Ottawa - Edmonton - Islanders Draft Discussion

[R S]

Just thought I'd mention that on the radio this morning Pierre McGuire seemed to imply that Ottawa would be better off taking Couturier or Landeskog as opposed to RNH. He said to look at each season as a whole, and cited the Canadian Junior camp as a note in favor of Couturier, as well as mentioning he thought that Landeskog was the best in the OHL before he got injured.

I think he was getting at people jumping on the RNH bandwagon and getting a head of themselves because of his recent hot streak, and talked about his struggles earlier in the season.

Great for him.

But drafting is based more on projection than how X player did in development camp and how Y player did during smaller stretches of any given year.

I agree that Lando and SC are easily much more NHL ready and will both play in the NHL next year. But I still think that as far as potential goes, RNH has the highest of any player in this draft.

Ottawa would be a good fit for him, but I truly hope he doesn't go there. If he does, that would be great though because I see a ton of Ottawa fans chirping him constantly around here. Would love to see them change their tune in a year or two, or less.

 

[Minister of Offence]

Ottawa would be a good fit for him, but I truly hope he doesn't go there. If he does, that would be great though because I see a ton of Ottawa fans chirping him constantly around here. Would love to see them change their tune in a year or two, or less.

A ton? I think you're giving CPheonixM's presence a little too much credit.

I think the general sense on the Ottawa board is no one can really make up their mind. You see a lot of "Don't dismiss Couturier" vs "He plays in a soft league", "We need better skill, no Landeskog" vs "We need a goalscorer with leadership on the wing for Spezza", "RNH's skill set can't be passed up" vs "His talent is overrated and he only scores on the PP".

Lots of RNH fans on the Ottawa board.

1. Larsson
2. RNH
3. Couturier
4. Landeskog

But it's all so tight and hard to determine because they are all caught from different cloth. I'm a big fan of hard, leadership characters and I feel like a team is going to get a ton of value out of Landeskog. This top 4 can easily come down to need or style preference.

Where I'm currently at. I'm happy with either and although they are all very different prospects...they are pretty neck and neck. Ottawa just dealt #2 and #3 centers...I'd be surprised if we didn't end up with an NHL ready (or near ready) center.

I always lean towards centers that can cover the most ice the fastest...exceptional vision, release and hockey sense makes it easy.

 

[sauce11]

Great for him.

But drafting is based more on projection than how X player did in development camp and how Y player did during smaller stretches of any given year.

I agree that Lando and SC are easily much more NHL ready and will both play in the NHL next year. But I still think that as far as potential goes, RNH has the highest of any player in this draft.

Ottawa would be a good fit for him, but I truly hope he doesn't go there. If he does, that would be great though because I see a ton of Ottawa fans chirping him constantly around here. Would love to see them change their tune in a year or two, or less.

not alot of ottawa fans IN ottawa chirping him at all.

anyone else notice that when TSN has done these little 5-minute specials on one of the top prospects, everyone starts thinking they're the only player to draft? in the summer it was couturier, in the fall, it was all about landeskog (and how north american he seems), now its RNH.
not taking shots at either of these three, because let's be honest, i'd be ecstatic with either one. all have different style's that can prove to be beneficial to any team's future.

bobmac, dreger and company are just as fickle as any hfboarder in terms of top prospects

 

[sauce11]

A ton? I think you're giving CPheonixM's presence a little too much credit.

I think the general sense on the Ottawa board is no one can really make up their mind. You see a lot of "Don't dismiss Couturier" vs "He plays in a soft league", "We need better skill, no Landeskog" vs "We need a goalscorer with leadership on the wing for Spezza", "RNH's skill set can't be passed up" vs "His talent is overrated and he only scores on the PP".

Lots of RNH fans on the Ottawa board.

1. Larsson
2. RNH
3. Couturier
4. Landeskog

Where I'm currently at. I'm happy with either and although they are all very different prospects...they are pretty neck and neck. Ottawa just dealt #2 and #3 centers...I'd be surprised if we didn't end up with an NHL ready (or near ready) center.

I always lean towards centers that can cover the most ice the fastest...exceptional vision, release and hockey sense makes it easy.

you said it minister

 

[YNWA14]

I'd like to say, in my defence, that I have never bashed RNH or said that he won't be a great player, or that he doesn't have a lot of potential. It only comes off that way because every third post on this board is about how RNH is the next coming of christ.

