Prospect Info: second round targets

[Shaman464]

Each year there are some borderline first-round guys who fall to the late second. Last year, Akil Thomas, BO Groulx, Jacob Olofsson, Calen Addison, Jonny Tychonick, Kirill Marchenko all went in the back half of the second-round and had been projected (in various outlets) as potential late first-rounders. So, I like the prospect of having three cracks in round two here.

Some guys that could potentially be available in the second-round: Robert Mastrisimone, Anttoni Honka, Brett Leason (overager), Samuel Fagemo (overager), Nick Robertson, Mads Sogaard, Judd Caulfield, Egor Afanaseyev, John Beecher, Lassi Thompson, Moritz Seider.

There's a reason why players fall. It happens every year, and most years it seems that they in fact did fall for a reason. Call me conservative, but a single bite a a high percentage apple is always better than more bites at low percentage apples.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

Not being 100% accurate is one thing, but when they have R^2 values of 0.1-0.2 pretty much put it into a the realm of trash. Putting a random line on a graph is as likely to yield that kind of value. As for what the Blue Jackets did 5 years ago? I mean that's great for them, but their drafting isn't what I would call top tier.

I'm not really sure where you are getting that R^2 value? I can't find any such discussion of R^2 values in either of the articles; are you referring to the article that discusses the initial strong/weak link connections? That doesn't have anything to do with the use of GAR in the article and the later discussion on "the value of picks"; it's used as proof that hockey is a strong linked game, meaning the correlation between having elite players and higher team point totals is more correlated than having depth and higher team point totals. I think everyone would agree that you need both overall depth and elite players to be successful, but the more important of the two is having elite players. If you mean that the repeatability of something like GAR is trash I'd disagree, each component of GAR is fairly repeatability on a year to year basis.

The point of the NHL article was that they were using a similar draft pick value chart as what is being discussed here. If you cared to read the article you would have read that they began to use the chart as far back as 2009. Whether or not they were successful with those picks is not the question that's being looked at here, it was the fact the NHL teams have been using this sort of chart for almost a full decade now. Given the variability that comes with NHL picks it isn't a surprise they were not super successful but by using a pick value chart they ensured they were setting themselves up to be in the position that offered them the best chance at success. Lastly, you said:

In the end these trades aren't made in the on the basis of a GM plugging draft positions into a line of best fit, then using those numbers to calculate combined odds of drafting a player of X value before making the trade

The article disproves that, as well given how draft pick trades have been made that there is a clear value established and it would be most teams are using a form of a pick value chart in their decision making process. If the Jackets were using it in 2009 one can only assume that more teams have developed similar tools.

 

[A Few Good Males]

There's a reason why players fall. It happens every year, and most years it seems that they in fact did fall for a reason. Call me conservative, but a single bite a a high percentage apple is always better than more bites at low percentage apples.

I don't disagree that trading up could be a plausible scenario. After reading the first two pages of bickering, I don't have any interest in joining that discussion and instead prefer to discuss what is germane to the thread: second round targets.

 

[Shaman464]

I'm not really sure where you are getting that R^2 value? I can't find any such discussion of R^2 values in either of the articles; are you referring to the article that discusses the initial strong/weak link connections? That doesn't have anything to do with the use of GAR in the article and the later discussion on "the value of picks"; it's used as proof that hockey is a strong linked game, meaning the correlation between having elite players and higher team point totals is more correlated than having depth and higher team point totals. I think everyone would agree that you need both overall depth and elite players to be successful, but the more important of the two is having elite players. If you mean that the repeatability of something like GAR is trash I'd disagree, each component of GAR is fairly repeatability on a year to year basis.

The point of the NHL article was that they were using a similar draft pick value chart as what is being discussed here. If you cared to read the article you would have read that they began to use the chart as far back as 2009. Whether or not they were successful with those picks is not the question that's being looked at here, it was the fact the NHL teams have been using this sort of chart for almost a full decade now. Given the variability that comes with NHL picks it isn't a surprise they were not super successful but by using a pick value chart they ensured they were setting themselves up to be in the position that offered them the best chance at success. Lastly, you said:



The article disproves that, as well given how draft pick trades have been made that there is a clear value established and it would be most teams are using a form of a pick value chart in their decision making process. If the Jackets were using it in 2009 one can only assume that more teams have developed similar tools.

The reason you can't find it is because they don't discuss it, but they put it in their data sets. BPM which the author took from another person has decent fit (but its still below what I would consider workable), but when the author of the blog tries to use that and a couple other measures to make a GAR the stats break down and their equations no longer come close to being able to explain variation from predicted values. Worse, they won't show data for how they derived XPM which is another key to it, but looking at how they derived it, I would bet that its also not a good predictor. Statistically its a mess. Like SABR people wouldn't even give this blog a second look.

 

[Mister Ed]

Samuel Fagemo is an interesting prospect, outscoring Hallander (PIT), Bokk (STL) and Olofsson (MTL) in his rookie year.

 

[Killerjas]

Fagemo is a beast

 

[Hockeyfannnn91]

Do you guys think fagemo would be available with our second of the 2nd round picks ? Or he’d have to be picked with our first second rounder? I’ve had my eye on fagemo but I also like John beecher a lot

 

[Frk It]

Do you guys think fagemo would be available with our second of the 2nd round picks ? Or he’d have to be picked with our first second rounder? I’ve had my eye on fagemo but I also like John beecher a lot

It’s really hard to guess where overagers will go. They’re not included in some rankings, and I imagine teams have a big variance in opinion on them. I’m very curious to see where Brett Leason ends up going.

 

[Snuggs]

Oleg Zaitsez C, Nolan Foote LW, Nils Hoglander RW, Mikko Kokkonen D, Vladislav Kolyachonok D.

No particular order right now. We've got three 2nd rounders so landing a few of these guys would make me happy.

Hard to see a ton of guys film too outside of highlights and stat watching for me on basically every prospect. I almost have to commit to watching guys that raise an eyebrow through, size,word of mouth, stats, etc.

 

[Hockeyfannnn91]

It’s really hard to guess where overagers will go. They’re not included in some rankings, and I imagine teams have a big variance in opinion on them. I’m very curious to see where Brett Leason ends up going.

I’ve read nothing but first round for him I think, fagemo I think was 3rd round + but if we really like him like we did bertuzzi especially with 3 firsts I think we’d just take him ,i just like beecher , a big c being buried on a deep u.s team with maybe some untapped potential he can turn out to be a steal

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

It’s really hard to guess where overagers will go. They’re not included in some rankings, and I imagine teams have a big variance in opinion on them. I’m very curious to see where Brett Leason ends up going.

I think somebody winds up taking him in the first in the 20s, his explosion is pretty big and he has tantalizing measurements. He reworked his skating and got a lot better is a part of why he has exploded forward. We will see. I would be a little apprehensive in the first but with our second he kind of fits the group we are building here.