Home Page
 OTG

Search | Statistics | User Listing Forums | Albums | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

2018 Draft *projections*
Moderators: Moderators

Jump to page : 1 2 3 4
Now viewing page 4 [35 messages per page]
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Rangers -> Winter Is ComingMessage format
 
concust
Posted 2018-03-07 7:48 AM (#699944 - in reply to #699520)
Subject: Re: 2018 Draft *projections*



Legend

Posts: 15070
10000
Location: USA
Rranger - 2018-03-03 5:37 PM
assuming the contribution to a team is on a similar level, a GM is going to take the bigger guy over a smaller guy.


I have no problem with that, unfortunately GMs like fans are easily swayed by height and weight and often do a poor job looking into more telling statistics that are better indicators of NHL success. Hence, MSL goes undrafted, Gadreau falls to the 4th or 5th round, etc.

If you go back and do a re-draft of every year you'll find that the biggest risers are the small, talented players, and the biggest fallers are the big guys with questionable NHL talent. Just look at the Rangers' biggest draft blunders in recent memory, Jessiman and McIlrath. Their headline asset? Size. GMs are much too easily fooled by a big man.

These days, with the availability of both advanced statistics and internet game streaming, a club has no excuse to fall into this trap anymore. Organizations with resources, like the Rangers, should be investing heavily in amateur scouting because it will make the biggest impact on their business down the road. For the price of one year of Cody McLeod you could get 10 more european scouts, trying to find gems in lower, smaller leagues like in Slovakia. Amateur scouting methodology needs to come out of the dark ages; there is so much room for improvement on this front in the NHL.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Rranger
Posted 2018-03-07 8:55 AM (#699946 - in reply to #699944)
Subject: Re: 2018 Draft *projections*


All-Star

Posts: 4581
1000
concust - 2018-03-07 6:48 AM

Rranger - 2018-03-03 5:37 PM
assuming the contribution to a team is on a similar level, a GM is going to take the bigger guy over a smaller guy.


I have no problem with that, unfortunately GMs like fans are easily swayed by height and weight and often do a poor job looking into more telling statistics that are better indicators of NHL success. Hence, MSL goes undrafted, Gadreau falls to the 4th or 5th round, etc.

If you go back and do a re-draft of every year you'll find that the biggest risers are the small, talented players, and the biggest fallers are the big guys with questionable NHL talent. Just look at the Rangers' biggest draft blunders in recent memory, Jessiman and McIlrath. Their headline asset? Size. GMs are much too easily fooled by a big man.

These days, with the availability of both advanced statistics and internet game streaming, a club has no excuse to fall into this trap anymore. Organizations with resources, like the Rangers, should be investing heavily in amateur scouting because it will make the biggest impact on their business down the road. For the price of one year of Cody McLeod you could get 10 more european scouts, trying to find gems in lower, smaller leagues like in Slovakia. Amateur scouting methodology needs to come out of the dark ages; there is so much room for improvement on this front in the NHL.




Little guys have failed also. Gaudreau and St. Louis are no different than star "big guys" drafted late or signed as free agents. Your looking at it from one side. They are also part of two different eras. When St Louis started it was still a big man's game, but cream rises doesn't matter how big or small you are. He had it a lot tougher than Gaudreau to get his foot in the door. Gaudreau and company have walked into a new NHL where rule changes have been made to open up the game which has created opportunity for nimble, fast skaters, many who are smaller. Big men that can fly are still coveted, and will probably always have more value. The little guys are only becoming a factor in the last 5 years or so because the rule changes that don't let you touch anybody anymore, and give them a lot more room on the ice. And little guys have been finding their way into the game as a result. I don't think thats any secret and G.M.'s have been adjusting. Gilmour and Pionk are good examples of the Rangers going after talent, in lieu of big size. Other teams have adapted rosters all over the NHL have smaller players.
Although McIlrath was drafted to bring specific assets to the table, his size was very much a part of the package and role he was drafted to fill. He was going to be there protector, thats why they drafted him. The Rangers had to have known the risk involved in drafting McIlrath. Hugh was Tom Renny's claim to fame. Draft prognosticators laughed where the Rangers drafted him. Everybody else went who?? That was just a terrible pick in a can't miss draft. Renney who was in over his head, made the call was fooled by his size and skill package, and flat out overestimated his abilities. They were also drafted before the relaxing of the holding and obstruction rules where size had a lot of value in drafting, compared to skating in recent NHL drafts. The name of the game now is skating, but you still have to battle, hence the big fast skater will always be taken ahead of the small fast skater, assuming all else is equal and even though its very hard to compare big guy value to little guy value. But thats why Gordie gets the bucks.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Mikey Red
Posted 2018-03-07 8:59 AM (#699947 - in reply to #697079)
Subject: Re: 2018 Draft *projections*



