This just in: In the wake of his new contract extension, Stu MacGregor has sold his home in Edmonton and will be taking up residence in Acapulco, Mexico.
This gentleman may be the only person with any real credibility in the entire management team. I'm not so sure he wouldn't be a better GM than the puppet master and his puppet.
Normally in most cases, we Euros think it's sometimes an advantage to stay one or two seasons after the Draft," Elefalk told NHL.com. "It's a tremendous culture change but it's not unusual to see players playing in Europe stay there an additional year or two. Victor Hedman (Tampa Bay Lightning) was an exception but we'll have to see what happens. Our belief is we'll stay another year or two in Sweden."
I guess it's not fair to leave this bit from Larsson out...
"I can play in the NHL next year (despite being under contract) but I haven't decided yet what I'm going to do next season," Larsson said. "But I'm ready, but am still learning every day. I think if I do decide to play in North America, I want to feel very prepared for it."
When you have a good name and great jerseys ready to use, it would be pretty lame not to go with them.
Announcing a new name would remind me of when Jordan came back the first time wearing 45. Just wrong and with no chance of sticking.
However it has to come with a caveat that Winnepeggers can't act like some Cleveland fans who just apply Ravens history to the new Browns. Teemu never played for this team, and that's just the way it is.
And yes, if the Oil had ever moved and this was us getting the Thrashers and renaming them the Oilers, I would be dead-set against us hanging the banners up again.
I put this on the other thread thinking things were still going there, but I'll repeat it here (because it is so worth your time).
With the Thrashers/Peggers having 28 mill in cap space and a bunch of excited new owners now, forget raiding their team for any good pieces. That means Bogosian is off the table.
Welcome back MB. Hope to despise you as a rival later.
I agree BQ-even though Chipman mentioned they were going to be a "budget" team,I don't see them making any radical changes over the summer.Apparently Bogo wanted to be closer to home and maybe a change of scenery would have done him good,and he's getting that with this move.
GR beat me to it and I tuned out before the Chipman comments but I'll be very curious to see just how high the budget is and how much money the owners want to suffer.
We're all guessing here but wouldn't a good first dart be that they might be in Preds range budget-wise?
Dennis said: We're all guessing here but wouldn't a good first dart be that they might be in Preds range budget-wise?
Or am I off the mark?
While I am not sure of the specifics of the corporate sponsorship support in NAS, I am confident that there will be far more corporate $$$ in WPG.
Each CDN NHL team has a national sponsor from each of five top tier categories, namely Non-Alcoholic Beverages (ie Coke), Beer (ie Molson and Labatts), Energy (ie EPCOR, or Manitoba Hydro), Telecom (ie Telus, or MTS), and automotive (ie Ford). There is also generally one or two large sponsors from regionally relevant categories in each building, like Rexall in EDM, BC Ferries in VAN, Corel in OTT, and maybe GWL or Boeing in Winnipeg. There are also large organizations with advertising in multiple NHL markets, like Air Canada, Boston Pizza, and Forzani.
My point is, national advertising dollars will come to Winnipeg regardless of the presence of corporate head-offices in the city. Further, given the attention that will be focussed on the team in its first season, the projected TV numbers on HNIC, TSN, and RSN will be well within the range of CGY and EDM.
Even if the ticket revenue in Winnipeg is similar to NAS (someone on Twitter calculated a $1.3mil gate per game based on announced ticket prices), the Corporate sponsorship revenue will likely be greater.
Also, from my understanding, TNSE has a non-compete clause for major concerts in Winnipeg, meaning that even when U2 plays at CanadInns Stadium, TNSE has their hand in the pot. I doubt the owners of the Preds get a cut every time Vince Gill cuts a Twang at the Grand Ole Opry.
The organization is a well-run machine. Betting on them to fail is a losing proposition.
Rickibear should repost his stuff on guys with 30% goals to points ratio.Pretty much put the last nail in the coffin for RNH in my head. Not even top 5.
FPB: here is your request: Part 1:
1. So you have the best young dman for p/GM in SEL history who played a Primary shutdown Role in a league 1.73 harder NHLE than the AHL.
