Trade Bait and a New Core.

[SupremeTeam16]

Nuge has had a tough season but when you make claims like the bolded you should back it up. This is not a subjective statement. The NHL actually tracks shots and misses. Nuge has 85 SOG and 33 misses. That is .388 misses to every shot on goal. The numbers for Eberle and Draisaitl are .351 and .388. For 2014 Nuge's number was .328.

By comparison Ovie is .453, Pacioretty is .395, Seguin is .384, Benn is .356....

Who do you think you are Fourier? You think you can just come in here and use stupid things like facts and recorded statistics to refute other peoples opinions and non fact based claims. These people obviously know what they are talking about, and they don't need your stats and facts. Eberle and RNH are overpaid bums who do nothing to help this team win, they are near worthless.

 

[Up the Irons]

Nuge has had a tough season but when you make claims like the bolded you should back it up. This is not a subjective statement. The NHL actually tracks shots and misses. Nuge has 85 SOG and 33 misses. That is .388 misses to every shot on goal. The numbers for Eberle and Draisaitl are .351 and .388. For 2014 Nuge's number was .328.

By comparison Ovie is .453, Pacioretty is .395, Seguin is .384, Benn is .356....

except those actually score alot of goals. why doesn't RNH score more goals with his good wrist shot that rarely misses the net? Something, whatever it is, isn't equally shots going into the net often enough to be considered elite.

You shouldn't need to convince people that a player is elite. Its should be obvious. Like in Hall's case. Just watch the games, and its as clear as day.

Please, guys, give up trying to convince me. I'll let my eyes convince me if RNH is an elite player. My eyes have already determined that he is a good player. He may very well end up being a very valuable player when he is 26-29. He might even have one 70 point season in him. but he has to do it.

I remember thinking Hemsky was going to be a special player; getting fooled because of early success and thinking he'd be a star by the time he was 27. It didn't happen. He was a good player, but not elite. Elite stickhandler, but not an elite offensive producers.

I'm not saying RNH is garbage. I'm just saying he is not elite, or special. That's not really that outrageous, is it?

 

[BlowbyBlow]

except those actually score alot of goals. why doesn't RNH score more goals with his good wrist shot that rarely misses the net? Something, whatever it is, isn't equally shots going into the net often enough to be considered elite.

You shouldn't need to convince people that a player is elite. Its should be obvious. Like in Hall's case. Just watch the games, and its as clear as day.

Please, guys, give up trying to convince me. I'll let my eyes convince me if RNH is an elite player. My eyes have already determined that he is a good player. He may very well end up being a very valuable player when he is 26-29. He might even have one 70 point season in him. but he has to do it.

I remember thinking Hemsky was going to be a special player; getting fooled because of early success and thinking he'd be a star by the time he was 27. It didn't happen. He was a good player, but not elite. Elite stickhandler, but not an elite offensive producers.

I'm not saying RNH is garbage. I'm just saying he is not elite, or special. That's not really that outrageous, is it?

You can't convince supporters of RNH they will always try to convince without just using the most common form of scouting which is the eye sight test.

You don't ask for what number or what team the particular player plays for you watch which guys are the most impactful.

The second test is you isolate the player you watch how much coverage he is getting, how much focus other teams put on him - then you can translate how he performs.

This is part that makes me discount anything any RNH supporter has to say. Having watched (the two examples; close to total points in 2014) Backes, Brassard, both played against tough competition and performed well. People would be amazed how unnoticeable RNH is especially when he plays against great teams. Those two examples in his same point range played lots of minutes and against good d-man. Its just the poor me generation for RNH.

Stats are conclusions made over many different types of situations and circumstances and don't give the whole picture= completely useless

RNH has a 56% faceoff % against (30th place team)
RNH has a 28% faceoff % against (1st place team)

Which one are you going to use, well that's stats for you.

As one person argues using stats over several games in a 82 season another person will be sensible and look at games of importance in isolation and come up with a better understanding.

Also as they say stats don't win you games. Show me RNH can run a PP, PK, defensive/offensive faceoff, and can play well against good teams.

 

[Up the Irons]

You can't convince supporters of RNH they will always try to convince without just using the most common form of scouting which is the eye sight test.

You don't ask for what number or what team the particular player plays for you watch which guys are the most impactful.

The second test is you isolate the player you watch how much coverage he is getting, how much focus other teams put on him - then you can translate how he performs.

This is part that makes me discount anything any RNH supporter has to say. Having watched (the two examples; close to total points in 2014) Backes, Brassard, both played against tough competition and performed well. People would be amazed how unnoticeable RNH is especially when he plays against great teams. Those two examples in his same point range played lots of minutes and against good d-man. Its just the poor me generation for RNH.

Stats are conclusions made over many different types of situations and circumstances and don't give the whole picture= completely useless

RNH has a 56% faceoff % against (30th place team)
RNH has a 28% faceoff % against (1st place team)

Which one are you going to use, well that's stats for you.

