18/19 MGMT thread VII. WARNING POST #25

[ErrantShepherd]

Taking @Melvin's great work over to this thread for the purposes of continuing this discussion:

Obviously, Benning is currently at the bottom as none of his players have reached 250 games yet. Gillis also suffers from some disadvantage here. Hutton is at 236 games and even Gaunce could potentially get there eventually.

Like I said in the previous thread, is there a lower bar of games played that allows for more Gillis and Benning picks to be factored into these equations? Is there any particular significance to the 250 games played or are we tied to the 250 games to the graph and data provided for this example?

If we are looking from 2014-2018 for Benning picks, that's 4 years. 328 games from four 82 game schedules over that time... if a prospect made it onto the team one year after their draft and managed to have an iron man streak for 3 years, that's still short at 246 of 250 games.

...so is there a better metric for this evaluation?

 

[Motte and Bailey]

As low as Gillis ranks, the NHL GP metric also flatters him because Cody Hodgson gives him a hit when it was not even a good pick. Hodgson is out of the league already and Karlsson was available and was drafted shortly after.

 

[Hodgy]

As low as Gillis ranks, the NHL GP metric also flatters him because Cody Hodgson gives him a hit when it was not even a good pick. Hodgson is out of the league already and Karlsson was available and was drafted shortly after.

Hodgson was a good pick whose career was derailed by injuries which were entirely unpredictable. Karlsson absolutely wasn't on anyone's radar at #10. Either you don't follow the draft very closely, or you are intentionally posting stupid things here again in a childish attempt to derail this thread.

 

[Intangibos]

As low as Gillis ranks, the NHL GP metric also flatters him because Cody Hodgson gives him a hit when it was not even a good pick. Hodgson is out of the league already and Karlsson was available and was drafted shortly after.

Through those final years in his short career, he suffered from shortness of breath, blackouts and heart arrhythmia. Sometimes his body would shake for no apparent reason. He was tested for a wide range of ailments, including brain and lung cancer.
Finally, after what would be his final NHL season with the Nashville Predators, he underwent a muscle biopsy and was subsequently diagnosed with malignant hyperthermia, a genetic disorder that can be triggered by prolonged physical activity.

Aside from his back injury that couldn't have been predicted he also had a rare disease that couldn't have been predicted.

Also was a better pick than the scouting staff he "inherited" given how important inheritance is apparently.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Taking @Melvin's great work over to this thread for the purposes of continuing this discussion:



I believe I have posted this before. It is a graph illustrating the % of players taken at a given position who have reached 250 NHL games. This is since the beginning of the NHL Draft in the 60's.

Granted, 250 Games is an arbitrary bench mark, but I've done the same sort of analysis with many different values for N games or N points and it makes little difference. Suggest a different one to me if you wish.

With this, we can fit the data (looks like a logarithmic curve) and estimate a true probability for every selection, allowing us to calculate the expected value (EV - Expected value - Wikipedia) for Benning's drafts by summing the probabilities of getting a player at his picks.

Take for example the 2014 draft:

6th overall pick - 65%
24th - 42%
36 - 36%
66 - 25%
126 - 15%
156 - 11%
186 - 8%

Total Expected Value of the 2014 draft = 2.03

In other words, if drafting players were "random" events, with success probability based on historical averages, we would expect to get around 2 players from this draft who play 250 NHL games.

This is simply the baseline average. Benning's "skill" therefore can be inferred based upon how much better he does than "chance." If he does not get at least 2 players from this draft he has seen below-average results.

So, how about for all of his drafts then, 2014-2018?

I won't break them all down, but he has made 34 selections with a total expected value of 8.27. So this is his baseline. Based on nothing more than where he has been selecting in the draft, we should expect Benning to get around 8 players from the 2014-2018 drafts.

Will he get there? That's up for debate. Virtanen, McCann, Boeser and Pettersson are near-locks, so that gets him halfway there. If Hughes, Juolevi, Forsling and Gaudette make it then he hits that eight. If he gets any more than he has done better than expected, but it's hard to see it being by any sort of significance. Say he gets 10 players, and has thus done better than expected by 1.73. Is that significant enough to be considered a drafting guru and worthy of being the de facto President of an NHL team? You can decide. But these are the facts.

