Official 2014 NHL Draft thread

[FolignosJock]

Didn't mean both together. Just saying if I had to choose, I would take Reinhart number one. If Reinhart is gone or hurt then I take Bennett over Dal Colle.

 

 

 

I'm not giving a 2nd round pick to move up one draft slot. Not in this draft. A third maybe if we REALLY feel like Dal Colle is better than the next guy.

 

 

 

If you have two top five picks then you should be more likely to take a risk on Draisaitl. Reinhart and Draisaitl would be a good haul. A safe pick and a risky one.

 

 

No reason to take a risky pick there.

[Hoss]

I dont take Draisaitl period. I dont think his game translates at all. Also people want to say that he was on a poor team and thats why he ddint do well. Each and every year that Vanek played with Austria in tournamnets where they lost every game he put up numbers. Elite players put up numbers even if their team is over matched.

 

He put up six points in six games at the World Juniors this year and was a minus-1. Vanek put up four points in six games in his last WJC and was a minus-8.

[FolignosJock]

He put up six points in six games at the World Juniors this year and was a minus-1. Vanek put up four points in six games in his last WJC and was a minus-8.

 

 

He played horrible. They were nearly relegated and he played good in that game. Did nothing against the americans and got kicked out of the game. I hink he was also held scoreless against the canadians.

 

 

4 of those points against Norway the worst team in the tournament.

Edited January 24, 2014 by FolignosJock

[dudacek]

It's interesting that there now seems to be a top five developing.

I'm wondering where the Islanders deferral line is. Perhaps at six?

 

If they do give us the pick this year and it's between five and 10, history shows we will have the ammunition to move up.

[HopefulFuture]

It's interesting that there now seems to be a top five developing.

I'm wondering where the Islanders deferral line is. Perhaps at six?

 

If they do give us the pick this year and it's between five and 10, history shows we will have the ammunition to move up.

 

I can only hope. I have to wonder if not getting Vanek re-signed by the dead line and him going to test the FA market would have a significant impact on their hopes in the McDavid sweepstakes.

[Derrico]

Yes for me draisaitl is not an option. As for Reinhardt v Bennett. .. I keep looking at that age difference and wondering. Also hearing Bennett can take over a game... drool

 

You use the age difference in alot of your analysis. I agree that it is a factor but I'm not sure it should be a determining factor.

[Hoss]

He played horrible. They were nearly relegated and he played good in that game. Did nothing against the americans and got kicked out of the game. I hink he was also held scoreless against the canadians.

 

 

4 of those points against Norway the worst team in the tournament.

 

So he had as many points in one game as Vanek had in six? :P I was just noting that you said "at least Vanek put up points" while Draisaitl put up more than Vanek did.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Tankalicious

[FolignosJock]

You use the age difference in alot of your analysis. I agree that it is a factor but I'm not sure it should be a determining factor.

 

If you look at previous drafts it is a pretty good indicator. Like if looking at Kassian and Foligno. Foligno is 7 months younger and was not as developed as Kassian. Now they appear to be very similar players. Yet one went in the fourth round and the other the first. That 7 months of development is important.

 

So he had as many points in one game as Vanek had in six? :P I was just noting that you said "at least Vanek put up points" while Draisaitl put up more than Vanek did.

 

 

Unfair! I was more talking World Championships and not juniors. but point to you good sir.

[LGR4GM]

Didn't mean both together. Just saying if I had to choose, I would take Reinhart number one. If Reinhart is gone or hurt then I take Bennett over Dal Colle.

 

 

 

I'm not giving a 2nd round pick to move up one draft slot. Not in this draft. A third maybe if we REALLY feel like Dal Colle is better than the next guy.

 

 

 

If you have two top five picks then you should be more likely to take a risk on Draisaitl. Reinhart and Draisaitl would be a good haul. A safe pick and a risky one.

If I have two top 5 picks I am taking Bennett, Reinhart, Dal Colle, Virtanen in that order.Draisaitl IMPO is not worth it.

[Hoss]

Unfair! I was more talking World Championships and not juniors. but point to you good sir.

 

Draisaitl hasn't played at the World Championships yet. Who knows what he might do. I like him as a prospect, and I want to see us make a risky pick if we have two in the top five.

