~2014 Grandpabuzz 4-round Draft Prediction thread~

[Rabid Ranger]

I'm not clear on why Larkin is held in such little regard-even from purely a statistical analysis point of view. He put up very good numbers this year and didn't play with the "Big 3" on the u18 team.

 

[Grandpabuzz]

Any statistical model that has Brayden Point in the 4th round has flat out failed. There are reasons he might not be a 1st rounder but those reasons shouldn't show up in a purely statistical model (size and speed).

I'm guessing he gets hammered in your system for his +-, but that doesn't take into account? he played on one of the worst teams in junior hockey. Without Point Moose Jaw is nearly (not quite) Lethbridge bad.

Size is considered a stat. If he had been above 6'0 (the source I had listed him as 5'9), he would be a bottom first/top second rounder. And yes - playing on a poor team and not having a significant difference in +- compared to his teammates was also a factor.

I'm not clear on why Larkin is held in such little regard-even from purely a statistical analysis point of view. He put up very good numbers this year and didn't play with the "Big 3" on the u18 team.

To be considered in higher regard, Larkin should have been part of the "Big 3."

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Size is considered a stat. If he had been above 6'0 (the source I had listed him as 5'9), he would be a bottom first/top second rounder. And yes - playing on a poor team and not having a significant difference in +- compared to his teammates was also a factor.

Interesting, did not notice that your model included size. That's quite unusual. Makes a little more sense now.

It's still problematic to me judging players on pure stats, Point is a playmaker who plays on a team with basically no other good offensive players. That might be a little harsh on some of the other guys on that team but it's not far off. Also playing huge minutes on a terrible team is going to kill your +- just as much as the guys with liitle talent who play 10 mins/gm.

 

[Grandpabuzz]

Interesting, did not notice that your model included size. That's quite unusual. Makes a little more sense now.

It's still problematic to me judging players on pure stats, Point is a playmaker who plays on a team with basically no other good offensive players. That might be a little harsh on some of the other guys on that team but it's not far off. Also playing huge minutes on a terrible team is going to kill your +- just as much as the guys with liitle talent who play 10 mins/gm.

I had hope to use the stats approach as a complement to regular scouting. So if a team wants to decide between Larkin and Milano there is quantitative method to compare the two which is based on actual NHL player regressions.

As for the +-, I cap off extremes, so the values between players are in a limited range and thus the variable doesn't have as big an impact as goals, assists, size, etc. However, I still hold the theory that a player should be performing better and hopefully positively "pulling" his team. B. Point is a good example. He was able to perform very well offensively, but still had a +- comparable to everyone else on the roster for both of his seasons (on a per game basis - if I had minute data I would use that).

Thus the team performance is what drops him to a low first rounder compared to someone like Virtanen. Point's size drops him further. Ultimately if I were creating an actual mock draft, I would slot him somewhere in the mid-second round or so.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Size is considered a stat. If he had been above 6'0 (the source I had listed him as 5'9), he would be a bottom first/top second rounder. And yes - playing on a poor team and not having a significant difference in +- compared to his teammates was also a factor.



To be considered in higher regard, Larkin should have been part of the "Big 3."

That makes no sense whatsoever. Besides, he was second on the squad in goals.