As one person argues using stats over several games in a 82 season another person will be sensible and look at games of importance in isolation and come up with a better understanding.

Also as they say stats don't win you games. Show me RNH can run a PP, PK, defensive/offensive faceoff, and can play well against good teams.

well, I wouldn't go that far. Stats are a helper, but, yeah, i'm with you in that the eye-test is still the best test. Especially with the extremes, the elite players or fringe players. With both, its obvious. the mid range players, that's were stats come in.

 

[BlowbyBlow]

well, I wouldn't go that far. Stats are a helper, but, yeah, i'm with you in that the eye-test is still the best test. Especially with the extremes, the elite players or fringe players. With both, its obvious. the mid range players, that's were stats come in.

Don't get me wrong I like advanced stats if it's football i am looking at completion percentage, who gets the most targets, ect

In hockey, I want to see ice time, faceoff percentage, shots on net, but in the end in both examples you have to look at results, then you have to look how they are against good teams.

its situational stats in the end what the end goal is to find out how a player performs against better competition but more importantly are there getting better, are they sheltered. It just means not all stats are equal, and I have been a huge supporter of RNH especially but when people compare to players with equal stats your not necessarily getting a equal player when you see other sides of those players and how they out perform your player.

If all hockey or any sport was based on stats, you would have trades like RNH for Bergeron but it just doesn't work that way.

 

[GRadio]

Eberle is going to be playing with McDavid right away. I think a lot of you will be eating some crow.

 

[BlowbyBlow]

Eberle is going to be playing with McDavid right away. I think a lot of you will be eating some crow.

Yea Eberle will rack up points if he has good linemates i think that's a great consolation because unlike RNH who fans always blame his linemates. Eberle by an large has played well regardless if he gets rotated around.

I would like to see a full lineup and see if the team can make forward progress.

 

[Fourier]

except those actually score alot of goals. why doesn't RNH score more goals with his good wrist shot that rarely misses the net? Something, whatever it is, isn't equally shots going into the net often enough to be considered elite.

You shouldn't need to convince people that a player is elite. Its should be obvious. Like in Hall's case. Just watch the games, and its as clear as day.

Please, guys, give up trying to convince me. I'll let my eyes convince me if RNH is an elite player. My eyes have already determined that he is a good player. He may very well end up being a very valuable player when he is 26-29. He might even have one 70 point season in him. but he has to do it.

I remember thinking Hemsky was going to be a special player; getting fooled because of early success and thinking he'd be a star by the time he was 27. It didn't happen. He was a good player, but not elite. Elite stickhandler, but not an elite offensive producers.

I'm not saying RNH is garbage. I'm just saying he is not elite, or special. That's not really that outrageous, is it?

The simple answer to your question is that 1) he does not shoot as much as those guys. But part of being a goal scorer is to get your self in shooting position and to shoot. These guys do that better than Nuge.

Your comment was that "he always misses the net" as evidence that he does not have a good shoot. That is not true. Which was the point of the exercise. Tough last year he was 4th amongst centers in goals at ES so it's not like he is a plug. Nuge has a very good wrist shot. It is accurate and he has a deceptive release. Ovechkin on the other hand has pretty much every trick in the bag as far as scoring is concerned. Seguin's shot is certainly harder than Nuge's but really no more accurate. He also has a goal scorers mentality so given the choice to pass or shoot, he shoots. Almost all great goal scores think that way.


Aside from that I have no intention of trying to convince you that RNH is elite. At this point he is not.

The problem with the "just watch the game" claim is that it assumes that I don't. Which is absolutely false. I may have missed 1 game in his whole career. I also think that there is no substitute for seeing a player play and that live is better than on TV which is why I go to 5 or 6 games a year despite the fact that I live in Ontario.

But some claims can be directly refuted by statistics. Your claim about him always missing the net is exactly such a claim. (The same claim is made about Yakupov by the way). Moreover what this does illustrate is observational bias which we all have. When he does miss that registers with you because you have this as a perceived weakness. When I watch him play I see and remember different things than you do based on how I view the player.

My position on RNH is that those that think he is expendable under rate his contribution to the team or the value of center depth. I see him as somewhere around 20-25 in the centers in the NHL. His contract is consistent with his offensive production and his over all play. If I was forced to keep only two of McDavid, Draisaitl and Nuge I would trade Nuge. But I would certainly not move him for a 2nd pairing defenseman and would trade Eberle well before I would trade Nuge.

 

[Fourier]

You can't convince supporters of RNH they will always try to convince without just using the most common form of scouting which is the eye sight test.

You don't ask for what number or what team the particular player plays for you watch which guys are the most impactful.

The second test is you isolate the player you watch how much coverage he is getting, how much focus other teams put on him - then you can translate how he performs.

This is part that makes me discount anything any RNH supporter has to say. Having watched (the two examples; close to total points in 2014) Backes, Brassard, both played against tough competition and performed well. People would be amazed how unnoticeable RNH is especially when he plays against great teams. Those two examples in his same point range played lots of minutes and against good d-man. Its just the poor me generation for RNH.

