2016 NHL Draft

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

The fact that there are mistakes does not "greaten" your statement. Fact is these GMs, scouts all get together and hash out the risks and rewards of all these available players. It's their job. Unnecessary? Acquiring who you think will become the best player is necessary. Otherwise you're not doing the job your employer pays you for.



By whom, Calgarypuck?

Calgarypuck posters like you and I are smarter than paid professional amateur scouts, and those pros should not try to be smarter than Calgarypuck?

I don't need it to greaten my statement. That's you continuing to misinterpret what I mean.

I'm saying that there is a greater, unnecessary risk in these "types" of draft strategies. That doesn't mean that the player is guaranteed to hit or miss. That's not my point at all.

But when the, for a lack of a better term, standard or "consensus" picks in that range are fantastically rated prospects who are widely considered by professional scouts to be the better prospect, that the alternative unnecessary risk.

What the Bruins did during the 2015 draft, ignoring the Hamilton trade, is one of the most unnecessary risks I have ever seen in an entry draft. Their draft looked bad the day after, and it looks even worse today. I don't need to be a professional scout to be able to say that.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I don't need it to greaten my statement. That's you continuing to misinterpret what I mean.

I'm saying that there is a greater, unnecessary risk in these "types" of draft strategies. That doesn't mean that the player is guaranteed to hit or miss. That's not my point at all.

But when the, for a lack of a better term, standard or "consensus" picks in that range are fantastically rated prospects who are widely considered by professional scouts to be the better prospect, that the alternative unnecessary risk.

Risk is qualitative, it's not determined by consensus rank. If the Flames' internal reports on, say, Matthew Tkachuk is that he will top out as a middle sixer, let's call him "Michael Slowlik" then it doesn't matter if he's ranked top 5 then they are taking more risk drafting that player over, say, Jost who their internal reports might say has Bergeron upside and a Backlund floor.

Without access to internal reports you can't qualify the risk. Risk is based on Ceiling/Floor vs Likelyhood to hit that Ceiling/Floor, not Pseudo-Consensus-Ranking vs Actual-Draft-Position.

[SuperMatt18]

Agree the Bruins took a greater risk but really it's not proven to have failed yet (although with Connor and Barzal right there it looks like it may).

Even then that is a much bigger risk that the one you stated.

They took guys ranked 28 and 40 at 14 & 15 respectively. That was a huge jump in the rankings.

Brown is ranked 7th among North American skaters by ISS - which likely puts him around 10 with the European skaters factored into consideration. Really he is probably in the same consideration as Tkachuk, Nylander, Jost, etc as that 2nd tier of forwards in this draft. His PPG this year is pretty close to Zacha and Crouse who were guys that went 6 & 11 last year - so he is in that range from a talent perspective.

The Flames taking a player ranked 10th at 7 (where they could draft) likely isn't much of a reach.

However if a team takes him top 3 then that is very foolish.

For example say the Flames do end up picking 7th and the draft goes:

1) Matthews
2) Laine
3) Puljujarvi
4) Dubois
5) Tkachuk
6) Chyrchyn
7)

At that point is Nylander, Juolevi, or one of the other "top 10" guys really any more than a sure thing then Brown (or Jost too for that matter). I would say no based on their performance in league and Under 18 play this year.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Then you misremember. Not a lot, but a handful of posters wanted Ritchie despite, yes, there being a clear top 4 in that draft available to the Flames.

No I remember just fine thank you. As I said I was one of the bigger Ritchie fans that year. We were talking about Ritchie, Virtanen, Dal Colle, etc before the Flames ended up with the 4th pick. Once we had the 4th pick we knew we'd get one of the Sams or Draisaitl so all talk of the other choices dropped off at that point. Feel free to prove otherwise, the posts are still here.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

So, how can you say there was a clear top 4 for 2014, but I can't say that Logan Brown should not be in the discussion for the Flames pick for this draft? Where is the consistency in your logic?

