Our 6th Overall Pick: Elias Lindholm or Sean Monahan?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by azzarish

I can't see any team dropping down from the top 5 to #6. Not in this draft with the players available.

We would have to offer them something outlandish.

Unless the 4/5/6 is centerville and they would rather take a D or a winger ... a team like Carolina.

[azzarish]

Originally Posted by nik-

Unless the 4/5/6 is centerville and they would rather take a D or a winger ... a team like Carolina.

Possibly. But that would move us up to 4th at the highest. If we're going to assemble a package to move up we may as well go all out and offer it to the top 3 teams.

But, I just can't see Colorado not taking Jones, and Florida/TB not taking Mackinnon/Drouin. So, 4/5/6 is still Barkov/Lindholm/Monahan/Nurse.

[nik-]

4 would probably cost a little more than I'm comfortable with, like our 1st plus one of the other 1sts, I don't see the gap between Barkov and the others as worth that much. 5th guarantees us Barkov or Lindholm which I see as the two best options of the three

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by moon

I would think the NFL and NHL charts would be quite different based on the fact that NHL picks are more valuable than NFL picks and there are so many more impact players/needs in NFL.

Not sure how you think NHL picks are more valuable.

Think of it from a statistical point of view:

1) roughly the same number of teams

2) roughly the same number of picks

3) in any given specialty, whether it be hockey, football, art, or playing the piano, there is exceptional, followed by great, followed by good, followed by average, etc. In each case, the quantity rises as the quality subsides. In other words, you are always going to get a parabolic return chart.

My first thought was to consider the differences between the NFL (or soccer) and hockey. But then I realized that those differences are irrelevant - this is a statistical distribution problem, not a NHL vs NFL problem.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by azzarish

Possibly. But that would move us up to 4th at the highest. If we're going to assemble a package to move up we may as well go all out and offer it to the top 3 teams.

But, I just can't see Colorado not taking Jones, and Florida/TB not taking Mackinnon/Drouin. So, 4/5/6 is still Barkov/Lindholm/Monahan/Nurse.

I think 4/5/6 is Barkov/Lindholm/Monahan/Nurse/Nichushkin and possibly one or two others (each team will have their own view on each player)

I think there is a very real chance that Barkov falls to the Flames.

I also think that there is a very, very small difference in the likelihoods of Barkov, Lindholm and Monahan becoming impact players.

Therefore, especially considering how much we would have to overpay, I think it makes absolutely no sense to try and trade up to #4 or #5

[moon]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Not sure how you think NHL picks are more valuable.

Think of it from a statistical point of view:

1) roughly the same number of teams

2) roughly the same number of picks

3) in any given specialty, whether it be hockey, football, art, or playing the piano, there is exceptional, followed by great, followed by good, followed by average, etc. In each case, the quantity rises as the quality subsides. In other words, you are always going to get a parabolic return chart.

My first thought was to consider the differences between the NFL (or soccer) and hockey. But then I realized that those differences are irrelevant - this is a statistical distribution problem, not a NHL vs NFL problem.

I say more valuable because the difference in drafting 4 to 6 is often negligible in the NFL but as we see this year can be a huge difference in NFL.

I am using my experience as a Lions fan and drafting near the top of the draft and their usually is about 4-5 guys I would be fine with the team taking whereas with the Flames it usually is a much smaller list and there is a definite pecking order of guys.

Because NFL teams need to fill spots in so many areas (QB, WR, RB, OL, DL etc.) it seems that there are usually a lot more options for teams to go to rather than the NHL where there are at most 3 and most times teams are fairly set in one of those areas.

I would be fine with Flames giving up a late first to move 6 to 4 and absolutely pissed to see the Lions do it (unless it meant they didn't draft Ansah!)

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Not sure how you think NHL picks are more valuable.

Think of it from a statistical point of view:

1) roughly the same number of teams

2) roughly the same number of picks

3) in any given specialty, whether it be hockey, football, art, or playing the piano, there is exceptional, followed by great, followed by good, followed by average, etc. In each case, the quantity rises as the quality subsides. In other words, you are always going to get a parabolic return chart.

My first thought was to consider the differences between the NFL (or soccer) and hockey. But then I realized that those differences are irrelevant - this is a statistical distribution problem, not a NHL vs NFL problem.

I would say top end NHL picks are more valuable because there are really only 3 positions (outside of goalie). So if you are picking fourth, you might be getting the second best defenseman in the draft.

In the NFL you could be picking 15th and get the best quarterback or the best tackle, safety etc...because everyone's needs are so much different.

[Enoch Root]

^ anecdotal argument to a statistical problem, but we can agree to disagree

on a separate note: I share your pain as a fellow Lions fan

Edit: addressed to Moon

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I would say top end NHL picks are more valuable because there are really only 3 positions (outside of goalie). So if you are picking fourth, you might be getting the second best defenseman in the draft.