And your advocating drafting a player #1 who has a points from G ratio below 30% which relates to a multitidue of draft bust as the core of that type of group.
the most current example. Sam Gagner: He dominated a super series of his pers. Had 2.2PPG in Junior which said he should be a 100 point player. however the trend for below 30% from goal guys is to be only 50% of NHLE. Is Sam currently a 50 point guy yes.
So if trend holds: You are advocating drafting a young man who might put on the weight needed to not be physically dominated in the league. who will likely be a 45point player in NHL based on past history including Gagner and Kariya.
To expect him to be better than Gagner when RNH is 1.5PPG and Gagner is 2.2ppg.
2. Spoiler responds:
Kariya was a 45-50 point guy? Is my memory really that shot? I would've sworn he cleared 90 points at least once in his career. (At this point he does not get it.)
3. Ducey Says: Wow, 21 years old and already capped out at 50 points. Somebody should let him know. Math says there is no point in trying, Sam.
So if the Nuge would have scored 5 less assists and went 31 70 101 he would be a better prospect than he is now, because the math would have put him at +30% goals? Very valid point by him. How about Hemmer, he only scored on 27% of his points the year after he was drafted. We should have known he would have busted.
Ricki, I like math too. Its a useful filter but there are plenty of exceptions to the rule. (Marc Savard has had a nice career but for the concussions - he scored 30.9% of the time in junior. Jumbo Joe had 33% of his points by way of goals. We gonna get caught up over 3%?)
The more you post though, the more I think the Oilers should be trading down.
(He gets it its not the player I am targeting it is the risk related to the pick and regression of NHLE.)
4. Then I give a hyperbole based example for a metaphor.
Ducey: i will half file a firing pin on a shotgun. that way there is a 40% chance it will not fire. Still a 60% negative outcome.
I will bring it over and you can load it, put it in your mouth and pull the trigger.
Most common sense people would say that is silly.
So do not pull the trigger on our first pick!
5. Spoiler then gets angry re kariya. Fine. Make me look shit up. Kariya had two seasons over 100, one of 99 and three more over 80. If that's Samwise's future, or RNH's... I think I am okay with it
6. FPB intergects re Kariya in NCAA.
7.I respond to All
the whole fear of the 30% guy is the reduction relative to nhlE.
Kariya played in Boston his draft year he was 2.56PPG in a league 1.55 times better than the CHL.
Which translates to 3.97 ppg in the CHL. 3.97 X .62 = 2.48PPG NHLE Career best 1.4PPG (later response catches the league error of .44 NCAa should have been .41)
The regression rate relative to NHLE is 45 to 55%
Gagner nhle curve says he should have been based on age. 18 years 52 pts 21 years 120 pts I allways wondered why he did not progress even closely relative to the curve.
This trend says bye 50% of NHLE.
Daigle: 2.6pp X .56 = 1.4PPG NHLE Career best .7PPG 50% NHLE regression.
Working Back: ( TG this is the list of players in 1st round last 20 years)
8. (What klicked at this point is if you are a high assist low goal guy in nhl you are under aprecited.)
I showed the 30% goal production for point ranges:
The whole point is when I look at the 30 % player. the trend says bad.
30%g Players based on pt production get this Goal Count 18G (135th) from a 60pt (48TH) 15G (169th) from a 50pt (98TH) 12G (214TH)from a 40pt (165TH)
9. I discussed how I trust NHLE: Showed my Kariya coversion using Desjardins Junior translation curves and League values.
spoiler: how do you project NHL points versus CHL points. League translation.
Kariya got 2.56PPG in a league with league translation of (shit) .41 not .44. how does that equate in CHL points. .41/.29 =1.41 times better.
2.56 X 1.41 = 3.6ppg X .62 = 2.23
38% regression .
I do not want the first pick of the draft on a player around the 30% of points from Goals.
10. TG: wondered about the list I explained in Brackets above. But not broadening the list. Other teams are not dumb enough to take a chance on the 30% guy. 30% line in Hockey ??????????? Then it hit 30% goals in hockey 200 batting average
It is the regression 40% of NHLE that scares me. The more you score the more you defensively affect the game. 30% in junior might be hockey's version of the mendosa line.
