons are ranked dead equal, my son is getting drafted earlier because a gm looks at it like where will he be a year from now. Hence, that is why mine was drafted by the Sabres and yours went to the Bruins.

[rakish]

Sorry, but I can't remember the source of this, it may be what you guys are referring to above.

But it was my understanding that kids born in the first few months of the year have an advantage over their peers growing up simply because they are often significantly further along in their development than those they a interacting with - a December 2008 kid is literally 80 per cent of a January 2008 kid.

A December kid is perceived as 80% of a January kid, that's the selection bias.

 

Let's say you're drafting 20th, and both Max Domi and Hunter Shinkaruk are on the board, and you need a 5'9" scorer, what are the tools you can use to evaluate the players? One of those players (Domi) has been one of the oldest players on every team he's played on, the other, Shinkaruk, has been one of the youngest. My study shows that many teams in the NHL don't take this into consideration, and overvalue Domi, and undervalue Shinkaruk. If NHL teams value them equally, I would expect Shinkaruk to play 50% more games per year than Domi.

 

Let's look at it another way, let's look at the Sabres, Kings, and Penguins. If you look at the 3 charts, the Sabres draft heavy at 18.5 (January) and light at 18.6 (December). Look at all the players choses at 18.4 that have not played 20 games. Now look at how LA and Pittsburgh drafts, no emphasis on January born players.

 

 

That being said, if our sons are ranked dead equal, my son is getting drafted earlier because a gm looks at it like where will he be a year from now. Hence, that is why mine was drafted by the Sabres and yours went to the Bruins.

 

Two weeks ago I thought the same thing, but a very young draft pick doesn't play anymore games. I started this project thinking about Barkov, but the player born in September does just as well staying in junior the extra year, like Jones has.

[sicknfla]

If I am gm u ask drafting the guy on where he projects in 3 years. All things equal I am going with the younger guy. Why wouldn't you? Now if you are looking for an immediate impact player you may lean towards the older player.

 

Work a kid out at the combine and bring him back 11 months later and check his numbers. At 18 years old age makes a huge difference. In any other sport they are looked at as under developed. How many football players come out of HS as a stud then gets to college and 4 years later he is hoping he can leave with at least a degree. A kid down here, Matt Laporta, (who was in the Cleveland Indians system and you may have watched in Buffalo) was originally drafted in the 13th rd out of HS. Elected to go to UF instead. Developed for a few years and went back into draft. Then goes 1st round. At 18 they are still kids playing in a mans league.

[Neo]

If you had read the piece, it's in Outliers, not the Tipping Point, and Gladwell is just talking about the number of players, he doesn't get into the relationship between the draft and the date of birth.

 

Correct, "Outliers". I've read the piece. My post was a reference. I wasn't supporting or refuting yours. Perhaps another way to phrase your reply would be "I see you've read Gladwell, but it's his other work, "Outliers."

[rakish]

I've read the piece.

 

My apologies

[rakish]

If I am gm u ask drafting the guy on where he projects in 3 years. All things equal I am going with the younger guy. Why wouldn't you?

 

I think that draft analysts take this into account, that's why I didn't find any bias for the very young draft pick. If you look at the same chart as the first chart I put up, extended out to all picks (Vanek, for instance, was chosen as an older player), you will see there is generally good value in older players. It's possible that older players are picked earlier in the draft, so are expected to play more games, but I doubt it. And the number of picks, comparatively, is much fewer, therefore the games played per pick jumps around a lot more.

 

So my answer to the 'Why wouldn't you?' would be that everyone makes that analysis.

[TrueBlueGED]

Older players are picked more because they are further developed, thus giving a better idea of their upside and reducing development risk. How many times are two prospects identical aside from their birth date? I'd expect such a case to be exceptionally rare. Birth date probably doesn't play much into the decision unless this is the case (excepting, of course, the over-agers).

 

 

[LGR4GM]

Then keep him in Quebec. The kid has a long way to go until he is NHL ready. A year in Quebec and another in the ROC and let's see where he is then.

The only problem with this is you then burned total years of contract and he is up to be resigned as an RFA and only has 4yrs left as an RFA before anyone can grab him. They screwed the pooch by having him play this year in a worthless lockout shortened season.

[rakish]

Older players are picked more because they are further developed, thus giving a better idea of their upside and reducing development risk. How many times are two prospects identical aside from their birth date? I'd expect such a case to be exceptionally rare. Birth date probably doesn't play much into the decision unless this is the case (excepting, of course, the over-agers).

 

Older players are picked more. If you follow the purple bars in the last chart, older players are picked much less often.

 

The next clause is true, you have a better idea of their upside, thus an older pick is often better

 

How many times are two prospects identical other than their birthdate? Well, over the past 10 years, teams have chosen about 200 January born players, about 100 December born players. That says to me that they are favoring the January born player because he played against younger kids his whole life.

 

Birth date doesn't play much into the decision. Yes, that's the entire point. Max Domi looks better than he is. Hunter Shinkaruk is better than he looks. Teams like Buffalo don't correct for this, and choose the January born player. Teams like Pittsburgh do adjust for this, and don't pick as many January born players.

