For the stats haters

[db23]

If you look at the players who made the biggest moves up the draft list on draft day, you could probably point to Wheeler, Zajac, Chucko, Bourque, and Gologoski.

The one thing they have in common is that they put up the highest offensive statsof the available prospects regardless of league. Or close to it.

All of them played at lower levels and none was touted prior to the season. They scored a lot of points and they were pciked way higher than anyone would have expected.

End of story.

Click to read more...

 

[J F M]

Then please explain the drops of Wolski and Schremp especially. Weren't they also top point producers on their respective teams? And the Habs pick J.T. Wyman.... he should have been a top 10 pick according to your fool-proof " Stats-Are-The-Only-Thing-That-Matters" system.

 

[db23]

Then please explain the drops of Wolski and Schremp especially. Weren't they also top point producers on their respective teams? And the Habs pick J.T. Wyman.... he should have been a top 10 pick according to your fool-proof " Stats-Are-The-Only-Thing-That-Matters" system.

Schremp and Wolski had 70 some points. The forwards I mentioned scored 90 or more. The drop of Schremp (attitude issues) and Wolski (possible criminal conviction), weren't that great any way. Both went in the top 25.

What are you blathering about Wyman? The other high school forwards I mentioned had 100 and 90 points respectively. Wyman had 54. Even Gologoski the defenceman who played in the same league as Wyman had 65 points.

 

[Aaron Vickers]

Schremp and Wolski had 70 some points. The forwards I mentioned scored 90 or more. The drop of Schremp (attitude issues) and Wolski (possible criminal conviction), weren't that great any way. Both went in the top 25.

What are you blathering about Wyman? The other high school forwards I mentioned had 100 and 90 points respectively. Wyman had 54. Even Gologoski the defenceman who played in the same league as Wyman had 65 points.

I scored over a hundred points in beer league last year...I guess I should've been the first overager selected.

 

[db23]

I scored over a hundred points in beer league last year...I guess I should've been the first overager selected.

Should've opted in pal. Quality of the competition can't be that far south of U.S. prep school hockey where a lot of the kids are 16 and more concerned about learning business to manage the family fortune.

 

[Roughneck]

Should've opted in pal. Quality of the competition can't be that far south of U.S. prep school hockey where a lot of the kids are 16 and more concerned about learning business to manage the family fortune.

Should we remind you that Vincent Lecavalier, Brad Richards, Zach Parise and Sidney Crosby all played in prep schools. Not to mention most of the U.S. U-20 team as well.

 

[db23]

The two guys who took T Bay to the Stanley Cup more than anyone else where Martin St. Louis (never drafted, too small) who scored a crap load of points at Vermont in his draft years, and Brad Richards (third round pick, too small, too slow) even though he had over 100 points in his draft year in the Q. Montreal's top scorer was Mike Ribeiro (second round despite 125 points in Q). Mike Comrie was a third round pick even though he set a scoring record in the AJHL in his draft year. Darcy Tucker was a 7th round pick (too small, too slow) even though he had close to 100 points in the WHL in his draft year. There are a million examples of guys who scored a lot in junior even though they weren't especially big or fast who went on the become good NHLers. Very, very few big, fast, strong guys who couldn't score who ever did. As forwards anyway. Unless they were goons.

 

[db23]

Should we remind you that Vincent Lecavalier, Brad Richards, Zach Parise and Sidney Crosby all played in prep schools. Not to mention most of the U.S. U-20 team as well.

Yeah, but they were 14 or 15 at time for the most part and scored so much you needed a calculator. I think Crosby averaged about 4 points a game at Shattuck and he was 15 years old.

 

[Roughneck]

They scored a lot of points and they were pciked way higher than anyone would have expected.

End of story.

So Alexander Ovechkin's whopping 23 points in 53 games meant he was picked about 8 rounds too early I take it. And Lauri Tukonen, I guess he was only picked 10th because he only scored 6 points in 35 games.

And Zajac and Chucko, their draft position must have nothing to do with their talent or potential, that would just be silly.

But tell me, why was Corey Locke only picked in the 5th round last year? Why were Brad Moran and Simon Gamache drafted in the 9th, or Chris St. Jacques not drafted at all? This doesn't make any sense? They were some of the highest scorers around, could it be their size or skating ability or hockey sense or work ethic or sttitude that comes into play here? Of course not, the scouts were stupid and actually looked at the player instead of just the stat sheet and determined from there whether he'd be a good pick or not. What idiots they must be.

 

[Roughneck]

Yeah, but they were 14 or 15 at time for the most part and scored so much you needed a calculator. I think Crosby averaged about 4 points a game at Shattuck and he was 15 years old.

