U20 tournament - Junior Evaluation Camp (Sieloff, Gillies, Monahan, Poirier & Janko)

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by dammage79

^^ I share this outlook as well. Stats provide a history Of other players development and are no better at predicting the future of an individual than reading tea leaves in my eyes.

Of course they are. Like it or not, a lot of people's preconceptions are based on stats, however loose they may be.

For example, most people agree that tiny players have a harder shot at making the league. Now we may have no idea where that height cut-off is where things get harder, but at the end of the day, that belief is loosely based on a number. Statistics analysis is just a more rigorous scientific approach to looking at those preconceptions, and trying to let you know what that exact height is.

The same thing goes for judging "slow" players, or those born late in the year, or any other sorts of criteria that people use to judge players. A lot of them are based on numbers. Stats won't give you the whole story, but they will give you a more accurate numbers to gain insight from.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Why does everyone who doesn't believe all these prospects are sure things suddenly become pessimists? Kind of irritating. What is wrong with questioning these ambiguous platitudes with statistics and insight? A pessimist would use the opposite of the optimists wishful thinking and base it on a negative view. Can't we be skeptical? What is wrong with questioning these? Why the hell should we ignore it when discussing our prospects?

Great post. Some people want to drill down more and be more critical. That isn't because are someone less of a fan. They want to discuss and talk about prospects including their strengths and weaknesses.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Why does everyone who doesn't believe all these prospects are sure things suddenly become pessimists? Kind of irritating. What is wrong with questioning these ambiguous platitudes with statistics and insight? A pessimist would use the opposite of the optimists wishful thinking and base it on a negative view. Can't we be skeptical? What is wrong with questioning these? Why the hell should we ignore it when discussing our prospects?

The first stone was thrown when someone threw out wishful thinking to knock down another poster. The whole negative or positive thing is so played out on this forum. It's the perfunctory way some posters go about it, thread-to-thread that some take issue with I'd imagine. This is a thread about the World Juniors camps and look what it's been dragged into.

I love bringing in stats to help evaluate a player, but I usually do it after viewing the guy myself. I put those stats into context. I don't base my evaluations solely on those stats, I use them after I've seen a player play and try to evaluate them myself.

The vast majority of NHL prospects won't be NHL players. Even if all these guys the Flames currently have are really good hockey players it's a numbers game. I just prefer actually watching them a bit, and atleast play a pre season game or two before totally writing them off. That's just me, I'm funny that way.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Great post. Some people want to drill down more and be more critical. That isn't because are someone less of a fan. They want to discuss and talk about prospects including their strengths and weaknesses.

Horrible post. You're insinuating those that don't share your assessment haven't evaluated and drilled down deep themselves. That would be wrong. Prior to this thread Sieloff's strengths and weaknesses have been evaluated, weighed and discussed a plethora of times. Dig down a little deeper yourself maybe?

[Beatle17]

Using stats to predict a players future stardom (?) or ability to play in the league, see Bryan Fogarty. Stats can be a useful discussion tool but in no way predict a players ability to actually play the game. An example on the opposite end is Rick Green, picked 1st overall by Washington many years ago. Not a big scorer in junior by any means but played 845 games in he NHL - because he could play DEFENCE.

If stats and NHL-E are such great tools why does any team have actual scouts. Shouldn't they just look at the stats and the guy with the most points goes higher.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

If stats and NHL-E are such great tools why does any team have actual scouts. Shouldn't they just look at the stats and the guy with the most points goes higher.

Problem with that logic is that the stat discussed turned up year after we have already spent a pick on Sieloff. We don't know if our scouts would still pick him with a 2nd rounder, knowing that his year was like this.

Personally I agree that he's propably not going to make it if he can't put up a good year pointswise at some point before NHL.

However, I also think that the kid is still young, apparently a hard worker, seems to read the game pretty well and has said that's an area he wants to improve. Knowing that, I'm not worried at this point.

If there's no improvement a year from now, then I'm going to be a little worried.

No matter how good you defend, you also need to be able to move the puck fast enough in the NHL or you're going to be a turnover machine.

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by Itse

Problem with that logic is that the stat discussed turned up year after we have already spent a pick on Sieloff. We don't know if our scouts would still pick him with a 2nd rounder, knowing that his year was like this.

I suppose the entire process of signing him to an ELC earlier than necessary and publicly stating that he will push for a full time NHL spot during camp is irrelevant? I think that tells you all you need to know about how the brass here feels about this player.

We also know that Don Lucia stated that Pat Sieloff was the most improved player at the WJC summer camp this past week, and that is even after he made the team last year..

We also know that Bob Boughner speaks glowingly of this player as well. I will take the word of the people who are actively involved in his developmental process on a day to day basis over what some "stat sheet" or "NHL-E analysis" projects him to be.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by fotze

Why does it have to be one or the other? Either use stats or ya don't.

How about stats being just another column you use as a measure.

That's basically what I said above.

[Da_Chief]

Sieloff can score 0 points the entire season IF he can defend like Regher in his prime with the Flames. Then he doesn't need to score any.

[Enoch Root]

To ignore stats and believe whatever you want in spite of them is nothing but blind faith, and I cannot respect that.

However, stats cannot be followed blindly either. If something is 100% true it is not a stat, it is a fact. Statistics, by definition, are not absolute nor definitive. So it is important to be careful about trying to draw too much in the way of conclusions from them.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I don't think you understand my concerns, my concerns aren't that he won't provide offense... to be honest I expect very little should he make it. And I would be happy if he could be a defensive stalwart shuttin' down other teams top guys.

