Eastern Conference Dumpster Fire Teams

[3putt]

No doubt, but as the pool of similarly situated in the lower rounds expands, the numbers might not be a true indicator. I think often a physical stat metric, ie height weight etc, when an eye test might say the smaller guy is  better.  Or the context, team, situation depressed the production numbers.

[rakish]

The Blackhawks changed this year. They had a very good draft, their first good draft in many years.

 

And yeah, you can cherry pick examples that fit into your analysis, but the teams that are talking 'context' the most, are bad

[LGR4GM]

One of the things that I learned this draft is that it's important to lose. It's important to look at how you do things and say "Maybe I could do this a better way." How drafting is being done is changing quickly. No one was using analytics drafting just two years ago, now a handful of teams are, because most of them realize there's no other way forward. If you look at the results of 2016 draft, some of the worst teams, reputably stupid, ended up drafting real well. Calgary? Who'd a thought? Toronto, never? New Jersey? No way. Well New Jersey peed their first pick, but other than that, they did good.

 

There are so many contenders for the basement 5 years out. Rangers get nothing out of the draft. Boston does OK, but OK isn't going to cut it. Montreal is terrible, but the management will be replaced shortly, because everyone knows they're terrible. Columbus owners have to have some awareness. Detroit drafted terrible this year, and terrible last year, so they are certainly a contender. Ottawa drafts terribly, hopefully people get fired. My candidate for worst team in 5 years is Pittsburgh, they are getting nothing out of the draft, they are going to trade future here to try to win one more cup, and most importantly, they have no impetus to change.

 

 

Rakish, I agree to a point, but analytics without context is also a fools errand.  You can end up with statistical beasts who don't produce on the ice.  You also can't model those players for whom the big stage is where they ultimately blossom.  Shaw is an example but there are others.  I do think we will see more movement toward quantifying performance, but context is still valuable.

I agree with Rakish but also in part with 3putt. Stats need context and I don't believe for a second that the teams drafting well aren't looking at the numbers critically or talking to scouts and players to round out the picture. Arizona is using analytics and also using them smartly. They were smart enough to take Cam Dineen in the 3rd. Now maybe a guy like that with good numbers doesn't pan out, certainly possible. But it is better than being a team like Boston drafting Zachary Senyshyn or Trent Frederic in the first round. 

 

Draft classes should be looked at as a Cohort Study. You are looking at something now and projecting that into the future. Because there is a new cohort to consider each year you can look at variables from the previous cohorts and see what the best players in that cohort did and try to understand what variables matter. Scoring for forwards matters a lot. Scoring for defense matters some. GT havent figured them out yet. You take these numbers from scoring to ice time to corsi and you look at them critically.

 

When I look at players I want a few things in front of me. I need to know how they compare to their team, how they compare to their peers in terms of production, I need to know how many years in that league they have and exactly what their age is. Finally I need 3 or so scouting reports. Why those? Critical reading is an underrated skill in our society. Why I see 3 draft reports that say something like "needs to improve his skating" or "will get better with more strength and improved skating" I immediately see a red flag. Stats don't necessarily involve the variable of being a good skater. You can be a bad skater in juniors and produce. So that is when you need to dig deeper, is he Sam Reinhart bad (meaning average skater without good speed(when he was drafted)) or is he like Cody Franson where he has slow feet. This is important because at the NHL level everyone skates good and if you don't it hurts you. That's where some of the non stats analysis comes in. Y

 

ou guys want to know why I keyed on Brock Boeser last year? It wasn't just because of his numbers. His numbers were better than most of those projected to go around him and every scouting report talked about compete being high and great skating. Rasmus Asplund is a player this year who has slightly lower points but all the reports say he skates and competes, so you look at his stats an understand the level of compeition he has compared to a canadian junior player and you take a flyer on him in the 2nd because you should. Teams like Pittsburgh, NYR, Ottawa, Montreal, Boston etc... they don't things like combine stats with traditional scouting. They draft based on need and gut instincts and because other teams aren't all playing that way now, those more traditional teams lose out on the Asplunds and the Boesers of the world. And at the end of the day those late guys are the important ones for depth and even in some cases top line players like ROR. 