Stats are conclusions made over many different types of situations and circumstances and don't give the whole picture= completely useless

RNH has a 56% faceoff % against (30th place team)
RNH has a 28% faceoff % against (1st place team)

Which one are you going to use, well that's stats for you.

As one person argues using stats over several games in a 82 season another person will be sensible and look at games of importance in isolation and come up with a better understanding.

Also as they say stats don't win you games. Show me RNH can run a PP, PK, defensive/offensive faceoff, and can play well against good teams.

I can assure you that I understand the flaws and nuances of statistics as well as most on these boards. I am also a firm believer in basing opinions based on what you see. However, it is not the case that the eye test is always better than the stats at revealing truth. For example, my response to Up in Irons comment about missing the net was statistically based because in this case there are statistics that track exactly that which show that the claim is false. So the eye test in this case fails.

By the way, your description of how you use stats also tells me that you have just as many misconceptions of what they can tell you as most. You also seem to believe that you see what really happens where as others see what they like or don't watch at all. I am more than willing to admit that what I see is influenced by my own biases. Are you willing to admit the same? Because if you are not then you are deluding yourself.

 

[BlowbyBlow]

I can assure you that I understand the flaws and nuances of statistics as well as most on these boards. I am also a firm believer in basing opinions based on what you see. However, it is not the case that the eye test is always better than the stats at revealing truth. For example, my response to Up in Irons comment about missing the net was statistically based because in this case there are statistics that track exactly that which show that the claim is false. So the eye test in this case fails.

By the way, your description of how you use stats also tells me that you have just as many misconceptions of what they can tell you as most. You also seem to believe that you see what really happens where as others see what they like or don't watch at all. I am more than willing to admit that what I see is influenced by my own biases. Are you willing to admit the same? Because if you are not then you are deluding yourself.

Well as I said stats in a general sense are useless. Mainly because as I said there making a conclusion of something over many different games and situations. Often what's worse is a player can be going through an injury and have his whole stat line look like garbage. I love advanced stats but even I would have a hard time getting into the nitty gritty.

Like lets say Draisaitl is 55% on faceoffs in one game but he is facing another teams #2-3 centerman. RNH is 45% but he's facing the teams #1 centerman constantly. Well stats over the year wouldn't tell me what competition Drasaitl is facing vs RNH.
If I were to create a stat i would actually develop something that would say against top 15 centerman this is this players average against the next 15 it's this. That would tell me more.

All types of stats can lead you to biases, because you are looking for what one does well and it comes down to what we value more. Do you value shooting percentage, faceoff percentage, time in the offensive zone. Well it all gets even more complicated x player only gets offensive draws but Y player is Jarret Stoll (which was true of one playoff round where he took most of the defensive draws) well he was actually there best center, but in terms of shots on net, goals, +/- it didn't say he was doing anything else.

I am never biased on any player because I want to see what they do best, and build a composition of what they are. I am not of the group that a player has to be the highest +/-, x amount of points, and high faceoff percentage, shooting percentage. It's extremely rare to find a player that is absolutely gifted in every facet of the game. We all remember the year Ovechkin had 50 goals and had the worst +/- well in that case you do have to look at the negative.

For RNH, in comparing him with similar players (which is hard to find comparables) points are not fair but everyone uses it. Mainly then your getting into well Backes, Bergeron, Brassard all are older, and then it's just another thing.

I think particularly with him is nothing stands out, now as i mentioned that often doesn't mean anything because some players can be great and average in most things of there game, but they do usually excel at one thing.

 

[Zaddy]

This team has lacked an identity for so long. That's been the biggest mistake IMO from MacTambo's tenures. That and the fact we got the forwards first. Oilers have been billed as a fast team but they've never been particular fast. They've been billed as a skilled team but really aren't all that skilled either. The end result has been just a mismash of players and a group that doesn't fit together or complement each other very well at all. I really hope that's something Chia is trying to change. The first step towards that would be moving out one or both of RNH/Eberle.

With Hall, McDavid, Draisaitl, Klefbom and Nurse we have the beginning of a team that could be very hard to play against, both in terms of skill, speed and toughness. A fancy dan like Eberle doesn't fit that picture. RNH does to an extent but at 6M the question is how long you can keep him as a very pricey #3C. The alternative would be to play Draisaitl on the wing but I'm not a fan of that. He should be a centre. Plus the fact that RNH could help bring the pieces back that makes the Oilers a more balanced team and, obviously, improve the blueline.

I really hope Chia makes a real splash this summer. It's time to start anew. Moving those guys would send a strong message that we're turning over a new leaf here and that this is not the old Oilers team that is content with losing year in and year out. I think it's important to send that message to everyone in the organization, including the players. Schultz and Ebs at the very least has to go IMO. Two guys that are seemingly allergic to playing hockey the right way and doing whatever it takes to win. They can't be gone fast enough.

 

[Young Lions*]

You can't convince supporters of RNH they will always try to convince without just using the most common form of scouting which is the eye sight test.

