The avoidance of CHL players

[LGR4GM]

 

I looked at the last 3 drafts in P-Burgh.  No idea how much influence JBott had before then.  In those 3 drafts the Pens picked 1 CHL player in round 2, one in round 3 (or 4 it's on the previous page), and one in round 6.  And none in Buffalo in the last 2 drafts.  Anyway you slice it that is way below typical for drafting CHL players even given the influx of Euro picks in the draft.

 

And no, I'm not trolling.  Just expanding on what I perceive is a bias in the process that I question.  At the end of the day, if he hits on a bunch of these picks I'll be among the first to agree with the method.  But for now it concerns me.

 

Frankly, the only reason I keep responding is because people keep emphasizing late round picks when it seems pretty clear to me that the bias is not just a late round bias.

I think there is a bias throughout. As Blue said you can't just turn off your bias. You can be aware of it but I am not sure Botterill is so much aware as making a conscience decision he thinks is right. 

[darksabre]

It's not bias, it's just a straight up strategy backed by reason.

[That Aud Smell]

It's not bias, it's just a straight up strategy backed by reason.

 

I think this is right.

 

The eyebrow-arching and even borderline hand-wringing over JBOT's tactic strike me as over-wrought.

[LGR4GM]

It's not bias, it's just a straight up strategy backed by reason.

The reasoning is the bias. Threshold concept right here. There were lots of good reasons for some of the most biased things of history, they are still biased. 

[darksabre]

The reasoning is the bias. Threshold concept right here. There were lots of good reasons for some of the most biased things of history, they are still biased. 

Bias implies some kind of subconscious decision being made. Like a guy just never picking Russians and not having a good reason for it.

 

If we want to call what Botterill is doing "bias" then fine, but his reasoning appears perfectly sound for those who would prefer it called "strategy". 

[Sabel79]

The angst over this presupposes that JBOTs would pass over an obviously superior CHL talent to draft a lesser college/Euro kid.  Don't know that you can fairly assume this; he even said, out loud, in front of the media, that it's ONE consideration.  

[bunomatic]

For now I'll defer to JBotts reasoning for this strategy. After all, he's had some level of success in this business. I haven't. Armchair or otherwise.

[LGR4GM]

Bias implies some kind of subconscious decision being made. Like a guy just never picking Russians and not having a good reason for it.

 

If we want to call what Botterill is doing "bias" then fine, but his reasoning appears perfectly sound for those who would prefer it called "strategy". 

You are talking about implicit versus explicit bias. Bias does not have to be subconscious. 

[That Aud Smell]

Bias implies some kind of subconscious decision being made. Like a guy just never picking Russians and not having a good reason for it.

 

If we want to call what Botterill is doing "bias" then fine, but his reasoning appears perfectly sound for those who would prefer it called "strategy". 

You are talking about implicit versus explicit bias. Bias does not have to be subconscious. 

 

To d4rk's point, though -- all bias has a connotation of being unfair or in some way irrational, not grounded in sound thought processes.

 

I don't get the sense that JBOT's biased in this regard. He has views and preferences, but they appear based in reasoned decisions. And I also don't get the sense that he'd pass over a CHL player his scouts had ranked significantly higher in favour of a lesser ranked Swedish prospect, or whatever. But, when things are generally "equal," it sounds like he chooses to skew away from the CHL. 

 

That's fine by me. He just needs to make it work.

[LGR4GM]

I think he skewed heavily away from the CHL when I review the draft. 

[That Aud Smell]

I think he skewed heavily away from the CHL when I review the draft. 

 

This particular draft?

 

Sample size issues there, yeah?

 

Anyway, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. Just work your system, and make your system work. 

 

Nothing I've seen or heard has suggested that Team JBOT would actively avoid a superior CHL talent in favour of a lesser prospect from another league/pool.

[LGR4GM]

His system can work and still be biased towards Euro and college bound players. 

[apuszczalowski]

My only issue with it is that they really shouldn't be limiting themselves and having any biases when it comes to obtaining players.

 

A new GM with a bad team should be looking everywhere to get talent and not limiting themselves to only obtaining players from certain spots. It would be like not picking Russians because they are more likely to go back home to the KHL if they dont get their way.

 

Now from his comments, it sounds more like he is just saying if the choice comes down to a choice between 2 equal players, a deciding factor would be if they came from somewhere other then the CHL cause they get more time to evaluate in their own development leagues instead of the CHL. They arent saying they wouldn't chose someone from their if they were a much better player them their next choice.

[bunomatic]

This particular draft?

 

Sample size issues there, yeah?

 

Anyway, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. Just work your system, and make your system work. 

 

Nothing I've seen or heard has suggested that Team JBOT would actively avoid a superior CHL talent in favour of a lesser prospect from another league/pool.

They have said they take best player available hence all the D men that happened to be better than the forwards at those picks according to the judgement of his scouts. Did he avoid CHL players at those picks that his scouts had rated as BPA ? Not likely if what he says about BPA is true.

[That Aud Smell]

His system can work and still be biased towards favour Euro and college bound players. 

 

As revised, agreed.

 

Now from his comments, it sounds more like he is just saying if the choice comes down to a choice between 2 equal players, a deciding factor would be if they came from somewhere other then the CHL cause they get more time to evaluate in their own development leagues instead of the CHL. They arent saying they wouldn't chose someone from their if they were a much better player them their next choice.

 

'zactly.

[Eleven]

As revised, agreed.