The Blackhawks changed this year. They had a very good draft, their first good draft in many years.

 

And yeah, you can cherry pick examples that fit into your analysis, but the teams that are talking 'context' the most, are bad

Right. You need to have context for the numbers but if 1 guy has say (simple example) a 1.23ppg but is 5'11" and the other guy is 6'3" and has a .67ppg you don't draft the bigger guy unless there is a major red flag variable such as skating or compete or hockey iq

[rakish]

No doubt, but as the pool of similarly situated in the lower rounds expands, the numbers might not be a true indicator. I think often a physical stat metric, ie height weight etc, when an eye test might say the smaller guy is  better.  Or the context, team, situation depressed the production numbers.

 

No, the context is part of analytics, the eye-test fails from what Blue will call the Fundamental Attribution Error, that people look at players on good teams and think they are better than comparable  players on bad teams.

[LGR4GM]

Good example of not using anyltics. Winnipeg. They drafted Logan Stanley 6'7" defender over guys like Lucus Johanson, Sam Girard, Libor Hajek. Stanley is a big player with low scoring and some questions about his skating. 

No, the context is part of analytics, the eye-test fails from what Blue will call the Fundamental Attribution Error, that people look at players on good teams and think they are better than comparable  players on bad teams.

Yup. Sean Monahan should have been drafted higher in 2013 but he played on a terrible junior team. 

[3putt]

No, the context is part of analytics, the eye-test fails from what Blue will call the Fundamental Attribution Error, that people look at players on good teams and think they are better than comparable  players on bad teams.

I am aware of fae,  it is used in my work.  I am advocating just the opposite that one must discern the value of the numbers based on those types of situations.  And differentiation between two statistical equals needs an arbiter.  That is the limitation. As models.improve and incorporate more data I think this is less.of a concern.  But there is always the Mike Williams and Aaron Maybins out there.

[rakish]

Oh, absolutely, there are players I would have taken, like Jonas Junlund, who scored a lot as a 17 year old, but then never again, but as my model gets better, I'm better at getting rid of players that I liked at 17, but failed.

 

What I found this year is that with many of my failures the 17th year was an outliar. So this year I put a lot of importance on the value of the 16th year. The result of this is that people think I'm crazy for not liking Laine, who had a nondescript 16th year.

 

So you're right that it's not this terrific methodology, the amount of data that I'm using is puny as compared to what I ought to have to do it right, but take a look at my post in my draft thread about the value of CSS rankings, CSS is useless.

[3putt]

I am more in the TM camp.  If a player catches my eye, I look at the numbers and when they don't jive I look further at the player.  Or if a players numbers are outliers what is it about the player that is creating the anomaly. 

 

I also did work with the Birkman group in Houston and their methodology I think you would find it interesting. The premise is people are wired differently with regard to environmental factors and how they perceive themselves in regards to larger groups and within sub groups.  The Hawks use it.  A lot of PGA players use it to put together their performance teams.  It might add contextnto some of your numbers. ;)

[SDS]

No, the context is part of analytics, the eye-test fails from what Blue will call the Fundamental Attribution Error, that people look at players on good teams and think they are better than comparable  players on bad teams.

 

Enter John McCargo...

[North Buffalo]

Enter John McCargo...

Now that was a dumpster fire. Edited July 15, 2016 by North Buffalo

[rakish]

I am more in the TM camp.  If a player catches my eye, I look at the numbers and when they don't jive I look further at the player.  Or if a players numbers are outliers what is it about the player that is creating the anomaly. 

 

I also did work with the Birkman group in Houston and their methodology I think you would find it interesting. The premise is people are wired differently with regard to environmental factors and how they perceive themselves in regards to larger groups and within sub groups.  The Hawks use it.  A lot of PGA players use it to put together their performance teams.  It might add contextnto some of your numbers. ;)

 

 

I thought Murray had a terrible 2014 draft. He chose way too many forwards, and some good picks have gone backwards, like Cornel, and what I thought were weak picks, have gotten better, like Lemieux. 2014 looks at this point to be a wasted opportunity.

