Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss
There is a strong correlation between defense man scoring in junior and NHL success.
Read this analysis of all the CHL dmen taken in the first 3 rounds from 1999 to 2008:
http://thats-offside.blogspot.ca/201...and-draft.html
The author went on to show that dmen who had low scoring in their draft year but still went to have NHL success as he defines it had significant scoring in their junior years after being drafted:
http://thats-offside.blogspot.ca/201...eman-post.html
The only exceptions were Fistric and Luke Schenn (and Schenn was because he immediately started in the NHL after drafting).
So by that analysis, Wotherspoon has a good chance to be an NHLer while Kanzig and Sieloff have low chances.
That being said, I think the reason the correlation exists is because scoring in junior shows a level of intelligence that helps players adjust to the NHL. One of the strengths of Kanzig and Sieloff is supposedly their hockey smarts (or at least thats what the Flames think), so we will have to wait and see them develop. |
Interesting analysis, but I can't help feeling like it could be picked apart by someone with better skills than I possess. For example how does draft order factor in? Could it be that the majority of low-scoring, low success players were bottom end picks? He makes the pont that the majority of players fall into the low scoring low success quadrant, but isn't that true of any sport? We're dealing with the pointy end of the bell curve here.
Also the fact that 40% of NHL regulars in this study were low scorers in their draft year suggests that points aren't in fact the be all and all indicator. The 40% includes some pretty notable names, with explanation that they improved in their post-draft years. No sh*t Sherlock, don't most players improve, especially the good ones who are given more opportunity and may have been buried on good teams? Did any of the busts' points improve too?
The author makes several references to defensive ability and size but there is no attempt to factor this in.
Overall I think the analysis is pretty superficial. There's some logic to his argument and he might be onto something, but I don't find his 'proof' to be compelling.