garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
Wow that makes drafting easy if they just go by the numbers. You can skip money on scouting departments.
Or use the best of both and get the best of both
Wow that makes drafting easy if they just go by the numbers. You can skip money on scouting departments.
Don't forget Sam Girard.Cholowski and Clague would solve our concerns on Ld
For fun...
Looking at the Jet picks outside of the top 20 slot, blind draft by numbers makes Jets miss out on Poolman, Copp, and (the a big one) Lowry...
But, they gain Bjorkstrand, Nick Shore (who I think is a NHL talent, IMO), McCabe, Gostisbehere... plus *I believe* DeBrincat and Clague instead of Stanley.
Now, would you make that trade? Stanley, Poolman, Copp, and Lowry for Bjorkstrand, Shore, Gostisbehere, DeBrincat, and Clague?
Also, I would argue that not-blind numbers doesn't make those misses... Poolman (doesn't have comps because of age in league), Copp (using his second half of season when on top line instead of first half with 4th line minutes gives him a PCS rating numbers would draft at his spot), and Lowry (mononucleosis kills player's PCS all the time) might make a smarter model.
Sample size is too small, making this not much better than anecdotal.For fun...
Looking at the Jet picks outside of the top 20 slot, blind draft by numbers makes Jets miss out on Poolman, Copp, and (the a big one) Lowry...
But, they gain Bjorkstrand, Nick Shore (who I think is a NHL talent, IMO), McCabe, Gostisbehere... plus *I believe* DeBrincat and Clague instead of Stanley.
Now, would you make that trade? Stanley, Poolman, Copp, and Lowry for Bjorkstrand, Shore, Gostisbehere, DeBrincat, and Clague?
Also, I would argue that not-blind numbers doesn't make those misses... Poolman (doesn't have comps because of age in league), Copp (using his second half of season when on top line instead of first half with 4th line minutes gives him a PCS rating numbers would draft at his spot), and Lowry (mononucleosis kills player's PCS all the time) might make a smarter model.
I don't know if those players make us a better team. I would argue from our perspective Lowry is better for us then all of those guys, even Gost. Out of all those players I like DeBrincat the most but I wonder if the Jets have had their fill of smallish scoring Junior phenoms by then.
Sample size is too small, making this not much better than anecdotal.
There is one outlier.... Stanley, and he was a mess of a maneuver. But he remains a bit of an enigma and also not really typical for the Jets' drafting since 2011. You also need to add Green to Stanley. Not much of an add, all things considered, though I guess the numbers would have liked him well enough at his spot.
If you remove the Stanley maneuver, you have Lowry, Copp, Poolman for Bjorkstrand, Shore, Gostisbehere. I'll take the Jets 3, because Lowry is a freaking beast, and I think Poolman is a long-time NHLer once he makes the jump.
So basically, the exercise shows that Stanley was a mistake, but we already sort of knew that, didn't we?
I also strongly refute that the sample size is too small, or the removal of Stanley, since...
1) You can repeat this exercise with worse drafting teams and you will get even *better* results... so it's a pattern league wide.
2) Stanley isn't the only example of a mistake. But some (not all) of these are just as big of gaps as Stanley... we just didn't know then what we know now:
Serville over Shore was a mistake.
Sutter over McCabe was a mistake.
Kosmachuk over Gostisbehere was a mistake.
Lodge over Bjorkstrand was a mistake.
Kostalek over Butcher was a mistake.
Numbers suggest all of that, not in hindsight.
It's a tough call, but I think so.
Lowry is *really* good and I like him a lot. He's been about 1.4 WAR over the past two seasons combined. Copp is not far off from Lowry either at 1.3. But...
DeBrincat 2.7. (or Sam Girard 1.2)
Gostisbehere 2.3.
McCabe 1.1.
Bjorkstrand 1.0.
Shore 0.5.
Those players become cheep upgrades over a lot of the Jets current roster. They might not give the same value as you see here, as they would be behind some players on the
I would say that it might make Jets a better team overall due to superior depth... and I think it shows that even the Jets could respect numbers more, because no one actually suggests a team should *blindly* draft by numbers. It just shows that even if they did draft blindly by numbers, they wouldn't be so bad. I mean you may disagree on the exchange, but at least you know I got a leg to stand on.
Realistically you could say some added importance would catch a lot of the DeBrincat/Gostisbehere/McCabe/Bjorkstrand/Shore group without missing Lowry/Copp (maaaaaybe Poolman, but that's a bit less likely).
And I think the Jets avoiding a superior player because "they had their fill" is exactly the type of mistake I'm suggesting they should avoid.
Like right at this moment would trade those players for each other? I would be hard pressed to say no to it. But I just don't think those players make us a better team then with the guys leaving.
Would DeBrincat be playing in the top 6 here? Probably not.
I like McCabe and Girard both. I think they would fit in here nicely
Gost I am not fan of him personally. Yes great at points, great on the PP but I don't know who he would even play with here. He is a big mess defensively this year although to be fair so is the entire Flyers team to be honest. He would produce here no doubt
Bjorkstrand is solid but he wouldn't be playing in our top 6 maybe he is on the 3rd line.
Shore is a dime a dozen player IMO
Of course stats should be considered. Don't most teams factor that in, including the Jets? It's a matter of relative weighting, and I completely agree that stats are undervalued.I also strongly refute that the sample size is too small, or the removal of Stanley, since...
