Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
...My final comment on this is I believe NHL-E, and similar stats, to all be junk science and I don't see any value in the measures...
|
No value??? I am not particularly enamoured by the application of NHL-E, but even I can see that it is not at all useless or "junk science" as you have unceremoniously proclaimed. Of course, it has its limits, but being limited is a far cry from being useless.
As far as Jankowski is concerned, here is where both the usefulness and limitations in employing NHL-E are fairly well pronounced. NHL-E fails in that Jankowski's developmental track is exceptionally uncharacteristic; because of the high number of mitigating factors that have and will affect his development, it is likely that NHL-E will not produce a very accurate measure of his future potential, especially when compared to other, more traditionally weaned prospects.
What NHL-E does tell us about Jankowski is that the odds are stacked heavily against him. He is a long shot. He was drafted as a long shot and remains a long-shot, but this is no slight on his potential should he overcome the odds. The Flames drafted Jankowski in large part because he was a long-shot (were he not a long shot, then there is no way he would still have been on the board at #19 where the Flames picked him). The team took a (well advised) gamble in a marginal draft year that could be a great NHL player, but has a long road, a LOT of work, and an outside chance to get there.