[LGR4GM]

If you look at previous drafts it is a pretty good indicator. Like if looking at Kassian and Foligno. Foligno is 7 months younger and was not as developed as Kassian. Now they appear to be very similar players. Yet one went in the fourth round and the other the first. That 7 months of development is important.

 

 

 

 

Unfair! I was more talking World Championships and not juniors. but point to you good sir.

Look at Zadorov. Younger than Ristolainen and Jones by about 7 months. Seems to be catching up to both rather quickly.

You use the age difference in alot of your analysis. I agree that it is a factor but I'm not sure it should be a determining factor.

When you have such a slight distinction in talent from Reinhart to Bennett it is of the utmost importance. Think about it. 7 months of growth for a 17-18yr old. I remember I grew 2 inches my senior year of high school where I went from 17-18. If a younger player is playing to the level of an older player and has shown more improvement over the course of the season, I would be more apt to take the younger player because he has more room to grow and succeed. This of course is my personal philosophy.

 

Draisaitl hasn't played at the World Championships yet. Who knows what he might do. I like him as a prospect, and I want to see us make a risky pick if we have two in the top five.

Why? Why take Draisaitl when I can take Dal Colle and get a better player with just as much upside who fills the power winger void.

[FolignosJock]

Look at Zadorov. Younger than Ristolainen and Jones by about 7 months. Seems to be catching up to both rather quickly.

 

When you have such a slight distinction in talent from Reinhart to Bennett it is of the utmost importance. Think about it. 7 months of growth for a 17-18yr old. I remember I grew 2 inches my senior year of high school where I went from 17-18. If a younger player is playing to the level of an older player and has shown more improvement over the course of the season, I would be more apt to take the younger player because he has more room to grow and succeed. This of course is my personal philosophy.

 

 

Why? Why take Draisaitl when I can take Dal Colle and get a better player with just as much upside who fills the power winger void.

 

 

I was a late bloomer. So hopefully one of these guys is like me. I weighed 180 pounds in the eighth grade at about 5'5''. I also weighed 180 pounds as a Senior but I was 6'2''.

[Derrico]

If you look at previous drafts it is a pretty good indicator. Like if looking at Kassian and Foligno. Foligno is 7 months younger and was not as developed as Kassian. Now they appear to be very similar players. Yet one went in the fourth round and the other the first. That 7 months of development is important.

 

Yep and that same year John Tavares went 1st overall and Jacob Josefson went 20th. Josefson is 6 months younger though. I'm sure you could find a million examples of younger player x ending up a better prosepect than older player y. You could also find a million the other way. If the two players are very close then yes I will take that into account but I don't think it's a huge factor or you will see year in and year out the youngest guys being taken 1st overall and turning into the best players of the class.

 

Look at Zadorov. Younger than Ristolainen and Jones by about 7 months. Seems to be catching up to both rather quickly.

 

And Monaghan was one of the older players in the draft last year and although I haven't checked lately, he's been having a great rookie season. What's your point?

 

I do understand what you are saying but these players are scrutinized day in and day out by scouts looking for potential. I get it if it's really close but I'm not going out of my way to talk myself into somebody due to the less than a year age gap.

[dudacek]

I can't see the Islanders deferring a top five pick, I can see them deferring a top 10.

That gives us a Bennett or Reinhart with our top pick, something like Virtanen or Ritchie or Perlini with their pick.

And then I'd take a flier on ho-Sang in the late first/early second.

 

There's the injection of offense we need on our prospect list, to go with the gains we've made on defence and character.

If the Isles keep their pick, then we will likely have two balls in next year's McDavid derby.

 

If I'm Murray, I'm definitely moving some of our seconds to jump up in the draft and/or land a real player.

 

We already have one of the league's best prospect pools and we have nine picks in the first two rounds over the next two years - and that's without the proceeds of this year's deadline fire sale. And we will have $30 million to play with under the cap next summer.

 

Darcy failed to deliver a winner, but he sure as hell did a nice job on the teardown.

[FolignosJock]

Yep and that same year John Tavares went 1st overall and Jacob Josefson went 20th. Josefson is 6 months younger though. I'm sure you could find a million examples of younger player x ending up a better prosepect than older player y. You could also find a million the other way. If the two players are very close then yes I will take that into account but I don't think it's a huge factor or you will see year in and year out the youngest guys being taken 1st overall and turning into the best players of the class.

 

 

 

And Monaghan was one of the older players in the draft last year and although I haven't checked lately, he's been having a great rookie season. What's your point?