I also think the EV to PP ratio has an issue. Junior PP success cannot translate to The pro's there is just a set Production range in NHL. A guy cannot be Gretzky on PP and Halpren @ EV.
I wonder if these guys listed have a high PP to Ev points ratio were the PP count is scewed by high assist totals on the PP that cannot translate to the NHL.
Players with 2/3EV 1/3PP and 35% or better points from goals are money to me.
Getting the 50% from goal guys with high NHLE should be taken in the top 3. Total shit Management if you do not.
The key is try and get the steals.
To me Brett Ritchie: he has an high level 16 year old season and based on standard 16yr to 17 year production growth should be in the 1.1 to 1.5PPG range. Is sick first half of the season .4PPG. Is healthy last half and produces at a 1.3PPG rate. while being a 50% goals guy. He is 6'3" a july 93 player.
His Healthy NHLE .71 X 1.3 = .92PPG Age 22 on Junior transaltion. %0% goals 38G 38A.
this guy is healthy all season his top 5.
I trust stu will get Ritchie he is this years Hamilton.
Don't forget the Sportsnet $. Its not huge, but each Canadian team has their own deal (afaik)
I know the Flames and Oilers won't be able to count Manitoba as part of their market numbers anymore for SN, and will get a haircut on their broadcast rights.
Can we please stop saying RNH will be a bust because he has a %goals similiar to Daigle and Bonsignore? Did those two bust BECAUSE they had a low goal percentage? Of course not and it is similiar to compare them in that context. There are many factors that come into play on whether these young kids succeed including their support system, their competitive drive, their athleticism, their love of go carts, etc.
If you want to argue the merits of a goal scorer vs a set up guy, that makes sense.
I don't know how closely you've looked at Gagner's draft year but it wasn't exactly 2003. Gagner's PPG is up there with everyone drafted after him and it is too early to fully evaluate any of them.
This may go against the grain here but I don't really see the use of NHLE. It is kind of neat when it works, but it seems to vary more than I like to see in statistical tools and who really cares how these kids do in their first year. I will get excited when they have a NHLE for 5 years in, or their projected ceiling.
I'm with Jamie here. I don't necessarily think numbers are bad and scouts are good, but relying only on numbers likely is not wise when it comes to these junior leagues. If there is a number of scouts that feel RNH is going to be good, then so be it. I am more in favour of Larsson, but I won't cry a river (or curse a blue streak) if he is not taken. And staking out an all-or-nothing position on a draft position is, to my mind, unwise.
Unless it is Seguin, in which case I make an exception.
sommunc - playing a little bit of Theolonius Munk on the 8 track.
All this strategizing about the 1st overall and other 1st round pick is just checkers over at Oilers HQ. The true chess game will be figuring out where to draft Keegan Lowe, and Tambo will have to channel his inner Deep Blue to pull it off without getting either fired or roasted in the media.
I'm not remotely against this by the way. If he turns out anything at all like his Dad, we'll be glad to have him.
Just so long as we don't have him negotiating contracts for us in 2035. I shudder to think of the offer sheet he'd be capable of signing Trevor Gretzky's kid to.
What I am saying, is that there are reasons above and beyond the numbers (including RNH's professed interest in developing his two way game, plus a lot of other stuff Bruce dug up, plus what the scouts see) that apply to his case. I am not arguing for him as the #1 pick, I am arguing that it is futile to argue solely on the numbers.
BTW, average 10 rounds, 30 teams is 300 players, making over 2100 players in the last 8 years. 8 players of 2100 is not a representative sample. I could go further into the whole numbers as deception thing, but I pulled my amygdala just doing that math.
This information doesn't make sense to me. Are these just select players with their percentage listed next to them? Why aren't we seeing all players that turned into NHLers in those draft years, along with their percentages? Maybe I'm missing part of the analysis.
It seems to me that an actual statistical analysis would not actually be that difficult for this type of exercise.
- Utilize the sample of all players drafted in a given year (perhaps for CHL players only for uniformity).
- Determine whether their goals as a % of total points was above or below 40% (this demarcation is arbitrary).
- Determine the number of players in each group to play in more than 100 NHL games (also arbitrary).
One can then determine if there is a correlative relationship that is statistically significant.
I'm just guessing on this and trying to recall rudimentary statistics. Individuals who are more statistically inclined could probably come up with a more sophisticated analysis.
In their draft years: Gagner - 29.6% (3rd in team scoring) Bonsignore - 25.5% (4th in team scoring) Chipchura - 31.3% (5th in team scoring) Niinimaki - 33.3% (? team scoring) Daigle - 32.8% (1st in team scoring) Stefan - 31.4% (5th in team scoring) Kariya - 25% (1st in team scoring?)
Joe Thornton? - 33.6% (1st in team scoring) Henrik Sedin? - 35.2% (2nd in team scoring)
Again, does RNH=Niinimaki because 30% of 106 points equals 33% of 6 points? Can I expect him to not reach his NHLE becuase Niinimaki didn't?
What is your cut-off for "30% guys"? Thornton's pre-draft year assist% is 33.6. Does Thornton's NHL performance approach his NHLE? Sedins is 35.2% and his entire SEL career 25.6%. Does his NHL performance approach his NHLE?
Your list proves that junior players with high percentage of their points from assists are unlikely to be drafted as high as guys with high goal%. When they are leading their team in points, they are justifiably drafted higher and perform better in the NHL.
@rickibear and to a lesser extent fpv. I went to hockeydb and looked at the majority of players on your list.It's like you gathered up a bunch of names that were busts(not sure why Kariya is on your list) and then came up with a stat to tie them all together.The year Messier was drafted he had a goal to pts. ratio of less then 10%.Daigle was closer to 35% then 30% but had a well known bad attitude,Hulbig and Stefan were just bad picks.Having never really shown much before they were drafted.Lastly Bonsignore,if you go back and read Desjardins article about projecting based on age this is more where he fits(along with Wickenheiser).This article would also cast a shadow over Larsson and Couturier.It can be found here..http://www.behindthenet.ca/projecting_to_nhl.php
If I get what Ricki is saying: "Watch out for guys at 30% and aim for guys closer to 50%."
But to be of any predictive value it should explain all the guys in between 30% and 50% and guys outside the 1st round. Making a rule based on 8/600 guys (1 of which had seasons of 101 and 108 NHL points) seems more than a little speculative.
(I know I said I wouldn't post about content, but I can't help it today: Need to procrastinate.)
Rickibear and fpv need to think about SH% and random fluctuations in boxcars a little more. Seriously.
1. We all know boxcars without context are notoriously unreliable: See Jones, Cogliano, Brule, etc.
2. Let's look at ricki's test for prospects in more depth. Let's look at a hypothetical case for illustrative purposes. Imagine that player X takes 250 shots and has a SH% of 10%. Obviously, x will score 25 goals. Suppose X recorded 63 assists and thus 88 points. X has 28% of his points as goals.
Now suppose we adjust X's SH% -just to due to good bounces and a little luck- to 13.5%. On 250 shots, X will have scored roughly 34 goals. 34 goals plus 63 assists is 97 points. Now player X has 35% of his points as goals.
It's the same player, mind you. It's just that he got a little lucky and scored at 13.5% instead of 10%. That small fluctuation in SH% is going to happen constantly. It happens with every player in every major league. (And we've said nothing of team on-ice SH%, which can vary wildly too, throwing off assists as well.)
But apparently, before we adjusted his SH% very modestly, X was a crappy pick, at least by fpv and Ricki's standards. But once we adjust, X is a fine pick. But X was the same player all along.
Again, boxcars fluctuate rapidly. And without context, like SH%, TOI, zonestarts, qual team, boxcars hide more about a player than they reveal. With context, I'm a numbers guy all the way. Without context, being a "boxcar-numbers" guy is nothing to be proud of.
3. Regarding RNH:
Another set of numbers to look at, especially with prospects, is splits. (The scouts are saying -I heard Button say this on LT's show- that RNH is ranked number 1 because of who he turned into at the end of the season. That's important.)
