18/19 Tank Tracker Part Deux

[obey86]

As for your first paragraph, none of that refutes the contention that lottery players are what it takes to truly contend for a Cup.

Sure there are 'down' draft years, but it's still all relative. Even in those drafts, the top end still tends to look better than the players chosen later, the balance remains largely the same. I disagree about 2014, Larkin and Pastrnak have broken out as stars but otherwise you have 50-goal, 100pt Draisatl, 60pt Reinhart, and #1 dman Ekblad. Still a respectable top 3 and all better players than the rest of the top 10. I'm not going to do a deep dive into the specifics of each draft but the odds are still heavily balanced towards the top 3.

I agree that with the lottery the way it's structured you need luck. There's not much you can do apart from cross your fingers. But I disagree that there are 'plenty' of players we drool over in the top 10. Or at least I don't so much disagree as much as I would amend the statement. There are plenty of players we would drool over, and there are just as many players that we would be livid if that's what our picks turn into. For every Monahan there is a Virtanen. There are twice as many kicks at the can from #5-10 as there are from #1-3, with half as many stars to show for it. I'm not really suggesting anything other than how important lottery picks are.



The first sentence is not incorrect at all. Yeah we know it's Zadina specifically, just like every other team who ever picked at 6th knew who their player was. Some made it, others didn't. Some became stars, most didn't. Now that we know it's Zadina, what has he done that has you so confident that he will surpass the average of his draft position?

But again, why are you talking about Zadina in a hypothetical scenario where he was picked 3rd? He wasn't picked 3rd he was picked 6th. Who says they would have picked Zadina had they gotten the 3rd OA? The fact is the teams that picked 3rd-5th chose other players because they thought those players were better.

Yes it is. You evaluate a specific prospect based on his own strengths, weaknesses, and how he is developing or not developing. You don't evaluate a prospect based on the strengths, weaknesses, and development of the average of the player(s) from the previous draft(s).

If a team picked Eichel #2 and Nolan Patrick #2 in consecutive years, you would say that they have the same chance to succeed/bust because they were both drafted in the same slot? No you wouldn't. You would realize that Eichel and Patrick are different prospects, with different strengths and weaknesses, and different chances of succeeding....despite both being picked at #2. Like any logical person would do.

 

[The Zermanator]

Yes it is. You evaluate a specific prospect based on his own strengths, weaknesses, and how he is developing or not developing. You don't evaluate a prospect based on the strengths, weaknesses, and development of the average of the player(s) from the previous draft(s).

If a team picked Eichel #2 and Nolan Patrick #2 in consecutive years, you would say that they have the same chance to succeed/bust because they were both drafted in the same slot? No you wouldn't. You would realize that Eichel and Patrick are different prospects, with different strengths and weaknesses, and different chances of succeeding....despite both being picked at #2. Like any logical person would do.

Pretty convenient that you chose to compare the 2nd OA from one of the deepest drafts of all time, to the 2nd OA from an average draft... The top end especially can vary wildly from year to year.

Yes it does matter where they were picked. Wouldn't it be just absolutely incredible if every single top 10 pick in this magical 2018 draft became a star? It would be incredible because it's something that has never and will never happen. We know some are going to fail, we know from past drafts where those failures are more likely to occur.

Every single player ever picked has been a 'different prospect, with different strengths and weaknesses, and different chances of succeeding.' Doesn't change the fact that players who are picked at 5 have a better track record of succeeding over players picked at 6, who have a better track record than players picked at 7, etc, etc. A 7th OA from one particular year might be better than a 5th OA from another year, but 5th OAs tend to be better than 7th OAs. There have been several stars picked at #6, and there have been several duds picked there as well. Every single one of those players looked great before the draft, if they hadn't they wouldn't have been chosen where they were. They were all individuals too, but the evaluations of them were wrong. And that is something that happens at #6 a whole lot more than it does at 1-3. You are getting waaaay ahead of yourself if you consider Zadina anything more than what he is, a 6th OA pick.

 

[obey86]

Pretty convenient that you chose to compare the 2nd OA from one of the deepest drafts of all time, to the 2nd OA from an average draft... The top end especially can vary wildly from year to year.

Yes it does matter where they were picked. Wouldn't it be just absolutely incredible if every single top 10 pick in this magical 2018 draft became a star? It would be incredible because it's something that has never and will never happen. We know some are going to fail, we know from past drafts where those failures are more likely to occur.