If you are wondering who has had the best expected value from these drafts, Arizona is at 10.25 (41 picks) and Buffalo at 10.21 (37) followed by Philadelphia (10.06/42,) Carolina (10.02/39,) and Toronto (9.75/42) Vancouver is in 8th mostly on the strength of the picks themselves, their actual number of selections (34) is lower than all teams ahead of them. At the low end of the scale you have Nashville (6.33/32,) Minnesota (5.82/33,) Washington (5.45/28,) and Pittsburgh, who is expected to get 4.33 players from their 25 selections.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Best and worst drafts in team history, based on my methodology outlined above, with the caveat that many players are still playing:

Top-10:

Year	GM	EV	Result	+/-
2004	David Nonis	0.99	4	3.01
1974	Phil Maloney	1.90	4	2.10
1994	Pat Quinn	2.10	4	1.90
1995	Pat Quinn	1.57	3	1.43
1978	Jake Milford	2.83	4	1.17
1981	Jake Milford	1.85	3	1.15
1980	Jake Milford	1.97	3	1.03
1979	Jake Milford	2.03	3	0.97
2001	Brian Burke	1.13	2	0.87
1998	Brian Burke	2.43	3	0.57

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bottom-10, Benning drafts excluded:

Year	GM	EV	Result	+/-
1984	Harold Neale	2.91	1	-1.91
1972	Bud Poile	2.85	1	-1.85
2002	Brian Burke	1.52	0	-1.52
1996	Pat Quinn	1.46	0	-1.46
2011	Michael Gillis	1.46	0	-1.46
1975	Phil Maloney	2.45	1	-1.45
2007	David Nonis	1.19	0	-1.19
2000	Brian Burke	1.12	0	-1.12
1986	Jack Gordon	2.07	1	-1.07
1987	Pat Quinn	1.97	1	-0.97

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is 2008 -2013, because Gillis:

Team	Picks	xSuccess	Success	Delta	Z
OTT	44	9.48	13	3.52	2.69
ANA	45	11.05	12	0.95	1.50
WSH	40	8.09	9	0.91	1.48
TBL	43	10.64	11	0.36	1.23
BUF	48	11.23	11	-0.23	0.96
MIN	38	8.51	8	-0.51	0.83
SJS	39	6.68	6	-0.68	0.75
NYR	35	7.70	7	-0.70	0.74
CAR	38	8.92	8	-0.92	0.64
WPG	23	5.28	4	-1.28	0.47
LAK	43	9.39	8	-1.39	0.42
CBJ	43	10.55	9	-1.55	0.35
ATL	25	5.77	4	-1.77	0.25
NYI	48	13.09	11	-2.09	0.10
STL	43	10.27	8	-2.27	0.02
NSH	49	10.43	8	-2.43	-0.06
CHI	52	10.60	8	-2.60	-0.14
CGY	39	8.75	6	-2.75	-0.21
NJD	39	7.90	5	-2.90	-0.27
PHI	36	6.97	4	-2.97	-0.31
DET	43	8.29	5	-3.29	-0.45
VAN	37	7.30	4	-3.30	-0.46
FLA	48	12.48	9	-3.48	-0.54
BOS	37	7.93	4	-3.93	-0.75
PHX	41	10.14	6	-4.14	-0.85
COL	40	9.93	5	-4.93	-1.21
TOR	42	9.09	4	-5.09	-1.28
EDM	49	13.17	8	-5.17	-1.32
PIT	37	7.40	2	-5.40	-1.43
DAL	39	9.53	4	-5.53	-1.48
MTL	40	8.93	3	-5.93	-1.67

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I kept Atlanta and Winnipeg separate, because I felt like it.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Okay, one more data table, as requested, all Canuck years by GM, with average and standard deviation

