2021 NHL Draft Thread: Brackett and Friends

Status
Not open for further replies.

MuckOG

Registered User
May 18, 2012
15,519
5,587
Yes, and we do know that position of need will sometimes elevate a prospect over another prospect?

If a team has a group of players graded out about the same, then it makes sense to pick the player from that group that fills a position of need. Where it doesn't make sense, is to reach for a player that you have ranked much lower ONLY because they fill a position of need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaLoN

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,237
1,614
If a team has a group of players graded out about the same, then it makes sense to pick the player from that group that fills a position of need. Where it doesn't make sense, is to reach for a player that you have ranked much lower ONLY because they fill a position of need.

Depends; how do you grade a defenseman with a forward?
 

fentonsbrainchild

Registered User
Jul 29, 2019
1,037
548
Let’s all remember this discussion started because TSK said we should draft a RW.

If we draft anywhere from 12-20 the RW would still be ~3 years away from being a major contributor. Who knows if RW is a need in 3 years.

You always pick the best player left.
 

TaLoN

Red 5 standing by
Sponsor
May 30, 2010
50,820
24,493
Farmington, MN
Eh, I mean if you say BPA - we should have taken Perfetti over Rossi (as Perfetti ended up being the 5th best player on the ranking vs Rossi being the 6th best). Hell, Lundell is the 3rd best player for International Skaters. And then you have Askarov.

BPA only works if you have multiple holes.
BPA per your own draft board, not central scouting.

If BPA just meant per central scouting rankings, why would any team ever need to hire a scout in the first place?
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,237
1,614
Let’s all remember this discussion started because TSK said we should draft a RW.

If we draft anywhere from 12-20 the RW would still be ~3 years away from being a major contributor. Who knows if RW is a need in 3 years.

You always pick the best player left.

So, we should just keep picking defensemen even though we have three signed for the next 5-7 years? Are we going to trade Suter? Brodin? Spurgeon?

Right now, right wing is a hole in the lineup along with goaltending.

I mean again, you always pick the best player left? Does that mean we should have picked Askarov? Many have Askarov as the best player available at Minnesota's pick, but Minnesota picked center because they had a hole at center. Should we have picked Perfetti as many had him as the best player available, but he's a winger. Who determines what the BPA is?
 

MuckOG

Registered User
May 18, 2012
15,519
5,587
So, we should just keep picking defensemen even though we have three signed for the next 5-7 years? Are we going to trade Suter? Brodin? Spurgeon?

Right now, right wing is a hole in the lineup along with goaltending.

I mean again, you always pick the best player left? Does that mean we should have picked Askarov? Many have Askarov as the best player available at Minnesota's pick, but Minnesota picked center because they had a hole at center. Should we have picked Perfetti as many had him as the best player available, but he's a winger. Who determines what the BPA is?

Judd Brackett and staff...
 

TaLoN

Red 5 standing by
Sponsor
May 30, 2010
50,820
24,493
Farmington, MN
there doesn't seem to be any guarantee when it comes to BPA , until there is why do so many focus on that????
Because if you want the best shot of actually getting a real player, you take the player you feel has the best shot of a real NHL career, not take a player you feel has less of a chance, but plays a position you need now, even though it might not even be a need by the time that player is even ready for his chance.
Judd Brackett and staff...
Exactly, that's why they were hired in the first place.
 

DANOZ28

Registered User
May 22, 2012
6,877
427
nearest bar MN
can you name any draft year the top 10 went in correct order? i will always disagree with bpa because there has never been any proof it works. correct order meaning perfect redraft 5 years later
 
  • Like
Reactions: thestonedkoala

MuckOG

Registered User
May 18, 2012
15,519
5,587
can you name any draft year the top 10 went in correct order? i will always disagree with bpa because there has never been any proof it works.

You don't know how teams are doing their own rankings. They don't just go online and grab the latest CSS Rankings or HF Board mock draft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaLoN

TaLoN

Red 5 standing by
Sponsor
May 30, 2010
50,820
24,493
Farmington, MN
can you name any draft year the top 10 went in correct order? i will always disagree with bpa because there has never been any proof it works. correct order meaning perfect redraft 5 years later
It's a gamble. You're predicting futures of teenagers. An imperfect science.

I guarantee if you start reaching for position regularly you will find less success than if you look for better players overall.

You pick from a larger pool, you have more chances of success than reaching from a smaller pool.

The odds are against you in both scenarios since most prospects fail, but you have a higher chance of success when there is a larger number of successful prospects in the pool.

Thus, best of all available gives higher odds of succeeding.

That said, you still need to be good at talent evaluation to get it done as well... otherwise you're still going to have trouble identifying the good ones in the first place. Judd B. Has a pretty damned good track record though. I trust a draft board he puts together at this point.
 

