Poor individual seasons?

[Golbez]

It's called applying moneyball theories to the sport of hockey. It's usually a trait of a certain group of fans of an NHL team from the largest city in Canada.

What they dont realize is that even in most baseball circles, moneyball = idiotball.

Pray tell, what is 'moneyball'? (I know about the book)
If you think moneyball is looking at stat sheets exclusively to make decisions, then obviously the whole book went way over your head (If you even read the book).

The Red Sox are considered a 'moneyball' team, and they did pretty damn well.

I'm not from TO and I'd love to see more stats analysis combined into subjective hockey evaluation. We had a good discussion about this elsewhere on the site, but it's something that needs to be considered. There are fans from every market that feel the same way. Why would you purely trust 'guts' and 'instinct'? That would be foolish.

It certainly is telling the Andrew Ladd's production fell off so heavily as he aged another year in junior.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I get what you are saying, but in fairness I do recall a bunch of lists at the time having Olesz grouped in that top 4, some with him ahead of Barker.

Still too early to decide if those lists are right or wrong, but just thought I'd throw that in the pile.

In any case, it's probably a minor quibble with your post, at most.

No, I think what you are saying has merit. The "ballpark" is just that to me, a rough estimate. I've got absolutely no problem if someone prefers Olesz now, or at draft time. I just mean, I didn't see any player that truly stood out as a no-brainer at 4th overall.

Olesz would have been a worthy #4. My concern at the time was the concussion and not knowing him all that well. Interestingly, I think he is a different but still comparable player to Ladd. A little more skill, less grit.

Right now I'd probably pick him over Ladd, now that he appears to have recovered well. But not by a landslide.

 

[speeds]

I would have replied to this, but I was editing my above response while you were replyingto mine, so I guess see above for my rebuttle

 

[mymkovski]

I've seen Ladd play several times, and I have to agree with Vlad that he possesses some "intangibles" that definitely make him an impact player on the ice. He's a smart player among other things, and that will go a long way in his potential NHL career. Was he worth a 4th overall pick? Well, with me not being an NHL scout, I don't have the know-how to say for sure. I definitely would say he was for sure a top 15 or 20, unlike the opinion of Steen here. Also to back-up Vlad on the point that past the big 3, Ovechkin-Malkin-Barker, there was a huge mush of players available to draft. Some have played better than others since the draft, but I would imagine the order would be quite similar (+/- a few spots). So even if Ladd has dropped off, I don't think he's slid past top 10.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Seems like you're okay with taking potential 3rd line players like Ladd very high in the draft. Others like myself would rather go with players who have more talent and upside, while being pretty safe prospects.

I'm ok with taking the most worthy player in a given draft. And in case it's that close, I've got no problem with picking the player you like best.

There is more than upside in a draft choice. And when the upside of a draft crop is frankly less than great, it's tough not to look at guys you find safe, reliable, versatile and who bring some intangibles.

BTW, I think Ladd has 2nd line upside. I just don't bank on it.

 

[Form and Substance]

I know if I had the #4 pick last year, I sure as hell wouldn't have chosen Ladd, he's a nice player but I don't think he has a good scoring upside, I could be proven wrong. Why is it that people ALWAYS band up against one poster on these boards? Jeez, if people must duke it out, let them duke it out alone, they don't need ou to interfere.

 

[MS]

Ladd would be a bad pick if you could look at that draft and pick out several players selected behind him who had breakout seasons and clearly passed him in development. The exact opposite is the case - most of the players taken in the 10 or so picks after him struggled as much or more. There were only 2 or 3 players from that entire first round who really stepped it up this year - Nokelainen, Meszaros, Zajac. As it stands, I'm fairly certain Ladd would still go top-5 or so, even if his production this year was disappointing.

As for this thread, Wheeler (18 goals in Tier II from a top-5 pick?), Montoya, Thelen, Valabic, and Kaspar and Schwarz to an extent all had disappointing seasons.

 

[scout46]

My point with the 4th overall pick is that players of Ladd's calibre (Chipchura, Kesler, etc...) don't go 4th overall. They go later in the lottery or even later in the first round. My problem isn't with Ladd as much as it is with those who overhype the guy because he went that high.