But only because the quality of play was about on par with a Calgary beer league. Therefore Mr. Vickers ehre would be considered in the same echelon as Sidney Crosby.

 

[Qubax]

So Alexander Ovechkin's whopping 23 points in 53 games meant he was picked about 8 rounds too early I take it. And Lauri Tukonen, I guess he was only picked 10th because he only scored 6 points in 35 games.

And Zajac and Chucko, their draft position must have nothing to do with their talent or potential, that would just be silly.

But tell me, why was Corey Locke only picked in the 5th round last year? Why were Brad Moran and Simon Gamache drafted in the 9th, or Chris St. Jacques not drafted at all? This doesn't make any sense? They were some of the highest scorers around, could it be their size or skating ability or hockey sense or work ethic or sttitude that comes into play here? Of course not, the scouts were stupid and actually looked at the player instead of just the stat sheet and determined from there whether he'd be a good pick or not. What idiots they must be.

Epic Roughneck....just Epic...I love it and I totally agree

 

[Moskau]

Scouts get paid to scout and evaluate talent, not look at stats (at least not regular season).

 

[db23]

Ovechkin et al went where they were EXPECTED to go. If you bother to read my thread, Rubberneck it was about players who went MUCH HIGHER THAN EXPECTED.
Go back and start over.

Corey Locke had about 50 points in his normal draft year, Rubberneck, Gamache something similar. I don't have the time to chase down every one of your comments and show the flaw, but rest assured if you look back on the draft history, the best indicator by far of late picks (or free agents) succeeding in the NHL is the fact that they scored well (for their position) as amateurs.

We've been through this so many times it gets boring, but if you bother to look back and check things out you'll see.

Also, Tukonen probably slipped in the draft, most projections had him in the top 5.

 

[Sammy*]

Ovechkin et al went where they were EXPECTED to go. If you bother to read my thread, Rubberneck it was about players who went MUCH HIGHER THAN EXPECTED.
Go back and start over.

Corey Locke had about 50 points in his normal draft year, Rubberneck, Gamache something similar. I don't have the time to chase down every one of your comments and show the flaw, but rest assured if you look back on the draft history, the best indicator by far of late picks (or free agents) succeeding in the NHL is the fact that they scored well (for their position) as amateurs.

We've been through this so many times it gets boring, but if you bother to look back and check things out you'll see.

Also, Tukonen probably slipped in the draft, most projections had him in the top 5.

Man, your like the stats guru. I would be most interested if you could tell me why St. Jacques was never drafted & why Sarno was drafted so late, given that both of them lit it up in their draft years. Or how bout Saku Koivu. He only had 10 points in his draft year but was drafted in the 1srt round.Or , or or....................

 

[Roughneck]

Corey Locke had about 50 points in his normal draft year, Rubberneck, Gamache something similar. I don't have the time to chase down every one of your comments and show the flaw, but rest assured if you look back on the draft history, the best indicator by far of late picks (or free agents) succeeding in the NHL is the fact that they scored well (for their position) as amateurs.
.

Locke was drafted once, so was Gamache, even after they doubled (in Locke's case tripled) their point totals from their rookie years, yet they still were drafted late.

And do you seriously believe that when GMs or scouts look at these late round picks or when they're choosing free agents to sign out of junior/college, they'll just look at the stat sheet and go from there? If there's a guy who just stands in front of the net because he's big and nets 50 goals becaue of it, would a team sign him even though he couldn't skate or back-check? No. The best indicators are the fact that these players were fairly dominant in the leagues they played in, not just high scorers. There's a big difference.

 

[degroat*]

I don't have the time to chase down every one of your comments and show the flaw, but rest assured if you look back on the draft history, the best indicator by far of late picks (or free agents) succeeding in the NHL is the fact that they scored well (for their position) as amateurs.

You're probably right in that most late round picks that end up being good scorers at the NHL level were scorers in lower leagues.

However, what you don't seem to be grasping at all is that a player scoring a lot in the lower leagues doesn't mean that he'll do the same at the pro level.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Oh crap, I guess Evgeni Malkin sucks then...

 

[Vagrant]

Statistics are only an indicator of the talent level a player has, not the final word on his potential or developmental status. While it is true that players may rise in their draft stock if the put up huge points, it's not because of the points themselves. NHL scouts usually have a full plate when it comes to watching a player in person, and if Joe Blow scores 107 points in 62 WHL games, then he's going to get the attention of a scout to watch him. If he doesn't play like an NHL player, he's not going to get drafted despite of how many points he has. He could score 150 points and it still probably wouldn't make a differance if the scouts didn't think he had the intangibles. Putting up gaudy numbers at places like USHL only get your foot in the door. If your talent level doesn't dictate your draft position, then we'd see players like Ovechkin falling into the 2nd day due to the fact that they didn't see enough icetime to put up gaudy numbers, and subsequently can't be that great of a player.


