Prospect Info: Logan Stanley - Part III

[Whileee]

True but there;s just so much more enthusiasm for him to succeed then some of our other guys. I mean would anyone bat an eye of Skylar McKenzie never made it as an NHLer? Probs not and he likely won't get many chances to be. But Stanley on the other hand. I think there is a bit of bias going the other way for Stanley. I mean people really really want this kid to succeed but you don't see the same level of enthusiasm for anyone else. You see it all the time. People wantng him to be the next Chara or Myers. Yet no one says man I wish McKenzie could be the next Gaudreau. Like I really really hope and wish him well and every time he gets a point I'm going to come and make sure everyone knows it. It's an odd dynamic.

What are the success probabilities of big D who hit 1 ppg in the OHL vs. a high scoring small forward in the W in D+2.

I actually still think Stanley is a longshot, but he's been the object of scorn for a long time, based to a large degree on low production and therefore his low probability of success. High productivity should alter perspectives about his trajectory.

 

[jgimp]

I actually didn't mind the Stanley pick. We had already hit a home run with the Laine pick so taking a boom or bust risk with the Stanley pick was one I was ok with. Would I have rather moved up a few more spots and gotten Chychrun, Bean or McAvoy, sure, but they were off the board by then.
I'm pleasantly surprised with his production and development this year and moving to Kitchener and getting the ice time that he wasn't getting in Windsor certainly has helped. There are plenty of first round picks that are Draft+2 and a year or two of AHL before making the jump. Defenceman take longer to develop than forwards, and I fully expect Stanley to play a couple seasons on the moose before getting his opportunity and hope he can prove many of his detractors wrong. I wish him the best of luck.

 

[Grind]

What are the success probabilities of big D who hit 1 ppg in the OHL vs. a high scoring small forward in the W in D+2.

I actually still think Stanley is a longshot, but he's been the object of scorn for a long time, based to a large degree on low production and therefore his low probability of success. High productivity should alter perspectives about his trajectory.

I'm a Stanley skeptic. Still, I think it's reasonable to track his D+2 production, since it's improved.

Even if he keeps up this point pace, he has a long way to go, but the probability that he makes it is more encouraging.

So using an altered set of our standard criteria ( we usually run of +/-4 pts and +/2 inches in height, i'm changing it to +/- 3 inches to grab a couple more players in the sample)

Stanley has progressed thus far to the point that by our system he'd be just about worth where he was drafted IF, he maintains a ppg pace this season.

his probabilities have been:

DY: 24%
DY +1: 31%
DY +2: 42%

now important to note that even with the bigger net we're still looking at 7-10 player comps for most years due to his size. 1 player making it/failing would swing it pretty significantly.

verse Skylar Mckenzie:

DY: 11%
DY +1: 30%
DY +2: 46%

The Difference between the two is obviously draft location. 40% by our ratings is pretty much what you want a player picked 20-40 in a draft to be at, at a minimum. The issue for stanley is that he started in such a hole, that even if this pace maintains till the end of the season he'll still have just finally hit "proper" value showing he was "worth" a pick at his location (which is great, considering the consternation that surrounded him, but if he'd only maintained those probabilities for the three years we'd be pretty much like, meh).

Skylare on the otherhand is everything you want in a depth pick. 30% success rate when we drafted him in the 7th round is already slam dunk value. Now, his low DY probabilities show why he was rightfully passed over, and put a bit of a damper on him, but if he maintains the production he's got so far in D+2 he's rocketed himself up to 1st round pick value (2nd rounder at minimum).

 

[jgimp]

I've never liked Stanley/McKenzie-Defence/Forward comparisons. Two completely different positions with different responsibilities which makes it apples and oranges.
I don't get to watch much WHL or College hockey. How would the comparisons be to Dante Fabbro and Dennis Cholowski who were the D picks pre and post Stanley's pick? How is their game developing compared to Stanley's?

 

[Grind]

I personally hate the comparison of how was he verse the other dmen because it's a false restriction. We didn't HAVE to take a dman there and we definitely didn't HAVE to take one of the next four dmen chosen. We didn't have to take anyone but who we thought the best player available was.