He's not that good, the Canes made a mistake taking him at #4 and it's obvious.

Some do nothing but overhype. Some do nothing but bash!! One's as bad as the other.

 

[scout46]

I agree with MS on Montoya, Thelen as disappointing this season

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

I can't believe its being overlooked this much but its not uncommon for it to take several yrs before prospects like Ladd fully achieve their potential. So what if he had a disappointing "statistical" season compared to his draft yr. Does that mean he won't ever improve in the future (particularly since he's considered a PF-type player)??

In 5 yrs, if he's still struggling to do anything then you can complain but its way too early to bash half of these players mentioned in this thread (including any of the d-men or goaltenders).

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Al Montoya, stats may be decent but a huge drop from last year. Poor season overall battling consistancy.

Ladislav Smid, I didn't think he was close to the best defensmen for Czechs at the WJC. Didn't look dominant at all. Don't really know how he is doing in europe.

 

[McDonald19]

Ladislav Smid, I didn't think he was close to the best defensmen for Czechs at the WJC. Didn't look dominant at all. Don't really know how he is doing in europe.

He looked how he was supposed to look. Solid composed d-man who makes the smart decisions. Don't expect anything flashy from Smid.

His stock has risen since the draft. Take a look at Hockey News top 50 prospects for an example.

 

[Gorgeous George]

Ok. I will try to discuss this rationally with you one last time.

Yes, I'm rather disappointed in Ladd's statistical output in Calgary. I wish he had kept the pace or possibly improved it. He didn't, neither did Ladd. Schultz seemed to start slow statistically as well and his goal total was way off. A lot of things, statistically, didn't make a whole lot of sense.

That being said, when I saw Ladd he played well. I saw one or two Hitmen games and I thought he was doing pretty good for what I expect of him as a player. Here lies the first problem. I think you were expecting the next Todd Bertuzzi, and that's why you're disappointed. Those are your own words at the prospect game:

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=747881&highlight=Ladd#post747881

First period's almost done and these are the guys that have impressed me...

- Andrew Ladd - Powerforward, Todd Bertuzzi'esque.

And earlier:

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=434281&highlight=Ladd#post434281

After Alexander Ovechkin, my personal favourites are...

1. Cam Barker
2. Johannes Salomonsson
3. Andrew Ladd
4. Wojtech Wolski
5. Carl Soderberg

In between your again obvious crush on Swedish players, I think you started with very lofty. unrealistic expectations for Ladd. It's no wonder that you think he's crap now. He's not going to turn into Todd Bertuzzi if that's what you were thinking.

What irritates me is that you totally fail to see the intangibles he provides. And you continue to insist he isn't a worthy 4th overall pick. The problem is, in this draft, few players stood out.

If you expect a Joni Pitkanen kind of 4th overall selection out of the 2004 draft, you are bound to be disappointed.

If you're obsessed with stats, you should probably factor in his WJC stats, They are impressive for any player and compare favorably to the rest of the Canadian squad. He is in the upper half of Canadian point getters with one of the best +/-.

But I think the stats are beyond the point. I just love how he played over there and still think of him as a very safe, versatile prospect. And I do think there is some upside in him. It is also more and more reported that he was hindered by injuries this year. I wish his offense was the same as last year but I don't think it's that much of a big deal.

It doesn't matter that Chipchura is a similar player. There were a dozen players of similar value from the 4th slot down. It's not Ladd's fault that he happened to be the first selected. Could have been Tukonen or someone else as far as I'm concerned. It wouldn't look much better and it isn't any more significant.

Although I am not an avid poster, I have been reviewing and reading these boards for many, many years. I admire your dedication for detail, respect your views and enthusiasm for the game of hockey. You are definitely on my list of HF's all-time most informative and knowledgeable posters, along with Dr. Chimera and a handful of others.

Having said that, what I don't understand is why you feel it is so necessary to clean-up the mistakes of every poster on this site. You definitely have to learn to let some posters go, or you will soon be spending the remainder of your days in futility attempting to correct the obvious ignorance of others.

Maybe one day you'll wake up many years from now, wondering why you wasted so many years trying to fend off the impending absurdity of posters that looms for eternity like a dark plague over these boards...like death and taxes this is one thing I am sure will never change.

Or maybe ridiculing and correcting others makes you feel important. Whatever gets you through the day.

 

[417]

Never liked Ladd at #4, like it even less now...doesn't mean I don't think he's a good prospect, I think he is, but even at the draft he looked more like a late 1st rounder early 2nd round type of player...

 

[CREW99AW]

Isles have to be disappointed in Tunik,Nilsson and Cherynkh's seasons.
Tunik and Cherynkh were demoted from the RSL.Nilsson was demoted from the SEL.

 

[West]

Just because no one has mentioned it. THN prospect issue stated that Ladd had a shoulder injury early in the year. Seening that he only missed 7 games (about half those he was playing in WJC) all season it's not a bad guess that he played alot games at less than 100%.

I find it's a good idea to give players playing through injuries the benifit of the doubt. My personal opinion is let's see what happens next year and he's still a decent bet to be underated 2nd line scorer.

 

[Habsfan 32]

Montoya for sure. Bouwmeester he's not realy a prospect anymore but he had a poor season.

 

[MontrealCruiser_83*]

Never liked Ladd at #4, like it even less now...doesn't mean I don't think he's a good prospect, I think he is, but even at the draft he looked more like a late 1st rounder early 2nd round type of player...

At the draft he was a top-15 pick for sure. No way he had any chance of falling out of the first. Even now I doubt he'd fall out of the top-10/15.

 

[417]

At the draft he was a top-15 pick for sure. No way he had any chance of falling out of the first. Even now I doubt he'd fall out of the top-10/15.

Yeah I know, but I didin't think he deserved to go that high

 

[Zine]

Igor Radulov.
Went pointless in the AHL; assigned to ECHL and didn't show; went back to Russia and stunk it up there.

 

[X-SHARKIE]

I think we should be light on the 2003 prospects in the CHL.

Alot of these kids are devoloping there games away from the puck and becoming more complete players.

Stats don't tell the whole story.

 

[Chief]

Ladd would be a bad pick if you could look at that draft and pick out several players selected behind him who had breakout seasons and clearly passed him in development. The exact opposite is the case - most of the players taken in the 10 or so picks after him struggled as much or more. There were only 2 or 3 players from that entire first round who really stepped it up this year - Nokelainen, Meszaros, Zajac. As it stands, I'm fairly certain Ladd would still go top-5 or so, even if his production this year was disappointing.

As for this thread, Wheeler (18 goals in Tier II from a top-5 pick?), Montoya, Thelen, Valabic, and Kaspar and Schwarz to an extent all had disappointing seasons.

Agree with the thrust of your first point and the second point is right on target.

Although rating prospects a year after they were drafted gives us all something to talk about, unless a prospect's "dissapointing" performance becomes a pattern, this season will be irrelevent. Judging a prospect on any one season is foolish. Of course, if we all waited 5 years to discuss draft picks, it would sure be a lot more quiet around here.

 

[Wondercarrot]

IMO Ladd ends up as a serviceable 3rd liner. so IMO a wasted 1st rouond pick.
I suppose ive only seen him play 10-12 times so its not a great sample admittedly,but generally you see something you like in that number of games. Im just totally unimpressed.

 

[PSUhockey34]

'04 27th pick Jeff Schultz

'03-'04 72 games 11g 24a
'04-'05 72 games 2g 27a

Another Hitmen whose numbers slid this season....maybe there's a connection

 

[BigAl]

I don't think Andrew Ladd should have gone #4, or even top 15 for that matter. I do think he has a CHANCE at making the NHL, but only as a grinder. I see this guy miss making so many simple plays. I wonder if anyone ever taught him how to correctly accept a pass, as the puck always seems to hop over his stick or flub off it when he tries to make a one-time pass. Although he is showing his hunger and heart early in the WHL playoffs, I don't see his game getting much better. I think he is one of these players who has all the PHYSICAL tools, but has already hit his peak and won't get much better. In retrospect.....there is no way Ladd at #4 is justified in my opinion.