Brown is one of many players rated in the 4-15 range. These players are so close that it is impossible to predict who will go where. Flames will likely draft 6th or 7th therefore Brown is someone they might be looking at. Would it surprise me if they took him? Yes. But it won't surprise many if he goes top 8-10.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Agree the Bruins took a greater risk but really it's not proven to have failed yet (although with Connor and Barzal right there it looks like it may).

Even then that is a much bigger risk that the one you stated.

They took guys ranked 28 and 40 at 14 & 15 respectively. That was a huge jump in the rankings.

Brown is ranked 7th among North American skaters by ISS - which likely puts him around 10 with the European skaters factored into consideration.

The Flames taking a player ranked 10th at 7 (where they could draft) likely isn't much of a reach.

However if a team takes him at 3 or 4 then that is very foolish.

I agree that Boston is an extreme example, but I'm just using it to emphasize the original point which seems to be missed by some. But is is an example, and I don't need the benefit of hindsight to say what they did was not wise.

There is no reason they should have had Senyshyn and Debrusk ranked as high as they did. That's the tunnel vision I'm talking about. That's an unnecessary risk with the likes of Connor and Barzal on the board.

And although the reach wouldn't be the same with Brown, picking so high accentuates my belief that the Flames can't be playing games with this pick.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

No I remember just fine thank you. As I said I was one of the bigger Ritchie fans that year. We were talking about Ritchie, Virtanen, Dsl Colle, etc before the Flames ended up with the 4th pick. Once we had the 4th pick we knew we'd get one of the Sams or Draisaitl so all talk of the other choices dropped off at that point. Feel free to prove otherwise, the posts are still here.



Brown is one of many players rated in the 4-15 range. These players are so close that it is impossible to predict who will go where. Flames will likely draft 6th or 7th therefore Brown is someone they might be looking at. Would it surprise me if they took him? Yes. But it won't surprise many if he goes top 8-10.

Who is ranking Brown at 4 or anywhere in the top 10 besides a brief mention by Button that he could be picked top 5?

[CliffFletcher]

This notion that there is no board is dumb. There is such a thing a collective wisdom. Consensus. Call it what you will. When you take the valuations of 100 people who know what they're talking about and come up with averaged valuations, it is usually going to be more accurate than the valuations of 1 person. Not always. But usually.

If you go to a new city and want to try a BBQ restaurant, and you compare the ratings of 10 BBQ joints which each have over 100 ratings, it's a pretty safe bet the top two or three rated BBQ joints are going to be quite good, and the bottom two or three are going to be worse, even if some people do prefer them. And the projections of NHL scouts (and the eventual performance of hockey players) are a lot more accurate and objective than opinions on restaurants.

If Columbus drafts 2nd overall and they take Dante Fabbro, Blue Jackets fans would have every reason to be nervous. Because even though the Jackets' scouting staff are highly-paid professionals, the idea that they see something that 29 other teams presumably don't see is unlikely.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I'm saying that there is a greater, unnecessary risk in these "types" of draft strategies. That doesn't mean that the player is guaranteed to hit or miss. That's not my point at all.

I think you show a misunderstanding of how the draft works when you call that a type of strategy. You know what the strategy is in the draft? Find some NHLers. You know how they do that? They make a list of the kids of they like best. You know how they execute the draft? They take the kids higher on their list that are left. That's pretty much every team's strategy. Their strategy is identical but their lists are completely different.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

But when the, for a lack of a better term, standard or "consensus" picks in that range are fantastically rated prospects who are widely considered by professional scouts to be the better prospect, that the alternative unnecessary risk.

Consensus in an illusion created by fans who read a lot of scouting publications. The reality is there is no consensus and that teams have completely different lists. Choosing the prospects your scouts like best is not risky, its the only alternate unless you want to fire them all or overrule them.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

What the Bruins did during the 2015 draft, ignoring the Hamilton trade, is one of the most unnecessary risks I have ever seen in an entry draft. Their draft looked bad the day after, and it looks even worse today. I don't need to be a professional scout to be able to say that.

