Toggle sidebar

Which Service did Best!

stmikes76

Registered User
Nov 25, 2004
97
0
Ok, so now that the draft is over which service did the best job. While I am sure no one had Hickey at 4th overall whose list were most accurate.

ISS, McKeen's or Red Line.

I know last year McKeen's did a good job predicting the most first rounders and they did have Kane at 1st overall since November unlike ISS who flipped flopped 1st overall picks the entire year. They did predict JVR 2nd overall though. Red Line I was told was slightly off all year so I am curious as to what everyone has to say!
Click to read more...
 

Granlund2Pulkkinen*

Guest
I actually did the math


HF Staff got .0666% correct in the first round (2/30)
TSN got .0333% correct in the first round (1/30)
Redline got .1333% correct in the first round (4/30)
ESPN got .1000% correct in the first round (3/30)
 

Granlund2Pulkkinen*

Guest
TSN's coverage last night was all about Canadian kids. They're like ESPN where they have a regional bias.
 
Jaded-Fan

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,509
14,387
Pittsburgh
Finnerican said:
I actually did the math


HF Staff got .0666% correct in the first round (2/30)
TSN got .0333% correct in the first round (1/30)
Redline got .1333% correct in the first round (4/30)
ESPN got .1000% correct in the first round (3/30)
Click to expand...

That actually is not the best way to judge, but the best way would have to involve some deep statistics that I do not have the time or inclination to do. Basically showing the spread between where the various services predicted a player to go and where he actually went. How many picks off were they on each pick in the first couple of rounds. It does not matter so much who was spot on as how far off they were overall.
 

Granlund2Pulkkinen*

Guest
Of course.

I also did average spots off, amount in the round correct, etc.
 

stmikes76

Registered User
Nov 25, 2004
97
0
I agree. I am more interested to know which one of these services predicted not order but selection of players in the top three rounds perse. Like did ISS get 17 players, did McKeen's get 20, Did Red Line get 19 yadda yadda, someone has to have their reports/lists and would be able to answer that question.

Who was the most off too like on the ISS website their 8th overall pick was Mayorov but he didn't go till 94th overall, quite a disparity. McKeen's had Sweatt at 11th overall but he didn't go till 38th. Any other examples as I have only seen their top 15.
 
Meichel Kane

Meichel Kane

My Name Is
Jun 6, 2006
11,033
348
Are we talking mock drafts or simply top-100 or whatever? I'm assuming mock drafts because Central Scouting's or ISS's opinions on which players are the best won't change based on where they go.
 
ISS Hockey

ISS Hockey

Top30 Draft Rankings
Oct 11, 2006
279
0
Waterloo, Ontario
www.ISShockey.com
Jaded and Agrestic said:
ISS was ridiculously bad, hopefully this shows this board they're not the end all be all.
Click to expand...

We don't claim to be the end all and be all. Never have, never will. But we do two things prior to a draft. We make our rankings which is our assessment of a player's ability to make an impact at the NHL level. Then we do a mock draft. They are two completely different things.

As for being ridiculously bad, you're entitled to your opinion, but you should support your opinions with some facts if you want to convince people. For an example, refer to the poster below.

Nielson81 said:
Actually of their top 30 rankings....25 went in the first round...compared to I think about 19 by CSS......so not to bad. Mock Draft's are an entirely different thing.
Click to expand...

And if you want to say that we did a bad job ranking the players, that is an assessment that really takes five years to judge. Ask any scout -- every kid looks good on draft day, that's why you call their name. But it's the development -- or lack thereof -- over the next few years that determines how good a pick it is.

Cheers.
 

BobMckenzie

Registered User
Jul 23, 2003
343
3
I am not sure there's any point in trying to compare the various pre-draft lists with each other as I think you are talking apples to oranges. If I'm not mistaken, and correct me if I'm wrong, the various scouting services -- Redline, ISS, McKeen's, NHL Central Scouting -- are actually scouting the players and providing an actual scouting evaluation of the players. The success or failure of their lists will only be divined in about five years, when you can evaluate how good their lists were or weren't. I don't believe those services are trying to predict when a player will be chosen; they are saying when a player should be chosen.

TSN and THN, on the other hand, are using survey systems, talking to scouts and getting a sense of a range where players fit in and ranking accordingly. The goal of these lists -- and I would suggest I know this since I started both of them -- is to predict when a player is chosen. On that count, the TSN list this year was okay, perhaps not quite as good as some other years but that was expected given the nature of this year's draft.

