Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi

[mossey3535]

I still like flashes of his game that I've seen in person but for whatever reason (video game addiction, etc) his development had regressed for a season. Now with the back injury that's essentially another +1.

We're going to do the stupid thing and give him an actual NHL shot, because that's what we do with any prospect that we have that has even an outside chance of making it.

He should probably start in Utica and we should all ignore how he does until after Christmas.

 

[F A N]

Next, you say that you never expected Juolevi to be a top4 Dman on the Canucks starting last season. I would say that that's... very convenient.

Who cares if it's convenient or not. It doesn't change the facts. How many of us at the time of the draft expected Juolevi to make the NHL at 18? Pretty much nobody because he didn't have a pro-ready body. Go back to last year's thread and I didn't have a problem with not rushing Juolevi. I have never expected a Dman who has never played a single NHL game to step right in as a top 4 Dman in the NHL. Did you expect Juolevi to be a top 4 Dman starting next season?

I would also say that you were a big proponent of this pick and defended it tooth and nail when Tkachuk was brought up. How's it looking for you so far?

I have said many times it's not looking good so far. I'm not you. I am open minded.

Juolevi was never expected to quickly develop? Are you kidding me? He was a top5 pick. Top5 picks are supposed to be excellent prospects that advance above their peers. How low were your expectations of him that this going according to plan for you? I guess you must have expected Tkachuk to leave him in his wake as well?

What's develop quickly? I expect Dmen to develop slower than forwards. I expect Dmen who are not physically NHL ready to take more time to develop. Draft position means nothing. Again, your fixation on draft position is making your arguments unreasonable. Every draft is different. The #5 pick in one draft is not the equivalent of the #5 pick in another draft. Also, the whole point of BPA is that you draft the player that you feel will be the best player down the line.

The peer group is everything. These guys are drafted in a class of similarly aged players. They are judged against those players, constantly, and throughout their careers. Why wouldn't it matter? Actually, you said "matters a lot". So do you mean to say that peer groups matter, just not to the level that I think it does? If so, what is your take on how Juolevi is currently perceived among his peer group?

I do think performance relative to the peer group matters in terms of the draft both as a draft eligible prospect and in terms of evaluating the pick in hindsight. I also believe in context. I just don't believe it is "everything."

Since you never seem to get it, I will try to explain things more simply. The draft doesn't work the way you think it does. You seem to believe there is this consensus ranking to go off of and any deviation from it is somehow wrong and inexcusable. That is simply ignorant and stupid.

Juolevi was not considered the most NHL ready Dman in the draft. Hence nobody should be surprised that he didn't make the NHL sooner than Sergachev and Chychrun who possessed more NHL ready bodies. He was not considered to have the best offensive gifts. At the time of the draft, there were some who believed that McAvoy had the potential to be the best Dman in the draft. So while I am surprised at his play last season, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up being the best Dman. What Juolevi was considered to be was the best all around Dman and essentially the safest pick to be a top 4 Dman. The game he plays is very suited to today's NHL game. He was considered to have the best hockey IQ among top Dmen in the draft.

And ironically, given the importance you place on the peer group, Juolevi was pretty much universally thought of as having pulled away from other Dmen in the draft in the 2nd half starting with his WJC performance.

 

[Hit the post]

re: safest pick....should be more like Captain Kirk....

 

[krutovsdonut]

Why do people act like their idiots?

Obviously based on a minimum review the list is a composite of several public lists.

You can also see one for this year and it is something that should be benchmarked against using hindsight to review preformance.

why?

i don't see why we should benchmark the performance of gm's against predictive lists prepared by journalists. that seems dumb.

we know with certainty that individual teams have groups of people who put way more work into drafting than journalists do. teams watch the players more, interview them and have access to junior coaching staff, billets, and tons of other info. on what basis is the journalist list a benchmark of anything? the methodology is not even consistent. some of those listicles are trying to rank based on their opinions, while other are trying to predict what teams think. it is gigo.

i mean it would be cool if at the end of a draft, all the teams submitted their lists to the nhl who produced a real consensus list.

otherwise, we should benchmark against how the players turn out. that is it.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Would you if Dobson's career trajectory followed Pietrangelo and Zadina's followe RNH??

I understand your point, but I think you are using an exception to prove the rule. Normally, a Pietrangelo-type trajectory does not occur. He went from a slightly above PPG pace in his draft + 2 season in the OHL to be a 43 point NHL defender the next year. That’s a very strong transition. Are you expecting the same from Juolevi based upon his current body of work? I hope not.