I've only ever said that it's not clear-cut that RNH has the most offensive potential, or upside, of any other player in the draft. Would I be happy with having him? Of course. I will be happy no matter who we draft. You guys just take it as some slight that I think OTHER draft eligibles could be as good, or better, as/than RNH because you guys are so high on him.

Great for him.

But drafting is based more on projection than how X player did in development camp and how Y player did during smaller stretches of any given year.

I'm sure that PMac is basing it solely on those camps, and only how RNH did at a certain stretch of the year. This is why it's so frustrating to argue with people that like RNH they completely ignore the possibility that other people just like what they've seen of different prospects more. All McGuire was saying is that you can't just look at what RNH has done lately -- Couturier and Landeskog have both been stellar for their teams as well, and they both made their respective junior teams. It's easy to say 'but RNH MIGHT have more potential'...sure, he might, but does he really? All of the top 4 have top end potential, the others are better now, that likely tips it in their favor.

I agree that Lando and SC are easily much more NHL ready and will both play in the NHL next year. But I still think that as far as potential goes, RNH has the highest of any player in this draft.

That's great, but I like to look at the chances of realized potential more than dreams of grandeur.

 

[Mathletic]

Baseball is a statiticians dream. They track every nuance of the indivdual content of the game. And for the most part a significant amount of what a player brings to the table can be isolated so that the data primarily reflects the individual.

Basketball, is somewhat similar to baseball in that much of the statistical information that is gathered can be attributed for the most part to the individual.

Football I am also skeptical about. While I can certainly see how you could get significant data on the performance of QB's, kickers and possibly running backs, I am not sur how a mathematical model would distinguish much between two prospective left guards. Basic stats can give you a rough idea of who seems to be the person to watch but I really doubt anyone would ever draft a linebacker based on some mathematical model.

Hockey, in my opinion is far to chaotic to try and make fine decisions based on a model alone. Moreover, the actions of the players are extremely intertwined. Of course basic stats like goals and assits, goals against and save percentage do significantly reflect an individuals accomplishments even if there is impact from the team in the numbers. However, most of the statistical analysis that has been applied to hockey tends to make far more sense in studying teams rather than individuals. There is far too large a variance and way too many outliers to go by a statistical model alone.

Of course one way to look at things, and this is a comment that Tingling himself made, is that given that the draft beyond the second round appears to be pretty much a random event, a statitical model could not hurt.

And of course, I am not saying that teams would not use an analyst. Given the dollars involved they should look for any edge they can get. But I am far from convinced that it would ever be an appropriate primary tool in decision making.

I will say this though, I am open to being wrong. Perhaps a second career awaits after I retire.

I told myself I wouldn't mention it but anyways, I have to let it go, it ain't a big deal. But we exchanged some PMs at some point. A couple of years ago I was studying how a junior player's play translated to the NHL. I stumbled upon a bunch of stuff and ended studying the whole game of hockey and then expanded to baseball and basketball. At some point I got into betting. I developed ... and still working on ... bettin models. I actually make a living betting on sports ... and making a good one ... I studied mathematics and ended not continuing at the moment to masters degree in order to work on my stuff. I bet on the NHL, NFL, MLB and NBA. I'm working on college sports ... NCAA football and basketball ... and will probably work on Euro Football at some point down the road.

The thing that may be conter-intuitive is that baseball is the toughest sport to predict. Even though there's tons of data to work with, lots of scholarly articles and all you want. Baseball is tough to predict. The NHL and NFL are about the same and the NBA is the "easiest" ... btw, take into consideration I'm saying this based on ym stuff, maybe other people will say differently ... It also reflects in odds posted for games. Baseball odds are for the most part fairly even. Even the most lopsided games like the KC Royals playing at Yankee Stadium with Sabathia rates at -300 or -350, which isn't bad money for a lot of basketball and hockey games. In the NBA you'll see games at -2000 like Cleveland visiting Boston and games of that sort ... btw my stuff is all algorithms, there's no, oh well, I'm feelin like this team will win ...

