Although eyeball scouting certainly has it’s limits when it comes to projecting defenceman especially in their draft year. Ie so many good dmeb seem to come from the late first, second round and beyond. They’re hard to predict in terms of de elopement path
They are, but I think its fair to combine any eye-test analysis with analytics. Most people in statistics would agree that combining the rankings would be beneficial. I just wanted to point out, that it is worth noting that the two elite guys on that list passed the eye-ball test too, and weren't analytical gems found later on. For example, it'd be like grouping the players since 2000 in the OHL who put up over 1.8 ppg in the OHL in their 18 year old season or younger. You get a list like this (I'm only counting people who played over 30 games).
McDavid (2.55 ppg at 17)
Kane (2.5 at 18)
Locke (2.29 at 18)
Sam Gagner (2.23 at 17)
Spezza (2.07 at 17, 1.98 at 18)
Marner (2.04 at 18, 2.0 at 17)
Tavares (2.0 at 16 and 17, 1.86 at 18)
Dylan Strome (1.98 at 18, 1.90 at 17)
M. Tkachuk (1.88 at 18)
T. Raddysh (1.88 at 18)
T. Hall (1.85 at 18)
Galchenyuk (1.85 at 18)
Vilardi (1.81 at 18)
Okay, so that's a basic list, someone like Corey Locke looks like they are in elite company but he failed the eye test to scouts early on, going undrafted his first time around, and only going in the 4th round after his 2.29 ppg season. Now, if you start putting qualifiers on where guys were drafted the list starts looking dramatically different. You removed top 5 picks, you are Locke, Gagner, Tkachuk, Raddysh, and Vilardi. Gagner is a soft middle six scorer who is easily replaceable, Tkachuk looks like a great complimentary 1st line winger, Locke is a bust, Raddysh is interesting but probably not a franchise cornerstone and I really like Vilardi, but he's probably not a franchise player (although he could be). Now, its not like the guys who went top 5 are perfect, Dylan Strome may never reach his potential, and Galchenyuk is endlessly frustrating. The rest are elite players or appear to be on track (Marner) to be one. You remove guys taken in the 1st round, you are left with Raddysh and Locke. You look at guys who went completely undrafted their first go around, you are left with Locke.
While, I would love for Durzi to be an elite NHL defender, or even just a solid top 4 defender (which would be a win at that pick). Once you remove the 2 guys who were shown by analytics and scouts eyes to be potentially elite players in Pietrangelo and Hamilton, the only player who really leaves room for optimism is TJ Brodie. I would personally categorize who pass the eye-test as clear top 10 picks in a different bracket than guys with great numbers but aren't viewed as such. Now, when creating the odds of them hitting they are worth factoring in, but it is worth noting that Pietrangelo and Hamilton were viewed as completely different players, and he has significantly more in common with the rest.
Although, on further research, I think the OP meant to say Bryan Rodney, not Peter Aston. It also missed Andre Benoit.
Now, is a 53rd overall pick worth potentially a 1 in 6 shot T.J. Brodie if you believe the numbers reflect these odds. Absolutely, also keep in mind Subban just missed the cut-off (he had 1.36, but also just missed Ryan Sproul 1.32).
