Behind the Battle-Columbus Blue Jackets Draft

[HitterD]

Originally Posted by MattyC

The one from 2011 kind of just follows Backlund around though. I'd like to see the organizational side more.

The flames did a 4 part behind the scenes of last years draft....hopefully still archived on their website. Id love it if they did another this year as the 2012 was quite neat

[dammage79]

Columbus rocked this year's Draft. Snagging Wennberg and Rychel was in my eyes, epic.

[Enoch Root]

With this video, along with the Flyers rendition, I think we can safely put the BPA rant to bed as it is pretty clear that teams put their organizational needs front and centre - and why wouldn't they?

Note: obviously that doesn't apply to the top few picks, where BPA is clearly and fully applicable (and the one place where it is definitive enough to be so).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Columbus rocked this year's Draft. Snagging Wennberg and Rychel was in my eyes, epic.

I'm just curious, can I ask where you're from?

Your location says Canmore, but you favour European/Russian players to NA players in virtually every circumstance, so I just have to ask.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

With this video, along with the Flyers rendition, I think we can safely put the BPA rant to bed as it is pretty clear that teams put their organizational needs front and centre - and why wouldn't they?

Note: obviously that doesn't apply to the top few picks, where BPA is clearly and fully applicable (and the one place where it is definitive enough to be so).

Or their definition of BPA/methodology of determining BPA includes to some degree organizational need.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I'm just curious, can I ask where you're from?

Your location says Canmore, but you favour European/Russian players to NA players in virtually every circumstance, so I just have to ask.

I'm Canadian. Love Canadian players too. As far as my appreciation for Euro/Russian players go, Don't really have an answer for ya. As far as this year goes, there were some truly stellar Euros throughout. The first round. From Barkov and Lindholm, to Nichushkin and Wennberg I was more fascinated with them over some of the others. Heck, even outside of Jones, the euro d prospects stood out to me more than morrisey and pulock.

Edit: As far as Nichushkin goes, would have been nice to break the Russian phobia withal such talent as he possessed. Still pumped we have Monahan though. Add to that being Canadian we get our home grown talent shown far more often than the Euros and Russians. Maybe it's the unknown factor.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Or their definition of BPA/methodology of determining BPA includes to some degree organizational need.

Yes, which is something I have always maintained - BPA is who you like the best, and who you like the best can be/is influenced by need.

The purpose of my post was that many who argue BPA argue for it in the absolute sense, whereby organizational need is not a factor and is not, by (their) definition BPA

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, which is something I have always maintained - BPA is who you like the best, and who you like the best can be/is influenced by need.

The purpose of my post was that many who argue BPA argue for it in the absolute sense, whereby organizational need is not a factor and is not, by (their) definition BPA

The people who argue have no clue, for instance, if the Oiler were picking #2(possibly even #1) does anyone think they would pass on Jones?, Florida did because they need a #1 center over a stud Dman.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, which is something I have always maintained - BPA is who you like the best, and who you like the best can be/is influenced by need.

The purpose of my post was that many who argue BPA argue for it in the absolute sense, whereby organizational need is not a factor and is not, by (their) definition BPA

That's arguing semantics. BPA is the selection with the most league-wide value regardless of organizational need. To define it otherwise accomplishes nothing but makes communication more difficult.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SebC

That's arguing semantics. BPA is the selection with the most league-wide value regardless of organizational need. To define it otherwise accomplishes nothing but makes communication more difficult.

No it's not semantics.

It is you that is using the arbitrary and meaningless definition.

What is 'league-wide value'? And who defines it?

The whole point of my argument is that BPA for me and my team is different than BPA for you and your team. It is a subjective valuation with many factors and there is no way that different organizations are going to value those factors in the same way.

There is no board and there is no one BPA (except at the very top where it is possible to say that one particular player is the best - but even then it is subjective and rarely is there universal agreement)

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

With this video, along with the Flyers rendition, I think we can safely put the BPA rant to bed as it is pretty clear that teams put their organizational needs front and centre - and why wouldn't they?

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Or their definition of BPA/methodology of determining BPA includes to some degree organizational need.

I don't interpret these videos as showing that teams aren't concerned with choosing the BPA over organizational needs. Does organizational need factor into the determination of BPA? Yes! You will often hear teams talk about adjusting their lists based on organizational priority or that all else being equal you pick the defenseman or center. Fact is that teams have type of players they like and the type of players they believe are necessary to win the Cup and try to "project" how a player can contribute.

What the videos truly illustrate is when it comes to ranking players there are often times where there is no 100% consensus. Most of the time players seem to be ranked based on scouts' majority opinion, but there are times where a well-respected scout whose voice carries more weight.