Because the eye can lie. Cripes, we just had an example of a poster using the eye test to push a theory (re: RNH's accuracy) that was easily proven false by actual stats. That people can still trumpet the eye test as the be-all and end-all after something like that is quite remarkable to me.

Stats are conclusions made over many different types of situations and circumstances and don't give the whole picture= completely useless.

This is just illogical. Data taken from a large sample is going to tell you more than data taken from a small sample, especially in hockey where there's already so much noise.

As one person argues using stats over several games in a 82 season another person will be sensible and look at games of importance in isolation and come up with a better understanding.

That's the opposite of sensible. That's called cherry-picking.

 

[BlowbyBlow]

Because the eye can lie. Cripes, we just had an example of a poster using the eye test to push a theory (re: RNH's accuracy) that was easily proven false by actual stats. That people can still trumpet the eye test as the be-all and end-all after something like that is quite remarkable to me.

The fact that it is used by every scout and you don't believe it has no part is remarkable. Scouts, coaches goal is to have complete players. In team sports if you are a specialist in the defensive side of the game you may get away with it, but in the offensive side it means less i.e. shooting percentage. What a way to cherry pick a stat from someone else, (such an inconsequential stat as is)

I would want to know what quality of shots the player is taking more than not though the eye sight test would tell me does this player get open enough, does he take quality shots, is he a shoot first pass second player.

I have said numerous times i want to see what ONE quality stands out about Nuge if he was the second coming of Jarret Stoll and could only win faceoffs I would say ok that's his strong point (I'm looking for his strengths myself)

This is just illogical. Data taken from a large sample is going to tell you more than data taken from a small sample, especially in hockey where there's already so much noise.

This is what is EXTREMELY ILLOGICAL and I used a great example If Nuge's faceoff %, shooting percentage, shots on goal or whatever is very low against a #1 placed team but really high against a 30th placed team well where do you get the accurate stats.

Once again any pro/amateur scout, G.M. wants to see how these players play against good competition (to upgrade there teams) Data from large samples has always been misleading. A sample of 20 games vs top competition (L.A., St. Louis, Chicago, Dallas, San Jose, Anaheim) will tell me more how RNH performs, in fact if I am limit it to even smaller sized sample against the top 3-4 teams I'm going to see what his strengths/weakness are even moreso.

What you want to do is get an overall view of many different types of situations/circumstances and use it to your benefit.

I personally don't care about stats that are unimportant to the performance of the team I am first off going to exclude games where the Oilers have been knocked out of the playoffs and they turned it up a notch.

I'm also going to do more of a comparative analysis when it comes to playing against top teams vs bottom teams. Once again RNH playing well against a bottom feeder is not going to make me change my opinion of him, when he is almost invisible against a great team.

If you were a pro scout and used 82 games you wouldn't have a f'ing clue about any player. Do you seriously think scouts only look at stats, or look at something silly as shooting percentage. There is guys who cherry pick, or shoot from everywhere, or get all PP time. Most scouts will say they only get an idea of a player when they get to see a good sample of how they play against top teams. In fact, a pro scout I know would say he looks at teams as hindrance to players.

Ex. Hall played on a way better team than Seguin in junior (can look it up) A scout I talked to said you know that's where you love to find players cause they go under the radar. If your playing on a really good team everyone is making everyone better. On a weaker team one or two guys are contributing and doing more with less.

If a player is driving possession, and doing fundamental things right scouts will look for that.

edit: I want to add this because it really adds to the conversation a scout said along with not seeing a player enough some times you can see him too many times) I think scouts do this way often especially with defenseman they start breaking down to much information. I will stick with stats are a good tool 25% but seeing the player live, seeing how he performs in particular situations gives you an even better idea - the 75%

 

[Up the Irons]

Because the eye can lie. Cripes, we just had an example of a poster using the eye test to push a theory (re: RNH's accuracy) that was easily proven false by actual stats. That people can still trumpet the eye test as the be-all and end-all after something like that is quite remarkable to me.

and so can stats. two words: Shaun Horcoff. decent stats. Was he a 1C, or a 2C that was given an 1C opportunity?

we'll can go back and forth forever. You think RNH is a low-end 1C and I think he's a 2C given 1C minutes. it's not really that far apart. we practically agree.

Let's make your next rebuttal the last word. Sound good?

 

[Oilfan2]

The fact that it is used by every scout and you don't believe it has no part is remarkable. Scouts, coaches goal is to have complete players. In team sports if you are a specialist in the defensive side of the game you may get away with it, but in the offensive side it means less i.e. shooting percentage. What a way to cherry pick a stat from someone else, (such an inconsequential stat as is)

I would want to know what quality of shots the player is taking more than not though the eye sight test would tell me does this player get open enough, does he take quality shots, is he a shoot first pass second player.