Of the 30 players TSN ranked in the first round, 24 were chosen in the first round.

Of the 60 players TSN ranked in the first two rounds, 50 were chosen by pick No. 60.

It is highly unusual to identify 26 of 30 in the second round as opposed to 24 of the 30 in the first round, but 2007 was that kind of year.

Already looking forward to next year, which looks like a strong one for Ontario (Stamkos, Doughty, Pietrangelo and Del Zotto, amongst others). Should be fun.
 

Gags1288

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,359
0
Visit site
I thought that Redline clearly did the best, forget about guessing picks. They hated Cherepanov and he fell to #17, he liked Ian Cole a lot and he was a first round pick.

Overall, I thought that NHL scouts tended to agree most with Woodlief this year.
 
Blades 0f Steel

Blades 0f Steel

Registered User
Jun 23, 2002
11,523
0
ISS said:
We don't claim to be the end all and be all. Never have, never will. But we do two things prior to a draft. We make our rankings which is our assessment of a player's ability to make an impact at the NHL level. Then we do a mock draft. They are two completely different things.

As for being ridiculously bad, you're entitled to your opinion, but you should support your opinions with some facts if you want to convince people. For an example, refer to the poster below.



And if you want to say that we did a bad job ranking the players, that is an assessment that really takes five years to judge. Ask any scout -- every kid looks good on draft day, that's why you call their name. But it's the development -- or lack thereof -- over the next few years that determines how good a pick it is.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

I don't get why everyone says that. It usually takes twice as long, if you ask me. Defencemen and goalies are only 23 by then, just starting their NHL careers for the most part.

You can also look at Mikko Koivu, who only recently started to justify being picked where he was.
 
Blue Dragon

Blue Dragon

Registered User
Jan 27, 2007
1,474
4
Ohio
I must say, as someone who normally doesn't have much faith in Redline's assessments, their success at predicting the falls of Cherepanov, Sweatt and Owuya impressed me.
 
SensItComing

SensItComing

Registered User
Jul 23, 2005
237
5
West Palm Beach, FL
Finnerican said:
I actually did the math


HF Staff got .0666% correct in the first round (2/30)
TSN got .0333% correct in the first round (1/30)
Redline got .1333% correct in the first round (4/30)
ESPN got .1000% correct in the first round (3/30)
Click to expand...

Wanna do my taxes? :D I'd love to be in the 0.40% tax bracket.

HF Staff got 6.66% correct in the first round (2/30)
TSN got 3.33% correct in the first round (1/30)
Redline got 13.33% correct in the first round (4/30)
ESPN got 10.00% correct in the first round (3/30)[/QUOTE]
 
znk

znk

Registered User
Nov 5, 2005
25,477
22
Montreal
Finnerican said:
I actually did the math


HF Staff got .0666% correct in the first round (2/30)
TSN got .0333% correct in the first round (1/30)
Redline got .1333% correct in the first round (4/30)
ESPN got .1000% correct in the first round (3/30)
Click to expand...

Those numbers should read.
6.6%
3.3%
13.3%
10%
 

Bill McNeal

Registered User
Jul 19, 2003
12,845
225
Montreal
I took the liberty of calculating the standard deviations with regards to who different publications projected in the first round and where they actually went (the only way that makes sense in my head as none of them did complete drafts).

So, here we have them:

HF Staff: 19.45
Red Line: 16.51
TSN: 15.54
ESPN: 32.53

Now, Mayorov really wreaked havoc on the st. devs so I decided to exclude him and got:

HF Staff: 14.68
Red Line: 12.03
TSN: 9.79
ESPN: 30.72

ESPN's inclusion of Torquato really handicaps them, missing by 148 spots. So if you were to eliminate the worst miss from each...

HF Staff: 10.66
Red Line: 10.00
TSN: 7.77
ESPN: 16.29

Trend seems to be that ESPN is always far and away the worst no matter how I try to skew it. TSN always ends up on top even with Maclean's ridiculous first pick.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Don't we need to wait at least 5 or 6 years before deciding which service did best?
 
The Pucks

The Pucks

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
4,753
84
Visit site
The scouting services dont waste their time trying to predict which NHL team will draft who, which it seems most of you use for a criteria. Thats like trying to predict the sex of your future children when your nailing your wife. Who knows, time will tell.

They base their rankings on who they think will be the best NHL players. Think maybe we should give 5 or 6 years before claiming who is better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom