That's very simplistic. Drafting just high scoring CHL forwards might give decent outcomes if you are looking primarily at games played and point production in the NHL, but not a realistic strategy.
I don't doubt that there are inefficiencies in NHL scouting, but the comparative analysis is woefully simplistic and assumes that NHL teams ignore those statistical metrics. I highly doubt that.
Why? Why do you doubt that? We see teams consistently make decisions you would only make if you were completely ignoring this information.
We can say for sure the Florida panthers weren't, considering they hired the PCs crew.
Colorado hired a similar crew as well.
I know first hand that teams are now hiring and exploring this area (meaning at minimum many weren't before, or they wouldn't be hiring people, they'd have them).
Are these models good? f*** no. Are many teams drafting better? Hell yes. That's not the issue. The issue is they should be. They NEED to be. They're spending millions of dollars a year to be better.
The fact that a painfully simple model DID outdraft several teams (outdrafting two teams qualifies as outdrafting NHL teams, I never said all teams) is no different then if I showed up at work today and told my boss the entire accounting department is providing no ROI and a simple spreadsheet will perform just as good. THATS INSANITY. But you've heard all this before.... So what's the issue?
Sham Sharron is not our model. Our model is a more primitive version of PCS.
Our model does work for and includes dmen (nhl value was determined by gp, avgtoi and pts, using NHL coaches "trust"(toi) as a facsimile for NHL ability) our initial runs identified dmen much better (relative to league aggregate) then it did forwards (it was still bad, but was close to 3x better then draft order). To be clear it identified dmen worse then forwards, but as badly as the league in aggregate does.
Anyways, im not trying to peddle the cure all for drafting. This isn't some snake oil that's going to replace every scouting department.
This is a simple analysis that prior to sham Sharron I don't think anyone did, an actual measurable look at how effective teams are at drafting and is it providing the ROI they spend vs free resource (like basic math!)
It's not a surprise, given the timelines and turnover in scouting department, player development, and GMs, it'd be extremely difficult to performance manage and measure your internal/scouting drafting ability.
All im getting at is, hey, this simple model actually did a half decent job reletive to teams. Clearly then, it has at least similar value/worth/credibility as the scouting departments it beat. It also clearly has more value then the straight up third party css scouting list. Maybe then this should be the starting point if discussion and scouting instead of a CIS list.
Additionally, if these inputs and factors are able to build a better weighting on draft day, and have gone on to even identify overage players well (not sure if sham did this but PCs did and so does ours) then it can probably give a reasonable facsimile for player progression post draft.
You literally asked how do big dmen that score a point per game in d+2 pan out reletive to small scorers. All I did was pull all that information and communicate it to you.
That's not even a model, that's just the actual history.
So at the end of the day, what's the issue? What do you need to see? I don't claim this is better then every NHL teams drafting. I don't claim scouts are useless and need to be replaced. I don't claim this is a feasible practical alternative to every NHL teams scouting department.
All im saying is, these methods (comparing performance and career paths of similarly sized and scoring players) are already proven to be more predictive then many scouting lists. They clearly have value.
Everyone's welcome to trust their own opinion or what the css list said or the latest talking head on TV, but it'd be great to anti up a track record see how accurate their insight has actually been rather then just saying "well that's not good enough" without having an actual alternative that you can prove is better (unless you've got a line on the draft lists of all those teams that do outperform simple models, in that case im all ears)
We're not professional statisticians. If we ever manage to get this to the level of the initial PCs in our spare time I'll be stoked. We're much more focused on getting something "good enough" and making it publicly available to try and change the discourse.
It's not a feasible alternative, is that the issue? Great, I don't recall saying it was....even if it actually would be for the worst drafting teams in the NHL.