The maximum value of a pick is either a) the best /most likely player to pan out that's still available (regardless if he's expected to go next, fell 10 spots, or isn't projected to go for 6 more rounds, if he's the best player he's the best player) OR the maximum return a team is willing to give you.


The point of comparing the two, was completely focused on their individual likelihoods of success via a specific methodology. It isolates their value in terms of successfully making the NHL andnis not dependent on their roles.

It is an apples to apples comparison in terms of pick value/success as judged by the same criteria. Your welcome to dislike the criteria, it is by no means the best, but it is effective (more so then pure draft order) and paints the picture perfect example of the draft ineffeciency.

Two players with a nearly identical development curve, one taken in the first round checks all the boxes we know get overvalued, and one taken in the second round checks all the boxes we know get undervalued


Edited: original read far snarkier and heavier in ton then I had any intention. My apologies.

 

[Daximus]

Or you could even compare him to Clague who is well over PPG and currently a large part of Brandons early success who many here also wanted and is looking like a steal. What's Clagues probability now? I'd imagine very high.

 

[Say What]

So using an altered set of our standard criteria ( we usually run of +/-4 pts and +/2 inches in height, i'm changing it to +/- 3 inches to grab a couple more players in the sample)

Stanley has progressed thus far to the point that by our system he'd be just about worth where he was drafted IF, he maintains a ppg pace this season.

his probabilities have been:

DY: 24%
DY +1: 31%
DY +2: 42%

now important to note that even with the bigger net we're still looking at 7-10 player comps for most years due to his size. 1 player making it/failing would swing it pretty significantly.

verse Skylar Mckenzie:

DY: 11%
DY +1: 30%
DY +2: 46%

The Difference between the two is obviously draft location. 40% by our ratings is pretty much what you want a player picked 20-40 in a draft to be at, at a minimum. The issue for stanley is that he started in such a hole, that even if this pace maintains till the end of the season he'll still have just finally hit "proper" value showing he was "worth" a pick at his location (which is great, considering the consternation that surrounded him, but if he'd only maintained those probabilities for the three years we'd be pretty much like, meh).

Skylare on the otherhand is everything you want in a depth pick. 30% success rate when we drafted him in the 7th round is already slam dunk value. Now, his low DY probabilities show why he was rightfully passed over, and put a bit of a damper on him, but if he maintains the production he's got so far in D+2 he's rocketed himself up to 1st round pick value (2nd rounder at minimum).

So much irrelevant information. The criterion for a particular 'draft choice' isn't affected by numbers proving or disproving the pick, in the years following the Draft. 'Projecting' the success of 17/18 yr. old players involves many aspects of non-hockey related conditions; that don't relate to 'raw' numbers in any way, whatsoever. Hindsight is a useless tool at the draft table. In my opinion, a player's draft position is meaningless once they become part of an Organization. The opportunity is there for any 'prospect' to forge a place within the depth chart of the roster/organization. The reasoning on Draft Day doesn't change because of a perceived alternate developmental curve (positive or negative).

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the 200+ drafted players each year, will play professionally (or not at all) in leagues other than the NHL. That's the reality the players understand; and therefore, 'skill' is but one aspect of what it will take to reach the 'dream'.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Most here only care about prospects once they are drafted by the Jets.

I hated the pick and I hated that we actually traded up to make it. But that doesn't necessarily mean Stanley will be a complete failure.

I hated the pick and the trade up but that is not Stanley's fault.

I prefer to think of him as a 4th rounder (where I think he should have been taken). If we had got him for a 4th we would all have been happy to have had the 'big guy' potential. The progress to date would be very encouraging and we would be starting to get our hopes up that he would become a useful NHL player. But as a 4th round pick we would still be thinking 3-4 years down the road.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Or you could even compare him to Clague who is well over PPG and currently a large part of Brandons early success who many here also wanted and is looking like a steal. What's Clagues probability now? I'd imagine very high.

Actually, Clague is over 2 PPG. How many Dmen do that, even in D+2?