They took the players they liked best. The took the players highest on their list. Time will tell whether their scouts were wrong or not. There was nothing riskier in their approach than another team's approach. You just don't like their picks because the independent scouting services didn't like their picks as much as they did.

[Regorium]

Interestingly, Senyshyn is looking like by FAR the best pick of the three in their draft+1.

Not as good as Connor, but in a one year later re-draft, Senyshyn would probably go in the top 20.

Of course, with the two other seemingly awful picks, I can only say that getting Senyshyn was complete luck.

If they got Connor Barzal Senyshyn, it'd be the home run of home runs.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

There is no reason they should have had Senyshyn and Debrusk ranked as high as they did. That's the tunnel vision I'm talking about. That's an unnecessary risk with the likes of Connor and Barzal on the board.

And although the reach wouldn't be the same with Brown, picking so high accentuates my belief that the Flames can't be playing games with this pick.

What you call tunnel vision they call scouting. What you call risky they call their draft list. What you call "playing games", they call a career.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Who is ranking Brown at 4 or anywhere in the top 10 besides a brief mention by Button that he could be picked top 5?

Brown is ranked 7th by CSS. Factoring in Euro's that is around the 10 range. He had a strong U18s to finish his year so he should be rising on lists that still have yet to come out.

Big centres go higher than projected. See Ryan Johansen. See Mark Scheiffele. Figuring that he'll go top 8-10 is a smart bet.

Perhaps you rely too much on these scouting services? Open your mind bro, anything is possible!

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I think you show a misunderstanding of how the draft works when you call that a type of strategy. You know what the strategy is in the draft? Find some NHLers. You know how they do that? They make a list of the kids of they like best. You know how they execute the draft? They take the kids higher on their list that are left. That's pretty much every team's strategy. Their strategy is identical but their lists are completely different.



Consensus in an illusion created by fans who read a lot of scouting publications. The reality is there is no consensus and that teams have completely different lists. Choosing the prospects your scouts like best is not risky, its the only alternate unless you want to fire them all or overrule them.



They took the players they liked best. The took the players highest on their list. Time will tell whether their scouts were wrong or not. There was nothing riskier in their approach than another team's approach. You just don't like their picks because the independent scouting services didn't like their picks as much as they did.

If a team is making their pick with little or no consideration of what other teams are doing, then they are making a mistake. If we disagree on that, then we'll have to agree to disagree since we won't be able to move beyond that idea.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This notion that there is no board is dumb. There is such a thing a collective wisdom. Consensus. Call it what you will. When you take the valuations of 100 people who know what they're talking about and come up with averaged valuations, it is usually going to be more accurate than the valuations of 1 person. Not always. But usually.

If you go to a new city and want to try a BBQ restaurant, and you compare the ratings of 10 BBQ joints which each have over 100 ratings, it's a pretty safe bet the top two or three rated BBQ joints are going to be quite good, and the bottom two or three are going to be worse, even if some people do prefer them. And the projections of NHL scouts (and the eventual performance of hockey players) are a lot more accurate and objective than opinions on restaurants.

If Columbus drafts 2nd overall and they take Dante Fabbro, Blue Jackets fans would have every reason to be nervous. Because even though the Jackets' scouting staff are highly-paid professionals, the idea that they see something that 29 other teams presumably don't see is unlikely.

There is also trouble in averages sometimes though because they don't always tell the whole story.

Say a guy is ranked 9th on 25 scouts lists, 10th on 50 lists, and 11th on the other 25 lists - then his average ranking would be ranked at number 10.

But maybe a guy bounces around the rankings a little more - and is 5th on 5 of the scouts lists, 7th on 20 of the scouts lists, 9th on 20 of the others, and 15th on the other 55 lists.