 

Murray's 2016 is more analytic than you think. At least they have looked at a calendar to see that overagers are much better picks than 17 year olds, so they took 3 of them.  They also understand that late round very young picks are good choices, and they have at least a couple of them. (Pu and Hagel), I really doubt that that's a coincidence.  Toronto, who cares very much about this stuff, took 5 overagers.

 

Does the Birkman group have a wikipedia page?

[3putt]

If you googlenRoger Birkman it pops up.

[rakish]

cool, I will look

[TrueBlueGED]

Now that was a dumpster fire.

How dare you talk about dumpster fires that way.

[apuszczalowski]

I thought Murray had a terrible 2014 draft. He chose way too many forwards, and some good picks have gone backwards, like Cornel, and what I thought were weak picks, have gotten better, like Lemieux. 2014 looks at this point to be a wasted opportunity.

 

Murray's 2016 is more analytic than you think. At least they have looked at a calendar to see that overagers are much better picks than 17 year olds, so they took 3 of them.  They also understand that late round very young picks are good choices, and they have at least a couple of them. (Pu and Hagel), I really doubt that that's a coincidence.  Toronto, who cares very much about this stuff, took 5 overagers.

 

Does the Birkman group have a wikipedia page?

I think the issue with Lemieux wasn't that they saw him going backwards or wanted to deal him, iirc I think he told TM he didn't intend on signing again to stay in Buffalo

[Mustache of God]

I foresee four teams as "locks" for the playoffs next year: Washington, Pittsburgh, Florida, Tampa

 

 

I foresee three teams that are a "lock" to miss the playoffs by a lot: Toronto, Columbus and Ottowa

 

This leaves 9 teams to fight over the remaining 4 spots which I can separate into two categories:

 

Trending Up: Buffalo, New Jersey, Philly, Querolina, Montreal (only on an account of a healthy price)

 

Trending Down: New York Rangers, New York Islanders, Detroit, Boston

 

I think 2 teams from each trending group make the playoffs: Buffalo, New Jersey, New York Rangers, New York Islanders

 

As far as potential dumpster fires? The Canadians are going to go through a re-build in the next few years and it's going to be UGLY.

[GASabresIUFAN]

I thought Murray had a terrible 2014 draft. He chose way too many forwards, and some good picks have gone backwards, like Cornel, and what I thought were weak picks, have gotten better, like Lemieux. 2014 looks at this point to be a wasted opportunity.

 

Murray's 2016 is more analytic than you think. At least they have looked at a calendar to see that overagers are much better picks than 17 year olds, so they took 3 of them.  They also understand that late round very young picks are good choices, and they have at least a couple of them. (Pu and Hagel), I really doubt that that's a coincidence.  Toronto, who cares very much about this stuff, took 5 overagers.

 

Does the Birkman group have a wikipedia page?

Cornel has gone backwards? Really? The kid busted out last season as he took over as Captain of the Petes. He had 83 pts and +19 last season vs. 52 pts and -24 the year prior. Besides Borgen and Estephan he has out most improved non-pro prospect.

 

While 2014 doesn't look great 2 years out besides Reinhart, GMTM smartly drafted a bunch of college kids and Euros to give them extended development time. It could be another 2-3 years before we know what we have or don't have in Johansson, Brown, Willman and Olofsson.

 

Furthermore, 3 of the 2014s are joining the Amerks this season, Martin, Karabacek and Cornel. Check back in a year or two to see how they progress. I think Cornel is Larsson's eventual replacement down the road.

 

Ultimately you may be right, but I think it is much to early to judge.

[rakish]

I like Martin, I like Martin more than everyone else. Hoss and Dudacek think I'm crazy, they might be right, we'll know more on Martin within a year or two, defensemen age so slowly. So far he has very good half seasons, and not so good half seasons.

 

For Cornel, I have him as the 49th best forward in the draft as a 17 year old (predraft), so drafting him in the second round is OK, but not great.

As an 18 year old, I have him as the 91st best forward in his draft class, which is a step back.