 

I do understand what you are saying but these players are scrutinized day in and day out by scouts looking for potential. I get it if it's really close but I'm not going out of my way to talk myself into somebody due to the less than a year age gap.

 

 

 

My example wasnt the best. However we are tlaking about two guys that are incredibly close and going with the younger guy. Tavares was in a class by himself there wasnt anyone close to him.

[LGR4GM]

Yep and that same year John Tavares went 1st overall and Jacob Josefson went 20th. Josefson is 6 months younger though. I'm sure you could find a million examples of younger player x ending up a better prosepect than older player y. You could also find a million the other way. If the two players are very close then yes I will take that into account but I don't think it's a huge factor or you will see year in and year out the youngest guys being taken 1st overall and turning into the best players of the class.

 

 

 

And Monaghan was one of the older players in the draft last year and although I haven't checked lately, he's been having a great rookie season. What's your point?

 

I do understand what you are saying but these players are scrutinized day in and day out by scouts looking for potential. I get it if it's really close but I'm not going out of my way to talk myself into somebody due to the less than a year age gap.

Who are you comparing Monahan too? That is the question.

 

If you don't understand let me explain further. If Nikita Zadorov were 6 months older (equivalent in age to the two I mentioned) than you have a older player who is closer to his potential and peak than a young one. Think about Zadorov and Ristolainen side by side. If last years draft happened tomorrow, which player would you rank higher or draft first? Has that changed for you since the last draft?

 

If Bennett is an 8.7 and Reinhart is a 9 then you have to ask yourself what if Bennett were 7 months older? Would he be an 8.7 still or a 9? would he be a 9.2? 9.5? Something more than that? Scouts are predicting where these kids will be in 5 years. I think when you look at it that way a kid like Bennett who is probably a hair (.1) below Reinhart is the better choice because if he is still growing and improving at a higher rate than the older Reinhart, that means something.

[dudacek]

My daughter plays volleyball at a high level and is in her "draft year"

While it has been interesting to watch her peers grow and plateau, I can't say I've seen a real rhyme or reason to it tied to their ages.

It seems to be particular to the kid.

I would imagine it is exactly the same in hockey. Age might be a factor, but it's a not a big one when you are talking months.

Deciding who has peaked and who is growing is where the scouts earn their money.

[sicknfla]

A good friend of mine is a high level scout for the TB Rays. We have talked at length about this topic because i have two sons that are D1 baseball prospects. The birthdate is huge in their draft eligible year. As is previous coaches, if they are a multiple sport athlete (which contrary to what people think they encourage), how many games have they played since age 14, do they have overbearing dads, and so on. It is truly amazing what all goes into it that the average Joe has no idea about.

[Derrico]

Who are you comparing Monahan too? That is the question.

 

If you don't understand let me explain further. If Nikita Zadorov were 6 months older (equivalent in age to the two I mentioned) than you have a older player who is closer to his potential and peak than a young one. Think about Zadorov and Ristolainen side by side. If last years draft happened tomorrow, which player would you rank higher or draft first? Has that changed for you since the last draft?

 

If Bennett is an 8.7 and Reinhart is a 9 then you have to ask yourself what if Bennett were 7 months older? Would he be an 8.7 still or a 9? would he be a 9.2? 9.5? Something more than that? Scouts are predicting where these kids will be in 5 years. I think when you look at it that way a kid like Bennett who is probably a hair (.1) below Reinhart is the better choice because if he is still growing and improving at a higher rate than the older Reinhart, that means something.

 

I do understand what you are saying. However, using a Zadorov Risto example is just one example of many. I could name a million older guys playing better than younger guys. Maybe it's because Zad now has a couple of years adjusting to North American style of hockey. It's not necessarily the age. Who would I take in the draft tomorrow, well it's very close but Risto is still 7 months older for whatever that means. I think age is a factor, but not as big as you might make it out to be. That's just my opinion and I respect yours. For the two Sam's maybe they are close enough to take the younger Sam. Without digging back into old posts, I've seen you use this analogy more than once and wanted to have a discussion. I still respect your opinion on it, I just don't agree.