 

 

You're not fooling anyone, you know.

[LGR4GM]

As revised, agreed.

 

 

'zactly.

A favor can be a biased. It doesn't have to be negative. 

[That Aud Smell]

You're not fooling anyone, you know.

 

my man - i 'splained it to you. it's an homage, not a ruse.

 

it's also being done pursuant to a labatt-oath i pledged to an angry townie on a back road in ridgeway, ontario on a summer's night in the mid 80s.

 

true story. (stoury?)

 

A favor can be a biased. It doesn't have to be negative. 

 

This sort of "bias" is commonly understood and defined to be something that's unfairly prejudicial -- poorly reasoned.

Edited June 25, 2018 by That Aud Smell

[GASabresIUFAN]

This whole discussion is just further proof that there is no such thing as absolute BPA. It’s all list driven and a team’s bias and needs play into the list’s creation.

 

Not only did Jbot talk about college and Euros as an emphasis because he gets 4 years to develop them, but also organizational need for defensemen. He can also send these kids directly to the AHL if they are ready, although I doubt that is his preference.

 

The run on Swedish D is also a shot across the bow of the CHL.

 

Sadly, I’m not sure what the CHL can do. They don’t want to give up the rule that keeps their better kids from leaving the league until they are 20. Can they change of ages of the league from 16-19 with some 20 year olds to 17-20 with some 21 year olds? Would this help? It might. The CHL would get slightly more mature, NHL teams would get a 3rd year to sign and then an extra slide year until they are 21.

[PromoTheRobot]

I think this is right.

 

The eyebrow-arching and even borderline hand-wringing over JBOT's tactic strike me as over-wrought.

 

Low round players are a crap shoot anyway. Doesn't it make sense to have 4 years to decide if someone has the potential? After two years you still might not know but have to commit.

[That Aud Smell]

Low round players are a crap shoot anyway. Doesn't it make sense to have 4 years to decide if someone has the potential? After two years you still might not know but have to commit.

 

Right. Which is why this strikes me as little more than good asset management.

 

The concern could and should come if, in some subsequent draft, the Sabres are picking in the late teens or early 20s of the first round (let's hope!) and they forego a CHL player who's clearly fell to them and instead go with a Swede who most pundits had as a 2nd round value.

[LGR4GM]

Right. Which is why this strikes me as little more than good asset management.

 

The concern could and should come if, in some subsequent draft, the Sabres are picking in the late teens or early 20s of the first round (let's hope!) and they forego a CHL player who's clearly fell to them and instead go with a Swede who most pundits had as a 2nd round value.

Here's the problem. You are now assuming that outside of rounds 1 and 2 that CHL players are not as valuable as other leagues because of that extra time. That is exactly the type of thinking that doesn't get you Cliff Pu or Nic Baptiste. 

[stuuuuuuuuu]

If it wasn't for a bias towards CHL players we could have come away with Jake Guentzel.  Pitt picked him up a few picks after Baptiste

Edited June 25, 2018 by Stu

[LTS]

Oh really?  Because he picked Dahlin?  What GM in their right mind wouldn't have?  

 

That is because Sweden has a legendary training system that begins when the players are 7 and 8 years old and continues until they end up leaving...Craig Rivet and Matt Ellis were talking about how crazy it is on the Instigators about the stuff they do over there...their training systems allow players to become better players than equivalently skilled players from other countries. 

 

They basically went over their overall hockey model with a fine toothed comb starting with young players and how they develop them and put together one of the best if not the best development programs of any sport for any country in the world.  Some of these ideas are completely different from how the rest of the world does things, but they put a lot of time and energy and got a lot of very knowledgeable people together to build this from scratch basically.  It is really starting to pay off now however, as Sweden does very well in most tournaments and their players typically play very well in the NHL...

 

A lot of their training is off the ice...doing hurdles, running up and down steps of the arena, running up and down hills, etc...then even when they get on the ice, a lot of their time is spent doing "skilled" things like stickhandling.  Rivet said they got on the ice and all they did for the first 15 minutes was stickhandle the puck every day.

 

https://www.nhl.com/news/swedens-new-look-hockey-model-paying-dividends/c-598251

 

https://www.hockeycentre.org/Portals/3/IIHF_docs_HDC_2013/Henrik%20Haraldsson%20-%20Sweden.pdf

 

Right.  I said as much in my first post.  The Canadians have clung to their long used development model and it's no longer panning out.  The US altered their model around 2010-2011.  It's modeled after European development models - https://www.admkids.com/page/show/910847-frequently-asked-questions

 

Since the adoption of this development model I believe that USA Hockey has taken a strong turn upward in the level of talent it is putting on the ice.  

 

Hell, Canada is still battling the concept of cross-ice hockey for 8U  - https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/minor-hockey-cross-ice-reprieve-jamie-strashin-1.4321391

 

 

It's arrogance... hockey is Canada's sport and they must do it right.  You know.. essentially they are still punting on 4th down and never going for 2.

[That Aud Smell]

Here's the problem. You are now assuming that outside of rounds 1 and 2 that CHL players are not as valuable as other leagues because of that extra time. That is exactly the type of thinking that doesn't get you Cliff Pu or Nic Baptiste. 

 

Outside of rounds 1 and 2, I am thinking that the players chosen develop into NHLers at such low rates and in such seemingly unpredictable ways that the very best thing you can do regarding those rounds is get additional time with the prospects before deciding what to do.

 

Also, I think you may be inadvertently damning with faint praise there.