GM	EV	Hits	+/-	Z
Jake Milford	11.34	16.00	4.66	2.36
David Nonis	4.52	6.00	1.48	0.88
Pat Quinn	22.61	23.00	0.39	0.37
Phil Maloney	6.07	6.00	-0.07	0.16
Hal Laycoe,	3.56	3.00	-0.56	-0.07
Jack Gordon	4.70	4.00	-0.70	-0.13
Brian Burke	9.79	8.00	-1.79	-0.64
Bud Poile	8.09	6.00	-2.09	-0.78
Harold Neale	7.11	5.00	-2.11	-0.79
Michael Gillis	7.30	4.00	-3.30	-1.35

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Average: -0.41
St.Dev: 2.14

Obviously, Benning is currently at the bottom as none of his players have reached 250 games yet. Gillis also suffers from some disadvantage here. Hutton is at 236 games and even Gaunce could potentially get there eventually.

Great work @Melvin! Thanks for taking the time and putting it visually so we can use it to make informed decisions.
I do wonder if games played is a good indicator. Like mentioned before, bad teams will still have to dress a full roster, so some bad players will hit 250 games by default, especially on a perennial bottom feeder like ours (look at our blueline and bottom 6 forwards and think of how many undeserved games guys like Pouliot and Megna put up over the years). Would points be a better indicator? I know points will skew the result to favor forwards, but generally speaking good players put up more points than bad players, so it might be a way to separate the crappy picks that for some reason gets lots of games (ie: Sam Bennett, 271 games), from actual good players (ie: Leon Draisatl 298 games), where they are both worth the same in your model.
Or maybe use both variables? Sum up games played with points? That way you take into consideration both the longevity and skill of a player?

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Hodgson was a good pick whose career was derailed by injuries which were entirely unpredictable. Karlsson absolutely wasn't on anyone's radar at #10. Either you don't follow the draft very closely, or you are intentionally posting stupid things here again in a childish attempt to derail this thread.

Wait.. are you saying that injuries matter? Are you saying they’re a valid excuse for bad performance? Good to know! I may refer you back to this post of yours in the future.

Even before his injuries took his career he was a soft 35 point average forward who was spoon fed top 6 and power play opportunities in every organization he played and he couldn’t even stick in Buffalo which is really really bad because he was a defensive train wreck. Personally don’t buy the injury excuse in Hodgson’s case. I think he got his payday and after that never put in the effort or really cared to put in the work to become a good player or saw the writing on the wall with the speed of the league and his lack of speed.

The fact that Karlsson was available and taken a mere 5 spots later should matter to you if it matters to you that Nylander was available 2 spots after Virtanen or Tkachuk/ Keller 1-2 spots after Juolevi. How do you explain the double standard? I don’t buy the line of fans not having Karlsson on their radar so therefore it was ok for professional scouting teams in hundred million dollar organizations to mess it up.

 

[ErrantShepherd]

Great work @Melvin! Thanks for taking the time and putting it visually so we can use it to make informed decisions.
I do wonder if games played is a good indicator. Like mentioned before, bad teams will still have to dress a full roster, so some bad players will hit 250 games by default, especially on a perennial bottom feeder like ours (look at our blueline and bottom 6 forwards and think of how many undeserved games guys like Pouliot and Megna put up over the years). Would points be a better indicator? I know points will skew the result to favor forwards, but generally speaking good players put up more points than bad players, so it might be a way to separate the crappy picks that for some reason gets lots of games (ie: Sam Bennett, 271 games), from actual good players (ie: Leon Draisatl 298 games), where they are both worth the same in your model.
Or maybe use both variables? Sum up games played with points? That way you take into consideration both the longevity and skill of a player?

If we are looking at different variables or factors...

Maybe Time on Ice would be a helpful factor as well? Higher usage defensemen who didn't score as many points would factor in better as well? Generally more reliable or more productive players get higher TOI.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Wait.. are you saying that injuries matter? Are you saying they’re a valid excuse for bad performance? Good to know! I may refer you back to this post of yours in the future.

Even before his injuries took his career he was a soft 35 point average forward who was spoon fed top 6 and power play opportunities in every organization he played and he couldn’t even stick in Buffalo which is really really bad because he was a defensive train wreck. Personally don’t buy the injury excuse in Hodgson’s case. I think he got his payday and after that never put in the effort or really cared to put in the work to become a good player or saw the writing on the wall with the speed of the league and his lack of speed.