Of course a hot start doesn't mean he is going to maintain that pace but .....

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I've never liked Stanley/McKenzie-Defence/Forward comparisons. Two completely different positions with different responsibilities which makes it apples and oranges.
I don't get to watch much WHL or College hockey. How would the comparisons be to Dante Fabbro and Dennis Cholowski who were the D picks pre and post Stanley's pick? How is their game developing compared to Stanley's?

Compare to who we might have picked if we hadn't traded up for Stanley. I had Lucas Johansen and Kale Clague as my preferences for 22 & 36. No idea if the Jets would have taken either or both of them. They might have.
Johansen has been underwhelming, not bad just not that great. Clague has been hitting it out of the park so far.

What this illustrates is the value of 2 arrows in the quiver instead of only 1. All of the really strong candidates had already been taken. The players ranked from 18 all the way to about 45(ish) were near equal. Being near equal, 2 are better than 1.

 

[Grind]

So much irrelevant information. The criterion for a particular 'draft choice' isn't affected by numbers proving or disproving the pick, in the years following the Draft. 'Projecting' the success of 17/18 yr. old players involves many aspects of non-hockey related conditions; that don't relate to 'raw' numbers in any way, whatsoever.

Hindsight is a useless tool at the draft table. In my opinion, a player's draft position is meaningless once they become part of an Organization.

The opportunity is there for any 'prospect' to forge a place within the depth chart of the roster/organization. The reasoning on Draft Day doesn't change because of a perceived alternate developmental curve (positive or negative).

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the 200+ drafted players each year, will play professionally (or not at all) in leagues other than the NHL. That's the reality the players understand; and therefore, 'skill' is but one aspect of what it will take to reach the 'dream'.

If you want to keep your head in the sand and be a cheer leader then sure. Everything is irrelevant. Might as well close up shop and just wait till they make the NHL. What they did yesterday doesn't matter, that's heindsight now.

I for one am interested in advancing the approaches and understanding of identifying which prospects develop a which don't, and improving the methodology used by most teams.

This includes treating draft picks as the valued business resource they are, understanding the opportunity costs of who you select, and maximizing your returns.

It's easy to say "well there's so much that's untrackable and unrelated that we'd never get an accurate picture so why bother using numbers", but if even the very limited amount of numbers outperforms the current method, then clearly they are worth incorporating to some extent.

This relates to the Stanley discussion for a number of reasons:

Expectation.

Many dislike the Stanley pick because at the time it seemed like a bad use of currency. The numbers supported this. Those who liked the pick say "they know something we don't, it's a good pick"

His development was then discussed in terms of point production because we don't really bhave a good way of saying what development is (he "looks better" can't really be proven/tested it just becomes an unfounded opinion pissing match). Using our system we try and get a better handle on that. He increased point production, but that's expected, has he increased his production enough to show an increased likelihood in future success (ie: development)? Yes.

This may be the caveat: I am defining "development" as reducing the number of comparable players who failed and increasing the number of successful players as development.

Ok, next question, has it increased enough to remover the concerns that people had on draft day?

Answer: yes and no. The point is getting a handle on what his development actually has been. How much has improved not vs where he was but vs where he's expected to be. If this pace continues, he has improved his development to the point where we would say , "ok maybe they DID know something we didn't", because he's now at the appropriate threshold of value for a player +2 years out of the draft and taken 20th overall, where's he was quite negative value for a former 20th overall pick in Dy and Dy +1. He has risen his stock. He's improved his chances of success. On the other hand had he been a player who was 40% success rate all three years we would say "he's developed enough to tread water, he is as we would have expected", his stock has not risen but not fallen. I say "no" to this question as well because while it appears they may have "known something new didn't" he hasn't vaulted himself into net positive value for his draft location.


The McKenzie inclusion was solely because Willy literally asked what's a player like Stanley's production/etc look like in terms of value vs McKenzie.


I suppose if you don't believe "development" can be measured in any meaningful way at all and all attempts to do so are futile then I suppose your right, this is all very irrelevant. But that seems very silly to me.