1) You can repeat this exercise with worse drafting teams and you will get even *better* results... so it's a pattern league wide.
2) Stanley isn't the only example of a mistake. But some (not all) of these are just as big of gaps as Stanley... we just didn't know then what we know now:
Serville over Shore was a mistake.
Sutter over McCabe was a mistake.
Kosmachuk over Gostisbehere was a mistake.
Lodge over Bjorkstrand was a mistake.
Kostalek over Butcher was a mistake.
Numbers suggest all of that, not in hindsight.
Lodge had as good or better stats than Bjorkstrand in their draft year, as I recall, didn't he?I also strongly refute that the sample size is too small, or the removal of Stanley, since...
1) You can repeat this exercise with worse drafting teams and you will get even *better* results... so it's a pattern league wide.
2) Stanley isn't the only example of a mistake. But some (not all) of these are just as big of gaps as Stanley... we just didn't know then what we know now:
Serville over Shore was a mistake.
Sutter over McCabe was a mistake.
Kosmachuk over Gostisbehere was a mistake.
Lodge over Bjorkstrand was a mistake.
Kostalek over Butcher was a mistake.
Numbers suggest all of that, not in hindsight.
Lodge had as good or better stats than Bjorkstrand in their draft year, as I recall, didn't he?
Update: Stanley is still big!Oh yay. This is ananoher draft thread, not a Stanley update thread.
Joy of joys
Of course stats should be considered. Don't most teams factor that in, including the Jets? It's a matter of relative weighting, and I completely agree that stats are undervalued.
My point is that you can't really rely on evidence from one team in a handful of drafts. I pointed out the misunderstanding / misrepresentation of the "Sham Sharron" analysis before. Scouts out-performed raw numbers considerably. It was only when the selections were "informed" by scouting assessments that they improved on team scouting. Sham Sharron takes over all 30 draft tables; how did he do?
The Jets have bungled a number of picks, as you've pointed out. But some of them were picks with decent numbers for their draft position. I seem to recall that the numbers liked Lodge quite a bit, but he was a complete flop. This raises the issue of how robust numbers based rankings are. I like the cohort clustering approach better than these analyses by raw list ranking, which I think is prone to vagaries. For example, how much difference was there in a statistical ranking of Lodge vs. Bjorkstrand? They had very similar stats in their draft year, same age, similar size, etc.
Lodge had as good or better stats than Bjorkstrand in their draft year, as I recall, didn't he?
Lodge had better numbers. Bjorkstrand exploded post draft while Lodge stagnated. Raw point stats wouldn't have been able to tell you who was more likely to progress.
Kosmuchuk had some solid stats his draft year as well. 30 goals and 59 points isn't all that disimiliar from Bjorkstrands numbers.
I personally think the Jets have been pretty good at paying attention to point totals with regards to their forward picks.
They have picked the following arpund or greater then ppg players post first round:
Petan
Lodge
DeLeo
McKenzie
Lipon
Harkins
Foley
Suess
Smith
Interestingly it has been the picks that didn't score near as well from a point perspective who have performed better such as Lowry and Copp with Appelton knocking on the doors.
Now some of that is due to coaching preferences bit really on that list only Petan and maybe Suess are NHL Calibre.
There is still a lot of things that need to get ironed out in terms of scouting.
There is always room for process improvemnt and I trust that the Jets are regularly reviewing and modifying their procurement process to get the most out of their picks.
Lodge's PCS v1.0 was 16.1% make the NHL for 200 games with an average P/82GP of 33.8 for successful cohorts.
Bjorkstrand's PCS v1.0 was 24.6% make the NHL for 200 games with an average P/82GP of 41.3 for successful cohorts.
Lodge did lapse, post draft was 9.4% while Bjorkstrand was 27.7.
I'm curious but why would Bjorkstrand have a higher PCS when he scored less? Is it due to caliber of leagues or something? I am generally curious.
I just realized most people are probably looking at just draft year. This "by the numbers" re-draft I used took draft-1 and draft weighted results.
That might be where some of the confusion comes from.
Hmmmm.... Lodge's D numbers were better than Bjorkstrand's, in the OHL and at the same age and a bit bigger. What other factors were used? D-1? Bjorkstrand was in Denmark in D-1 and earlier. Enough comparables to use that?Lodge's PCS v1.0 was 16.1% make the NHL for 200 games with an average P/82GP of 33.8 for successful cohorts.
Bjorkstrand's PCS v1.0 was 24.6% make the NHL for 200 games with an average P/82GP of 41.3 for successful cohorts.
Lodge did lapse, post draft was 9.4% while Bjorkstrand was 27.7.
You have enough comparables from Denmark to boost Bjorkstrand that much from D-1??? Gimme a confidence interval on that...I just realized most people are probably looking at just draft year. This "by the numbers" re-draft I used took draft-1 and draft weighted results.
That might be where some of the confusion comes from.
I'll give you ignoring Europe...Not quite equivalent because Sham Sharron severely handicapped itself by ignoring a certain position (goalies), not accounting for difference between forward and defender, and ignored entire leagues (like all of Europe).
So, to say that scouts out performed there is quite disingenuous in a manner that discounts numbers vs scouts.
It was never meant to be a how to draft. Scouts were SUPPOSED to out perform Sham Sharron numbers.
I think the fact that Sham Sharron did as well as it did is an outperformance... relative to effort, expense, etc. That was the total point of it. The marginal gains of scouts was so low given the handicaps Sham Sharron gave itself.