The fact that Karlsson was available and taken a mere 5 spots later should matter to you if it matters to you that Nylander was available 2 spots after Virtanen or Tkachuk/ Keller 1-2 spots after Juolevi. How do you explain the double standard? I don’t buy the line of fans not having Karlsson on their radar so therefore it was ok for professional scouting teams in hundred million dollar organizations to mess it up.

You "don't buy" medical reports? Because Hodgson's injury history was documented by medical report. So unless you are his doctor that examined him, thats just you ignoring facts...which is not surprising to most of us.
Also Karlsson was nowhere near the discussion for the 10th overall pick AT THE TIME OF THE DRAFT. Tkachuk was universally regarded as BPA AT THE TIME OF THE DRAFT. If you can't tell the difference in the 2 scenarios than I can't help you.

 

[Canuck Luck]

Hodgson was a good pick whose career was derailed by injuries which were entirely unpredictable. Karlsson absolutely wasn't on anyone's radar at #10. Either you don't follow the draft very closely, or you are intentionally posting stupid things here again in a childish attempt to derail this thread.

Karlsson was not on most people’s radars but to say he wasn’t at all isn’t true. He was rising fast. I actually wanted the Canucks trading back so they could grab Myers or Karlsson + more picks that year. I remember because the very next year OEL was considered his years Karlsson who shot up the boards in the last quarter of the season and was projected to go anywhere from top 5 to 20th ovr.

bob Mackenzie I believe was the hype man behind both these guys. If it weren’t for that I was also happy with beach/Hodgson (preferred Wilson but he was taken by Nashville) if we went forward in 08.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Aside from his back injury that couldn't have been predicted he also had a rare disease that couldn't have been predicted.

Also was a better pick than the scouting staff he "inherited" given how important inheritance is apparently.

First I don’t think Nonis gave away NTCs to his scouts but I could be wrong.

Second, yes that sucks for Hodgson but I don’t see any evidence that his condition hindered his on ice performance. Seems like it impacted his quality of life off the ice but doesn’t excuse his performances before he retired. He was a bad pick long before that diagnosis.

 

[Hodgy]

Wait.. are you saying that injuries matter? Are you saying they’re a valid excuse for bad performance? Good to know! I may refer you back to this post of yours in the future.

Even before his injuries took his career he was a soft 35 point average forward who was spoon fed top 6 and power play opportunities in every organization he played and he couldn’t even stick in Buffalo which is really really bad because he was a defensive train wreck. Personally don’t buy the injury excuse in Hodgson’s case. I think he got his payday and after that never put in the effort or really cared to put in the work to become a good player or saw the writing on the wall with the speed of the league and his lack of speed.

The fact that Karlsson was available and taken a mere 5 spots later should matter to you if it matters to you that Nylander was available 2 spots after Virtanen or Tkachuk/ Keller 1-2 spots after Juolevi. How do you explain the double standard? I don’t buy the line of fans not having Karlsson on their radar so therefore it was ok for professional scouting teams in hundred million dollar organizations to mess it up.

Unforeseeable career ending injuries absolutely shouldn't be considered in evaluating a draft pick. Like, this is pretty obvious stuff and not worth further debate. Reports are that Hodgson was playing through his debilitating disease throughout his professional career, and to ignore this is absolutely ridiculous. Interestingly, he was praised for his two way play in the OHL and at the WJCs. Perhaps he was poor defensively at the NHL level partly because he was playing with a degenerative disease.

With respect to the Karlsson, it isn't a double standard. The situations you are referencing were so god dam obviously different its difficult for me to not conclude that you are again posting intentionally stupid things. Anyone that paid even a little attention to the drafts you are referencing would know that there was no debate as to whether the Canucks should have picked Hodgson or Karlsson at the time of the draft. This is just something you are entirely making up after the fact ala Donald Trump. The debate at the time centred around Hodgson and Beach. As for the other two drafts you referenced, it was fiercely debated whether the Canucks should pick Nylander/Virtanen/Ehlers/Ritchie, or Juolevi/Tkachuk/Sergachev, and in fact.