Every single player ever picked has been a 'different prospect, with different strengths and weaknesses, and different chances of succeeding.' Doesn't change the fact that players who are picked at 5 have a better track record of succeeding over players picked at 6, who have a better track record than players picked at 7, etc, etc. A 7th OA from one particular year might be better than a 5th OA from another year, but 5th OAs tend to be better than 7th OAs. There have been several stars picked at #6, and there have been several duds picked there as well. Every single one of those players looked great before the draft, if they hadn't they wouldn't have been chosen where they were. They were all individuals too, but the evaluations of them were wrong. And that is something that happens at #6 a whole lot more than it does at 1-3. You are getting waaaay ahead of yourself if you consider Zadina anything more than what he is, a 6th OA pick.

Hey genius. As you mentioned, some drafts are stronger than others, meaning sometimes the #X pick in this draft will be different than the #X pick in next years draft. That was the point. Also, we are almost a year after Zadina was drafted -- we aren't going by pre-draft evaluations anymore. How he performed and grown or not grown in the past year is more important than how he was ranked pre-draft. It's pathetic that you are still arguing this.

I don't care if you think Zadina sucks as a prospect, maybe he does. I don't think he's a guarantee either. But judge him based on how he has performed and grown or not performed and not grown, and his skill set, don't judge him based on how 2010 #6 pick Brett Connolly has performed in the NHL -- because that's just stupid.

 

[The Zermanator]

Hey genius. As you mentioned, some drafts are stronger than others, meaning sometimes the #X pick in this draft will be different than the #X pick in next years draft. That was the point. Also, we are almost a year after Zadina was drafted -- we aren't going by pre-draft evaluations anymore. How he performed and grown or not grown in the past year is more important than how he was ranked pre-draft. It's pathetic that you are still arguing this.

I don't care if you think Zadina sucks as a prospect, maybe he does. I don't think he's a guarantee either. But judge him based on how he has performed and grown or not performed and not grown, and his skill set, don't judge him based on how 2010 #6 pick Brett Connolly has performed in the NHL -- because that's just stupid.

Yes, and I've asked a few times now what he's done to set himself apart from those picked before him, either in his own draft, or previous #6s? Care to answer that for once? Brett Connolly had a better post draft year in the AHL than Zadina did. How is he doing now? What about Virtanen? Or Zacha? Saying he's 'like a #3' is utterly baseless and meaningless.

That's the point, which you keep missing again and again, genius. They all look good before the draft, they wouldn't have been picked in the top 10 if they didn't, genius. They looked good in their D+1 too. There's a reason some players go #1 and others go #6. The ones at #6 have flaws, flaws that could have huge implications for what they end up as. Zadina is no exception.

I never said Zadina was a bad prospect, remains to be seen what he is. But you have no concrete information to go on other than he was picked 6th OA. Anything more than that is obfuscation.

 

[obey86]

Yes, and I've asked a few times now what he's done to set himself apart from those picked before him, either in his own draft, or previous #6s? Care to answer that for once? Brett Connolly had a better post draft year in the AHL than Zadina did. How is he doing now? What about Virtanen? Or Zacha? Saying he's 'like a #3' is utterly baseless and meaningless.

That's the point, which you keep missing again and again, genius. They all look good before the draft, they wouldn't have been picked in the top 10 if they didn't, genius. They looked good in their D+1 too. There's a reason some players go #1 and others go #6. The ones at #6 have flaws, flaws that could have huge implications for what they end up as. Zadina is no exception.

I never said Zadina was a bad prospect, remains to be seen what he is. But you have no concrete information to go on other than he was picked 6th OA. Anything more than that is obfuscation.

Hey dude, i'm not arguing he's going to be better than Brett Connolly. I'm arguing that how Brett Connolly (or any other player drafted at #6 in NHL history, or any average of players drafted at #6 in NHL history) has no bearing on how he will do an an NHL forward. I'm not sure what you don't understand.

Just like Jack Eichel and Nolan Patrick weren't equally likely to bust, Zadina and Connolly (or OEL, or Sean Monahan, or whoever) aren't equally likely to bust just because they were drafted in the same slot.

NOT ALL #6 PROSPECTS HAVE EQUAL LIKELIHOOD TO SUCCEED. SOME ARE MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED AND SOME ARE LESS LIKELY. NOT. ROCKET. SCIENCE.

