Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Maybe i am missing what you mean...but i started back in 2000 which would have the age range from 23-31.
|
I meant that you should not use the 23-26 range of goaltenders when you formed that list. Only high quality or rushed goaltenders (or both) break in as starters in that range, a few exceptions aside. A list of 27-31 year old goaltenders 1st round picks makes a reasonable list. Basically just keep comparable age of players. No point adding young guys to that list when most goalies at 24 aren't starters yet (and as you point out in that post, none of the ones you want to compare to).
Basically what I'm saying with my post as a whole is that, while you're probably right for the top half of the draft because the alternatives are less risky, drafting a goalie in the first is still a worthwhile, though risky, venture as you still get some pretty quality goalies out of it as highlighed by the players like Schneider. You get about a 50% chance of landing a quality player in the bottom half, which is a little lower than getting an NHLer who become career NHLers (about 65%, which is variant based on what you cut off point is for defining "career NHLer"). I'm not sure how the fact that you can play any 4 lines as a career NHLer compares to the fact that most goalies with high game count only exist in a group of 30 impacts this stat though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psytic
Someone on Hfboards did something like this with dman drafted in the top 5 going back to JBo and came to the same conclusion that its not worth drafting dman high either compared to forwards. Some of the names were Jbo, Barker, E. Johnson and J. Johnson. I think it was an argument against taking Seth Jones over guys like Mckinnon and Drouin.
|
That's an interesting point. I think this is a lot to do with development time. Is there a comparison of all three positions in a single compilation? I would bet the pecking order would be forwards should be drafted first, then defence, then goalies unless there's a really strong argument against breaking that order.