The next time you post something intentionally stupid I am formally ignoring you.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

You "don't buy" medical reports? Because Hodgson's injury history was documented by medical report. So unless you are his doctor that examined him, thats just you ignoring facts...which is not surprising to most of us.
Also Karlsson was nowhere near the discussion for the 10th overall pick AT THE TIME OF THE DRAFT. Tkachuk was universally regarded as BPA AT THE TIME OF THE DRAFT. If you can't tell the difference in the 2 scenarios than I can't help you.

Karlsson was nowhere near the discussion of 10th but he went 15th? You’re just wrong here and I refer you to Mr. Brosky’s post below yours for confirmation.

I haven’t ever seen Hodgson’s medical reports. We don’t know much about the nature of his symptoms. Was he blacking out on the bench? In between periods? Was it every 15 minutes, every day, or once a month? Again, no evidence to conclude it had any impact on his in-game play where he was a defensive zone train wreck, soft, slow, and not even that skilled to make up for it. Bad pick.

 

[Hodgy]

Karlsson was not on most people’s radars but to say he wasn’t at all isn’t true. He was rising fast. I actually wanted the Canucks trading back so they could grab Myers or Karlsson + more picks that year. I remember because the very next year OEL was considered his years Karlsson who shot up the boards in the last quarter of the season and was projected to go anywhere from top 5 to 20th ovr.

bob Mackenzie I believe was the hype man behind both these guys. If it weren’t for that I was also happy with beach/Hodgson (preferred Wilson but he was taken by Nashville) if we went forward in 08.

I'm not claiming that Karlsson wasn't considered a good prospect at the time, but he would have been an off-the-board-pick at #10. He just wasn't a consideration for our pick, and Hodgson was ranked higher than him on basically all the lists I saw at the time. He fell to the Canucks at #10.

To compare him to Nylander/Ehlers/Tkachuk is laughably stupid.

 

[Canuck Luck]

I'm not claiming that Karlsson wasn't considered a good prospect at the time, but he would have been an off-the-board-pick at #10. He just wasn't a consideration for our pick, and Hodgson was ranked higher than him on basically all the lists I saw at the time. He fell to the Canucks at #10.

To compare him to Nylander/Ehlers/Tkachuk is laughably stupid.

True Karlsson was a hard projection he wasn’t even ranked as a 1st round talent most of the year and then shot up at the end to anywhere from 12-25. Exactly why I was comfortable trading back to get him as it was likely he would be available a few spots back.

Compared to the virtanen/juolevi picks bpa were nylander/ehlers and tkachuk. However with that said, virtanen was projected to go anywhere from 6-9 too. Juolevi I didn’t really track because I knew we would end up with either Dubois or tkachuk and thought there was no way we don’t walk out of the draft without one of these 2 guys.

 

[Hodgy]

Karlsson was nowhere near the discussion of 10th but he went 15th? You’re just wrong here and I refer you to Mr. Brosky’s post below yours for confirmation.

I haven’t ever seen Hodgson’s medical reports. We don’t know much about the nature of his symptoms. Was he blacking out on the bench? In between periods? Was it every 15 minutes, every day, or once a month? Again, no evidence to conclude it had any impact on his in-game play where he was a defensive zone train wreck, soft, slow, and not even that skilled to make up for it. Bad pick.

Refer to Mr. Brosky's post #39 for confirmation that you are comparing entirely different situations. Looks like we are done here.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Unforeseeable career ending injuries absolutely shouldn't be considered in evaluating a draft pick. Like, this is pretty obvious stuff and not worth further debate. Reports are that Hodgson was playing through his debilitating disease throughout his professional career, and to ignore this is absolutely ridiculous. Interestingly, he was praised for his two way play in the OHL and at the WJCs. Perhaps he was poor defensively at the NHL level partly because he was playing with a degenerative disease.

With respect to the Karlsson, it isn't a double standard. The situations you are referencing were so god dam obviously different its difficult for me to not conclude that you are again posting intentionally stupid things. Anyone that paid even a little attention to the drafts you are referencing would know that there was no debate as to whether the Canucks should have picked Hodgson or Karlsson at the time of the draft. This is just something you are entirely making up after the fact ala Donald Trump. The debate at the time centred around Hodgson and Beach. As for the other two drafts you referenced, it was fiercely debated whether the Canucks should pick Nylander/Virtanen/Ehlers/Ritchie, or Juolevi/Tkachuk/Sergachev, and in fact.