Hockey isn't as hard to predict as we may think it is. Though it's true that it's somewhat chaotic as in small events may carry a fairly big burden, there's still a lot than can be studied, optimized and whatnot. You don't have to stick to the usual win share thing ... though useful ... graph theory can be of great help for instance.

 

[Fourier]

I told myself I wouldn't mention it but anyways, I have to let it go, it ain't a big deal. But we exchanged some PMs at some point. A couple of years ago I was studying how a junior player's play translated to the NHL. I stumbled upon a bunch of stuff and ended studying the whole game of hockey and then expanded to baseball and basketball. At some point I got into betting. I developed ... and still working on ... bettin models. I actually make a living betting on sports ... and making a good one ... I studied mathematics and ended not continuing at the moment to masters degree in order to work on my stuff. I bet on the NHL, NFL, MLB and NBA. I'm working on college sports ... NCAA football and basketball ... and will probably work on Euro Football at some point down the road.

The thing that may be conter-intuitive is that baseball is the toughest sport to predict. Even though there's tons of data to work with, lots of scholarly articles and all you want. Baseball is tough to predict. The NHL and NFL are about the same and the NBA is the "easiest" ... btw, take into consideration I'm saying this based on ym stuff, maybe other people will say differently ... It also reflects in odds posted for games. Baseball odds are for the most part fairly even. Even the most lopsided games like the KC Royals playing at Yankee Stadium with Sabathia rates at -300 or -350, which isn't bad money for a lot of basketball and hockey games. In the NBA you'll see games at -2000 like Cleveland visiting Boston and games of that sort.

Hockey isn't as hard to predict as we may think it is. Though it's true that it's somewhat chaotic as in small events may carry a fairly big burden, there's still a lot than can be studied, optimized and whatnot. You don't have to stick to the usual win share thing ... though useful ... graph theory can be of great help for instance.

I remember the PM's and I am not saying it is impossible to use mathematical analysis in sports. There are lots of examples of serious works in a variety of sports. In fact, I am considering putting together a course on Math and Sports for a Master's program for Math Teachers that I am involved in . But you are now talking about a completely different thing than we were talking about before. Predicting the outcome of games is not at all the same thing as predicting the career potential of an individual in the sport.

For the record, I am not at all surprised that basesall is the most difficult to predict the outcome of an individual game. Nor am I surprised about Basketball and football being the easiest.

As I said, if people do come up with a reliable mathematical model for predicting the career path of a junior hockey player I will be all over it. And please don't let me disuade you in any way from looking at this. The very best intelectual accomplishments are those that produce surprising results.

 

[Gobo]

Great for him.

But drafting is based more on projection than how X player did in development camp and how Y player did during smaller stretches of any given year.

I agree that Lando and SC are easily much more NHL ready and will both play in the NHL next year. But I still think that as far as potential goes, RNH has the highest of any player in this draft.

Ottawa would be a good fit for him, but I truly hope he doesn't go there. If he does, that would be great though because I see a ton of Ottawa fans chirping him constantly around here. Would love to see them change their tune in a year or two, or less.

RNH has the highest ceiling but he's also the most likely to bust. SC is at worst, probably a 3C, Landeskog a third line grinder and Larsson a #4 D. RNH however could end up not making a top six, and his skill set doesn't seem fit for a bottom six role. Also he's the only one without an NHL ready frame.

 

[Mathletic]

Kitchener Rangers playing on sportsnet

Big hit from Landeskog to start the game. Rangers lead 2-0.

 

[STHLM*]

Kitchener Rangers playing on sportsnet

Big hit from Landeskog to start the game. Rangers lead 2-0.

Lando has a goal too. His 28th this season. Rangers lead 3-2.

 

[YNWA14]

Lando with a goal and an assist in a very close game.

 

[LeafsandSharksfan]

I'm staying adamant that Landeskog is the guy to lead the Sens into the future.

 

[Alberta tough]

Lando with a goal and an assist in a very close game.

He looked very good. How the heck do the Rangers blow that game though?

 

[topshelf15]

I'm staying adamant that Landeskog is the guy to lead the Sens into the future.

Ilike him a lot but SC is my call for the sens if they pick second ,lando would be my second favorite prospect

 

[usernam*]

NYI-Larsson
OTT-Hopkins
EDM-Landeskog(Couturier)