Legend

Posts: 13287
10000
Location: AV is gone
Hopefully alot of people associated with the Hugh pick got fired....I dont know how Sather let that happen....How on Earth did Renney get the Director of player personel job?
Top of the page Bottom of the page
concust
Posted 2018-03-07 9:01 AM (#699948 - in reply to #697079)
Subject: Re: 2018 Draft *projections*



Legend

Posts: 15070
10000
Location: USA
Yes I agreed with your original contention that given two players of equal ability, take the bigger guy. I don't think anyone argues that.

I also never said that little guys don't miss - look at Ryan Bourque - but if you look at redrafts you'll see the trend that the biggest risers are the small guys who fell because they were small - this leads to the conclusion that the biggest gains, the lowest hanging fruit, is by simply weighting talent heavier than size (Which should be done from the start - see point 1)

With advancements in advanced statistics, and with more of these statistics being available in more lower leagues, there's really no excuse to take a bigger guy with worse metrics over a smaller guy with better metrics. Again to the first point, if you have two guys with similar stats, take the bigger guy - just don't be duped by the allure of the big guy. Big guys are a dime a dozen, talent on the other hand is incredibly difficult to find.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
concust
Posted 2018-03-07 9:09 AM (#699949 - in reply to #699947)
Subject: Re: 2018 Draft *projections*



Legend

Posts: 15070
10000
Location: USA
Mikey Red - 2018-03-07 9:59 AM

Hopefully alot of people associated with the Hugh pick got fired....I dont know how Sather let that happen....How on Earth did Renney get the Director of player personel job?


The Jessiman pick was a prime example of being bedazzled by size. Jessiman had a great freshman year, BUT he was not a guy that people had their eye on before that season. He had no significant history. He scored in bunches, but it was also in the ECAC, which is not (and at that time, definitely was not) a power hockey conference. This was the same hesitance I had on Vesey - not that he's not good, it's just that you shouldn't expect elite from a Harvard kid.

If Jessiman had put up those numbers, at that school, with no real prior history, and he was 6'0 185# he'd be a third rounder. But since he was big, everyone went WOW HE'S A FIRST ROUNDER and the Rangers bit on this, hard. And it screwed us for arguably the next 8+ years.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Mikey Red
Posted 2018-03-07 9:46 AM (#699952 - in reply to #699949)
Subject: Re: 2018 Draft *projections*



Legend

Posts: 13287
10000
Location: AV is gone
concust - 2018-03-07 11:09 AM

Mikey Red - 2018-03-07 9:59 AM

Hopefully alot of people associated with the Hugh pick got fired....I dont know how Sather let that happen....How on Earth did Renney get the Director of player personel job?


The Jessiman pick was a prime example of being bedazzled by size. Jessiman had a great freshman year, BUT he was not a guy that people had their eye on before that season. He had no significant history. He scored in bunches, but it was also in the ECAC, which is not (and at that time, definitely was not) a power hockey conference. This was the same hesitance I had on Vesey - not that he's not good, it's just that you shouldn't expect elite from a Harvard kid.

If Jessiman had put up those numbers, at that school, with no real prior history, and he was 6'0 185# he'd be a third rounder. But since he was big, everyone went WOW HE'S A FIRST ROUNDER and the Rangers bit on this, hard. And it screwed us for arguably the next 8+ years.


Yep....once I see the words ECAC and Dartmouth ....I dont even go look at the kid.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Rranger
Posted 2018-03-07 10:16 AM (#699953 - in reply to #699949)
Subject: Re: 2018 Draft *projections*


All-Star

Posts: 4581
1000
concust - 2018-03-07 8:09 AM

Mikey Red - 2018-03-07 9:59 AM

Hopefully alot of people associated with the Hugh pick got fired....I dont know how Sather let that happen....How on Earth did Renney get the Director of player personel job?


The Jessiman pick was a prime example of being bedazzled by size. Jessiman had a great freshman year, BUT he was not a guy that people had their eye on before that season. He had no significant history. He scored in bunches, but it was also in the ECAC, which is not (and at that time, definitely was not) a power hockey conference. This was the same hesitance I had on Vesey - not that he's not good, it's just that you shouldn't expect elite from a Harvard kid.