At the same time, you are applying a stagnating point total to Zadina. RNH has predominately been a 50~ point player throughout his career. Applying his trajectory to Zadina curbs his potential progression after a fantastic start. Do you think you are being fair in this comparison?

Let’s re-frame this: What if Tkachuk is a consistent 55-60 point PWF, 1st liner, and Juolevi is a 25-30 point 2way, mid-pair defender. Will you feel it was the right pick?

 

[sting101]

I understand your point, but I think you are using an exception to prove the rule. Normally, a Pietrangelo-type trajectory does not occur. He went from a slightly above PPG pace in his draft + 2 season in the OHL to be a 43 point NHL defender the next year. That’s a very strong transition. Are you expecting the same from Juolevi based upon his current body of work? I hope not.

At the same time, you are applying a stagnating point total to Zadina. RNH has predominately been a 50~ point player throughout his career. Applying his trajectory to Zadina curbs his potential progression after a fantastic start. Do you think you are being fair in this comparison?

Let’s re-frame this: What if Tkachuk is a consistent 55-60 point PWF, 1st liner, and Juolevi is a 25-30 point 2way, mid-pair defender. Will you feel it was the right pick?

obviously not but in this case Juolevi is a 98 and Tkachuk is a 97. Tkachuk was NHL ready when selected and Juolevi was widely known to need some strength and development time. OJ just played his 19yr old season.

Look obviously Tkachuk is ahead and all things point to him being a better pick and to add to that he was rated higher at the draft. I get it and was dumbfounded at the selection. Thing is development is not linear and obviously Brackett Benning and the SS believed that OJ's potential was that of a top pair or at least a top3 defender which is a huge part of a defensive nucleus and something we had nothing to hang a hat on going forward. The madness that has ensued is hasty IMO and i've been steadfast in that many of the best defenseman in the game today took until 21/22 before they started to ascend to these heights and that we should give the kid and the scouting staff some leeway before we carve them up.

The annoying part for me is that we all knew he needed some development time, he's a yr younger than Tkachuk and people are calling him a disappointment and passively suggesting he's a bust but not stating it. And i can completely live with calling him a bust if thats what you believe but the disappointment part is a joke, he's 19 and should be given time. His training camp last year had to be a massive eye opener and the gut wrenching irony to all this now is a back surgery that will without a doubt set him back another year of training and more if he isn't able to fully recover which is quite probable given the nature of the sport he plays.

 

[CanaFan]

obviously not but in this case Juolevi is a 98 and Tkachuk is a 97. Tkachuk was NHL ready when selected and Juolevi was widely known to need some strength and development time. OJ just played his 19yr old season.

Look obviously Tkachuk is ahead and all things point to him being a better pick and to add to that he was rated higher at the draft. I get it and was dumbfounded at the selection. Thing is development is not linear and obviously Brackett Benning and the SS believed that OJ's potential was that of a top pair or at least a top3 defender which is a huge part of a defensive nucleus and something we had nothing to hang a hat on going forward. The madness that has ensued is hasty IMO and i've been steadfast in that many of the best defenseman in the game today took until 21/22 before they started to ascend to these heights and that we should give the kid and the scouting staff some leeway before we carve them up.

The annoying part for me is that we all knew he needed some development time, he's a yr younger than Tkachuk and people are calling him a disappointment and passively suggesting he's a bust but not stating it. And i can completely live with calling him a bust if thats what you believe but the disappointment part is a joke, he's 19 and should be given time. His training camp last year had to be a massive eye opener and the gut wrenching irony to all this now is a back surgery that will without a doubt set him back another year of training and more if he isn't able to fully recover which is quite probable given the nature of the sport he plays.

So, in your books, people should call Juolevi a bust but not a disappointment?

Do the terms mean something completely different to you than they do to everyone else?

A bust is someone who does not become an NHLer or becomes such a marginal NHLer as to be essentially the same.

A disappointment is a player who doesn’t live up to their draft status or the players drafted around them. They can be NHLers though and not busts.

A “bust” is the most pejorative of the two yet you’d rather people use that word than “disappointing”?

That makes zero sense.

 

[Bleach Clean]

obviously not but in this case Juolevi is a 98 and Tkachuk is a 97. Tkachuk was NHL ready when selected and Juolevi was widely known to need some strength and development time. OJ just played his 19yr old season.