 

[The Zermanator]

Hey dude, i'm not arguing he's going to be better than Brett Connolly. I'm arguing that how Brett Connolly (or any other player drafted at #6 in NHL history, or any average of players drafted at #6 in NHL history) has no bearing on how he will do an an NHL forward. I'm not sure what you don't understand.

Just like Jack Eichel and Nolan Patrick weren't equally likely to bust, Zadina and Connolly (or OEL, or Sean Monahan, or whoever) aren't equally likely to bust just because they were drafted in the same slot.

NOT ALL #6 PROSPECTS HAVE EQUAL LIKELIHOOD TO SUCCEED. SOME ARE MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED AND SOME ARE LESS LIKELY. NOT. ROCKET. SCIENCE.

You still haven't answered my question so I'll just keep asking it until you do. Feel free to use all caps if you'd like.

What has Zadina done so far to set himself apart? To give you the confidence that he'll be more like a Monahan than a Connolly? What makes him more likely to succeed?

 

[obey86]

You still haven't answered my question so I'll just keep asking it until you do. Feel free to use all caps if you'd like.

What has Zadina done so far to set himself apart? To give you the confidence that he'll be more like a Monahan than a Connolly? What makes him more likely to succeed?

I never once said he was more likely to be a Monahan than a Connolly so I am unable to answer that question. I never once said he was more likely to succeed than Connolly so I cannot answer that question. And if my responses indicated either of those things that was not my intention.

I was not coming to a conclusion on how I feel about Zadina as a prospect. Anyone can have their own opinion, but it should be based on that specific prospect - not how other random players have performed or developed in the past.

 

[Hen Kolland]

The first sentence is not incorrect at all. Yeah we know it's Zadina specifically, just like every other team who ever picked at 6th knew who their player was. Some made it, others didn't. Some became stars, most didn't. Now that we know it's Zadina, what has he done that has you so confident that he will surpass the average of his draft position?

But again, why are you talking about Zadina in a hypothetical scenario where he was picked 3rd? He wasn't picked 3rd he was picked 6th. Who says they would have picked Zadina had they gotten the 3rd OA? The fact is the teams that picked 3rd-5th chose other players because they thought those players were better.

This is so incredibly dense. His point is: you have a player who exists. A real person. Historical averages to not influence his success as an NHL player...he will be influencing the historical averages over time. This isn’t a two way street. It’s not like teams picking #6 are doing so saying to themselves “well shit this guy has a better chance of failing than not.” I feel like you have abandoned reality and the only discussion point is historical averages. Nothing any individual player drafted can do, their career is already predetermined by historical averages. Or at least that is what you’re saying in an attempt to not accept being incorrect.

 

[The Zermanator]

I never once said he was more likely to be a Monahan than a Connolly so I am unable to answer that question. I never once said he was more likely to succeed than Connolly so I cannot answer that question. And if my responses indicated either of those things that was not my intention.

I was not coming to a conclusion on how I feel about Zadina as a prospect. Anyone can have their own opinion, but it should be based on that specific prospect - not how other random players have performed or developed in the past.

Of course every player's evaluation should be based on himself. I'm not saying 'Monahan/Connolly became _____ so Zadina will become _____. What is important about the fact that Zadina was picked #6 is that it is a reflection of where he is relative to his peers. That doesn't change all that much 1 year after the draft. Everyone around Zadina had respectable years. So we still have to evaluate him in the context that there were 5 teams who chose to pass on him. That's why I refer to him as a 6th OA pick. He is relative to his peers what past #6s were relative to their peers.

Ultimately you never know until these guys hit the NHL, apart from the very best in the lottery. Which is what this whole debate had been about initially. That's the importance of a lottery pick. It's a player you can pencil in as a star. At #6, well that's considerably more murky. He could be Monahan level, he could be Connolly level. He still looks good now, remains to be seen whether he will continue to look good in the NHL.

 

[The Zermanator]

This is so incredibly dense. His point is: you have a player who exists. A real person. Historical averages to not influence his success as an NHL player...he will be influencing the historical averages over time. This isn’t a two way street. It’s not like teams picking #6 are doing so saying to themselves “well **** this guy has a better chance of failing than not.” I feel like you have abandoned reality and the only discussion point is historical averages. Nothing any individual player drafted can do, their career is already predetermined by historical averages. Or at least that is what you’re saying in an attempt to not accept being incorrect.

So it's just a coincidence then that players picked 1st tend to be better than 2nd, who tend to be better than 3rd, etc?