Most of us might disagree with the Flyers' rankings, but their rankings shouldn't be at all shocking. Morin is a bit of a stretch, but there are draft guides that had Zadorov, Morin, and Ristolainen being ranked in the top 10 (maybe not 3 together). For what it's worth, McKeen's had Zadorov, Nurse, and Morin ahead of Monahan. ISS had Nurse and Zadorov ahead of Monahan. If you watched the Flyers video, the scouts talk about Morin being a reach but he has the highest upside and if he hits he's projected to be "worth more" than say Monahan. For what it's worth, RLR rated Morin's potential as a 6'8" #2 puckmoving defenseman and PP contributor. How would you value a mean 6'8" #2 puckmoving defenseman who can contribute on the PP? Again, we might disagree with the rankings, but we definitely can't categorically say that the Flyers did not draft who they though to be the BPA.

[FAN]

QUOTE=T@T;4359186]The people who argue have no clue, for instance, if the Oiler were picking #2(possibly even #1) does anyone think they would pass on Jones?, Florida did because they need a #1 center over a stud Dman.[/QUOTE]
The Oilers did draft Yakupov when they clearly needed help on defense, but there was a strong consensus that Yakopov was better than the best defenseman in the draft. Not so in the 2013 draft where Jones was considered to be a strong candidate for the #1 overall pick.

Originally Posted by SebC

That's arguing semantics. BPA is the selection with the most league-wide value regardless of organizational need. To define it otherwise accomplishes nothing but makes communication more difficult.

That's being too simplistic. Teams don't tend to trade the player they just drafted. Drafting what turns out to be the BPA is the only way to guarantee that the team drafted the players with the most league-wide value.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FAN

I don't interpret these videos as showing that teams aren't concerned with choosing the BPA over organizational needs. Does organizational need factor into the determination of BPA? Yes! You will often hear teams talk about adjusting their lists based on organizational priority or that all else being equal you pick the defenseman or center. Fact is that teams have type of players they like and the type of players they believe are necessary to win the Cup and try to "project" how a player can contribute.

What the videos truly illustrate is when it comes to ranking players there are often times where there is no 100% consensus. Most of the time players seem to be ranked based on scouts' majority opinion, but there are times where a well-respected scout whose voice carries more weight.

Most of us might disagree with the Flyers' rankings, but their rankings shouldn't be at all shocking. Morin is a bit of a stretch, but there are draft guides that had Zadorov, Morin, and Ristolainen being ranked in the top 10 (maybe not 3 together). For what it's worth, McKeen's had Zadorov, Nurse, and Morin ahead of Monahan. ISS had Nurse and Zadorov ahead of Monahan. If you watched the Flyers video, the scouts talk about Morin being a reach but he has the highest upside and if he hits he's projected to be "worth more" than say Monahan. For what it's worth, RLR rated Morin's potential as a 6'8" #2 puckmoving defenseman and PP contributor. How would you value a mean 6'8" #2 puckmoving defenseman who can contribute on the PP? Again, we might disagree with the rankings, but we definitely can't categorically say that the Flyers did not draft who they though to be the BPA.

As I have said several times, BPA is who you like the best - it is subjective, and it is definitely influenced by organizational need.

Some people have argued that BPA is some absolute truth and nothing, including organizational need, should get in the way of it.

However, as you have also said (in the bold), there is no definitive BPA as each team would have their own ('who they thought to be BPA'). So you are agreeing with me.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

As I have said several times, BPA is who you like the best - it is subjective, and it is definitely influenced by organizational need.

Some people have argued that BPA is some absolute truth and nothing, including organizational need, should get in the way of it.

However, as you have also said (in the bold), there is no definitive BPA as each team would have their own ('who they thought to be BPA'). So you are agreeing with me.

I get and agree with what you're saying. Looking back at your posts I see where I got confused. It seems like you were trying to define BPA yourself and got trapped by it. First off, if you're arguing whether something is objective from an absolute sense then that's just pointless. Scouting is as much of an art as it is a science if not more so. So in my mind, BPA based on subjective evaluation of prospects is still BPA. Is Wayne Gretzky the best player to ever play the game of hockey? That's never going to be objective, but for those who truly believe that it's also as objective as it gets.

Let's say there was a fantasy draft, how many teams would pick Gretzky ahead of Lemieux when they were 18 years of age and even with hindsight of the players the two will become (Lemieux's injury history notwithstanding)? A team needing size will draft Lemieux. Situation of organizational need influencing BPA? Yes. Is it relevant? No. Because size matters and the decision to draft Lemieux doesn't have to be influenced by organizational need at all. So ya organizational need can influence a team's subjective determination of BPA like you said, but that doesn't mean it absolutely influences what a team's determination of BPA is. I think this is where you get "trapped". You saw Flyers' rankings, disagreed with it, and used it as an example of a team who didn't pick the BPA (subjectively or objectively) when in fact the Flyers did.

Scouting players, especially amateur players is an inexact science at best. Do you draft the franchise center or the franchise defenseman? Do you draft a player with the potential to be the next Lidstrom or do you draft a player with the potential to be the next Pronger/Chara? How do you objectively compare players who play different positions and or have different skillsets? Like the Flyers example I gave in my previous post. The Flyers felt Morin had the highest upside and if they saw his potential as a mean, first pairing puck moving defenseman then he can fairly be regarded as the BPA compared to Monahan's potential of being a solid #1 center.