Look obviously Tkachuk is ahead and all things point to him being a better pick and to add to that he was rated higher at the draft. I get it and was dumbfounded at the selection. Thing is development is not linear and obviously Brackett Benning and the SS believed that OJ's potential was that of a top pair or at least a top3 defender which is a huge part of a defensive nucleus and something we had nothing to hang a hat on going forward. The madness that has ensued is hasty IMO and i've been steadfast in that many of the best defenseman in the game today took until 21/22 before they started to ascend to these heights and that we should give the kid and the scouting staff some leeway before we carve them up.

The annoying part for me is that we all knew he needed some development time, he's a yr younger than Tkachuk and people are calling him a disappointment and passively suggesting he's a bust but not stating it. And i can completely live with calling him a bust if thats what you believe but the disappointment part is a joke, he's 19 and should be given time. His training camp last year had to be a massive eye opener and the gut wrenching irony to all this now is a back surgery that will without a doubt set him back another year of training and more if he isn't able to fully recover which is quite probable given the nature of the sport he plays.

The battle over the perception of Juolevi has raged on, primarily, because certain individuals cannot admit that it's unlikely Juolevi meets or exceeds what Tkachuk has already done. That's it. If those individuals acknowledged this key point, there would be very little to debate. Everybody would recognize that Juolevi is behind, is likely to stay behind, and the hope would transfer to him becoming a serviceable top4 in isolation. Away from the comparison to Tkachuk. But they can't or won't, so it continues.

I respect your opinion Sting. You've made 2 key concessions here: 1) All things point to Tkachuk being the better pick and 2) Tkachuk was rated higher at the draft. Bravo, you've come farther than most on the other side of this debate. Now the last remaining point: With what we know of career trajectories, and with what Tkachuk and Juolevi have shown to date, do you think that it's _likely_ (probability) that Juolevi meets or exceeds the level of where Tkachuk is currently at? If you say yes, then you have to explain how without relying on non-linear development. That's wish-based thinking. It ignores all information in the interim. I'm speaking strictly about probability. If you say no, then we are in full agreement on these points and can move towards discussing how Juolevi is tracking in isolation.

On calling Juolevi a disappointment: He is, relative to his peers. He is, relative to his draft position. He is, relative to his potential at becoming a top2 Dman (he's not tracking like one). He's _not_, relative to his potential to become a top4 dman. Is that fair to say?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Who cares if it's convenient or not. It doesn't change the facts. How many of us at the time of the draft expected Juolevi to make the NHL at 18? Pretty much nobody because he didn't have a pro-ready body. Go back to last year's thread and I didn't have a problem with not rushing Juolevi. I have never expected a Dman who has never played a single NHL game to step right in as a top 4 Dman in the NHL. Did you expect Juolevi to be a top 4 Dman starting next season?

I have said many times it's not looking good so far. I'm not you. I am open minded.

You've always, from my recollection, couched that assertion with 'development is not linear'. That Juolevi is just as likely to develop into a better player, even now. Do I have that right?

If you were truly open minded about this, you would readily admit that based on precedent and the way each prospect is tracking, it's very unlikely that Juolevi matches or exceeds even Tkachuk's current level, let alone the level Tkachuk could reach if he develops further. He's already a first line LWer, after all. Without that admission, it's all dancing.

Oh, and it is convenient to say you never expected Juolevi to achieve any relative marker. Very convenient, considering your ardent defense of the pick early on. I guess being wrong must have changed that for you...?

What's develop quickly? I expect Dmen to develop slower than forwards. I expect Dmen who are not physically NHL ready to take more time to develop. Draft position means nothing. Again, your fixation on draft position is making your arguments unreasonable. Every draft is different. The #5 pick in one draft is not the equivalent of the #5 pick in another draft. Also, the whole point of BPA is that you draft the player that you feel will be the best player down the line.

I do think performance relative to the peer group matters in terms of the draft both as a draft eligible prospect and in terms of evaluating the pick in hindsight. I also believe in context. I just don't believe it is "everything."

So you believe that performance relative to the peer group matters. You also believe in context when evaluating prospects. Yet, the context of where Juoelvi was drafted somehow "means nothing"? Explain that. Explain how context in judging one against his peer group matters, but it doesn't matter in the case of judging Juolevi as a top5 pick? Isn't the top5/top10 a peer group? Aren't the players at the top of the draft generally considered to be better prospects than those that come after?

Since you never seem to get it, I will try to explain things more simply. The draft doesn't work the way you think it does. You seem to believe there is this consensus ranking to go off of and any deviation from it is somehow wrong and inexcusable. That is simply ignorant and stupid.

Juolevi was not considered the most NHL ready Dman in the draft. Hence nobody should be surprised that he didn't make the NHL sooner than Sergachev and Chychrun who possessed more NHL ready bodies. He was not considered to have the best offensive gifts. At the time of the draft, there were some who believed that McAvoy had the potential to be the best Dman in the draft. So while I am surprised at his play last season, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up being the best Dman. What Juolevi was considered to be was the best all around Dman and essentially the safest pick to be a top 4 Dman. The game he plays is very suited to today's NHL game. He was considered to have the best hockey IQ among top Dmen in the draft.

And ironically, given the importance you place on the peer group, Juolevi was pretty much universally thought of as having pulled away from other Dmen in the draft in the 2nd half starting with his WJC performance.

Really? Juolevi was universally considered the best dman by consensus? Shocking. I've never heard about this. Wonders never cease. Here's a question: Who was considered the BPA by that same consensus? By every single public draft resource? Will you answer, or will you cower behind "best dman" for eternity?

Your misrepresentation of my argument only makes your argument look stupid and weak. It says nothing about my own argument. I wish you would recognize this. Consider that time and again I have explained: The deviation from the consensus (which I know you love) is fine so long as the pick proves the GM right. It's not "wrong and inexusable" to move away from consensus, full stop. Absolutely, move away from consensus -- but be right when doing so. Otherwise, it shows that a public list full of journalists AND SCOUTS added more value to the draft selection process than your paid scouts did. Then perhaps even your Super Scout did. Your way of interpreting my argument is purely your own fabrication -- and it's a big reason why you get the level of discussion that you do.

 

[F A N]

You've always, from my recollection, couched that assertion with 'development is not linear'. That Juolevi is just as likely to develop into a better player, even now. Do I have that right?

Nope. You are wrong. I don't think I have ever said "development is not linear" like ever... well until now.

If you were truly open minded about this, you would readily admit that based on precedent and the way each prospect is tracking, it's very unlikely that Juolevi matches or exceeds even Tkachuk's current level, let alone the level Tkachuk could reach if he develops further. He's already a first line LWer, after all. Without that admission, it's all dancing.

This is the problem with our discussions. You have all these ideas in your had that isn't based on fact. When have I said or last said that it is likely that Juolevi matches or exceeds Tkachuk? While these things can change quickly (for example it didn't look like PLD would be as good or better than Tkachuk until latter half of last season), Juolevi has a lot of ways to go to justify his selection.

Oh, and it is convenient to say you never expected Juolevi to achieve any relative marker. Very convenient, considering your ardent defense of the pick early on. I guess being wrong must have changed that for you...?

Again. You are confused. If you go back to before the draft, I had PLD ahead of Tkachuk by slim margins. Juolevi wasn't my pick. But that's my own evaluation. I questioned Tkachuk's ability to translate his game to the NHL. I was wrong. What you can't seem to accept is that NHL scouts saw differently in that Juolevi is considered in the same class as those two. I would have supported the Canucks drafted other guys in that slot as well such as Keller and Sergachev. Unlike you, I don't see there being this mythical BPA where drafting anyone else would be an unreasonable and atrocious reach.

So you believe that performance relative to the peer group matters. You also believe in context when evaluating prospects. Yet, the context of where Juoelvi was drafted somehow "means nothing"? Explain that. Explain how context in judging one against his peer group matters, but it doesn't matter in the case of judging Juolevi as a top5 pick? Isn't the top5/top10 a peer group? Aren't the players at the top of the draft generally considered to be better prospects than those that come after?

How a player performs in their draft eligible year can impact where they are drafted. So performance relative to the peer group matters in that sense. Many scouts think that Juolevi pulled away from his peer group with his WJC and Memorial Cup run performance. Despite your "consensus" ideas, Juolevi was a popular choice to be the first Dman taken in the draft. McAvoy for example was not considered to be the top Dman in his peer group based in his draft eligible year but had the potential to be. Hence he was not the first Dman taken in the draft. That's context. You keep talking about how a player is the consensus BPA. Seems to me that you strongly believe that certain players should be drafted in certain draft slots. I don't believe that. Of course trading down and getting the player you want is the best, but there are often times when you can't do that or risk that so you pick the player you want even if you're drafting a player earlier than expected. Take Stamkos vs. Doughty. I believe the Kings would have drafted Doughty 1st overall. You can think otherwise. And no doubt, the consensus was Stamkos was #1, but so was Yakupov.

Really? Juolevi was universally considered the best dman by consensus? Shocking. I've never heard about this. Wonders never cease.

Sigh... see what I mean? You have all of this in your head. Where did you read this?

Here's a question: Who was considered the BPA by that same consensus? By every single public draft resource? Will you answer, or will you cower behind "best dman" for eternity?

There often isn't one. But I think if the reputable draft publication and everything we hear from NHL scouts/GMs is has the same player as the BPA then he probably is. For example, there is no doubt in my mind that Dahlin is the BPA in this draft. Again, in regards to Juolevi, I have quoted McKenzie, Mark Edwards from the Hockey Prospects, and Botchford who suggested that Juolevi was a legitimate choice over Tkachuk. You ignore this because in your head you prefer to average out all the public draft guides.

Your misrepresentation of my argument only makes your argument look stupid and weak.

Lol. Resorting to flaming I see?

It says nothing about my own argument. I wish you would recognize this. Consider that time and again I have explained: The deviation from the consensus (which I know you love) is fine so long as the pick proves the GM right. It's not "wrong and inexusable" to move away from consensus, full stop. Absolutely, move away from consensus -- but be right when doing so.

Consider that time and time again I have explained that the consensus is that Juolevi is in the same class as Tkachuk. Otherwise, I agree that if you're going "off the board" you better be right.

Otherwise, it shows that a public list full of journalists AND SCOUTS added more value to the draft selection process than your paid scouts did. Then perhaps even your Super Scout did. Your way of interpreting my argument is purely your own fabrication -- and it's a big reason why you get the level of discussion that you do.

Lol. Public list full of journalists and scouts. You just proved that I interpreted your argument correctly. You're basically averaging every public draft list you can get your hands on FOR FREE and declaring a consensus WITHOUT REGARD to how those rankings come to be and give no weight to who made those list.

I have gone through this so many times with you. Others have as well. You are wrong and you can't see it.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Top 4? In what league?

Guy probably doesn’t crack our lineup with the worst D in the league. Was a 6/7 defensman last year in SM Liiga being passed over for a 40 year old Henrik Tallinder and 32 year old European Journeyman Ilkka Heikinin. Add in a back surgery now and a bad attitude .... and I have a better chance of being an impactful NHL player than he does.

Very excited to see Olli this season. I think he’s playing top four by Christmas, likely partnered with Tanev.

 

[petrishriekandgo]

Sportsnet 650‏Verified account @Sportsnet650 13m13 minutes ago

Olli Juolevi's agent Markus Lehto on the video game addiction controversy: "There's so much bull**** going on. You Canadians are masters of creating drama! Someone creates a rumour and it's like OH $@!#, what is going on??? It shows how passionate Canada is about the players."

Rick Dhaliwal‏ @DhaliwalSports

Ollie Juolevi's agent Markus Lehto says his client has had back surgery, "he has been feeling really well and no pain. He won't do training for a few weeks, every indication is that he will be 100% in shape for training camp in September."

Lehto on Juolevi : "It shouldn't be anything very serious or major stuff, he had surgery a week and a half ago."

 

[The Vasili Jerry]

Sportsnet 650‏Verified account @Sportsnet650 13m13 minutes ago

Olli Juolevi's agent Markus Lehto on the video game addiction controversy: "There's so much bull**** going on. You Canadians are masters of creating drama! Someone creates a rumour and it's like OH $@!#, what is going on??? It shows how passionate Canada is about the players."

Rick Dhaliwal‏ @DhaliwalSports

Ollie Juolevi's agent Markus Lehto says his client has had back surgery, "he has been feeling really well and no pain. He won't do training for a few weeks, every indication is that he will be 100% in shape for training camp in September."

Lehto on Juolevi : "It shouldn't be anything very serious or major stuff, he had surgery a week and a half ago."

Sounds like he’s been reading these boards. Haha.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Lol. Resorting to flaming I see?

Its not flame. He is just calling you out on your straw manning or misrepresenting / misunderstanding his point.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Can’t say he’s wrong

 

[DL44]

Can’t say he’s wrong

He's not. at all.
Prime example.... Despite the fact the rumor/story has been squashed (in terms of being tied to Juolevi), you have posters like @mossey3535 perpetuating that BS STILL.... as recent as yesterday. Let that angle die. You have enough other points to moan about Juolevi for.

He was chosen over Tkachuk. Scoring rate did not improve enough in his +1 yr. He led the revolt against his coach at the Wjr's. Conditioning. Bad back.

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

He's not. at all.
Prime example.... Despite the fact the rumor/story has been squashed (in terms of being tied to Juolevi), you have posters like @mossey3535 perpetuating that BS STILL.... as recent as yesterday. Let that angle die. You have enough other points to moan about Juolevi for.

oh so because all the people who would look bad if the rumour were true denied the rumour then it's definitely not true. I guess that's it, then. That's how rumours work right. is this a board for 7 year olds or what

 

[DL44]

oh so because all the people who would look bad if the rumour were true denied the rumour then it's definitely not true. I guess that's it, then. That's how rumours work right. is this a board for 7 year olds or what

Um.. the guy who teased the story first hand.. came out and confirmed that it wasn't who HE was talking about.

so I'll type slower this time:

The SOURCE of the rumor.......... Confirmed it to NOT be Juolevi.....


Or maybe you are of the thinking the Canucks got to Marek, and paid him off to deflect away from Juolevi? in which case... ok.. carry on.. nothing I can say to that.

 

[nucksflailtogether]

Can’t say he’s wrong

Quoted for truth. We Canadian hockey fans and media are the biggest drama queens around. There was an excellent article a while back about how that has real negative effects on pro hockey in Canada.

 

[Verviticus]

No i really don't.

I havent really posted much since the weather got nice and the season ended. I've just been drawn back in as the draft approaches and as teams start to make moves..................you on the other hand i see are constantly waging debate with anyone willing to have optimism and are posting the same arguments from 3 months ago. so if anyone takes this place too seriously that would be you

you take this place too seriously

 

[Verviticus]

i wonder if the video games guy is juolevi??? just spitballing here

 

[Nuckles]

i wonder if the video games guy is juolevi??? just spitballing here

Definitely, I can't think of any other prospects that play video games.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Definitely, I can't think of any other prospects that play video games.

Last time I check, Finland has a huge production for Triple A video games, it’s definitely him

 

[Bleach Clean]

Nope. You are wrong. I don't think I have ever said "development is not linear" like ever... well until now.

This is the problem with our discussions. You have all these ideas in your had that isn't based on fact. When have I said or last said that it is likely that Juolevi matches or exceeds Tkachuk? While these things can change quickly (for example it didn't look like PLD would be as good or better than Tkachuk until latter half of last season), Juolevi has a lot of ways to go to justify his selection.

Again. You are confused. If you go back to before the draft, I had PLD ahead of Tkachuk by slim margins. Juolevi wasn't my pick. But that's my own evaluation. I questioned Tkachuk's ability to translate his game to the NHL. I was wrong. What you can't seem to accept is that NHL scouts saw differently in that Juolevi is considered in the same class as those two. I would have supported the Canucks drafted other guys in that slot as well such as Keller and Sergachev. Unlike you, I don't see there being this mythical BPA where drafting anyone else would be an unreasonable and atrocious reach.

Yes, you do. If BUF drafts Svechnikov over Dahlin, you would consider it a reach. The difference in our opinion is that you think so long as a few people say that X number of players are within the same class, it's not a reach. This is wrong to me because other scouts may not have that same classification for X number of players. The same groups. So who to believe? I tried to illustrate this selection bias on your behalf by talking about BPA via consensus - which is also a construct like class/group. Where you've completely lost the plot is that you have clung to one construct while arbitrarily ignoring the other construct. You've taken the oddest position:

- Pick is reasonable because a few sources said "same class/group".
- Pick is reasonable because other teams have their own BPA.
- Pick is reasonable because consensus BPA talk notes him as the "best Dman".
- Consensus BPA talk doesn't matter when Tkachuk is ranked 3 spots ahead in average rankings.
- Consensus BPA talk doesn't matter when every single service ranks Tkachuk ahead.
- Other teams have their own groups/classes and BPA, but that doesn't matter. It only matters when FAN uses class/group to justify VAN's selection.

If you're going to use third party sources to justify why you think the pick was reasonable, you best be prepared to submit to third party sources when they argue in the opposite direction.

Last, I am loathe to look back at our earlier exchanges, but I'm pretty sure you've subscribed to the "wait and see" approach, and you've confirmed it here by citing non-linear development. But you can clear this up right now: Do you think Juolevi has an even chance at meeting or exceeding Tkachuk's current level of play? (I highly suspect you will not answer this)

How a player performs in their draft eligible year can impact where they are drafted. So performance relative to the peer group matters in that sense. Many scouts think that Juolevi pulled away from his peer group with his WJC and Memorial Cup run performance. Despite your "consensus" ideas, Juolevi was a popular choice to be the first Dman taken in the draft. McAvoy for example was not considered to be the top Dman in his peer group based in his draft eligible year but had the potential to be. Hence he was not the first Dman taken in the draft. That's context. You keep talking about how a player is the consensus BPA. Seems to me that you strongly believe that certain players should be drafted in certain draft slots. I don't believe that. Of course trading down and getting the player you want is the best, but there are often times when you can't do that or risk that so you pick the player you want even if you're drafting a player earlier than expected. Take Stamkos vs. Doughty. I believe the Kings would have drafted Doughty 1st overall. You can think otherwise. And no doubt, the consensus was Stamkos was #1, but so was Yakupov.

Sigh... see what I mean? You have all of this in your head. Where did you read this?

There often isn't one. But I think if the reputable draft publication and everything we hear from NHL scouts/GMs is has the same player as the BPA then he probably is. For example, there is no doubt in my mind that Dahlin is the BPA in this draft. Again, in regards to Juolevi, I have quoted McKenzie, Mark Edwards from the Hockey Prospects, and Botchford who suggested that Juolevi was a legitimate choice over Tkachuk. You ignore this because in your head you prefer to average out all the public draft guides.

Lol. Resorting to flaming I see?

Consider that time and time again I have explained that the consensus is that Juolevi is in the same class as Tkachuk. Otherwise, I agree that if you're going "off the board" you better be right.

Lol. Public list full of journalists and scouts. You just proved that I interpreted your argument correctly. You're basically averaging every public draft list you can get your hands on FOR FREE and declaring a consensus WITHOUT REGARD to how those rankings come to be and give no weight to who made those list.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Selection Bias #101.

Let's walk through this: So the FOR FREE opinions of McKenzie, Mark Edwards (Writer) and Botchford (Journalist) are meaningful. Yet, these sources are called into question:

TSN
Draft Analyst
Mckeen's Hockey
NA Central Scouting
Craig Button
Hockey Prospect
Future Considerations
ISS
The Hockey News
DraftBuzz Hockey
Damien Cox
Hockey Prospectus
Corey Pronman ESPN
NHL Central Scouting

Every single service ranked Tkachuk ahead. Tkachuk also finished 3 spots ahead when taking the aggregate rankings of all 14 sources.

So explain to me now, which public service would you like to assail and why? Remember, you cited Mark Edwards and Botchford as valid sources. So tell me, which writers and journalists aren't good enough here and why?

--------------------

To address your other points:

You don't believe certain players should be drafted in certain slots. Yet, you have no doubt Dahlin is the BPA. These two thoughts are not congruent. You said that if everything we hear from NHL Scouts/GMs has the same player as BPA, he probably is. Ok then... every one of those 14 services had Tkachuk ahead. Not good enough? Need more information/want to question the sources again?

Simply put: You're choosing to pay attention to one piece of information over the other. That's selection bias.

 

[F A N]

Yes, you do. If BUF drafts Svechnikov over Dahlin, you would consider it a reach.

No I would call it absolute stupidity. Amazing that you would consider it just a reach.

The difference in our opinion is that you think so long as a few people say that X number of players are within the same class, it's not a reach. This is wrong to me because other scouts may not have that same classification for X number of players. The same groups. So who to believe? I tried to illustrate this selection bias on your behalf by talking about BPA via consensus - which is also a construct like class/group. Where you've completely lost the plot is that you have clung to one construct while arbitrarily ignoring the other construct. You've taken the oddest position:

- Pick is reasonable because a few sources said "same class/group".
- Pick is reasonable because other teams have their own BPA.
- Pick is reasonable because consensus BPA talk notes him as the "best Dman".
- Consensus BPA talk doesn't matter when Tkachuk is ranked 3 spots ahead in average rankings.
- Consensus BPA talk doesn't matter when every single service ranks Tkachuk ahead.
- Other teams have their own groups/classes and BPA, but that doesn't matter. It only matters when FAN uses class/group to justify VAN's selection.