2Pair

Registered User
Oct 8, 2017
12,633
5,103
can you name any draft year the top 10 went in correct order? i will always disagree with bpa because there has never been any proof it works. correct order meaning perfect redraft 5 years later
What exactly is your alternative to the BPA theory?
 

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,517
4,192
Its excusable to forgo BPA with the C position in early rounds. Hardest position to find NHL talent. You can find a capable wing or D via FA any year. Cs don't go to market.

You definitely don't target wings in the draft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thestonedkoala

AKL

Danila Yurov Fan Club President
Sponsor
Dec 10, 2012
39,633
18,055
Its excusable to forgo BPA with the C position in early rounds. Hardest position to find NHL talent. You can find a capable wing or D via FA any year. Cs don't go to market.

You definitely don't target wings in the draft.

You don't target anyone. You take the BPA from your list when it's your turn to draft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaLoN

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,517
4,192
You don't target anyone. You take the BPA from your list when it's your turn to draft.

It's naïve to think there aren't times when a team will forgo BPA for positional need.

There is zero chance number 9 wasn't going to be a prospective C this year for instance.

Most of the time, most years, yes it's BPA.
 

MuckOG

Registered User
May 18, 2012
15,519
5,587
Its excusable to forgo BPA with the C position in early rounds. Hardest position to find NHL talent. You can find a capable wing or D via FA any year. Cs don't go to market.

That entirely depends how much of a separation there is between the center and the BPA. If it's negligible, then take the center. But if you have 5 players at different positions that are clearly ranked ahead of that center, it would be a mistake to reach that far.

You definitely don't target wings in the draft.

Depends on the winger. Would you pass up a player like Matthew Tkachuk for a chance to draft Tyson Jost or Logan Brown, just because center is your greatest need? I wouldn't.
 

MuckOG

Registered User
May 18, 2012
15,519
5,587
Do you think Nashville should have taken Lundell over Askarov?

I would've taken Lundell over Askarov because I think that he was the BPA at that point. Nashville probably had Askarov as the better player. We will see in about 5 years who was right.
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,237
1,614
I would've taken Lundell over Askarov because I think that he was the BPA at that point. Nashville probably had Askarov as the better player.

Perfectly my point (and personally not inclined to take a goalie in the first round, unless it's either later or a team has two first rounders and even then...I'm kind of bullish on Wallstedt myself and wouldn't be upset if we took him)
 

2Pair

Registered User
Oct 8, 2017
12,633
5,103
I’m not going to try to understand BPA for any of you :laugh:
It's actually amazing the number of people that don't seem to grasp the simplest of concepts.

I think that there are a few posters that think each team is handed a list from Gary Bettman and that is how BPA is determined.

Perfectly my point (and personally not inclined to take a goalie in the first round, unless it's either later or a team has two first rounders and even then...I'm kind of bullish on Wallstedt myself and wouldn't be upset if we took him)
You just contradicted yourself 4 times in the span of 2 sentences.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DANOZ28

Registered User
May 22, 2012
6,877
427
nearest bar MN
What exactly is your alternative to the BPA theory?
im talking about posters thinking they just know who the bpa is. of coarse teams make a list and nobody bats 1000. didn't mn think filip johansson was bpa? oops fumble didn't edm think yakupov was #1? again show me proof such as a redraft where any team always gets it right. no penalty for a player that gets a serious injury after being drafted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thestonedkoala

2Pair

Registered User
Oct 8, 2017
12,633
5,103
im talking about posters thinking they just know who the bpa is. of coarse teams make a list and nobody bats 1000. didn't mn think filip johansson was bpa? oops fumble didn't edm think yakupov was #1? again show me proof such as a redraft where any team always gets it right. no penalty for a player that gets a serious injury after being drafted.
Any chance of you actually answering my question?
 

DANOZ28

Registered User
May 22, 2012
6,877
427
nearest bar MN
so to answer your ? if you need a C and there isn't a massive difference in talent why the heck would you draft a D? key word massive.
 

TaLoN

Red 5 standing by
Sponsor
May 30, 2010
50,820
24,493
Farmington, MN
im talking about posters thinking they just know who the bpa is. of coarse teams make a list and nobody bats 1000. didn't mn think filip johansson was bpa? oops fumble didn't edm think yakupov was #1? again show me proof such as a redraft where any team always gets it right. no penalty for a player that gets a serious injury after being drafted.
Does every player get it right at a poker table? No, they don't.

That doesn't mean there isn't a skill in existent for a player to get it right more often than others.

Same with drafting. If you have the right people, drafting BPA will get it right more often than the competition, and definitely more often than reaching for positions with every pick will get you.

Why you think you need to see every team get perfect in a years later redraft, no idea. Nobody has ever claimed all teams succeed all the time with BPA. They will succeed more often than reaching for positions though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad