Quote:
Originally Posted by mikephoen
Interesting article and I really appreciate people finding new ways to look at things like this.
That said... something doesn't feel right about how this turned out. I think there must be too much luck or variance even with the fairly large sample size. I say this because cup winners LA and Chicago are right down at the bottom and horrid teams like Buffalo and Edmonton are right at the top.
Later round picks probably really screw this up. One guy who plays 800 games who came from the 6th round for example hammers down 2 teams score, but really all 30 teams missed this guy for multiple rounds but don't 'suffer' in the rankings for it. Anything after the 3rd round is such a crap shoot I don't know if it's fair to use that data.
Looking forward to the rest of the analysis though!
|
Luck just not in drafting, but also in development/opportunities.
I think part of the reason why some really bad teams appear to draft well is because they have no option but to extend opportunities to their drafted players. This is why I hate "NHL games played" as a main characteristic for what qualifies as a good draft pick. For a lot of players, there is a fine line between being brushed aside in the minors and being propelled into the NHL line-up. Things like injuries and the progress of their peers play a huge role.