For the stats haters

[King'sPawn]

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.

So... wait. We don't see there's a correlation between stats and position in the draft. You do. We are either so bored we want to be difficult for the sake of being difficult, or we're so stupid we can't grasp what you are obviously reaching for, and thus not worth the time or effort?

The TWO reasons Blake Wheeler was selected was because of his size and upside. The same TWO reasons Valabik was selected was because of his size and upside. They BOTH went higher than most projected, and Valabik's stats sucked, plain and simple.

If there is one scout who uses stats to weigh in a player's worth, more than his potential and what he brings to the team, then that scout should be looking for another job.

Either way... I'm so sorry for being difficult and/or stupid. I often have this wild notion that I'm free to think what I want and, per board policy, am free to voice my thoughts as long as I don't violate the Terms of Use. In the future I will just copy a post someone else wrote that you've already responded to, and post it again with the hopes it'll enlighten you.

 

[J F M]

The saddest thing about this "db23" is that he appears to be a Habs fan. You should drop by the board and read his classic threads using his "points are the only thing that matters" scouting system to explain that Kaststitsyn & Perezhogin are wasted 1st rounders simply because player X scored more points in the same pee-wee league than either Kats or Perez, thus they are both busts. "Just a note, I used the Pee-wee reference simply as an exaggeration."

 

[Roughneck]

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

Hell, I'm starting to believe that I have a chance!

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Where did Thelen go in the draft again?

:lol

 

[LaLaLaprise]

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.

Gamache opted in.

Just wasnt picked because people knew he had no real legit NHL upside. And the scouts were right.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Gamache opted in.

Just wasnt picked because people knew he had no real legit NHL upside. And the scouts were right.

They look right but I wouldn't put a fork in him yet.

 

[Epsilon]

There's one poster on the Canucks board who claims that:

1. Gamache should have been a top 3 pick in 2000.

2. If given ice time, he (and Brandon Reid) would outscore both Sedins combined (which would lead the NHL in scoring using this year's numbers)

3. Corey Locke should have been a top 3 pick in 2003.

 

[LaLaLaprise]

They look right but I wouldn't put a fork in him yet.

Yeah i still give him a shot, but the way some people were talking on here (not you) about him during the 00/01 season it was like he would be an all-star.

He is 23 next year and him and Reid have played a combined 13 NHL games.

 

[db23]

Pretty much every top drafted forward was taken high because they were the TOP SCORING GUYS OF THEIR AGE GROUP in the league they were in. Ovechkin and Malin were the top scoring 17/18 year olds in the RSL. Tukonen was the top scoring 17 year old in the Finnish League. Olesz was the top scoring 18 year old in the Czech Extraleague, Ladd was the top scoring 17/18 year old in the WHL. Schremp and Wolski in the OHL, Picard top 18 year old scorer in the Q. Zajac and Chucko in the BCHL. Wheeler and Bourque in the US high school leagues were the top scorers of their age.

For defencemen the same holds true outside of Zalabak. But the "stats" that got him drafted high were 6' 7" and 278 penalty minutes.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

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.

Yeah, us stupid posters can't comperhend your brilliant vision.

 

[degroat*]

Pretty much every top drafted forward was taken high because they were the TOP SCORING GUYS OF THEIR AGE GROUP in the league they were in.

If that was the case then why do teams spend millions and millions of dollars to scout hundreds and hundreds of players?

Maybe... just maybe... the reason these players are among the top scoroing guys of their age group is because they are among the most talented guys in their age group?

 

[Trottier]

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.

Yep. It's pretty apparent that the teams that chose those players didn't send out scouts to watch them over a period of time with their own set of eyes, nor did they evaluate tape.

They just turned to the stat sheet. "Wow! Let's take this kid. Impressive offensive numbers!"

End of story. :lol

 

[LaLaLaprise]

Pretty much every top drafted forward was taken high because they were the TOP SCORING GUYS OF THEIR AGE GROUP in the league they were in. Ovechkin and Malin were the top scoring 17/18 year olds in the RSL. Tukonen was the top scoring 17 year old in the Finnish League. Olesz was the top scoring 18 year old in the Czech Extraleague, Ladd was the top scoring 17/18 year old in the WHL. Schremp and Wolski in the OHL, Picard top 18 year old scorer in the Q. Zajac and Chucko in the BCHL. Wheeler and Bourque in the US high school leagues were the top scorers of their age.

For defencemen the same holds true outside of Zalabak. But the "stats" that got him drafted high were 6' 7" and 278 penalty minutes.

Thats not true.