 

[Daximus]

Compare to who we might have picked if we hadn't traded up for Stanley. I had Lucas Johansen and Kale Clague as my preferences for 22 & 36. No idea if the Jets would have taken either or both of them. They might have.
Johansen has been underwhelming, not bad just not that great. Clague has been hitting it out of the park so far.

What this illustrates is the value of 2 arrows in the quiver instead of only 1. All of the really strong candidates had already been taken. The players ranked from 18 all the way to about 45(ish) were near equal. Being near equal, 2 are better than 1.

That was my thinking going into the draft as well I wanted Johansen and Clague as two chances at a defencemen will always be better then one unless that one is someone of Dahlin's calibre. Would have been even more promising if they could have traded down to later in the 1st and grabbed an extra 2nd round pick out of the deal. We could have 3 defencemen developing instead of two.

 

[Say What]

If you want to keep your head in the sand and be a cheer leader then sure. Everything is irrelevant. Might as well close up shop and just wait till they make the NHL. What they did yesterday doesn't matter, that's heindsight now.

I for one am interested in advancing the approaches and understanding of identifying which prospects develop a which don't, and improving the methodology used by most teams.

This includes treating draft picks as the valued business resource they are, understanding the opportunity costs of who you select, and maximizing your returns.

It's easy to say "well there's so much that's untrackable and unrelated that we'd never get an accurate picture so why bother using numbers", but if even the very limited amount of numbers outperforms the current method, then clearly they are worth incorporating to some extent.

This relates to the Stanley discussion for a number of reasons:

Expectation.

Many dislike the Stanley pick because at the time it seemed like a bad use of currency. The numbers supported this. Those who liked the pick say "they know something we don't, it's a good pick"

His development was then discussed in terms of point production because we don't really bhave a good way of saying what development is (he "looks better" can't really be proven/tested it just becomes an unfounded opinion pissing match). Using our system we try and get a better handle on that. He increased point production, but that's expected, has he increased his production enough to show an increased likelihood in future success (ie: development)? Yes.

This may be the caveat: I am defining "development" as reducing the number of comparable players who failed and increasing the number of successful players as development.

Ok, next question, has it increased enough to remover the concerns that people had on draft day?

Answer: yes and no. The point is getting a handle on what his development actually has been. How much has improved not vs where he was but vs where he's expected to be. If this pace continues, he has improved his development to the point where we would say , "ok maybe they DID know something we didn't", because he's now at the appropriate threshold of value for a player +2 years out of the draft and taken 20th overall, where's he was quite negative value for a former 20th overall pick in Dy and Dy +1. He has risen his stock. He's improved his chances of success. On the other hand had he been a player who was 40% success rate all three years we would say "he's developed enough to tread water, he is as we would have expected", his stock has not risen but not fallen. I say "no" to this question as well because while it appears they may have "known something new didn't" he hasn't vaulted himself into net positive value for his draft location.


The McKenzie inclusion was solely because Willy literally asked what's a player like Stanley's production/etc look like in terms of value vs McKenzie.


I suppose if you don't believe "development" can be measured in any meaningful way at all and all attempts to do so are futile then I suppose your right, this is all very irrelevant. But that seems very silly to me.

Thanks Grind, but my head isn't in the sand. And apparently, you're the only one cheerleading in this conversation. The fact remains that success in D+1 or D+2 doesn't necessarily translate into being a 'viable' NHL player. That's ridiculously simplistic. Lower level leagues throughout the world, are littered with these (drafted & undrafted) Junior aged potential 'stars'. Drafting a player that 'you' deem to have a better rating for success, is still a crapshoot.

So Player X has a stellar D+2, and Player Y has a poor D+2. Player X eventually bounces around the NHL for a few years (but doesn't ever stick/become viable) and Player Y never comes close to being viable; the end result is still two of the 200+ Draft Day 'picks' not becoming everyday NHLers (not that surprising really). However, the criterion for why Player Y was chosen over Player X doesn't change.