As a 19 year old, I have him at 57th.

So although 2015 was much better than 2014, I see Cornel as a step back from his pre-draft valuation.

 

In 2015, I have Brown at 107th among forwards

Willman at 98th (In Barkov's class, since he was an overager)

Olofsson at 39th (Also an overager)

Karabacek at 105th

 

So, other than Martin, I like Olofsson the most out of that group. As you say, we'll know more in a couple years.

 

As for too early to judge, ######, I judge the 2016 draft (Toronto did good, Pittsburgh did bad), so I have no hesitation talking about 2014.

[GASabresIUFAN]

I'm sorry, rankings are great prior to the draft, but once a player is drafted rankings ultimately are meaningless. Why do the Sabres care if some 5th rd forward drafted by Arizona develops faster then Cornel? What the Sabres, and we fans care about if whether the kid is developing and has a future with the Sabres.

 

Take Bailey for example. You can argue he took a step back for a 1 1/2 after being drafted. People thought he wouldn't amount to anything, but since then he has been are most improved player for 1 1/2 and is likely to make the Sabres now. I couldn't care less what his ranking was in 2013, 2014 or 2015. I care that he help the Sabres now.

 

Cornel is no different. Like Bailey the light has gone on. If the development continues and he can challenge for Larsson's job in a year or two that justifies his selection. Remember 65-70% of second rd picks never make an impact in the NHL.

 

That said, I follow Sabres proepects very closely because they are the life blood of a small market team. But I am impressed that you take the time to follow prospects across the league and then rank them.

Edited July 16, 2016 by GASabresIUFAN

[rakish]

Yeah, at first look Birkman doesn't interest me, it sounds too much like the Briggs & Stratton test. It is interesting though that the Blackhawks care about it.  Their attempts at finding a fourth defenseman the last couple years has been interesting, I'll need to read more to understand what their thinking is.

Edited July 16, 2016 by rakish

[3putt]

Yeah, at first look Birkman doesn't interest me, it sounds too much like the Briggs & Stratton test. It is interesting though that the Blackhawks care about it.  Their attempts at finding a fourth defenseman the last couple years has been interesting, I'll need to read more to understand what their thinking is.

The Birkman is not the Myers-Briggs in the least. It attempts to triangulate a persons optimum motivations and the environment and role. Bowman brought it with him from Detroit. He was trying to quantify why they were successful with the way they developed players. But it is a bit cuddly for a hard numbers guy.

;)

[rakish]

I'm a bit more cuddly than you would think. For instance, my inkling is that coaching is almost purely an emotional job, that any benefit gained by analytics are more than lost not getting players emotionally ready to play. One of the things I believe is trying to get the data to drive the opinion, instead of, see the politics thread, cheery picking data to support your point of view.

 

 

I am more in the TM camp.  If a player catches my eye, I look at the numbers and when they don't jive I look further at the player.  Or if a players numbers are outliers what is it about the player that is creating the anomaly. 

 

 

As such, I would have agreed with you before I looked at the success rate of Central Scouting, but the first time I looked at it, 4 or 5 years ago now, made me realize how terrible the 'eye-test' was past the first 20 players or so. So I'm spending some time trying to develop something that works better.

 

So I'm curious as to what data drives the 'eye-test' opinion.

[3putt]

It is more of a correlation exercise.  I had the good fortune to play at a high level and with extremely skilled players.  Some of the most skilled were not very productive, while less skilled players always seemed to produce.  I think the eye test helps in 2 areas: NHL hands and IQ.  The most productive players can handle the puck, receive passes make passes and shoot at speed.  This is my definition of hands.  IQ is more about situational awareness.  Most pros can execute the obvious but those that excel like Sam seem to be in the right place when it isn't so obvious.  

 

So looking at numbers helps clarify what your looking at.  World class measurables but low production you would probably see low shooting %, low shot totals, high turnovers, low assist numbers and the like.  As I become knowledgeable of the fancy stats, I look at them as well.  I just think that their value is in measuring over time under controlled or similar conditions.  I think the identification stage is much more difficult and traditional scouting has its place.