How Well Have the Vancouver Canucks Drafted Since 2000?

[timw33]

Yeah it would be interesting to see a version of Sham where he doesn't have the benefit of hindsight and just picks the highest-scoring CHL'er available first of all. Though if the Canucks can't outperform that method then you're literally better off just using hockeydb.

What do you mean? He does just pick the highest scoring CHL'er (first year eligible).

He didn't hindsight pick Giroux. You can see we miss on O'Reilly by 1 point and took someone pretty meh (thing it was Beck).

There's no hindsight, he just picks them base on their CHL numbers, not their future NHL numbers.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

They went back through the draft record and simply took the highest scoring 17 year old in the CHL who would have been available at the time. Excluding all other leagues, excluding goalies and defensemen as absurd limiting factors. They're handicapping their own picks, and they're still hitting vastly better than our scouting during the same period. That's the point.

No they didn't do that. They took the highest scoring chl player picked before the Canucks next pick.

Not sure?? The guy 'sham' picked in the 7th round had more points than his 'find' Perreault in the 6th round in 2006.

If the only point was....our scouting sucks and almost anything would work better...well he could have just made a list of all our picks in this millennium, and/or included a link to a good easy to use draft database like this one:http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/index.html

Or frankly a whole bunch of other things that would have been more interesting/informative. A comparison to the picks of any other team year by year, my idea in my first post of comparing to who csb would have picked etc etc etc. What this writer actually did was pointless.

Also, in re-reading the piece the writer is crying about the forward lines we would have had, on a team that would have had to rely entirely on trades and free agency to put together a Def and Goalie core......just dumb. Not the writing, the logic.

 

[RandV]

No they didn't do that. They took the highest scoring chl player picked before the Canucks next pick.

Not sure?? The guy 'sham' picked in the 7th round had more points than his 'find' Perreault in the 6th round in 2006.

If the only point was....our scouting sucks and almost anything would work better...well he could have just made a list of all our picks in this millennium, and/or included a link to a good easy to use draft database like this one:http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/index.html

Or frankly a whole bunch of other things that would have been more interesting/informative. A comparison to the picks of any other team year by year, my idea in my first post of comparing to who csb would have picked etc etc etc. What this writer actually did was pointless.

Also, in re-reading the piece the writer is crying about the forward lines we would have had, on a team that would have had to rely entirely on trades and free agency to put together a Def and Goalie core......just dumb. Not the writing, the logic.

The logic is perfectly sound, when the point is a very quick and brain dead method to remake draft selections. When you're going through 10(?) years of drafts and making dozens of selections it would be a real pain in the ass to have CHL stats on one side and eligible draft selections in the other. You'd either need to be a programmer capable of pulling these things into a database and running some fancy queries or if not do it manually spending maybe a few hours on each draft year to create the proper list.

So the logic? Taking the highest scoring CHL player limited only to between the Canucks selection and their next spot usually 30 picks later is kind of asinine, but the logic behind it is you can jump onto hockeydb.com and it only takes a minute or two to make each pick.

 

[dave babych returns]

So they wanted to prove the Canucks drafted badly compared to a made up criteria but they also wanted to half ass the criteria.

Putting "a few hours" into a post on a blog that's meant to be taken somewhat seriously isn't an unreasonable expectation.

 

[RandV]

But was it meant to be taken seriously? Not really I'd say. With the way bloggers take to stats these days lots of people can put in time to create a meaningful (or not) analysis. With this one they just wanted a quick & dirty method to make a basic point. And it's not hard to make the Canucks drafting under Delorme look bad using either an incredibly detailed and in depth analysis or a stupidly simple nonsensical one.

 

[RandV]

As for current drafting in general I'm much more worried about the trend continuing under Bening than if we kept Gillis.

The criticism I have for Gillis is that he probably took a little too long to start making changes, and while he shuffled him to obscurity he still kept Delorme and all the rest of the scouts on when we probably needed a major housecleaning like what... it was either Edmonton or Toronto did. But he recognized the problem, brought in Eric Crawford to run things and was making an effort to retain more picks. Biggest problem now is there will never be enough of a sample size to judge the 'new Gillis' drafting philosophy.

Benning on the other hand, while he has a background of a scout seems to have a more arrogant attitude about it. In a 'I'm good at this, I can treat a 3rd round pick as if it's a 2nd' manner. Judging from the his first two drafts for a guy who apparently loves to draft he certainly doesn't keep a lot of picks, and I'm left with the impression that he believes he can make up for quantity with quality picks. And this is with mostly the same team of scouts that have been here since 2000 or earlier, who's record is there for everyone to see plain as day. While he at least didn't re-instate Delorme as head of scout, he did give him a stamp of approval and fired Crawford (who was quickly picked up by Montreal who have a solid draft record). Now we have a new guy from the US but we know nothing about him just yet.

 

[vanuck]

What do you mean? He does just pick the highest scoring CHL'er (first year eligible).

He didn't hindsight pick Giroux. You can see we miss on O'Reilly by 1 point and took someone pretty meh (thing it was Beck).

There's no hindsight, he just picks them base on their CHL numbers, not their future NHL numbers.

IIRC he looked at the next batch of guys taken after the Canucks' pick in real life as a filter, and then went with the highest scoring CHL player. That's what I meant by the hindsight part actually. If he did change his methodology though then I must have missed it.

 

[kurt]

Obviously flawed analysis, as many have already said, and I've pointed out when this article has come up before. it's comparing the Canucks' pick to the top choice of all following teams. You could argue that even if they're beating that measure 10% of the time they're doing a good job.

A relatively fun read though, for a totally half-baked potato of an article.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I know we all have a pretty good idea how poor a team we have been but someone did the work so i thought i'd share it.

https://tifubyjoiningreddit.wordpre...ave-the-vancouver-canucks-drafted-since-2000/

Not surprising really.

Good thing it's at least looked better in the last 2 drafts.