Quote me where I said Zadina's potential was predetermined by his draft position. It's all available to you, there's no reason you couldn't show me in my own words where I said that.

I'll ask you the same (still unanswered) question I asked obey. What gives you the idea that Zadina will end up on the Monahan (who plays like a lottery player) end of the scale vs the Connolly (a 3rd liner) end?

That's all I'm saying. That we can't assume anything more than Zadina being a 6th OA. And you know the thing about 6th OAs? They're unpredictable, they're hit and miss.

 

[Hen Kolland]

So it's just a coincidence then that players picked 1st tend to be better than 2nd, who tend to be better than 3rd, etc?

Quote me where I said Zadina's potential was predetermined by his draft position. It's all available to you, there's no reason you couldn't show me in my own words where I said that.

I'll ask you the same (still unanswered) question I asked obey. What gives you the idea that Zadina will end up on the Monahan (who plays like a lottery player) end of the scale vs the Connolly (a 3rd liner) end?

That's all I'm saying. That we can't assume anything more than Zadina being a 6th OA. And you know the thing about 6th OAs? They're unpredictable, they're hit and miss.

I’ll ask you a few counter questions, why are you type-casting third overall players like Connolly and sixth overall players like Monahan? Why are you bringing players into discussions that don’t reflect Zadina’s skill set? Why does it matter at all when players were selected?

Once a player has been drafted, I could not give a single f*** about when they were drafted. As far as I care, as soon as players are drafted, they’re all on a perfectly level playing field to determine who the best in the draft class is. I don’t care if they were drafted 1st, 3rd, 6th, 22nd, 57th, or 204th. Which brings me back to my original post, how does being selected 6th overall impact Zadina’s likelihood of being any more or less likely to succeed than any other player? Because players like Monahan were successful? Because players like Connolly were unsuccessful? Seems like a massive stretch considering Zadina is unique to himself

 

[obey86]

So it's just a coincidence then that players picked 1st tend to be better than 2nd, who tend to be better than 3rd, etc?

Quote me where I said Zadina's potential was predetermined by his draft position. It's all available to you, there's no reason you couldn't show me in my own words where I said that.

I'll ask you the same (still unanswered) question I asked obey. What gives you the idea that Zadina will end up on the Monahan (who plays like a lottery player) end of the scale vs the Connolly (a 3rd liner) end?

That's all I'm saying. That we can't assume anything more than Zadina being a 6th OA. And you know the thing about 6th OAs? They're unpredictable, they're hit and miss.

So if Zadina had 10 points in 70 AHL games this season, that would have no bearing on how you view him as a prospect moving forward compared to when he was drafted? Or if he had 45 goals in 70 AHL games this season, the would have no bearing on how you view him as a prospect moving forward compared to when he was drafted?

In either scenario above, he's still just a #6 overall pick that has no better than a 50/50 chance (or whatever the "average" hit rate is for #6 picks) of success and his probability of success is roughly the same as any previously drafted player at #6?

 

[The Zermanator]

I’ll ask you a few counter questions, why are you type-casting third overall players like Connolly and sixth overall players like Monahan? Why are you bringing players into discussions that don’t reflect Zadina’s skill set? Why does it matter at all when players were selected?

Once a player has been drafted, I could not give a single **** about when they were drafted. As far as I care, as soon as players are drafted, they’re all on a perfectly level playing field to determine who the best in the draft class is. I don’t care if they were drafted 1st, 3rd, 6th, 22nd, 57th, or 204th. Which brings me back to my original post, how does being selected 6th overall impact Zadina’s likelihood of being any more or less likely to succeed than any other player? Because players like Monahan were successful? Because players like Connolly were unsuccessful? Seems like a massive stretch considering Zadina is unique to himself

So if Zadina had 10 points in 70 AHL games this season, that would have no bearing on how you view him as a prospect moving forward compared to when he was drafted? Or if he had 45 goals in 70 AHL games this season, the would have no bearing on how you view him as a prospect moving forward compared to when he was drafted?

In either scenario above, he's still just a #6 overall pick that has no better than a 50/50 chance (or whatever the "average" hit rate is for #6 picks) of success and his probability of success is roughly the same as any previously drafted player at #6?

What are you two even arguing?

What do we know about Zadina today that we didn't a year ago? What was this season's big revelation? A moderately successful AHL season, an underwhelming WJC, and a brief stint in the NHL where he wasn't bad or good?

I've specifically made a point not to mention anything about what Zadina will be. You can't make any specific predictions/evaluations for him as an individual because that data simply doesn't exist yet. Historical precedent may not determine what Zadina is, but it's the only data we have. At this juncture, the only thing we can use to have an idea about Zadina is historical precedent. Averages exist and it's the best we have to go on right now, absent other data.

From this Sportsnet article: Analyzing the value of NHL draft picks - Sportsnet.ca

Is that so hard to comprehend?

 

[Hen Kolland]

What are you two even arguing?

What do we know about Zadina today that we didn't a year ago? What was this season's big revelation? A moderately successful AHL season, an underwhelming WJC, and a brief stint in the NHL where he wasn't bad or good?

I've specifically made a point not to mention anything about what Zadina will be. You can't make any specific predictions/evaluations for him as an individual because that data simply doesn't exist yet. Historical precedent may not determine what Zadina is, but it's the only data we have. At this juncture, the only thing we can use to have an idea about Zadina is historical precedent. Averages exist and it's the best we have to go on right now, absent other data.

From this Sportsnet article: Analyzing the value of NHL draft picks - Sportsnet.ca

Is that so hard to comprehend?

Yes. Because it’s a load of shit. Why does the historical performance of players who aren’t Filip Zadina get applied? If you want to say he doesn’t have enough statistical evidence to prove he is any more or any less than what we drafted, I’m 100% okay with that. I don’t have a problem with that. My argument is simply put: how in the world is using someone else’s statistics deemed to be credible or applicable to the player in question? I don’t know if the way it’s being asked is confusing, but you are simply saying that all 6th overall picks are the exact same. Even if you aren’t directly saying it, you applying these odds of success (which aren’t even real odds, just your opinion) is grouping all sixth overall picks together and not viewing them in any sort of context. It’s such a flawed thought process

 

[The Zermanator]

Yes. Because it’s a load of ****. Why does the historical performance of players who aren’t Filip Zadina get applied? If you want to say he doesn’t have enough statistical evidence to prove he is any more or any less than what we drafted, I’m 100% okay with that. I don’t have a problem with that. My argument is simply put: how in the world is using someone else’s statistics deemed to be credible or applicable to the player in question? I don’t know if the way it’s being asked is confusing, but you are simply saying that all 6th overall picks are the exact same. Even if you aren’t directly saying it, you applying these odds of success (which aren’t even real odds, just your opinion) is grouping all sixth overall picks together and not viewing them in any sort of context. It’s such a flawed thought process

Look at that chart. Notice how that bar is basically vertical at the start? Yeah, the drop of is thaaaat drastic. That's called data. I'll say it reeeeal simple and hold your hand through it. The drop off in quality is steeep the further you go in the top 10. That's based on real data, you know, facts. So when they say an expected P/g for a 1st OA is around 0.82, and for a 6th OA closer to 0.4, that's based on real data. Sure, Zadina could buck the trend and become a Monahan. But then again I could randomly find $20 walking down the street.

How am I saying all 6th OA picks are exactly the same? You keep trying to condescend to me but you have a serious reading comprehension problem if that's what you gleaned from it. An analytics article by a major hockey publication specifically outlines an expected P/g by draft position and you two are pretending this is a thing that doesn't exist. Thanks for the laugh boys

 

[Hen Kolland]

Look at that chart. Notice how that bar is basically vertical at the start? Yeah, the drop of is thaaaat drastic. That's called data. I'll say it reeeeal simple and hold your hand through it. The drop off in quality is steeep the further you go in the top 10. That's based on real data, you know, facts. So when they say an expected P/g for a 1st OA is around 0.82, and for a 6th OA closer to 0.4, that's based on real data. Sure, Zadina could buck the trend and become a Monahan. But then again I could randomly find $20 walking down the street.

How am I saying all 6th OA picks are exactly the same? You keep trying to condescend to me but you have a serious reading comprehension problem if that's what you gleaned from it. An analytics article by a major hockey publication specifically outlines a theoretical expected P/g by draft position and you two are pretending this is a thing that doesn't exist. Thanks for the laugh boys

I’m not being condescending, you should take a peek in the mirror, bud. I won’t bring your personal intelligence into the conversation because, you know, I like to be a decent human.

But since you are taking this down a path increasingly more and more toxic, I’ll bow out and let you take the ego boost that comes with being the guy who got the last word in.

 

[The Zermanator]

I’m not being condescending, you should take a peek in the mirror, bud. I won’t bring your personal intelligence into the conversation because, you know, I like to be a decent human.

But since you are taking this down a path increasingly more and more toxic, I’ll bow out and let you take the ego boost that comes with being the guy who got the last word in.

Ummmm...

This is so incredibly dense. His point is: you have a player who exists. A real person. Historical averages to not influence his success as an NHL player...he will be influencing the historical averages over time. This isn’t a two way street. It’s not like teams picking #6 are doing so saying to themselves “well **** this guy has a better chance of failing than not.” I feel like you have abandoned reality and the only discussion point is historical averages. Nothing any individual player drafted can do, their career is already predetermined by historical averages. Or at least that is what you’re saying in an attempt to not accept being incorrect.

Yes. Because it’s a load of ****. Why does the historical performance of players who aren’t Filip Zadina get applied? If you want to say he doesn’t have enough statistical evidence to prove he is any more or any less than what we drafted, I’m 100% okay with that. I don’t have a problem with that. My argument is simply put: how in the world is using someone else’s statistics deemed to be credible or applicable to the player in question? I don’t know if the way it’s being asked is confusing, but you are simply saying that all 6th overall picks are the exact same. Even if you aren’t directly saying it, you applying these odds of success (which aren’t even real odds, just your opinion) is grouping all sixth overall picks together and not viewing them in any sort of context. It’s such a flawed thought process

Have a nice day, bud.

 

[obey86]

Zermanator, with all due respect, an average of historical #6 picks does not tell me how good (or bad) of a prospect this specific, individual player is. Do you really not understand that?

Again, did Jack Eichel and Nolan Patrick have the same chance of success when drafted? Since they appeared on the same point on your chart, is that really what you believe?

Maybe your point isn’t being made clear enough but to me (and Hen Kolland) it appears you are saying a #6 pick in 2017 has the exact same chance of success as a #6 pick in 2018 because we know historically, what the likelihood of that #6 picked player succeeding is. If that’s not what you’re saying, can you please clarify?

 

[The Zermanator]

Zermanator, with all due respect, an average of historical #6 picks does not tell me how good (or bad) of a prospect this specific, individual player is. Do you really not understand that?

Again, did Jack Eichel and Nolan Patrick have the same chance of success when drafted? Since they appeared on the same point on your chart, is that really what you believe?

Maybe your point isn’t being made clear enough but to me (and Hen Kolland) it appears you are saying a #6 pick in 2017 has the exact same chance of success as a #6 pick in 2018 because we know historically, what the likelihood of that #6 picked player succeeding is. If that’s not what you’re saying, can you please clarify?

I'm saying that each draft position, like was outlined in that article and chart, has an expected value. This expected value isn't just pulled out of thin air. The people who compile all this data and analyze it aren't doing it just to waste their time. They use real data to get an idea of what can be reasonably expected from a player drafted at each position. They are using the past to give an idea of what to expect in the future. This isn't some hocus pocus, analyzing the past to help predict the future is something that gets used in many areas of life.

As far as Zadina is concerned, short of knowing anything more concrete about him, this expected value is all we have to go on. So far, Zadina has not done anything to stand out from players who exploded or players who busted, or anyone really. We just simply don't have that data yet, he's barely scratched the NHL. How many players looked great at lower levels only to fizzle out once they hit the hardest league in the world? All we have to go on is history to give an expected value for a pick.

Again, this all began as a debate about the importance of lottery picks. It's not impossible for a 6th OA to reach lottery player level, just like it's not impossible for a lottery player to bust out. But when you have a lottery player in your hand, you have certain expectations of them. Likewise, you can have a 6th OA and have certain expectations of them. Until Zadina proves he is more than what his draft position would indicate (like Monahan did before him), then that's all we can reasonably expect from him.

 

[Hen Kolland]

The people who compile all this data and analyze it aren't doing it just to waste their time. They use real data to get an idea of what can be reasonably expected from a player drafted at each position. They are using the past to give an idea of what to expect in the future. This isn't some hocus pocus, analyzing the past to help predict the future is something that gets used in many areas of life.