In the NFL you could be picking 15th and get the best quarterback or the best tackle, safety etc...because everyone's needs are so much different.

Individual teams has specific needs, but aggregately, you get to the same place.

And your argument is flawed because, while the NFL has more positions, and thus, more different needs, it also has fewer teams requiring that specific need, by definition. In other words, that balances out.

In the NHL, there are fewer positions but that means there are more teams with that specific need.

Again, step back and think big picture. Aggregately, in any situation, there will be a best, most skilled, followed by a 2nd, followed (more closely) by a third, and as you go down the list, the gaps between the next get smaller and the quantity of comparables goes up.

It is simple statistics.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Not sure how you think NHL picks are more valuable.

Think of it from a statistical point of view:

1) roughly the same number of teams

2) roughly the same number of picks

3) in any given specialty, whether it be hockey, football, art, or playing the piano, there is exceptional, followed by great, followed by good, followed by average, etc. In each case, the quantity rises as the quality subsides. In other words, you are always going to get a parabolic return chart.

My first thought was to consider the differences between the NFL (or soccer) and hockey. But then I realized that those differences are irrelevant - this is a statistical distribution problem, not a NHL vs NFL problem.

The NFL draft picks are just so different. The Players are 22 years old and the first round picks (and even 2nd round picks) are fully expected to be starters on the team as rookies. The first 10 picks are expected to be close to the best players at their positions in the League.

In the NHL only the top 5 or 6 have a chance to be playing in the NHL the next season, only 1 every 10 years or so will be of all-star quality.

After that even great talents are 3 years away from being full time NHL players (Baerstchi , Granlund, Brayden Schenn) A normal first round draft pick will be 2-3 years from even trying to break into the NHL.


The NHL draft age needs to be raised from 18 to at least 20.

For the 3 to 10 18 and 19 year olds that are exceptional talents that are NHL ready before they are 20 they could be drafted but they should have a standard one-way contract for 3-year at 5M / year that goes against a teams salary cap no matter where they play.

Right now with the Flames having the 6-th pick in a "deep" draft there is about a 10% chance the player will play in the NHL next year. A 5% chance that they play more than 10 games... and virtually no chance that they will be in the top 8 in scoring on the Flames.

Galchenyuk --- a great pick at 3rd overall last year is in 8th spot in Montreal scoring.

At age 18 Nino Niederreiter was a great pick at #5 overall and Brendan Gallagher was picked #147.

3 years later Gallagher would be top 10 in a 20 year old draft.


Nino has cashed NHL cheques for around $3M... Gallagher around $400K..... Next year Nino will get around 2.8M and Gallagher 800K

There are 9 first round picks from 2010 (including sure thing can't miss Phoenix pick for Jokinen - Gormley ) who haven't played 1 NHL game.

Max Rienhardt has 11 NHL games....... Even though as a 20 year old he is better than all but 15 players somehow I don't imagine that there would be anyone trading pick #15-30 for Max. Even though he statistically has a chance to be better than 1/3 of this years first round picks

[Enoch Root]

What you guys aren't getting is that it is completely irrelevant that the NFL is different than the NHL.

The draft value sheet is about the RELATIVE value of one pick to the next.

All of the details you list as to why the NFL is different than the NHL are - besides being blatantly obvious - completely inconsequential to the relative distribution of talent and the statistical patterns that will inevitably emerge from that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

What you guys aren't getting is that it is completely irrelevant that the NFL is different than the NHL.

The draft value sheet is about the RELATIVE value of one pick to the next.

All of the details you list as to why the NFL is different than the NHL are - besides being blatantly obvious - completely inconsequential to the relative distribution of talent and the statistical patterns that will inevitably emerge from that.

The difference is certainty. In the NFL the level of certainty you are going to get a certain career out of a player is higher then in the NHL. The level of certainty also drops off at a different rate. Therefore the relative value between the picks is different.

If you accept the value of picks is a based on ceiling times probability of reaching for each sport for each draft position the curves you generate are going to be different.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

The difference is certainty. In the NFL the level of certainty you are going to get a certain career out of a player is higher then in the NHL. The level of certainty also drops off at a different rate. Therefore the relative value between the picks is different.

If you accept the value of picks is a based on ceiling times probability of reaching for each sport for each draft position the curves you generate are going to be different.

1) I strongly disagree about greater certainty, due primarily to injury, but it is still irrelevant anyway, and

2) even if they were more certain, the relative differences would still distribute in a parabolic pattern.

3) another thing that you guys are missing by trying to distinguish differences with the NFL is that the pattern also applies to the NBA and to soccer in Europe.

So unless you want to make an argument that all of those leagues are somehow the same in the way that they differ from the NHL, and that difference somehow results in the relative distribution patterns of those leagues being similar but the NHL being different, then you have no argument.