In my opinion (and with my sand filled ears), I don't personally believe the Scouting Staffs/Agencies are given the credit they deserve in identifying top talent. I don't see this "industry deficiency" you speak of, which would somehow produce more viable NHL players per draft than it already does (unless you're going to identify players not even targeted in the top 200+ players). Don't get me wrong, there's always room for improvement, but.....

I'm guessing of the 40-45 draft picks that hopefully make it each year (1.5 per team), you can pick 3 or 4 of them (from the 7 rounds) for the NHL Organization of your choice. To each his own. And good luck with your endeavors.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

That was my thinking going into the draft as well I wanted Johansen and Clague as two chances at a defencemen will always be better then one unless that one is someone of Dahlin's calibre. Would have been even more promising if they could have traded down to later in the 1st and grabbed an extra 2nd round pick out of the deal. We could have 3 defencemen developing instead of two.

As a rule I wouldn't be in favour of trading down but that draft was different because it was so flat. I would have liked trading up higher if that had been possible. By trading up to a higher spot in the flat part we got the worst of both worlds.

In a fantasy world we could have had Clague, Sam Girard and Cam Dineen - but I would still be happy with Johansen and Clague. And I still may get to like Stanley. Go Logan Go.

 

[Daximus]

Thanks Grind, but my head isn't in the sand. And apparently, you're the only one cheerleading in this conversation. The fact remains that success in D+1 or D+2 doesn't necessarily translate into being a 'viable' NHL player. That's ridiculously simplistic. Lower level leagues throughout the world, are littered with these (drafted & undrafted) Junior aged potential 'stars'. Drafting a player that 'you' deem to have a better rating for success, is still a crapshoot.

So Player X has a stellar D+2, and Player Y has a poor D+2. Player X eventually bounces around the NHL for a few years (but doesn't ever stick/become viable) and Player Y never comes close to being viable; the end result is still two of the 200+ Draft Day 'picks' not becoming everyday NHLers (not that surprising really). However, the criterion for why Player Y was chosen over Player X doesn't change.

In my opinion (and with my sand filled ears), I don't personally believe the Scouting Staffs/Agencies are given the credit they deserve in identifying top talent. I don't see this "industry deficiency" you speak of, which would somehow produce more viable NHL players per draft than it already does (unless you're going to identify players not even targeted in the top 200+ players). Don't get me wrong, there's always room for improvement, but.....

I'm guessing of the 40-45 draft picks that hopefully make it each year (1.5 per team), you can pick 3 or 4 of them (from the 7 rounds) for the NHL Organization of your choice. To each his own. And good luck with your endeavors.

He's talking more in terms of average value not exact value. On average the guy who scores more in his draft year stands a better chance at becoming a regular NHLer. That doesn't mean it will always happen but you play the averages. In fact you could probably play the averages and end up in the top 5 of most teams in any given draft year. Maybe the Jets identified something in Stanley. I think it's more likely they liked his character, work ethic and size. Which isn't really a rare combo. I can show you tonnes of tall hockey players that worked hard and were likeable. I think sometimes scouts deserve more credit but remember for every Logan Stanley there is a Boris Valabik and for ever Skyler McKenzie there is a Ty Rattie. Play the averages and you are probably better off regardless. Play the averages relative to draft position and that's even better. Getting Sosunovs in the 6th and McKenzie's in the 7th is much better then wasting a pick on either of them earlier on.

 

[Grind]

When a simple equations produces a more effective ranking then scouts, yes there's definitely a deficiency. I apologize if my head in the sand comment was offensive, it's a natural reaction to someone saying work your doing thats proven to be effective is irrelevant.

It could be I don't understand what your stance is. I interpreted it as "scouts made the picks, their smarter then us, nothing is known as a positive until it's actually on the team and contributing, so any analysis between now and then is pointless."

That doesn't leave much room for discussion or investigation on a hockey prospects forum.

If that's not your stance, could you please elaborate?

Are scouts better then the average person at identifying talent? Absolutely.

Its Absolutely largely a crap shoot with a huge amount of variables but the league as a whole starts from an unnecessarily blind position.