Blake Wheeler, for example, didn't rise because he put up such huge numbers. He rose simply because he's almost a year younger than most prospects that were eligible and he's still 17 years old. He may have initially gotten more attention due to the fact that he put up great numbers, but only a fool would take a player based only upon that. He's 6'4 and still a Junior in high school. Gretzky and company probably decided to take the shot at him due to the fact that had he not been eligible this year, he could possibly increase his stock enough to have gone Top 3 next season.

 

[pittengineer]

Oh crap, I guess Evgeni Malkin sucks then...

Gotta love those 3 goals and 9 assists in the RSL.

The reason you cannot really look at stats when drafting a hockey player is simply there is so much differences between the leagues scattered all over the world. Look at AO and Malkin. Malkin was rookie of the year in the rsl with 3 goals and 9 assists. If a player had those stats in the Juniors/College/USHL, he most likely would never have been drafted. Scouts dont look at point totals. They see things like skating ability, shot release, accuracy, vision, passing, leadership, defense, etc. The point totals might get a player noticed to get a scout to view the player live, and then point totals do not matter anymore.

 

[King'sPawn]

Wow, if we went by stats alone, scouts would never have to leave the house. *I* could be a scout! I can read numbers too!

There is seriously a curve in stats. You will see very talented players have very good stats in their respective leagues, but you will find equally talented players having bad stats in their leagues. The difference? The level of competition, the style of play, etc.

Likewise, you will see very bad players put up good numbers in their respective leagues, and very bad players put up bad numbers.

Here's a test for you... these are old stats
Player A: 71 games played. 4 goals, 11 assists. 27 PIMs
Player B: 84 games played. 20 goals. 31 assists. 40 PIMs
Player C: 83 games played. 18 goals. 60 assists. 112 PIMs
Player D: 83 games played. 30 goals. 49 assists. 22 PIMs.
Today... One is a bust. One is one of the most talented defensemen. One is overpaid so badly nobody wants him. One is a superstar. Which one's the bust?

Okay, here are the answers:
Player A is Markus Naslund.*
Player B is Alexandre Daigle.*
Player C is Scott Stevens.
Player D is Alexei Yashin.*
These were their performances during the 93-94 season. Source is hockeydb.com. The ones with an asterisk were playing their first year in the NHL.

Stats only tell a part of the story. Daigle isn't as much of a bust anymore, but he was back in the day.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Ovechkin et al went where they were EXPECTED to go. If you bother to read my thread, Rubberneck it was about players who went MUCH HIGHER THAN EXPECTED.
Go back and start over.

I would advise him not to lose his time and read your laughable, fetid crap again.

The fact that a few select players were drafted higher than expected and put up nice points does in no way demonstrate that stat matters to the extent you pretend they do. You're using some sort of weird-ass false logic and expecting people to fall for it.

They went higher than expected because, playing at lower level, the common fan is not exposed to them as much, nor are they in the spotlight of several scouts. Playing at lower level did give them the opportunity to put more points.

This is a very simple thing to grasp but apparently beyond your reach.

But continue clowning on these boards! I love it!

 

[db23]

I know that Locke didn't opt in the first time he was eligible, and I'm pretty sure that Gamache didn't either. Neither of them was a big scorer in junior as a 17 year old.

 

[db23]

However, what you don't seem to be grasping at all is that a player scoring a lot in the lower leagues doesn't mean that he'll do the same at the pro level.

Obviously EVERY guy who scores big in junior won't in the NHL.

There are 100 junior players for every one that makes the NHL.

It is so hard to get the slightest level of comperhension here.

I think some posters realize what Im trying to say and just want to be difficult. The rest are just so stupid it isn't worth the time or effort.

 

[Epsilon]

Obviously EVERY guy who scores big in junior won't in the NHL.

There are 100 junior players for every one that makes the NHL.

It is so hard to get the slightest level of comperhension here.

I think some posters realize what Im trying to say and just want to be difficult. The rest are just so stupid it isn't worth the time or effort.

Where did Thelen go in the draft again?

 

[Aaron Vickers]

But only because the quality of play was about on par with a Calgary beer league. Therefore Mr. Vickers ehre would be considered in the same echelon as Sidney Crosby.

Damn, so you're saying I had a chance!!!!!!!