I have said numerous times i want to see what ONE quality stands out about Nuge if he was the second coming of Jarret Stoll and could only win faceoffs I would say ok that's his strong point (I'm looking for his strengths myself)



This is what is EXTREMELY ILLOGICAL and I used a great example If Nuge's faceoff %, shooting percentage, shots on goal or whatever is very low against a #1 placed team but really high against a 30th placed team well where do you get the accurate stats.

Once again any pro/amateur scout, G.M. wants to see how these players play against good competition (to upgrade there teams) Data from large samples has always been misleading. A sample of 20 games vs top competition (L.A., St. Louis, Chicago, Dallas, San Jose, Anaheim) will tell me more how RNH performs, in fact if I am limit it to even smaller sized sample against the top 3-4 teams I'm going to see what his strengths/weakness are even moreso.

What you want to do is get an overall view of many different types of situations/circumstances and use it to your benefit.

I personally don't care about stats that are unimportant to the performance of the team I am first off going to exclude games where the Oilers have been knocked out of the playoffs and they turned it up a notch.

I'm also going to do more of a comparative analysis when it comes to playing against top teams vs bottom teams. Once again RNH playing well against a bottom feeder is not going to make me change my opinion of him, when he is almost invisible against a great team.

If you were a pro scout and used 82 games you wouldn't have a f'ing clue about any player. Do you seriously think scouts only look at stats, or look at something silly as shooting percentage. There is guys who cherry pick, or shoot from everywhere, or get all PP time. Most scouts will say they only get an idea of a player when they get to see a good sample of how they play against top teams. In fact, a pro scout I know would say he looks at teams as hindrance to players.

Ex. Hall played on a way better team than Seguin in junior (can look it up) A scout I talked to said you know that's where you love to find players cause they go under the radar. If your playing on a really good team everyone is making everyone better. On a weaker team one or two guys are contributing and doing more with less.

If a player is driving possession, and doing fundamental things right scouts will look for that.

edit: I want to add this because it really adds to the conversation a scout said along with not seeing a player enough some times you can see him too many times) I think scouts do this way often especially with defenseman they start breaking down to much information. I will stick with stats are a good tool 25% but seeing the player live, seeing how he performs in particular situations gives you an even better idea - the 75%

That theory is how you get a Marc Pouliot...

 

[BlowbyBlow]

That theory is how you get a Marc Pouliot...

FTR only the Oilers at that period of time were higher on other players and wanted to be the smartest guys in the room.

You just have to remember from this time period K.Lowe saying when he seen J. Niinimaki he was the best player on the ice - yet it was only one game.

I think you need to have a good sample of games against good competition to see what any player is about.

My point was it's harder to find bad players on good teams, than good players on bad teams. Meaning - when your team like Halls only lost 12 games you can hide bad habits or guys playing over there head.

A good scout is going to watch a player and his affectiveness in certain situations, what he excels at and virtually isolate him. It's the most affective way. Now there is limitations does the player have bad linemates or is he a guy who is unpredictable.
Scouts don't have every bit of information but they know its better than stats. If you only used stats you would't know a late round pick like Pavelski, Datsyuk, Zetterberg would be a top line nhl player.

Now you also in any given year don't have access to every other teams scouting report. You can't scout every game and team so its lots of luck.

In the NHL, a scout has access to a lot more information, and the Briere/St. Louis type of guys are very far an in between, because it's less about player selection (though teams do make boneheaded picks) but it's a lot more about falling down on the depth chart, or work ethic, character issues.

 

[Fourier]

FTR only the Oilers at that period of time were higher on other players and wanted to be the smartest guys in the room.

You just have to remember from this time period K.Lowe saying when he seen J. Niinimaki he was the best player on the ice - yet it was only one game.

I think you need to have a good sample of games against good competition to see what any player is about.

My point was it's harder to find bad players on good teams, than good players on bad teams. Meaning - when your team like Halls only lost 12 games you can hide bad habits or guys playing over there head.

A good scout is going to watch a player and his affectiveness in certain situations, what he excels at and virtually isolate him. It's the most affective way. Now there is limitations does the player have bad linemates or is he a guy who is unpredictable.
Scouts don't have every bit of information but they know its better than stats. If you only used stats you would't know a late round pick like Pavelski, Datsyuk, Zetterberg would be a top line nhl player.

Now you also in any given year don't have access to every other teams scouting report. You can't scout every game and team so its lots of luck.

In the NHL, a scout has access to a lot more information, and the Briere/St. Louis type of guys are very far an in between, because it's less about player selection (though teams do make boneheaded picks) but it's a lot more about falling down on the depth chart, or work ethic, character issues.

Beyond the second round it is pretty much entirely luck. In fact beyond the top 15 picks the success rate for finding top end players drops off dramatically.

The San Jose scouts had no idea that Pavelski was going to be a top end player. They were lucky. After all they had him ranked lower than Josh Hennessy, Patrick Ehelchner of the Hannover Scorpions and Jonathan Trembley and about the same level as Kai Hospelt. This is also the same group of scouts that in that draft picked Steve Bernier ahead of Zach Parise, Ryan Getzlaf, Brent Burns, Ryan Kesler, Mike Richards and Corey Perry.

Detroit picked Jari Tolsa Andrei Maximenko and Kent McDonell before picking Zetterberg. They had no idea what they were getting with that pick.

People look back a past drafts and find these diamonds and credit the team with great insight. But as often as not the same teams that find a diamond in the later round also blow their first round pick.

Chicago finds Hjalmarsson in the 4th round and everyone praises their insight. Of course they ignore the fact that in that same draft they picked Jack Skille at #7 with Anze Kopitar still on the board. They got Keith with a late 2nd round pick but thought Babchuk was better.

 

[BlowbyBlow]

Beyond the second round it is pretty much entirely luck. In fact beyond the top 15 picks the success rate for finding top end players drops off dramatically.

The San Jose scouts had no idea that Pavelski was going to be a top end player. They were lucky. After all they had him ranked lower than Josh Hennessy, Patrick Ehelchner of the Hannover Scorpions and Jonathan Trembley and about the same level as Kai Hospelt. This is also the same group of scouts that in that draft picked Steve Bernier ahead of Zach Parise, Ryan Getzlaf, Brent Burns, Ryan Kesler, Mike Richards and Corey Perry.

Detroit picked Jari Tolsa Andrei Maximenko and Kent McDonell before picking Zetterberg. They had no idea what they were getting with that pick.

People look back a past drafts and find these diamonds and credit the team with great insight. But as often as not the same teams that find a diamond in the later round also blow their first round pick.

Chicago finds Hjalmarsson in the 4th round and everyone praises their insight. Of course they ignore the fact that in that same draft they picked Jack Skille at #7 with Anze Kopitar still on the board. They got Keith with a late 2nd round pick but thought Babchuk was better.

A lot of credit should go to the fact that they ended up in great organizations. People look to much at players as magic beans. Truth be told if Pavelski/Datsyuk came along in the Oilers organization they would have been traded or released way earlier.

Detroit doesn't find great players by luck they have a great development system and a quality hierarchy of people who only preach hardwork. Along with a history of great players they sell that to future players. (One element i feel really diminished with the Oilers) your less likely to hit points where you can't draft anyone because you have that high compete level at all levels.

Now the other part is in scouting - you can't go to every game unless your like the wings who had at one point something like 8 european scouts (might be wrong but they had a high number of guys looking at players overseas) You also can identify skill and because there 18 years old your clueless about work ethic, character, and everything else. You do all the interviews with first rounders but beyond that you don't have a clue. This is where a guy like Dean Lombardi has become proactive and one of the best G.M.s out there. He will interview a 2nd-3rd rounder as well.

Which i don't know why teams don't. You scouted a guy seen 15 games of him and his peers. Your all sitting with your spreadsheets open looking at names on a computer and how they performed. A quick interview with any of them and you get a good idea.

The background stories on a lot of these guys like Datsyuk/Zetterberg is you had 1 european scout that had close relations or watched them enough.
It's another thing If I managed a club I would have at least 50+ scouts. Scouting will always win the day for me. Now the other thing you didn't add is the pressure to pick highly touted guys in the first place because who knows if you pick a guy to early and he has all the pressure on him (jankowski). We can never say if you picked those guys early they aren't pushed to hard or put in situations not to succeed.

It's why I don't take the draft very serious in terms of future potential. Top 1-3 have a great shot, but over 10-20-30 years you look back and there is some guy picked in late rounds that is Luc Robitaille.

 

[Zaddy]

Beyond the second round it is pretty much entirely luck. In fact beyond the top 15 picks the success rate for finding top end players drops off dramatically.

The San Jose scouts had no idea that Pavelski was going to be a top end player. They were lucky. After all they had him ranked lower than Josh Hennessy, Patrick Ehelchner of the Hannover Scorpions and Jonathan Trembley and about the same level as Kai Hospelt. This is also the same group of scouts that in that draft picked Steve Bernier ahead of Zach Parise, Ryan Getzlaf, Brent Burns, Ryan Kesler, Mike Richards and Corey Perry.

Detroit picked Jari Tolsa Andrei Maximenko and Kent McDonell before picking Zetterberg. They had no idea what they were getting with that pick.

People look back a past drafts and find these diamonds and credit the team with great insight. But as often as not the same teams that find a diamond in the later round also blow their first round pick.

Chicago finds Hjalmarsson in the 4th round and everyone praises their insight. Of course they ignore the fact that in that same draft they picked Jack Skille at #7 with Anze Kopitar still on the board. They got Keith with a late 2nd round pick but thought Babchuk was better.

I will never agree with this sentiment. Is luck involved to a degree? Absolutely, but that's not really what it's about. It's about making good bets year in and year out. If you do that you will eventually get quite a few NHLers out of the mid/late rounds. There's a good reason some teams are more successful at drafting than others. Oilers are a prime example of a team that has made ****** bets for years on end and that's why we have pretty much zero quality prospects despite sucking for so long.