 

Excepting, of course, the overagers. Yes, I believe draft analysts adjust for age, as I posted above I think they slightly over-adjust for age. The twenty year old is often a good pick

[deluca67]

The only problem with this is you then burned total years of contract and he is up to be resigned as an RFA and only has 4yrs left as an RFA before anyone can grab him. They screwed the pooch by having him play this year in a worthless lockout shortened season.

The Sabres let their desperation get the better of them. Here is a franchise that for years blamed the Islanders for their handling of Tim Connolly and here they are doing the same thing to Grigorenko.

[sicknfla]

All I can say is it has been raining too much down here. If I am debating birthdays I need to get outside more. Getting ready to make our annual trip to Canada for a little cottage action. If anyone sees an overweight guy at mighty taco placing a $100 order that is me. Not the same after freezing though.

[Tom Backyard]

Sorry, but I can't remember the source of this, it may be what you guys are referring to above.

But it was my understanding that kids born in the first few months of the year have an advantage over their peers growing up simply because they are often significantly further along in their development than those they a interacting with - a December 2008 kid is literally 80 per cent of a January 2008 kid.

 

Ken Dryden goes into a pretty substantial analysis of this idea in his book "Home Game.". It's a good read if you've never picked it up.

[X. Benedict]

The Sabres let their desperation get the better of them. Here is a franchise that for years blamed the Islanders for their handling of Tim Connolly and here they are doing the same thing to Grigorenko.

 

They did?

[deluca67]

They did?

Absolutely! When Connolly faltered all we heard from Regier and Ruff was how Connolly was hurt by the Islanders playing him right out of juniors and that playing in the AHL would have helped him immensely.

[X. Benedict]

Absolutely! When Connolly faltered all we heard from Regier and Ruff was how Connolly was hurt by the Islanders playing him right out of juniors and that playing in the AHL would have helped him immensely.

 

I heard Hamilton say it, but never Regier. Connolly didn't have bad numbers for the Isles.

 

 

Anyway....leaving Grigo in juniors sounds like the opposite of bold thinking.

[sicknfla]

Regardless of how they developed Connolly it wasn't going to change the fact that he is peanut brittle.

[TrueBlueGED]

Older players are picked more. If you follow the purple bars in the last chart, older players are picked much less often.

 

The next clause is true, you have a better idea of their upside, thus an older pick is often better

 

How many times are two prospects identical other than their birthdate? Well, over the past 10 years, teams have chosen about 200 January born players, about 100 December born players. That says to me that they are favoring the January born player because he played against younger kids his whole life.

 

Birth date doesn't play much into the decision. Yes, that's the entire point. Max Domi looks better than he is. Hunter Shinkaruk is better than he looks. Teams like Buffalo don't correct for this, and choose the January born player. Teams like Pittsburgh do adjust for this, and don't pick as many January born players.

 

Excepting, of course, the overagers. Yes, I believe draft analysts adjust for age, as I posted above I think they slightly over-adjust for age. The twenty year old is often a good pick

 

This is where we disagree. You're assuming that because more January-born players are taken, that means they aren't paying attention to birth date. On the contrary, I think birth date is inherently evaluated throughout the entire process--how does one assess risks, and upside, and NHL-projected skills without considering age along the way? The Canadian media talks about it, anonymous scouts talk about it, draftniks talk about it...there's no way it isn't involved in the process. Just because the valuations and subsequent draft selections tend to lean towards the older players doesn't mean the birth date isn't considered.

[sicknfla]

Throw the charts and data out the window. It matters!! A 6ft 190lb kid that is 18 and 7 days is more appealing to me than a 6 ft 190lb kid that is is 18 and 340 days. Kids are still growing and maturing at 18. Again, if 2 players are rated very close I go with the younger.

 

Appealing in a hockey sense. I know what you are all thinking.

[LGR4GM]

With the 52nd pick in the 2013 NHL Entry Draft the Buffalo Sabres select, Laurent Dauphin from the QMJHL. He is 6' but only 166lbs. So why do I like him? Well not only is there a good chance he is available but more importantly this kid can play. He has shown he has smooth skating and stickhandling and he never gives up on a play. Watch his U-18 highlights, he never quits and his legs keep turning. His low weight is an issue because he gets bumped off the puck. However he turned 18 in March and has plenty of time to hit the gym. With our 2nd 2nd round pick this guy could be a good addition in 4yrs. He needs 2 more years in Juniors and then 2 years in the AHL. Next year though, this kid is going to breakout in the Q.

 

[LGR4GM]

Notably absent from the list, Bo Horvat.

http://sabres.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=673487

[26CornerBlitz]

Notably absent from the list, Bo Horvat.

http://sabres.nhl.co...s.htm?id=673487

 

One man's opinion...although well regarded....doesn't make it correct.

[26CornerBlitz]

Updated NHL.com Mock Drafts: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=673459&navid=nhl:topheads