Jump to content

Official 2015 NHL Draft Thread

LGR4GM

By LGR4GM
in The Aud Club

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hoss Hall of Famer

Hoss

Posted
Posted (edited)

Why couldn't the Islanders have missed the play-offs? even by 1 point. This looks like a top heavy draft where the top 14-15 all have star potential.

Pretty loose definition of "star" huh? You can find stars all over the draft. I'm not worried about the difference between 14 and 21.

 

Especially since I think it's more likely than not that the pick is traded.

Edited by Hoss
Crusader1969 First Liner

Crusader1969

Posted
Posted

Pretty loose definition of "star" huh? You can find stars all over the draft. I'm not worried about the difference between 14 and 21.

 

Especially since I think it's more likely than not that the pick is traded.

 

look at the guys who are around 14  (Zacha, Conner and Kocnecy) and compare that to the guys around 22 -if you don't think they are better prospects and potential to be stars - you aren't following closely

X. Benedict All Star

X. Benedict

Posted
Posted

Pretty loose definition of "star" huh? You can find stars all over the draft. I'm not worried about the difference between 14 and 21.

 

Especially since I think it's more likely than not that the pick is traded.

 

and really no biggie giving up 25-30 when you have 31. 

shrader Hall of Famer

shrader

Posted
Posted

look at the guys who are around 14  (Zacha, Conner and Kocnecy) and compare that to the guys around 22 -if you don't think they are better prospects and potential to be stars - you aren't following closely

 

Of course the guys around the 14 range look better than those around 22 today.  That's how the draft works, the guys you think are best go first.  Now go back and look at drafts over the years and compare players in those two ranges.  You'll find a guy here and there, but what you'll see is an indistinguishably mixed bag of good and bad players.

Crusader1969 First Liner

Crusader1969

Posted
Posted

Of course the guys around the 14 range look better than those around 22 today.  That's how the draft works, the guys you think are best go first.  Now go back and look at drafts over the years and compare players in those two ranges.  You'll find a guy here and there, but what you'll see is an indistinguishably mixed bag of good and bad players.

 

I don't need to look it up as I know the research is already done and sorry but your statement is completely wrong.

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-value-nhl-draft-picks/

 

"Using this graph, we can see that the most significant value in NHL draft picks lies in the first three selections, and the largest drop-off in pick value occurs between picks three and four. Players selected in the four-to-15 range are still generally very valuable across their careers with a 15th-overall pick being worth about 1/3rd of a first-overall selection."

 

Guys drafted late in the first round have a value not that much different than a guy drafted in the 3rd.

 

Further this is perceived as a deep draft but one where Tim Murray said there is a drop off around 19th.

MattPie All Star

MattPie

Posted
Posted

I don't need to look it up as I know the research is already done and sorry but your statement is completely wrong.

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-value-nhl-draft-picks/

 

"Using this graph, we can see that the most significant value in NHL draft picks lies in the first three selections, and the largest drop-off in pick value occurs between picks three and four. Players selected in the four-to-15 range are still generally very valuable across their careers with a 15th-overall pick being worth about 1/3rd of a first-overall selection."

 

Guys drafted late in the first round have a value not that much different than a guy drafted in the 3rd.

 

Further this is perceived as a deep draft but one where Tim Murray said there is a drop off around 19th.

 

I-talics: I think that's a stretch. The last guys in the first are 40% to play 200 games. The first guy in the third is around 17%. That's a significant difference. But you're right that the general public seems to have an inflated idea of picks. It bears saying the prospects playing in the AHL odds are aren't going to make it. So when people say, "Oh, we have Compher, Bailey, Grigorenko, McCabe, etc." that odds are half of those guys aren't going to cut it in the NHL. By the numbers, it looks like you're doing OK if your first round pick plays (anywhere on the roster) and you get 1-2 players each year out of all the other rounds.

shrader Hall of Famer

shrader

Posted
Posted

I don't need to look it up as I know the research is already done and sorry but your statement is completely wrong.