I've been unhappy with pretty much every draft in recent memory because we've been taking guys that are long shots (more so than usual) to become NHLers. Bad value picks I call them. You can compare it with playing poker. Even the absolute worst hand can win against pocket aces but in the long run that's not a strategy that's going to make you successful.

It's about making good value picks, which is exactly what the Oilers did this past summer. We made some smart picks with Jones, Bear, Marino and Paigin. It's not even so much about the players but where we took them. Jones in the 4th was absolutely fine. Getting Bear in the 5th was great because even though I'm not a fan of him, getting him in the 5th round was good value considering he was ranked around the 3rd round. Had we gotten him in the 3rd where there was, in my opinion, better players available I wouldn't have been as happy, but getting him in the 5th was good value. Then taking chances on an RHD in Marino who is going to college and got plenty of time to develop was a solid idea. Same with Paigin, big bodied, solid player who is developing in the KHL, another good pick.

I was very happy with these picks on draft day and I'm going to continue to be happy with these picks even if it would turn out that none of them goes on to become NHLers. Why? Because they're all good bets, doesn't mean all good bets are successful but if we continue to draft like this for the coming years I can guarantee you we're going to get some quality NHLers from the mid/late rounds. That's in contrast to taking some overage kids in the BCHL and hoping that they will become the next Lucic or Benn, when in reality there's like a 0.1% chance that it will happen and more likely than not they won't even come close to playing in the NHL.

 

[Fourier]

I will never agree with this sentiment. Is luck involved to a degree? Absolutely, but that's not really what it's about. It's about making good bets year in and year out. If you do that you will eventually get quite a few NHLers out of the mid/late rounds. There's a good reason some teams are more successful at drafting than others. Oilers are a prime example of a team that has made ****** bets for years on end and that's why we have pretty much zero quality prospects despite sucking for so long.

I've been unhappy with pretty much every draft in recent memory because we've been taking guys that are long shots (more so than usual) to become NHLers. Bad value picks I call them. You can compare it with playing poker. Even the absolute worst hand can win against pocket aces but in the long run that's not a strategy that's going to make you successful.

It's about making good value picks, which is exactly what the Oilers did this past summer. We made some smart picks with Jones, Bear, Marino and Paigin. It's not even so much about the players but where we took them. Jones in the 4th was absolutely fine. Getting Bear in the 5th was great because even though I'm not a fan of him, getting him in the 5th round was good value considering he was ranked around the 3rd round. Had we gotten him in the 3rd where there was, in my opinion, better players available I wouldn't have been as happy, but getting him in the 5th was good value. Then taking chances on an RHD in Marino who is going to college and got plenty of time to develop was a solid idea. Same with Paigin, big bodied, solid player who is developing in the KHL, another good pick.

I was very happy with these picks on draft day and I'm going to continue to be happy with these picks even if it would turn out that none of them goes on to become NHLers. Why? Because they're all good bets, doesn't mean all good bets are successful but if we continue to draft like this for the coming years I can guarantee you we're going to get some quality NHLers from the mid/late rounds. That's in contrast to taking some overage kids in the BCHL and hoping that they will become the next Lucic or Benn, when in reality there's like a 0.1% chance that it will happen and more likely than not they won't even come close to playing in the NHL.

You actually seem to be agreeing with me in suggesting that teams make "good bets". Suggesting that much of draft success is luck is not the same thing as saying it is completely random. This does not change the fact that the Sharks had no great insight that told them that Pavelski would be a top line player or that told the Wing that Zetterberg would be one of the better players of his generation.

 

[Young Lions*]

The fact that it is used by every scout and you don't believe it has no part is remarkable.

Double negative aside, I never said what you're suggesting.

This is what is EXTREMELY ILLOGICAL and I used a great example If Nuge's faceoff %, shooting percentage, shots on goal or whatever is very low against a #1 placed team but really high against a 30th placed team well where do you get the accurate stats.

Well, that's why you don't cherry pick and look at the total body of work.

What you want to do is get an overall view of many different types of situations/circumstances and use it to your benefit.

You aren't taking an "overall view." You're taking a carefully cherry-picked view.

Once again RNH playing well against a bottom feeder is not going to make me change my opinion of him, when he is almost invisible against a great team.

Taylor Hall PPG vs. the teams you listed: 0.69
RNH: 0.62

If you were a pro scout and used 82 games you wouldn't have a f'ing clue about any player. Do you seriously think scouts only look at stats, or look at something silly as shooting percentage. There is guys who cherry pick, or shoot from everywhere, or get all PP time. Most scouts will say they only get an idea of a player when they get to see a good sample of how they play against top teams. In fact, a pro scout I know would say he looks at teams as hindrance to players.

Shooting percentage is silly But you look at faceoff wins. Ok. This is just ridiculous.

 

[AM]

there are 60 1Cs and 2Cs in the NHL. the top 20 are above average, the middle 20 are average and the bottom 20 are below average. We know RNH is not in the top 20, so where does he fit? I would say in the middle 20. smack, dab in average territory.




well, that's a good point. he couldn't get us Seth Jones, an unproven 2nd pairing Dman with 1st paring potential.