The starting point appears to be lists generated exclusively off whatever criteria it is scouts are using. The additional input is the continued viewings of the scouts. The results is the absolute crap shoot you speak of.

What if that wasn't our starting point? What if the starting point was (for example) one of these simple models publicly distributed, which each teams scouting departments built off with the scouts viewings and work? I find it very difficult to believe that would not offer a fairly significant improvement considering we're talking about building off a foundation that already produces results similar to the finished product we currently have.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

When a simple equations produces a more effective ranking then scouts, yes there's definitely a deficiency. I apologize if my head in the sand comment was offensive, it's a natural reaction to someone saying work your doing thats proven to be effective is irrelevant.

It could be I don't understand what your stance is. I interpreted it as "scouts made the picks, their smarter then us, nothing is known as a positive until it's actually on the team and contributing, so any analysis between now and then is pointless."

That doesn't leave much room for discussion or investigation on a hockey prospects forum.

If that's not your stance, could you please elaborate?

Are scouts better then the average person at identifying talent? Absolutely.

Its Absolutely largely a crap shoot with a huge amount of variables but the league as a whole starts from an unnecessarily blind position.

The starting point appears to be lists generated exclusively off whatever criteria it is scouts are using. The additional input is the continued viewings of the scouts. The results is the absolute crap shoot you speak of.

What if that wasn't our starting point? What if the starting point was (for example) one of these simple models publicly distributed, which each teams scouting departments built off with the scouts viewings and work? I find it very difficult to believe that would not offer a fairly significant improvement considering we're talking about building off a foundation that already produces results similar to the finished product we currently have.

Hey Grind,

Do you know of any one who is keeping track of a pure stats based method of drafting and then applying that pre draft for a team or teams over a number of years then comparing that to the teams actual drafting method?

I can see this being kept quiet too but It would be interesting to have some model tested for X amount of years to compare against

 

[Say What]

He's talking more in terms of average value not exact value. On average the guy who scores more in his draft year stands a better chance at becoming a regular NHLer. That doesn't mean it will always happen but you play the averages. In fact you could probably play the averages and end up in the top 5 of most teams in any given draft year. Maybe the Jets identified something in Stanley. I think it's more likely they liked his character, work ethic and size. Which isn't really a rare combo. I can show you tonnes of tall hockey players that worked hard and were likeable. I think sometimes scouts deserve more credit but remember for every Logan Stanley there is a Boris Valabik and for ever Skyler McKenzie there is a Ty Rattie. Play the averages and you are probably better off regardless. Play the averages relative to draft position and that's even better. Getting Sosunovs in the 6th and McKenzie's in the 7th is much better then wasting a pick on either of them earlier on.

You're preaching to the choir. Not trusting those that are hired (Scouts etc.), is a lousy way to run a business. IMO, TNSE as an organization, strongly disagrees with this stance (re. Logan was a bad pick).

 

[Grind]

He's talking more in terms of average value not exact value. On average the guy who scores more in his draft year stands a better chance at becoming a regular NHLer. That doesn't mean it will always happen but you play the averages. In fact you could probably play the averages and end up in the top 5 of most teams in any given draft year. Maybe the Jets identified something in Stanley. I think it's more likely they liked his character, work ethic and size. Which isn't really a rare combo. I can show you tonnes of tall hockey players that worked hard and were likeable. I think sometimes scouts deserve more credit but remember for every Logan Stanley there is a Boris Valabik and for ever Skyler McKenzie there is a Ty Rattie. Play the averages and you are probably better off regardless. Play the averages relative to draft position and that's even better. Getting Sosunovs in the 6th and McKenzie's in the 7th is much better then wasting a pick on either of them earlier on.

Exactly.

Im certainly not cheerleading or calling Stanley an NHL player at this point. Ffs his odds I've posted are still losing odds. And barely good enough to make him an "average" back 20th overall selection.

My point t of this exercise was creating or defining development and player value prior to the "absolute" return of them actually being in the NHL.

Chances are Stanley still doesn't pan out. But the chances are better that he pans out today then they were 2 years ago. I would call that Development.