Being objective, I believe this is where you and I split when it comes to how we digest this chart. Yes historical data is important to forecasting the future. But the only people who are consuming this particular data presented are average fans, like you and I, and the media for discussion points. I illustrated that earlier when I mentioned how teams aren’t drafting players based on this chart or historical performance of other players. Because this chart is just some arbitrary data set including defensemen, and defensive minded forwards, and big guys, and little guys, and fast guys and slow guys. It’s severely lacking constraints to make the message a meaningful one. Continuing on Zadina, how can this chart tell me what to anticipate out of a Czech import winger known primarily for an elite level shot? It doesn’t provide value in that area of decision making.

The only opportunity this would provide to an organization would come if a team was looking at trading for draft picks, and even then I question whether or not that would be all that relevant in the decision making process.

In the end, the debates have appeared to divide in two directions. You wanted to illustrate the value of a top 3 pick, which I don’t think anyone will argue against, and I think the other direction is looking at the value available in this particular draft, or any draft for that matter. As soon as the teams settle in their final standing, the chart doesn’t have relevance. It doesn’t have the necessary substance to assess what draft position is likely to be more likely to succeed than another because it depends on the teams drafting, their specific needs, and the depth of the draft or the extent of the exposure or risk associated with picks.

So I apologize for the lack of focus on the full scope of your end of the discussion, but when I joined, it had gotten very specific to Zadina and how this chart could be used to infer what his potential is, and I think I’ve addressed why I disagree with following that route in order to arrive at a conclusion.

 

[odin1981]

This discussion is kinda hard because if you look back at say the past 10 #6 picks you have to take into account how deep each individual draft was as well.

Without that taken into account there is a bit of a misnomer. Because in low talent years with only say like 1 clear cut great prospect and 2-3 very good and then a clear tier below after those #6's won't stand out more than likely.

While a deep draft could procure a pick that would go say 2-4 in a lean year (Crosby draft for example). So not all 6's are equal.

 

[Roomba With a Bauer]

I posted in the last thread that I would ban myself from HFboards if the Wings didn't fall into the 8th pick. Since the lowest they can draft is 7th, I am honor bound to ban myself.

Peace out, bitches.

 

[Red Stanley]

Yes, and I've asked a few times now what he's done to set himself apart from those picked before him, either in his own draft, or previous #6s? Care to answer that for once? Brett Connolly had a better post draft year in the AHL than Zadina did. How is he doing now? What about Virtanen? Or Zacha? Saying he's 'like a #3' is utterly baseless and meaningless.

That's the point, which you keep missing again and again, genius. They all look good before the draft, they wouldn't have been picked in the top 10 if they didn't, genius. They looked good in their D+1 too. There's a reason some players go #1 and others go #6. The ones at #6 have flaws, flaws that could have huge implications for what they end up as. Zadina is no exception.

I never said Zadina was a bad prospect, remains to be seen what he is. But you have no concrete information to go on other than he was picked 6th OA. Anything more than that is obfuscation.

Zadina was ranked #3 at the time of the draft if I remember correctly. If we're going to disregard pre-draft rankings, then that kind of undermines the "top 3" standard, don't you think? Of course there was a reason he dropped to 6. It's because every draft is unique in terms of both the draftees and the teams picking them. That doesn't mean we weren't lucky he dropped down to us. But I guess we won't know for a few more years whether teams were crazy for passing him over regardless of his overall ranking. My point is that where a prospect is selected is more of a reflection on the team making the selection rather than the prospect himself. There are exceptions, of course, but even those aren't without their own controversies. The only thing that changes with Zadina going at #6 rather than the expected #3 is the narrative.

 

[Shaman464]

Zadina was ranked #3 at the time of the draft if I remember correctly. If we're going to disregard pre-draft rankings, then that kind of undermines the "top 3" standard, don't you think? Of course there was a reason he dropped to 6. It's because every draft is unique in terms of both the draftees and the teams picking them. That doesn't mean we weren't lucky he dropped down to us. But I guess we won't know for a few more years whether teams were crazy for passing him over regardless of his overall ranking. My point is that where a prospect is selected is more of a reflection on the team making the selection rather than the prospect himself. There are exceptions, of course, but even those aren't without their own controversies. The only thing that changes with Zadina going at #6 rather than the expected #3 is the narrative.

It's too bad that points are the most tangible way to rate draft picks. There might be considerations over ppg that other teams selected players (Montreal needed center depth, etc). But, I would definitely peg Zadina as someone who is likely to over perform his draft spot.

 

[Gniwder]

Boston is going to score 5 goals in the last 4 minutes to win game 7 because I was told that a team cannot win the Cup without a lottery pick, elite talent, a 40 goal scorer, and 1 PPG 1st line players.