I don't want to argue with you because you've always kept things cordial. And I admit, I go overboard sometimes.

But, what is RNH exceptional at? Not shooting. A very average passer. Not physicality. He's good at stealing pucks. Pretty good at cycling, I suppose. At his job, that being a top 2 centre, he is very average. 50 points is the minimum expectation. Any less than that and your Sam Gagner.

anyways. Cheers. I'll try to bring it down a notch.

Nuge is good at everything. Currently he is trying to buy into the coaches strategies, sometimes it takes a while.

Personally, I would trade Hall before I traded Nuge.

 

[AM]

Eberle is going to be playing with McDavid right away. I think a lot of you will be eating some crow.

Likely they are pumping Eberle..

 

[BlowbyBlow]

Double negative aside, I never said what you're suggesting.

Well, that's why you don't cherry pick and look at the total body of work.
You aren't taking an "overall view." You're taking a carefully cherry-picked view.

A total body of work means nothing from the perspective of other G.M.s when at the deadline a team is looking at how impactful a player would be on there team. Most Oilers players I imagine in phone calls are talked about as being unknown or less valuable commodities.

I am looking at it in the EXACT same manner any G.M, scout, coach will look at a player. About 50-60% of Oiler games in there careers have been meaningless - either out of the playoffs or padding the stats against mediocre teams.

Let me ask you when a scout wants to see how rnh/eberle play is he going to look at how they play against CBJ/Montreal (right now) or do they want to see how they play against top teams like Chicago/St. Louis/Dallas.

It's why guys like A. Ladd and last year P. Sharp are more valuable then Eberle/RNH

There not rookies anymore they've been in the league long enough.

Taylor Hall PPG vs. the teams you listed: 0.69
RNH: 0.62

Expectations for RNH are that he is a play maker first and will help with possession.

Shooting percentage is silly But you look at faceoff wins. Ok. This is just ridiculous.

Winning faceoffs is what drives possession. If your going to have the kid gloves with RNH and protect him there is no reason to have a conversation.
That is beyond shaking my head that you would think faceoff wins don't matter. I would weigh it heavier than shooting percentage. If your a Doug Weight/Adam Oates type center you would be passing a lot more, and very well could have a higher shooting percentage cause your taking less shots. you could easily have a lower shooting percentage.

My opinion is Nuge would mould into a Joe Thornton type center where he has linemates that tally up the goals. i don't even care about stats, but he has been extremely mediocre in other areas.

Completion percentage, or shooting percentage (hockey/football don't mean anything to me) I would look at everything as a whole - how many passes/shots/assists then get a good idea.

Simply put you can't judge a goal scorer the same as a play maker vs a hybrid of both a playmaker/goal scorer.

When you do use stats the guys last year that compared to Nuge - Backes/Bergeron/Brassard all are fundamentally better at other areas of the game.

It's typical of Oiler fans to have a guy be mediocre and be oversold. There is a reason someone like RNH is being shopped replaced by a guy who played 15 games, aand another 80 games.

 

[Young Lions*]

A total body of work means nothing from the perspective of other G.M.s when at the deadline a team is looking at how impactful a player would be on there team. Most Oilers players I imagine in phone calls are talked about as being unknown or less valuable commodities.

I am looking at it in the EXACT same manner any G.M, scout, coach will look at a player. About 50-60% of Oiler games in there careers have been meaningless - either out of the playoffs or padding the stats against mediocre teams.

And somehow this is the fault of individual players? Bull.

Expectations for RNH are that he is a play maker first and will help with possession.

Oh look, the goalposts moved again.

Winning faceoffs is what drives possession. If your going to have the kid gloves with RNH and protect him there is no reason to have a conversation.

This is bullcrap. Faceoffs have no significant impact on puck possession/shot attempts. This has been examined pretty extensively, but involves using those pesky stats again. But I can illustrate that with an example: your centre wins a draw clean to his winger, who get tied up by his opposite number, loses the puck and it's cleared: your centre gets a check in the faceoff category, but you've lost possession. Whatever advantage is conferred by a faceoff win is usually negated within seconds by the flow of play.

That is beyond shaking my head that you would think faceoff wins don't matter. I would weigh it heavier than shooting percentage. If your a Doug Weight/Adam Oates type center you would be passing a lot more, and very well could have a higher shooting percentage cause your taking less shots. you could easily have a lower shooting percentage.

Shooting percentage isn't an evaluative tool. No one says "oh this guy's good, look at his shooting percentage." Nugent Hopkins' SH% isn't even particularly high so I'm not sure why it's even an issue here.

When you do use stats the guys last year that compared to Nuge - Backes/Bergeron/Brassard all are fundamentally better at other areas of the game.

Bergeron is a monster, but both Backes and Brassard are very comparable to RNH in terms of their fancy stats

Backes
Brassard

But again, those are stats, so caveat emptor.