My concern is that even guys like Regehr and Sarich (which is basically what you realistically hope Sieloff becomes nah?), had enough all around skill to put up decent (if not overwhelming) point totals in the CHL. They had the hockey IQ and could Skate, Shoot, Pass, Stickhandle well enough to do it... if Sieloff can't do those things (which are pretty much basic hockey skills regardless of whether your playing forward or D) well enough to produce decently at the CHL level then I have to question whether he has the "tools" to be a player of NHL calibre even just as a defensive stalwart. Defensive Stalwarts still need to have NHL calibre basic skills.

I mean, if his tools are near NHL calibre why doesn't Sieloff produce any offensive numbers of note against players in a league that is essentually two tiers below? Legit question, I want to know.

My concern isn't that he won't be good offensively it's that he won't be good defensively and that the Flames staff may be blinded by his propensity to hit people and are overlooking what may be flaws.

I get the point you are trying to make.

But when I read the bolded, I get the impression that you are drawing conclusions from the stats, as opposed to looking at the facts.

Sieloff, by pretty much all accounts, is an excellent skater - probably better than both Regehr and Sarich at the same age.

He is also a good passer (or at least not bad). His shot needs work. And his stickhandling also needs work, but has improved considerably since last year, as per his US national team coach.

There is no question that Sieloff's game needs work before he is ready for the NHL. But to say he is weak in all those areas, simply because of his point totals from a very small sample size, would be inaccurate at best

[Vulcan]

Considering Seiloff's offensive stats are so bad, I think spending another year in junior is a good idea. We don't need him to turn pro, as some suggest, we're going to be bad with or without him.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I get the point you are trying to make.

But when I read the bolded, I get the impression that you are drawing conclusions from the stats, as opposed to looking at the facts.

Sieloff, by pretty much all accounts, is an excellent skater - probably better than both Regehr and Sarich at the same age.

He is also a good passer (or at least not bad). His shot needs work. And his stickhandling also needs work, but has improved considerably since last year, as per his US national team coach.

There is no question that Sieloff's game needs work before he is ready for the NHL. But to say he is weak in all those areas, simply because of his point totals from a very small sample size, would be inaccurate at best

The problem is people are inferring that low offensive production in junior translates to a low percentage a 'stay at home' D-man makes the NHL. To support that inference you would need to review the population, or an appropriate sample of the population, to prove that a lower then normal percentage of players with 'stay at home' D with low offensive production make the NHL.

People misuse statistics all of the time to form false conclusions. Some are getting upset that people are 'disregarding' the statistics. I won't speak for anyone else. But I haven't seen anything here that supports the inference being made. In absence of that I trust the professional scouts. And I haven't heard any concerns from them that Sieloff's game won't translate to the NHL.

[Alberta_Beef]

I am not sure I see any correlation between being a physical defensive defenseman and putting up offensive numbers. To me all that matters for Sieloff is his ability to help keep the puck out of his own net.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

I suppose the entire process of signing him to an ELC earlier than necessary and publicly stating that he will push for a full time NHL spot during camp is irrelevant? I think that tells you all you need to know about how the brass here feels about this player.

We also know that Don Lucia stated that Pat Sieloff was the most improved player at the WJC summer camp this past week, and that is even after he made the team last year..

We also know that Bob Boughner speaks glowingly of this player as well. I will take the word of the people who are actively involved in his developmental process on a day to day basis over what some "stat sheet" or "NHL-E analysis" projects him to be.

That's true. Then again, you seem to be pretty much saying that we shouldn't say anything on this board because hey, we're not professional. Let's just follow what the professionals do and agree with them all the time because they are professionals.

That would make a great discussion board.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Itse

That's true. Then again, you seem to be pretty much saying that we shouldn't say anything on this board because hey, we're not professional. Let's just follow what the professionals do and agree with them all the time because they are professionals.

That would make a great discussion board.

I don't see that. What I see him saying is the opinions of guys like Lucia, Bougner and Weisbrod (3 guys for 3 entirely different teams) mean more than some stats and some made up stats have to say

[KelVarnsen]

Aw, you can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forty percent of all people know that.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by kehatch

The problem is people are inferring that low offensive production in junior translates to a low percentage a 'stay at home' D-man makes the NHL. To support that inference you would need to review the population, or an appropriate sample of the population, to prove that a lower then normal percentage of players with 'stay at home' D with low offensive production make the NHL.

As opposed to all those offensive defensive with low offensive production? It's not a crazy assumption that defensemen drafted without offense are mostly, if not exclusively, considered defensive defensemen when drafted, and are drafted with the intent that they develop as defensive defensemen.

[bax]

Niklas Hjalmarsson only had 8 points in 65 games in Sweden before coming to North America and he turned out okay. Also, Matt Greene's best offensive season in college was 17 points in 40 games which came in his second year in the league. His point totals from his 3 years in college went 4, 17, 9. No doubt Sieloff has some work ahead of him, but I still think he's a player. Playing on a bad team isn't helping his offensive stats at all.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Not overly surprised by the results. I would be interested to see a similar scatter graph on forwards. I would suspect that the lower scoring forwards would be more likely to play less games as well (bottom left of the graph), while the higher scorers may be distributed throughout the graph, as we are talking about 17-18 year olds and a small sample size.
If Backchecker is essentially saying that all D need to exhibit a high skill level, I have no problem with the argument, but I wouldn't write off a Seiloff or a Santini based on low point production. They have skill and have as good a chance to make it as any other 2nd rounder.