 

[Daximus]

You're preaching to the choir. Not trusting those that are hired (Scouts etc.), is a lousy way to run a business. IMO, TNSE as an organization, strongly disagrees with this stance.

I'm sure every organization disagree's with not trusting their scouts. But just because you are a scout doesn't mean you are always right. Scouts are like politicians. Sometimes they have good opinions and sometimes they have bad opinions but usually it's pretty subjective until one opinion is proven to be the right one. The only way for that to be proven is to see results. You can be an NHL scout for 20 years and make tonnes of terrible picks. In fact it's likely you do. That's just the nature of the beast that is drafting 18 year olds.

 

[Whileee]

When a simple equations produces a more effective ranking then scouts, yes there's definitely a deficiency. I apologize if my head in the sand comment was offensive, it's a natural reaction to someone saying work your doing thats proven to be effective is irrelevant.

It could be I don't understand what your stance is. I interpreted it as "scouts made the picks, their smarter then us, nothing is known as a positive until it's actually on the team and contributing, so any analysis between now and then is pointless."

That doesn't leave much room for discussion or investigation on a hockey prospects forum.

If that's not your stance, could you please elaborate?

Are scouts better then the average person at identifying talent? Absolutely.

Its Absolutely largely a crap shoot with a huge amount of variables but the league as a whole starts from an unnecessarily blind position.

The starting point appears to be lists generated exclusively off whatever criteria it is scouts are using. The additional input is the continued viewings of the scouts. The results is the absolute crap shoot you speak of.

What if that wasn't our starting point? What if the starting point was (for example) one of these simple models publicly distributed, which each teams scouting departments built off with the scouts viewings and work? I find it very difficult to believe that would not offer a fairly significant improvement considering we're talking about building off a foundation that already produces results similar to the finished product we currently have.

Which simple equation has been shown to out perform NHL teams' scouts?

 

[Grind]

Hey Grind,

Do you know of any one who is keeping track of a pure stats based method of drafting and then applying that pre draft for a team or teams over a number of years then comparing that to the teams actual drafting method?

I can see this being kept quiet too but It would be interesting to have some model tested for X amount of years to compare against

I only know of our own that we've begun running tests vs draft location and comparing r2s. We compared what our lists would have produced for 04-09 vs actual draft location.

I posted the results sinwhere else here. We were moderately better then the draft with forwards and significantly better (though still way worse then forwards) with dmen.

As for a team comparing stats to current methodology I have no idea, but I do know the Florida panthers use a system like ours (though much more sophisticated) in concert with scouts. Or at least I assume they do considering the hired three guys who did exactly this.

 

[Grind]

Age adjusted points and height.

Which simple equation has been shown to out perform NHL teams' scouts?

 

[Daximus]

I only know of our own that we've begun running tests vs draft location and comparing r2s. We compared what our lists would have produced for 04-09 vs actual draft location.

I posted the results sinwhere else here. We were moderately better then the draft with forwards and significantly better (though still way worse then forwards) with dmen.

As for a team comparing stats to current methodology I have no idea, but I do know the Florida panthers use a system like ours (though much more sophisticated) in concert with scouts. Or at least I assume they do considering the hired three guys who did exactly this.

With picks like Mascherin, Nassen, Ang and Heponiemi you can tell they have some analytic flair in their picks.

 

[Say What]

Exactly.

Im certainly not cheerleading or calling Stanley an NHL player at this point. Ffs his odds I've posted are still losing odds. And barely good enough to make him an "average" back 20th overall selection.

My point t of this exercise was creating or defining development and player value prior to the "absolute" return of them actually being in the NHL.

Chances are Stanley still doesn't pan out. But the chances are better that he pans out today then they were 2 years ago. I would call that Development.

This is what I don't understand (the bolded). Says who? IMO Logan Stanley is exactly the same person (more mature), with more hockey experience since the day he was drafted. How have 'you' increased his chances of success? Because the 'numbers' say so. Ridiculous. Were we to expect Logan not to develop. That's projection....it was done 2+ years ago.