Then that players average ranking is 12th but is that player really worse then the guy ranked number 10? It's hard to say and averages can be deceiving in this case.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This notion that there is no board is dumb. There is such a thing a collective wisdom. Consensus. Call it what you will. When you take the valuations of 100 people who know what they're talking about and come up with averaged valuations, it is usually going to be more accurate than the valuations of 1 person. Not always. But usually.

If you go to a new city and want to try a BBQ restaurant, and you compare the ratings of 10 BBQ joints which each have over 100 ratings, it's a pretty safe bet the top two or three rated BBQ joints are going to be quite good, and the bottom two or three are going to be worse, even if some people do prefer them. And the projections of NHL scouts (and the eventual performance of hockey players) are a lot more accurate and objective than opinions on restaurants.

If Columbus drafts 2nd overall and they take Dante Fabbro, Blue Jackets fans would have every reason to be nervous. Because even though the Jackets' scouting staff are highly-paid professionals, the idea that they see something that 29 other teams presumably don't see is unlikely.

At the extremes, sure, but I think you are ascribing a more clear-cut, objective standard than what is really there. The "consensus", say at number 6 might be include views that the BBQ joint is rated anywhere from 2nd to 14th, but averages out to 6. Saying there isn't a board isn't dumb, it is the truth.

To continue your BBQ analogy: Say the top 5 rated restaurants are all booked. Do you automatically pick number 6? Would you consider location, price or other criteria which may be part of the reasoning of the rankings? Surely professional teams employee their own scouts for a reason.

EDIT: What SuperMatt said.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This notion that there is no board is dumb. There is such a thing a collective wisdom. Consensus. Call it what you will. When you take the valuations of 100 people who know what they're talking about and come up with averaged valuations, it is usually going to be more accurate than the valuations of 1 person. Not always. But usually.

There is no board.

The top 3 this year are consensus (Matthews, Laine, Puljujarvi.) And the consensus disappears after that for the most part.

What happens if you had access to every team's list and then you realize that it is all over the place from 4th on and there isn't any consensus? Well that's this year. And most years are like that.

Why don't we look at 2012 to see the consensus?
-EDM had Ryan Murray rated 1st and chose Yakupov
-TOR had Morgan Rielly rated 1st
-CGY had Alex Galchenyuk rated 1st

Zero consensus. That is typical of the draft. Sometimes there is consensus at the very top of the draft (top 1-3 picks). That's about all there usually is for consensus and as we can see from the 2012 example, sometimes there isn't even consensus at the very top of the draft.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

If a team is making their pick with little or no consideration of what other teams are doing, then they are making a mistake. If we disagree on that, then we'll have to agree to disagree since we won't be able to move beyond that idea.

Sure I'll disagree on that for the most part as well. Seems like we fundamentally disagree about how the draft works, not surprising.

For the most part teams have no idea what another team is going to do. They may have some informed guesses but no team knows another team's exact list. So how could they operate their business based on what other teams are doing?

I'm not even sure what you're getting at anymore. You buy FAR too much into this idea of consensus. It's a myth, it's a mirage.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

There is also trouble in averages sometimes though because they don't always tell the whole story.

Say a guy is ranked 9th on 25 scouts lists, 10th on 50 lists, and 11th on the other 25 lists - then his average ranking would be ranked at number 10.

But maybe a guy bounces around the rankings a little more - and is 5th on 5 of the scouts lists, 7th on 20 of the scouts lists, 9th on 20 of the others, and 15th on the other 55 lists.

Then that players average ranking is 12th but is that player really worse then the guy ranked number 10? It's hard to say and averages can be deceiving in this case.

This post really hits the nail on the head. Probably the biggest mistake non-mathematicians make in statistical analysis is over valuing or misinterpreting averages. Averages can be useful, obviously, but they can also be misleading.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Is it smarter to think you're not smarter than everyone else? People smarter than me must know the answer to this - I think.

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." - Socrates

[Ashasx]

I'm not buying into the idea of consensus. I would criticize the Flames for taking Brown with their pick just as I would for the Bruins with Senyshyn and Debrusk over Connor and Barzal.