[Enoch Root]

Let's say that you wanted to compare the distribution of height among European men with the height distribution of Philipino men.

It would be easy to imagine differences in the absolute distributions (Philipinos would be a more homogenous group so the height differences would be smaller, European men would include Northern cultures which are typically taller, along with Mediteranean cultures which are typically shorter, etc etc). However, despite the absolute differences in the characteristics of the two groups, the distribution patterns are identical (assuming your sample sizes are large enough).

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Not sure how you think NHL picks are more valuable.

Think of it from a statistical point of view:

1) roughly the same number of teams

2) roughly the same number of picks

3) in any given specialty, whether it be hockey, football, art, or playing the piano, there is exceptional, followed by great, followed by good, followed by average, etc. In each case, the quantity rises as the quality subsides. In other words, you are always going to get a parabolic return chart.

My first thought was to consider the differences between the NFL (or soccer) and hockey. But then I realized that those differences are irrelevant - this is a statistical distribution problem, not a NHL vs NFL problem.

One factor you left out is how big is the population of potential draftees? If there are twice as many kids playing competitive football vs. hockey then for the same distribution there will be twice as many elite players available in a football draft and players taken in later rounds if the NFL draft will tend to relatively closer to the elite level than the corresponding NHL picks simply because there are more better players.

I don't know how the draft eligible populations compare but wouldn't be surprised if the football population is much larger.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by edslunch

One factor you left out is how big is the population of potential draftees? If there are twice as many kids playing competitive football vs. hockey then for the same distribution there will be twice as many elite players available in a football draft and players taken in later rounds if the NFL draft will tend to relatively closer to the elite level than the corresponding NHL picks simply because there are more better players.

I don't know how the draft eligible populations compare but wouldn't be surprised if the football population is much larger.

Yes, that would definitely be a factor, but with the inclusion of European players, I doubt it is as great as you suggest (though I do not know).

Also, if there are more available prospects for NFL players, I think you would see more rounds of drafts, and you would also likely see more teams. In other words, these things tend to find their level.

Finally, unless you could demonstrate that the universe size is relatively consistent between the other three leagues, and that only the NHL is out of whack, then - again - the argument doesn't hold.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, that would definitely be a factor, but with the inclusion of European players, I doubt it is as great as you suggest (though I do not know).

Also, if there are more available prospects for NFL players, I think you would see more rounds of drafts, and you would also likely see more teams. In other words, these things tend to find their level.

Finally, unless you could demonstrate that the universe size is relatively consistent between the other three leagues, and that only the NHL is out of whack, then - again - the argument doesn't hold.

Given that basketball, football and football are three of the most popular games on earth I think it's entirely likely that there is a larger talent pool for each of them compared to hockey. The size of the talent pools doesn't have to be equal to each other they just have to be larger enough relative to the NHL to make the rules different.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Given that basketball, football and football are three of the most popular games on earth I think it's entirely likely that there is a larger talent pool for each of them compared to hockey. The size of the talent pools doesn't have to be equal to each other they just have to be larger enough relative to the NHL to make the rules different.

No, they would have to be relatively similar, or else the ratios wouldn't apply across the different leagues

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

What you guys aren't getting is that it is completely irrelevant that the NFL is different than the NHL.

The draft value sheet is about the RELATIVE value of one pick to the next.

All of the details you list as to why the NFL is different than the NHL are - besides being blatantly obvious - completely inconsequential to the relative distribution of talent and the statistical patterns that will inevitably emerge from that.

Can't compare the NFL and NHL drafts. A 4th round pick in the NFL can be a starter on day one of his first season while a 4th round NHL player faces much steeper odds of being a player and most don't make it period. They relativity only relates to the numerical order. When you trade a 2nd round pick in the NFL you are trading a starting player when you trade a 2nd round pick in the NHL you are trading a player that has less than a 20% chance of ever playing in the NHL. It's simply not the same and can't be compared when it comes to calculating relative values of top 10 picks.

Last week Raiders traded the #3 overall pick to move down to #13 and got only a mid 2nd round pick in return. No team in the NHL is going to trade a top 5 pick for a later 1st round pick to gain just a 2nd round pick. Simply not going to happen.

[edslunch]

Randomly select 100 men and order by height. Let's say 10 of the top 30 men are over 6'2". Now add another hundred random men, assume the same distribution so now 20 of the top 30 are over 6'2". Pick another hundred and now 30 out of the top 30 are over that height. It doesn't matter how many more I pick after that 30 out of the top 30 or still over that height. I may end up with more freakishly tall people the more I pick but that even that will even out as there is a maximum limit to the effective height of a human.

So well it might be that soccer has 10 times the population of potential players due the global popularity, the top 30 will still be relatively as good as the top 30 football players because both populations are relatively large And there is an effective limit to how good a player can be in each of those games.