If that was the case Locke would have been a top pick.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Pretty much every top drafted forward was taken high because they were the TOP SCORING GUYS OF THEIR AGE GROUP in the league they were in. Ovechkin and Malin were the top scoring 17/18 year olds in the RSL. Tukonen was the top scoring 17 year old in the Finnish League. Olesz was the top scoring 18 year old in the Czech Extraleague, Ladd was the top scoring 17/18 year old in the WHL. Schremp and Wolski in the OHL, Picard top 18 year old scorer in the Q. Zajac and Chucko in the BCHL. Wheeler and Bourque in the US high school leagues were the top scorers of their age.

You got the relation the wrong way. Of course, good players with talent will "usually" post good numbers. However, that doesn't mean the players with good stats have the desired NHL talent either. Remember, you draft on upside not on current talent. As such, players with lower stats can have the upside to become better than players with better stats.

 

[db23]

Thats not true.

If that was the case Locke would have been a top pick.

I'm getting carpal tunnel syndrome typing the fact that Locke had about 50 points as a 17 year old and was first eligible for the draft. He had the same points at the same age as Chipchura from this year's draft.

 

[Histrion]

I'd like to thank db23 for his thoughts that enlightned me like never before. Because of him, I've come to realize that since Nils Ekman had 55 points last season and Scott Hannan had 21, Ekman was 2.62 time more valuable to the Sharks last year than Scott Hannan.

Now, if someone was offering me 2 Scott Hannan for an Ekman, I know for certain that I would say no because I would be getting ripped off big time.

Thanks, db23.

 

[Roughneck]

I'm getting carpal tunnel syndrome typing the fact that Locke had about 50 points as a 17 year old and was first eligible for the draft. He had the same points at the same age as Chipchura from this year's draft.

So what about his "second" draft year. According to your theory, because he scored a bucketload of points, his value should have soared into the 1st Round as he led ALL scorers regardless of age in his league.

And how come Chipchura only scored 50 points and was taken in the 1st Round, yet Locke went undrafted with the same amount of points? Should we assume there were some intagibles that also leads to teams drafting players?

 

[markov`]

One thing that makes me laugh of db23, he just answer to some replies. The one that are good, and that shows he is wrong, he just ignore them.

 

[markov`]

I'd like to thank db23 for his thoughts that enlightned me like never before. Because of him, I've come to realize that since Nils Ekman had 55 points last season and Scott Hannan had 21, Ekman was 2.62 time more valuable to the Sharks last year than Scott Hannan.

Now, if someone was offering me 2 Scott Hannan for an Ekman, I know for certain that I would say no because I would be getting ripped off big time.

Thanks, db23.

Je t'aime Dan.

 

[LaLaLaprise]

I'm getting carpal tunnel syndrome typing the fact that Locke had about 50 points as a 17 year old and was first eligible for the draft. He had the same points at the same age as Chipchura from this year's draft.

Yes and what did that Prove??

And at 18 he had 150 pts and when was he picked??

You are saying at age 17 both Locke and Chipchura had roughly 50 pts....hmm why was 1 a 1st rounder and 1 not picked.

You proved my point.

 

[markov`]

Yes and what did that Prove??

And at 18 he had 150 pts and when was he picked??

You are saying at age 17 both Locke and Chipchura had roughly 50 pts....hmm why was 1 a 1st rounder and 1 not picked.

You proved my point.

Hey...don't mess with db23. You could piss him off. Don't forget, he's always right.

:lol

 

[dunwoody_joe]

Yes. Remember Phil Esposito?

 

[Sethis]

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.

182 in 72 in Grade 10.

My brothers friend Ryan Duncan:

71 GP 62 G 72 A 134 P 81 PIM Grade 12 (Shattuck St. Maries)

By your calculations if he had entered for the draft would he have gone in the first round if he had an agent?

 

[hockeydad15]

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.

wasn't schremp the first forward drafted at 6' or less?

 

[db23]

Yes and what did that Prove??

And at 18 he had 150 pts and when was he picked??

You are saying at age 17 both Locke and Chipchura had roughly 50 pts....hmm why was 1 a 1st rounder and 1 not picked.

You proved my point.

Locke didn't opt in, Doughhead. Both of them had serious injuries in their draft year, which affected their point totals, but Chipchura because of his size, his history and his all round game decided to pot in since he was still assured of being a first round pick. Locke was a year older when he had his big season, and everything went right for him. He was also about 6 inches shorter and 30 pounds lighter than Chipchura without the same defensive game or leadership skills. I think that Locke will play in the NHL before any of the players Montreal picked ahead of him last season.

Who knows, maybe a healthy Chipchura will score over 100 points next season and the Habs will have themselves a steal.