 

Also, if you think Reinhart is 9 and Bennett is 8.7, you should be already taking age as one of your many factors. So in that case you go with Reinhart.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Derrico

[dudacek]

A good friend of mine is a high level scout for the TB Rays. We have talked at length about this topic because i have two sons that are D1 baseball prospects. The birthdate is huge in their draft eligible year. As is previous coaches, if they are a multiple sport athlete (which contrary to what people think they encourage), how many games have they played since age 14, do they have overbearing dads, and so on. It is truly amazing what all goes into it that the average Joe has no idea about.

 

My brother-in-law is a high-level tennis coach. He says a kid with an early birthday in a calendar year should be better than a kid with a late one — from kindergarten they've been bigger and stronger and more coordinated, and have probably gotten favourable attention from coaches along the way because of it.

 

It's not irrelevant that Bennett is younger than Reinhart, but it's also not cut-and-dried that if they are equal now, Bennett will be better in their primes because he's younger.

[LGR4GM]

 

 

I do understand what you are saying. However, using a Zadorov Risto example is just one example of many. I could name a million older guys playing better than younger guys. Maybe it's because Zad now has a couple of years adjusting to North American style of hockey. It's not necessarily the age. Who would I take in the draft tomorrow, well it's very close but Risto is still 7 months older for whatever that means. I think age is a factor, but not as big as you might make it out to be. That's just my opinion and I respect yours. For the two Sam's maybe they are close enough to take the younger Sam. Without digging back into old posts, I've seen you use this analogy more than once and wanted to have a discussion. I still respect your opinion on it, I just don't agree.

 

Also, if you think Reinhart is 9 and Bennett is 8.7, you should be already taking age as one of your many factors. So in that case you go with Reinhart.

I guess we will disagree. I think Bennett is the guy to target. If we had started the draft discussion today I think Bennett would be on more ppls number 1. Time will tell.

[Derrico]

I guess we will disagree. I think Bennett is the guy to target. If we had started the draft discussion today I think Bennett would be on more ppls number 1. Time will tell.

 

Hahahha, after watching Bob McKenzie's breakdown I may also agree with you but not based on his age.

 

My brother-in-law is a high-level tennis coach. He says a kid with an early birthday in a calendar year should be better than a kid with a late one — from kindergarten they've been bigger and stronger and more coordinated, and have probably gotten favourable attention from coaches along the way because of it.

 

It's not irrelevant that Bennett is younger than Reinhart, but it's also not cut-and-dried that if they are equal now, Bennett will be better in their primes because he's younger.

 

Yep, if you read Freakonomics it talks about kids older amongst their peers actually turn out to be better athletes than younger kids in the same age group.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Derrico

[Eleven]

Hahahha, after watching Bob McKenzie's breakdown I may also agree with you but not based on his age.

 

 

 

Yep, if you read Freakonomics it talks about kids older amoungst their peers actually turn out to be better athletes than younger kids in the same age group.

 

Specifically using hockey as the example, too, IIRC.

[Claude_Verret]

An interesting read.

 

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0057753

 

Born at the Wrong Time: Selection Bias in the NHL Draft

• Robert O. Deaner, Aaron Lowen, Stephen Cobley
  
• Published: February 27, 2013 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057753
  

Abstract

 

Relative age effects (RAEs) occur when those who are relatively older for their age group are more likely to succeed. RAEs occur reliably in some educational and athletic contexts, yet the causal mechanisms remain unclear. Here we provide the first direct test of one mechanism, selection bias, which can be defined as evaluators granting fewer opportunities to relatively younger individuals than is warranted by their latent ability. Because RAEs are well-established in hockey, we analyzed National Hockey League (NHL) drafts from 1980 to 2006. Compared to those born in the first quarter (i.e., January–March), those born in the third and fourth quarters were drafted more than 40 slots later than their productivity warranted, and they were roughly twice as likely to reach career benchmarks, such as 400 games played or 200 points scored. This selection bias in drafting did not decrease over time, apparently continues to occur, and reduces the playing opportunities of relatively younger players. This bias is remarkable because it is exhibited by professional decision makers evaluating adults in a context where RAEs have been widely publicized. Thus, selection bias based on relative age may be pervasive.

 

[Derrico]

An interesting read.

 

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0057753

 

This is similar to what they said in Freakonomics. The premise is kids older amongst their peers were more co-ordinated, bigger ect and would therefore have a better shot at making their young rep team. Because they make the best team possible they get the best coaches. As they are the oldest and sometimes better developed, they are usually the better players and coaches give them extra attention. The cycle then continues all the way up through junior.