If what you're considering to be a consensus is a flat ranking of 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., where any deviation is considered to go against the consensus, then that's not my way of thinking. But I do believe there are tiers. Teams will not have the exact same tiers for their drafts, and there will be variation, but on average there are drops in "consensus" ranking for players that are visible. I'm not making a mistake in statistical analysis.

It's the same idea as why you thought there was an obvious top 4 for the 2014 draft. I agree with your visualization here.

I also think teams have a better idea of what other teams are going to do than you might believe. For the most part, teams do not have a ton of scouts. For leagues in Europe for example, only teams like the Leafs and Ranger can afford larger and more dedicated scouting groups. I would not be surprised if some posters on these boards have seen Puljujarvi or Laine more times live this season than a lot of Flames scouts. That just seems like a reality to me with limited resources.

Teams have to talk. For the most part, I'd say they are pretty educated on things like trading down for a player they like, as one example. And if they don't talk about specific players, I don't think it would be all that difficult to gauge a team's interest in a player given things like how often they've scouted him, discussions with the player, etc. These things are visible from afar.

If I'm running a company, I'd want to know, to the best of my ability, what and how my competitors are doing. I can't assume that my organization has all the answers and isn't prone to poor judgment and missed opportunities. I believe that concept applies to the draft and the NHL in general.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I'm not buying into the idea of consensus. I would criticize the Flames for taking Brown with their pick just as I would for the Bruins with Senyshyn and Debrusk over Connor and Barzal.

Which shows clearly that you are emphasizing consensus even though you claim you aren't.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

If what you're considering to be a consensus is a flat ranking of 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., where any deviation is considered to go against the consensus, then that's not my way of thinking. But I do believe there are tiers. Teams will not have the exact same tiers for their drafts, and there will be variation, but on average there are drops in "consensus" ranking for players that are visible. I'm not making a mistake in statistical analysis.

It's the same idea as why you thought there was an obvious top 4 for the 2014 draft. I agree with your visualization here.

Agreed, there are tiers. This year there is a top tier of 3. Some people see there being a secondary tier of players from 4-6 or 4-7 but not everybody sees it like that. Some see it as having a secondary tier from 4-12 or 4-15. Brown is solidly in the top 15 IMO.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I also think teams have a better idea of what other teams are going to do than you might believe. For the most part, teams do not have a ton of scouts. For leagues in Europe for example, only teams like the Leafs and Ranger can afford larger and more dedicated teams. I would not be surprised if some posters on these boards have seen Puljujarvi or Laine more times live this season than a lot of Flames scouts. That just seems like a reality to me with limited resources.

Wow, lot's of assumptions here and at least a few are incorrect.
-For the most part teams have a ton of scouts. This is a million dollar business and there's no cap on hiring scouts.
-Your assumption that posters here have seen Laine and Puljujarvi live more than some of the Flames scouts have is laughable. Treliving himself has probably Laine and Puljujarvi live more than any of us have and he's not even doing full time amateur scouting.

You do realize "live" in scouting terms means actually being there at the arena right?

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Teams have to talk. For the most part, I'd say they are pretty educated on things like trading down for a player they like, as one example. And if they don't talk about specific players, I don't think it would be all that difficult to gauge a team's interest in a player given things like how often they've scouted him, discussions with the player, etc. These things are visible from afar.

There's a lot of misinformation spread and teams will try their hardest to mask their intentions. Did you miss the article where Tod Button talks about never taking to Gaudreau's parents/coaches because they wanted it to be a secret that they liked him?

Originally Posted by Ashasx

If I'm running a company, I'd want to know, to the best of my ability, what and how my competitors are doing. I can't assume that my organization has all the answers and isn't prone to poor judgment and missed opportunities. I believe that concept applies to the draft.

Sure but outside of actual industrial espionage you can try to guess another team's list but you'll never know for sure.