The next time you post something intentionally stupid I am formally ignoring you.

The evidence is in favour of Hodgson’s genetic disorder ending his career but there’s just not enough evidence to conclude it had any impact on his ability to skate or backcheck. You’re making baseless claims.

Re: Karlsson you’re saying it’s different because of who the fans and media thought the Canucks should pick? So missing a generational defence man who went 5 picks later is a-ok? I don’t buy it. Professional scouting teams in NHL organizations should know more than the average fan or media talking head. But even so, Karlsson was in the mix to go higher than he did. He was a big riser. It’s factually wrong to say no fans wanted him there because we have one @Ched Brosky in this thread telling us he was a fan who wanted Karlsson at 10 and there was in fact media hype on Karlsson.

 

[Serac]

Looking back at numerous mock drafts, Hodgson was firmly in the top 10 in every mock draft in 2008, whereas Karlsson was firmly in the late 20's, or even in the 2nd round by some people. Ottawa baffled people by taking him at 15, and the sens fan base were skeptical of him at first.

Tkachuk was the obvious choice to take at the time of the draft, and Vancouver baffled people by Not taking him at 5.

 

[Canuck Luck]

The evidence is in favour of Hodgson’s genetic disorder ending his career but there’s just not enough evidence to conclude it had any impact on his ability to skate or backcheck. You’re making baseless claims.

Re: Karlsson you’re saying it’s different because of who the fans and media thought the Canucks should pick? So missing a generational defence man who went 5 picks later is a-ok? I don’t buy it. Professional scouting teams in NHL organizations should know more than the average fan or media talking head. But even so, Karlsson was in the mix to go higher than he did. He was a big riser. It’s factually wrong to say no fans wanted him there because we have one @Ched Brosky in this thread telling us he was a fan who wanted Karlsson at 10 and there was in fact media hype on Karlsson.

There was hype around Karlsson for sure but he was still projected to go mid 1st-late 1st. He would have been a reach at 10. Doesn’t change the fact that I wanted one of hodgson/beach/Myers/Karlsson (preferably one of the d) but given both were considered reaches at 10 I was on here proposig trades back to 12-14 to grab one of those d-men. So the previous posters point does stand that Karlsson was not bpa at the time of the selection. He was not really even in the conversation at 10 for the general consensus. Hell bob Mackenzie, who was the sole contributor to hyping Karlsson up for me would have probably been shocked to see him go at 10.

Now compare that to virtanen. Virtanen was arguably not bpa. He wasnt a reach either. he was in the lower end of the consideration at 6. He was projected to go 6-9. I had him as my 3rd bpa at 6. Juolevi definitely was not bpa. I didn’t follow the draft outside of the top 4 and tkachuk much that year because I thought we were guaranteed tkachuk or Dubois. From what I remember juolevi was considered a top 10 pick but it was a toss up between him + sergachev + chychrun on who’s better. The fact sergachev went 9th makes me think juolevi would have gone 8-13.

 

[Hodgy]

The evidence is in favour of Hodgson’s genetic disorder ending his career but there’s just not enough evidence to conclude it had any impact on his ability to skate or backcheck. You’re making baseless claims.

Are you actually suggesting that a degenerative disease that effectively ended his career didn't affect his ability to skate? Ahh, if not, how did it end his career?

Re: Karlsson you’re saying it’s different because of who the fans and media thought the Canucks should pick? So missing a generational defence man who went 5 picks later is a-ok? I don’t buy it. Professional scouting teams in NHL organizations should know more than the average fan or media talking head. But even so, Karlsson was in the mix to go higher than he did. He was a big riser. It’s factually wrong to say no fans wanted him there because we have one @Ched Brosky in this thread telling us he was a fan who wanted Karlsson at 10 and there was in fact media hype on Karlsson.

