I find the "evaluate how every team did" exercise really weird..especially the day of the draft. Every team has their own list and every analyst had their own list. In the case of analysts these are widely available ahead of time. It is not as though the quality of player changes between Friday and Monday. It is really just that partial intel about what a team would have done at a specific position is made public (it's not as though teams all release their lists and additional intel is gained based on every scouts intel on every single player). The best that these grades can be called is not "how did your team do", but rather how closely did your team correlate with any one analysts list.
If we are measuring on the correlation scale (which is effectively what we are doing)...then I would rather rank higher on Bob McKenzies than Pronmans scale, because I think Bob is a better evaluator of talent (albeit still an armature). It would be super interesting if every GM had to vorank 1 to 31 on how every team did. This would at least provide a consensus of the overal amature scouting group in the NHL at this point in time.
__________________
Go Flames Go
|