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-value-nhl-draft-picks/

 

"Using this graph, we can see that the most significant value in NHL draft picks lies in the first three selections, and the largest drop-off in pick value occurs between picks three and four. Players selected in the four-to-15 range are still generally very valuable across their careers with a 15th-overall pick being worth about 1/3rd of a first-overall selection."

 

Guys drafted late in the first round have a value not that much different than a guy drafted in the 3rd.

 

Further this is perceived as a deep draft but one where Tim Murray said there is a drop off around 19th.

 

 

Arbitrary cutoffs sure are fun.  That 4-15 range is conveniently wide.  It sure is helpful to be lumped in with that fourth overall slot.  My eyes aren't good enough to pick out the slots, but our previous points of 14th and 22nd are pretty far past the steep drop off already.

 

Let's not make the mistake of assuming that since this analysis is out there, it guarantees that the 14th pick will be a better player.  If anyone ever reads a statistical analysis like that, their interpretation is doomed before they even start.  Ahhhh, and then there's the fact that they excluded all defensemen and goalies from their little analysis.  There's one hell of a limitation if you ask me.

Crusader1969 First Liner

Crusader1969

Posted
Posted (edited)

Arbitrary cutoffs sure are fun.  That 4-15 range is conveniently wide.  It sure is helpful to be lumped in with that fourth overall slot.  My eyes aren't good enough to pick out the slots, but our previous points of 14th and 22nd are pretty far past the steep drop off already.

 

Let's not make the mistake of assuming that since this analysis is out there, it guarantees that the 14th pick will be a better player.  If anyone ever reads a statistical analysis like that, their interpretation is doomed before they even start.  Ahhhh, and then there's the fact that they excluded all defensemen and goalies from their little analysis.  There's one hell of a limitation if you ask me.

 

 

you should probably read it again as they didn't lump the 15th pick with the 4th. It said " 15th-overall pick being worth about 1/3rd of a first-overall selection". Im pretty sure it isnt guaranteeing anything it just proved that you are wrong with your statement that  "Now go back and look at drafts over the years and compare players in those two ranges.  You'll find a guy here and there, but what you'll see is an indistinguishably mixed bag of good and bad players."

 

The main point I had from the beginning was that guys like Zacha, Konecny and Conner have all been ranked in the top 10 at some point in the year and have great potential to be a front line NHL player. Now guys like DeBrusk, Bittner, Harkins, and others ranked around 22 are all fine players and may turn out to be great players but the odds of that happening is lower than that of first group.

 

So as I Sabres fan I would prefer pick 14 over pick 22.

Edited by Crusader1969
Hoss Hall of Famer

Hoss

Posted
Posted

Crusader - you're stating the incredibly obvious and acting like it's an argument to be made. Everybody would rather pick 14 than 22. The prospects at 14 are projected to be better than those projected at 22. These aren't opinions but facts.

 

What I'm saying is it's not really that much of a heartbreaker. It would've been nice but it didn't happen and that's okay. We've got bigger fish to fry, innit?

 

 

That's my first use of innit and I think I missed wide.

shrader Hall of Famer

shrader

Posted
Posted

you should probably read it again as they didn't lump the 15th pick with the 4th. It said " 15th-overall pick being worth about 1/3rd of a first-overall selection". Im pretty sure it isnt guaranteeing anything it just proved that you are wrong with your statement that "Now go back and look at drafts over the years and compare players in those two ranges. You'll find a guy here and there, but what you'll see is an indistinguishably mixed bag of good and bad players."

 

The main point I had from the beginning was that guys like Zacha, Konecny and Conner have all been ranked in the top 10 at some point in the year and have great potential to be a front line NHL player. Now guys like DeBrusk, Bittner, Harkins, and others ranked around 22 are all fine players and may turn out to be great players but the odds of that happening is lower than that of first group.