If you're going to use third party sources to justify why you think the pick was reasonable, you best be prepared to submit to third party sources when they argue in the opposite direction.

The difference in our opinion is that you are completely ignoring context and the reasons behind the rankings. I have illustrated this to you so many times but you don't get it because you cling to your own "OMG AVERAGE RANKINGS!" For someone who has in the pass talk about process and argued that process is more important than the results, this seems completely contradictory.

How hard is it to understand that these "rankings" are just a list that a one player is often ranked above another based on the slimmest of margins or even a coin flip. Quick, I need to choose a number between 2 or 3. Which one? Take Craig Button's rankings. He was on 1040 saying that if you like Kotkaniemi at 3 take him. But his rankings would suggest that is a reach to you. Yet he's saying take him if you like him. You undoubtedly included McKenzie's rankings in your OMG AVERAGE RANKINGS but McKenzie said Juolevi is in the same class as Tkachuk. You undoubtedly included Hockey Prospects in your OMG AVERAGE RANKINGS but I bet you didn't buy it, otherwise you would read Mark Edwards saying that Edmonton has a choice between PLD, Tkachuk, and Juolevi.

Last, I am loathe to look back at our earlier exchanges, but I'm pretty sure you've subscribed to the "wait and see" approach, and you've confirmed it here by citing non-linear development. But you can clear this up right now: Do you think Juolevi has an even chance at meeting or exceeding Tkachuk's current level of play? (I highly suspect you will not answer this)

Even chance as in 50/50 no. And I said this earlier. But at the end of the day it's about winning a Cup. I would have drafted Stamkos over Doughty every time. But in terms of their importance to winning a Cup, I can't help but give the edge to Doughty.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Selection Bias #101.

Let's walk through this: So the FOR FREE opinions of McKenzie, Mark Edwards (Writer) and Botchford (Journalist) are meaningful. Yet, these sources are called into question:

TSN
Draft Analyst
Mckeen's Hockey
NA Central Scouting
Craig Button
Hockey Prospect
Future Considerations
ISS
The Hockey News
DraftBuzz Hockey
Damien Cox
Hockey Prospectus
Corey Pronman ESPN
NHL Central Scouting

Every single service ranked Tkachuk ahead. Tkachuk also finished 3 spots ahead when taking the aggregate rankings of all 14 sources.

Do you understand what selection bias means? How is it selection bias when I gave to you the context behind their rankings. Don't be cheap. Buy the draft guides and read them.

So explain to me now, which public service would you like to assail and why? Remember, you cited Mark Edwards and Botchford as valid sources. So tell me, which writers and journalists aren't good enough here and why?

I would definitely not trust Damien Cox. There's a school of thought that if you simply follow NHL Central Scouting rankings you would end up drafting better (for some teams anyways). But I think they're more of a guide than an actual authority. For example, Jake Virtanen was ranked ahead of Ritchie and Ehlers (whom they have 13th among NA skaters). I have experience with all of those draft guides/rankings and RLR that you have not included. Personally, I find Hockey Prospects tend to see things more similarly to the Canucks.

Regardless, pretty much all of them have "controversial rankings" that have problem to be disaster picks if you actually followed them. So to me, your reliance on "OMG AVERAGE RANKINGS" is complete stupidity to me.

To address your other points:

You don't believe certain players should be drafted in certain slots. Yet, you have no doubt Dahlin is the BPA. These two thoughts are not congruent. You said that if everything we hear from NHL Scouts/GMs has the same player as BPA, he probably is. Ok then... every one of those 14 services had Tkachuk ahead. Not good enough? Need more information/want to question the sources again?

Simply put: You're choosing to pay attention to one piece of information over the other. That's selection bias.

Umm... selection bias? I clearly told you that Botchford reported hearing from NHL teams that the Canucks made a wise choice. The Canucks obviously had Juolevi ranked higher. This isn't "EVERYTHING we hear from NHL Scouts/GMs has... Tkachuk ahead" no?

This is really idiotic man. You're spinning things and spewing things out that are only in your mind. I don't know how many times I have to tell you to please read and not just spew things out that are in your mind. You think you are like the smartest guy here but you really are not. Your interpretation of what posters here write are often wrong and have proven to be wrong. But you think you have interpreted things right because you throw out a summary that isn't even close to what was written. Details matter. Not details that are in your head. I'm pretty much done with you at this point since you fail to read and just try to twist my words.