The last gasp of a man who took too long to figure out he's trying to argue with a brick wall.
You guys are arguing a point... And I am pretty sure that my results would provide evidence to argue with.
Basically, in one case, you pick a guy ten spots too high and it costs you 100 points (just an example). In this case, it wasn't even #1 OVR to #10, it was like, #21 to #33 or so. In the next, you draft a guy who should've gone #27 at #58 (gaining you about 100 points), or you draft a guy who should've gone #35 at #200 and gain like, 101 points.
The first case shouldn't negate either of the second. Especially at that point in the 1st, missing by 10 spots means you're still likely getting an NHL player but that you weren't expecting to get or expected to get an elite player.
Snipped for brevity, but I think that this makes sense in round 1. If I'm drafting in the top 10 consistently, I should be expected to 'draft well' and get a lot of players for those picks. But once you leave the 1st, it's sort of irrelevant. If a guy is drafted at #210 or #230 is, honestly, pretty irrelevant, if he should've gone at #5. It was a fantastic pick, either way. Taking the #12 guy at #6 should cost more than taking the #20 guy at #15, but not to the point that it negates similar late round drafting.
I see what you are saying. But I think the scale is a good control for this.
If you have the #2 overall pick, and you take (10 yrs later consensus) the 7th best player in that draft. You didn't do very well. But it also means you probably missed out on a superstar. this may seem like a small mistake, but is actually a big one. (Example JVR was a #2 OA pick. He is an OK player, But that team missed out on Benn, Subban, Voracek, McDonagh, Couture, Pacioretty, Simmonds, turris and Shattenkirk.) According to the chart this is a -1600 pt mistake.
Jamie Benn i have redrafted #2 but originally picked #129, for a positive score of 2600-15.6 (+2584.4)
PK Subban in the 2nd round (43) redrafted #3 was a 2250-191 (+2061) move.
Basically If i team picked (#2)JVR and (#43)Subban in one year. JVR would be a miss and Subban would be a hit. But overall the team would have been very happy with the result (Subban effectively picked with a high pick) and a solid 1st round selection with the 2nd pick. And this is how the core works out +400.
Also realize that if a team like Pittsburgh takes Malkin and Crosby 2 drafts in a row with #1 and #2 picks... thy get a score of roughly 0... as they were expected to draft that well.
So this really is a measure of how well you are drafting VS expected results.
If you score highly, its not just about the players, its about you finding players when you should be busting.
And if you score lower, it means you are not doing as well as you should.
Here are the Last 5 years (2011-2015 results)
Anaheim // tb // wpg // Bos are all great teams, drafting good players well above where they should be drafted.
this result shows why these 4 teams are really good, while none of them have been getting a lot of super low picks in those years.
While Dal / Buf / Edm / NYI have been drafting poorly. Meaning they are getting much less talent than they should be considering their drafting posit
ion.
Note a team like toronto does not score highly, because they are drafting well WHILE also picking really highly. I.e. they are matching their expectations.
this is not a scale of who has the best players at the end of the draft.
It is a scale of who has done better than they should have!
Score 2011-2015 | |
ANA | 5240 |
TB | 3891 |
WPG | 3776 |
BOS | 2648 |
NSH | 1823 |
STL | 1740 |
PIT | 1408 |
LAK | 1403 |
DET | 1245 |
WSH | 1220 |
CHI | 1075 |
NYR | 811 |
PHI | 438 |
TOR | 421 |
VGK | 0 |
NJ | -26 |
SJ | -46 |
VAN | -489 |
CAL | -516 |
CAR | -595 |
COL | -724 |
FLA | -824 |
CLB | -1185 |
MIN | -1223 |
OTT | -1752 |
ARI | -2132 |
MTL | -2193 |
DAL | -3284 |
BUF | -3586 |
EDM | -3867 |
NYI | -3887 |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]