 

So as I Sabres fan I would prefer pick 14 over pick 22.

You're cherry picking. Their statement of how the 14th pick related to the first says nothing about how it relates to the 22nd, especially when they are presenting something that is a no -linear trend (a plot which by the way they don't statevhow it was fit).

 

But anyway, what it all comes down to is that the analysis presented is fatally flawed. What happens if Buffalo picks a defenseman at 22? They can't say a word about that scenario because they excluded a large number of all draft picks. So to use this article as proof that what I said is completely wrong... Is completely wrong.

rakish Third Liner

rakish

Posted
Posted

Regarding http://www.sportsnet...hl-draft-picks/

 

The regression lines are much too long to come to the conclusions the writer makes.  If they were shorter, I think he would see that there are other factors involved in the relationship between draft slot and productivity.  Look at the second round, if we group picks into 10's, by my eye, picks 31-40 are worse than 41 to 50.  My theory is that since bad teams pick 31 to 40, and their inability to access value at 17 is a major reason they are bad, picks 31-40 is worth less than picking 41 to 50 where better teams pick, even though they get first choice.

 

Additionally, you got to account for the space in each team's pipeline.  By my eye picks 51-60 are much worse, now it could be that good teams have less space in their pipeline, or it could be that many of these picks are traded to bad teams, who cannot access the value of 17 year olds.  I'm too busy to try to figure out which.

 

As dStebb says, no one would trade 35 for 45, yet the 45th pick will probably be more productive.  This tells you something is really wrong with his approach.

WildCard Hall of Famer

WildCard

Posted
Posted

Not saying its probable, but Eichel might actually fair better in his rookie year because his shot is so much better. One thing that really surprised me from that is McDavid being ranked as more aggressive. Quite Canadien kid, smaller too, without a bud-light chugging clip apparently is more fiesty

BagBoy Third Liner

BagBoy

Posted
Posted

Innit

It's an English thing, kind of like their version "eh" or "know what I mean?" or "right". It's a Cockney thing, or at least a blue collar type-accent of the contraction "isn't it?"

 

So you might say to someone, "It's a lovely day, innit. Not sure whether a period or a question mark is appropriate at the end.

MattPie All Star

MattPie

Posted
Posted

Innit

It's an English thing, kind of like their version "eh" or "know what I mean?" or "right". It's a Cockney thing, or at least a blue collar type-accent of the contraction "isn't it?"

 

So you might say to someone, "It's a lovely day, innit. Not sure whether a period or a question mark is appropriate at the end.

 

Variations are found in a bunch of dialects. Eh ("A"), Eh (as in EHLERS!), "huh", in Northeast PA they use "Heyna" (hey now). It's function is to turn a statement into a question. In Japanese, apparently it's common to end statements in "desu ne" (day-sun-a), which means "Is in not". I think the speaker uses it to soften a statement and not offend the listener.

ubkev All Star

ubkev

Posted
Posted

Variations are found in a bunch of dialects. Eh ("A"), Eh (as in EHLERS!), "huh", in Northeast PA they use "Heyna" (hey now). It's function is to turn a statement into a question. In Japanese, apparently it's common to end statements in "desu ne" (day-sun-a), which means "Is in not". I think the speaker uses it to soften a statement and not offend the listener.

"heyna" makes me want to rage out and punch a baby or something. It's awful!

MattPie All Star

MattPie

Posted
Posted

"heyna" makes me want to rage out and punch a baby or something. It's awful!

 

We should go ta the bar and get a couple two tree beers, heyna? Your car or mayan?

ubkev All Star

ubkev

Posted
Posted (edited)

We should go ta the bar and get a couple two tree beers, heyna? Your car or mayan?

It's MINE!!!!!!!! Edited by ubkev
ubkev All Star

ubkev

Posted
Posted

Glad I could brighten you day.

I've seen it. I'm not putting myself through that while I'm on vacation. I see and hear enough of them every day.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...