No, I am saying that you are comparing entirely different circumstances. I have no problem holding NHL GMs to a higher standard and criticizing them with hindsight, but you don't need hindsight to criticize Benning passing on Ehlers/Nylander/Tkachuk, since, at the time of the draft, those players were higher ranked,, generally, then Virtanen and Juolevi. That is precisely the reason why Benning has been so harshly criticized for these picks.

The same cannot be said for Hodgson and Karlsson. The former was universally (if I recall correctly) ranked higher than the latter. Obviously, in hindsight, Karlsson was the better pick. But at the time, the Hodgson pick made a lot of sense.

As for Ched Brosky, he stated that he would have been fine trading down and selecting Karlsson or Myers. Are you conveniently ignoring that he never stated he would use the 10# overall pick for Karlsson? Is your reading comprehensive poor, or are you debating in bad faith? Honestly, just answer the question.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Karlsson was nowhere near the discussion of 10th but he went 15th? You’re just wrong here and I refer you to Mr. Brosky’s post below yours for confirmation.

I haven’t ever seen Hodgson’s medical reports. We don’t know much about the nature of his symptoms. Was he blacking out on the bench? In between periods? Was it every 15 minutes, every day, or once a month? Again, no evidence to conclude it had any impact on his in-game play where he was a defensive zone train wreck, soft, slow, and not even that skilled to make up for it. Bad pick.

Googled 2008 draft guide as that was 10 years ago and my memory isn't so great. First hit was a draft list from Future Consideration. Erik Karlsson listed at #56. I seem to remember Karlsson was seen as a reach even at #15. If you can find a list where Karlsson is ranked around #10, I would love to see it.
As for Hodgson, we do know what happened from the Sportsnet article (linked below for you, doubt you'll read it though). A quote from the article "Through those final years in his short career, he suffered from shortness of breath, blackouts and heart arrhythmia. Sometimes his body would shake for no apparent reason. He was tested for a wide range of ailments, including brain and lung cancer." Yeah those kind of symptoms will knock any players out of the league, Gillis' pick or not.
How retired NHLer Cody Hodgson is giving back to the game he loves - Sportsnet.ca

 

[sandwichbird2023]

If we are looking at different variables or factors...

Maybe Time on Ice would be a helpful factor as well? Higher usage defensemen who didn't score as many points would factor in better as well? Generally more reliable or more productive players get higher TOI.

Good idea, although trying to get the data would be an insane amount of work I imagine, especially the TOI from the 90s and before, if it even exist. Maybe Melvin has some ways to get those datas and factor it in?

 

[carrotshirt]

Woof. This thread veers between comedy and frustration, quite the ride.

I especially enjoyed the contention in the previous thread that a great deal more Benning draft picks (if he’d bothered to acquire them) would have little to no impact, despite the fact that his only arguable skill is drafting.

Thanks @Melvin for the research and tables, sorry they are being treated as witchcraft by some of HF’s finest. Keep up the good work!

 

[opendoor]

Who really cares about Gillis' drafting at this point? The key takeaway from Melvin's data is what the baseline for the Canucks' drafting results over the last half decade is given where they've been picking. If the baseline is 8-9 NHLers in 5 drafts, then that's the benchmark, not what a previous GM did (a GM who largely lost his job because the drafting wasn't good enough during his tenure). And given Benning's indisputable deficiencies in every single other aspect of being a GM, his drafting better be a hell of a lot better than the baseline.

I guess it's not surprising though. You continually see people impressed by crappy players who get undeserved ice time and put up numbers that look passable on the surface, but only if you're completely ignorant to how opportunity affects output. Benning is the Linden Vey or Markus Granlund of GMs.

 

[Zippgunn]

For those frustrated with the ending of the last MGMT thread:

Report OT, Flaming and Trolling posts. They will be dealt with. DO NOT Troll or Flame in kind. Push the issue to the MODS and we will handle it.

What is an "OT" post?

 

[rypper]

Tkachuk was the obvious choice to take at the time of the draft, and Vancouver baffled people by Not taking him at 5.

This was evident by the reaction of the fans both online and live when Jim Benning annouced "from the London Knights Vancouver select ... " and didn't say Matthew as the next word.