If Jessiman had put up those numbers, at that school, with no real prior history, and he was 6'0 185# he'd be a third rounder. But since he was big, everyone went WOW HE'S A FIRST ROUNDER and the Rangers bit on this, hard. And it screwed us for arguably the next 8+ years.






Jessiman and McIlrath were drafted when size was at a premium. And Jessiman was a terrible pick, look at that first round and show me anyone drafting a Gaudreau sized player back then. It was a different drafting philosophy back then. The Rangers could have drafted Ryan Getzlaf instead, with smarter people picking and then we don’t have this conversation. The Rangers picked the WRONG big man.
No one knew back then of the rule changes coming. Teams have adapted to drafting what they perceive to be the best player big or small since the beer league rules were implemented. Calgary drafting a Gaudreau sized player when they did was indicative of the change in philosophy. Now your seeing smaller players picked all through the draft. Your preaching to the choir.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
concust
Posted 2018-03-14 7:22 AM (#700564 - in reply to #697079)
Subject: Re: 2018 Draft *projections*



Legend

Posts: 15070
10000
Location: USA
I'm not preaching to the choir because smaller, more talented players, are still being passed over for larger, less talented players. Look at how far Sprong fell, or Brayden Point. If Point was 20 lbs heavier and an inch taller he would have been a top pick but instead he fell to the third round. It's a smarter play to take the more talented player, and he busts because he's too small, than it is to take a bigger player and he busts because he's not actually any good at hockey. Talent is ultimately a much rarer commodity than size. If, down the road, you need a big burly bottom-6 player or a 6/7th defenseman, they're a dime a dozen. Spend your picks on talent not size.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
robstones
Posted 2018-03-14 8:19 AM (#700565 - in reply to #697079)
Subject: Re: 2018 Draft *projections*



Legend

Posts: 12397
10000
Location: New Jersey
McIlrath almost made it. He was close. It's not like the big guys we've drafted were talentless....

Being big, and using that size is a talent. Clearing the crease/being a power forward is a talent. Point is all finess, which is also a talent, but he can't be a net front pressence.... he's not going to win you the battles in the trenches.... he's not going to drop the gloves or bring physicality.

All good traits
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Rranger
Posted 2018-03-14 1:01 PM (#700585 - in reply to #700564)
Subject: Re: 2018 Draft *projections*


All-Star

Posts: 4581
1000
concust - 2018-03-14 6:22 AM

I'm not preaching to the choir because smaller, more talented players, are still being passed over for larger, less talented players. Look at how far Sprong fell, or Brayden Point. If Point was 20 lbs heavier and an inch taller he would have been a top pick but instead he fell to the third round. It's a smarter play to take the more talented player, and he busts because he's too small, than it is to take a bigger player and he busts because he's not actually any good at hockey. Talent is ultimately a much rarer commodity than size. If, down the road, you need a big burly bottom-6 player or a 6/7th defenseman, they're a dime a dozen. Spend your picks on talent not size.




Teams are now with the new rules, as I explained earlier paying more attention to smaller players. See this years draft projections.
Sprong?? Never heard of him. If you need a small finesse player they are also a dime a dozen and available anytime in the draft, so its a moot point whether a team wants to wait til what ever round to draft one of them or a big burly bottom 6 player or a 6/7 defense man. Its a matter of when a team wants to draft certain players. Tampa drafted three defense men ahead of Point that year including a undersized DeAngelo as their number one. I'd say they were looking for defensemen that year. Teams have priorities and plans entering drafts apparently Point wasn't in any teams plans til Tampa drafted him. Third round picks and down get stole all the time because teams miss on projecting that players upside. There are a lot more big players stole in the later rounds of drafts. Teams were not drafting Point who at 5'10" is the same size as Ryan Callahan and also taller than three of his forward teammates, just because he's a inch shorter or 20 lbs lighter during his draft year, he had other issues. Imagine 31 teams sitting at the draft and saying we are not taking Point because he's one inch to short and 20lbs lighter even though he has first round talent. You are monday morning quarterbacking because Point has had success that wasn’t projected by 31 teams on draft day, and also using a ridiculously small sample size. Pardon the pun..


Edited by Rranger 2018-03-15 12:47 AM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
walter t
Posted 2018-03-17 9:28 AM (#700920 - in reply to #697079)
Subject: Re: 2018 Draft *projections*


Prospect

Posts: 19
0
Thanks to our recent unfortunate play (which has been needlessly solid) we might have to start looking at the prospects in the 12 to 15 range.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Jump to page : 1 2 3 4
Now viewing page 4 [35 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete all cookies set by this site)
Running MegaBBS ASP Forum Software
© 2002-2018 PD9 Software