In the first 35 games, RNH scored 10 goals, only 5 not on the PP, and 47 points. That's good for a scrawny kid, but not great for a first overall pick.
In the second half, i.e. the last 34 games, RNH scored 21 goals and 59 points. He scored 15 ES goals. If you stretch those scoring rates out over a whole season, RNH would've scored roughly 77 assists and 42 goals (many at ES) for 119 points.
That's a first overall pick, no? Passes the "Boxcar-Ricki Test"?
Now, you might say, maybe RNH hit a lucky run of SH%'s. I mean, it's only 34 games we're talking about. I agree: context is everything, e.g. SH%, TOI, etc. Maybe the real RNH is the first half RNH. (Crappy) Or maybe the real RNH is somewhere in between the results we saw in the first half and the truly awesome second half. We don't know.
Let me repeat: We don't know.
The scouts say that RNH was a changed player in the second half. That he surpassed Couturier. (The Button interview said as much.) I find that story plausible: RNH is young. He's small. Maybe it took him longer to adapt to the WHL game. (Some good D-men there.). If that story is true, we'd be insane not to take RNH.
So, if you're interested in whether we should take RNH, and you want to see what the numbers really tell us, you need to go get the numbers that show us context. Because context is everything. Without it, we're blind. Without it, we'd believe 18 goal Jones is a great player and should've been given a much bigger contract.
I suspect some NHL scouts have a good -maybe even well recorded- idea of RNH's TOI and SH% and that's part of why he's #1. I sincerely hope the Oilers have some of this info too and that they use it in their evaluation.
But without it, all we have is the word of scouts that the real RNH is the second half RNH.
So please stop repeating the same boxcar analysis over and over again.
To everyone : The players were NOT picked randomly.
It is the players who were drafted in the 1st round from now back to 1990 for some exercise, and then to 2000 for the other.
Kris: Seriously?
The fact of the matter is, everyone of these players could have been subjected to splits or high SH%. BUT THEY STILL ALL HAD A 40% REGARDLESS. SH% and Icetime is irrelevant to the exercise.
Ducey: Those guys you proposed scored a lot more (exept Kesler) then RNH.
It's a DROP FROM PROJECTED NHLE. Not a guarantee bust.
Savard, Lecvalier, Crosby and still panned out because even with his drop NHLE was still great.
Let's say RNH's ''variation'' is from 25% to 35% and he's at 30% now.
To get to 30% you still have to be in a ''danger zone'', and everyone in that danger zone had significant drops. It would be silly to suggest all of them had either low or high SH% and low or high icetime.
But they all suffered the same consequences. Significant drop. The ones who got away with it scored in a crazy way. RNH doesn't.
And let me say your excellent comments are one of the only reasons I keep reading the comments page here.
Too little MC79, Bruce, JW, Vic, WG, and too much... Well, I won't be specific, cause LT deletes my posts when I identify specific commenters who I believe are ruining the page.
Kris: Yeah. Sure. Whatever. Honestly, everytime you don't have anything left to say to counter-point you just act like it's dishonest, or some form of rubbish.
Michael Frolik 10th overall 2006 22.2% goals. He's about 0.5 PPG in the NHL, after scoring only 9 points in 48 games in draft year (NHLE?)
Rotislav Olesz 7th overall 2004 8.3% goals. His best NHL PPG is 0.47, after scoring 11 points in 35 games during his draft year (NHLE?)
Manny Malhotra 7th overall 1998 31% goals. His best NHL PPG is 0.464, after scoring 51 points in 57 games in his draft year (NHLE?)
I think the certainty of a 50% drop from your NHLE is overstated and I think the list of the players taken in the first round that had around 30% of their production from goals is more than 8.
@fpv Here is a stat for you.I can guarentee you 100% if you draft a player with a Patrik Stefan resume(18 goals in 90 games)and you(Don Wadell) take him first overall,your record as a general manager will not be very good.He shouldn't have been a first round pick never mind first overall.Comparing him to RNH or Strome is sheer stupidity.
The key premise in your argument that NHLE's are more stable for players who score a higher percentage of their points as goals.
Fine. That makes sense, intuitively, and I am inclined to agree. (However, I don't think you or Boxcar-Ricki have made the case for it. You need to look at a wider range of cases and a larger sample.) Let's call this the "Boxcar-Ricki Rule."
My point is that if you want to use the Boxcar-Ricki Rule as a test to evaluate which prospect is the best to take (ignoring D-men, who boxcars tell us nothing about), you need to recognize the weaknesses in the rule, and that there are times it will certainly fail. (I'd say the same hting about the strategy of automatically picking the player with the best NHLE, without context. Really, stripping away the sophistry, all you and Ricki are arguing for is using NHLE's but with goals only and not assists.)
Primarily, we need to see if a player's goal totals are effected by SH%, TOI, and qualteam. A player may fail the Ricki test for no other reason than that he had a bad run. A player like Jones may pass the test for no other reason than a hot SH%. (BTW, would you use the same rule if we had to draft active NHL players in an expansion draft or fantasy draft?)
If we have a reason to believe that player X scored at a 43 goal pace over, say half a season, when healthy, when he matured physically, when shooting at a career-reasonable pace, then it would be absurd to not draft because X also scored 130 points, and has fallen under the Boxcar-Ricki Line.
Indeed, I think the Boxcar-Ricki rule is just a proxy for testing for how much offense a junior player got because of high quality teammates. If player Y was on a great line, and racked up assists because of the quality of his teammates, then maybe Y's point totals aren't reflective of his underlying abilities. If so, we should expect Y's actual point totals to be lower than his NHLE.
So, failing the Boxcar-Ricki test raises a red flag: it says "Hey, check to see if my offense is inflated by quality of linemates." It seems that in many cases it will be: see Gagner and many London Knights.
But we have every reason to believe that RNH's numbers were not inflated by high power teammates. And we have some reason to believe that RNH is the real-deal in terms of play-making and thus should have a very high assist total.
Moreover, I think it's quite plausible that some of RNH's early failures to score goals are attributable to SH% and possibly late physical development. It would be insane to hold that against RNH.
Anyone that doesn't agree are obviously 30% ignorant, and 70% stupid.
Not everyone an be 50% handsome, and 50% genius.
Stu Macgregor, the verdict is out on him. If he does select RNH first overall, my suspicions that he is neither 50% handsome nor 50% genius. Obviously regressing to 30% ignorant like the rest of you putz that can't understand how to draft hockey players.
Interesting points all. I think it really points out that:
1. we need TOI 2. sometimes math tells us they're all about equal. The being the internet and all of us having strong opinions on everything from Betty versus Veronica through Sleemans versus Pabst it is somewhat foreign to reach the obvious conclusion:
we can't see him from here. We don't know who is better. I suspect MBS is having the same nightmares.
Being a member of SABR with many years and reading and discussing statistical analysis for Collegiate and Minor League players and projecting their major league production.
I can confidently say that SABRs advanced stats regarding baseball are more advanced then anything were discussing regarding hockey and very few baseball guys talk with the confidence and certainty that people do in the comment section of this blog.
Maybe approach the numbers with a little more of LT's humbleness and little less insufferable.
LT: As for point #2.All I have to say on that is if you have enough Sleemans or Pabst,a girl that you think looks like Betty or Veronica could in fact look more like Jughead.
When you have players jump from 30 points to 100, and have only the limited statistical data we have (for OHL and WHL guys, no sh%), it's hard to know which guys genuinely made that much improvement at that age, and which guys ran hot in their draft year.
Lots of people are laying the demise of the Thrashers at his feet. I don't know all the conditions he worked under with fractured ownership, but you'd have to think the he owns a huge part of the blame.
I think rickibear may be onto something, but I agree that it needs further and deeper analysis, and less exclamations of certainty and derisions of those who disagree.
It reminds me of the arguments for spontaneous generation that you read about in junior high school.
Leave meat to rot and maggots will appear on the meat. Therefore rotting meat maggots.
Kris, I hope that's not your last post for a while.
Should read: "Therefore rotting meat creates maggots"
I'm counting the days until you are on your own site with an edit button LT.
Speeds,
I read that article. Scott always finds interesting things to look at.
Shortly after reading that I heard an interview with MBS where he mentioned that they look at year over year improvement as a huge plus for a player.
Interesting that the players who maintain a high level over two years do better on the whole than the shooting stars. (of course good and bad NHL players being in both groups, and Scott acknowledging the limitations of his sample size)
Kris: would youu draft a .200 hitter first overall in the MLB draft?
PS. if there were enough players I would like to break them up in to 2% intervals to get NHLE curves for each group. so we get a more accurate nhle.
Now my Box car pology.
Forgive me gentleman for using goal production as a major NHLE translation indicator. It is silly of me to use such an insignificant stat like goals to judge prospects.
Especially since you win games by staying away from the oppositions net and maintaining the puck the longest. that is how you win the game. pass the puck around to each other and keep the puck for the most TOI.
Forgive me for wanting the players who go to the dirty areas near the net who try to score goals. Scoring Goals. Just a terrible idea.
And selfish. A good socialist game like keep the puck does not need any Goal scoring Glory seekers.
The key indicator of the 70% assits guy (make you feel better) is they can be easily dominated physically, they shy from tough areas an are dependent on the glory seeking goal scorers. (those bastards)
How does RNH figure to be a 0.200 hitter with 106 points? Wouldn't he be a high percentage hitter in the minor leagues who, as an example of LT's, can't hit curveballs?
Rico Fata,Mark Bell,Jeff Heerema,Michael Henrich,Eric Chouinard,Pavel Brendl,Kris Beech, Jamie Lundmark,Oleg Saprykin, Barrett Heisten. What does this stellar bunch all have in common?All first round draft picks,all with goal to assists ratio better then 40%,some at over 50%.All players that Rickibear would draft ahead of Paul Kariya.And the list was compiled looking at only two draft years,1998 and 1999.Good luck MBS.
FPB - my point wasn't that those three players (Olesz, Frolik and Malhotra) were killers, or good comps for RNH. Neither are Niinimaki, Chipchura, Hulbig etc.
You've taken up rickibear's argument that scoring 30% or less from goals means that you are guaranteed to fall short of your NHLE by 40% or more. I'm arguing that it isn't nearly as clear as has been presented. Here are three players that meet or exceed their NHLE. I've just skimmed a few draft years but I'd guess there are probably more. You can add Kesler, Sedin and Thornton and that's 7. Now the range is about 0% of their NHLE to 400% of their NHLE. Can we predict RNH based on that?
I'll take Betty, and I also liked Jeannie over Samantha too.
Woodguy: Not surprised that Waddell is not part of the package. I remember when he was GM of the Orlando NBA team (and the Int'l Hockey League team) and his strength was not player procurement their - nor was it in Atlanta.
Fractured ownership is never good, but a team that can't procure talent in the draft - even worse. For all his hits in the first round, this was a team that couldn't find any nuggets later in the draft.
Would love to be a fly on the wall with some of the draft discussions taking place for the Oilers right now.
I am genuinely trying to understand your point. You can lose the attitude.
You still have not addressed the fact you are relying on 8 guys in 20 years for your theory. Even then several of them are real leaps.
Kariya doesn't help you. He had 100 pts in his draft year and more than that in the NHL twice.
Niinimaki had 2 4 6 in his draft year. Does that give us any insight into RNH's 106 pts? Come on. That kind of sample size is meaningless.
Hulbig went 19 24 43 in his draft year. Thats 44% goals. How does that help your theory?
Chipchura had only 48 pts in 64 games. Did he bust because he had to few goals, or because he just had too few points altogether?
Stephan is an anomoly in that he played in the IHL and everyone bought the fact he was playing against men. He had 35 pts.
Bosignore, Daigle and maybe Stephan I'll give you. (But I note they all were notorious for their lack of heart - possibly the real problem).
Thats three f'in players you are relying on for your theory.
You also ignore the flipside. You know, that the guys closer to 50% are better bets. There are by definition 100's of guys who flopped, busted, underachieved who had goal percentages in the high 30's up to 50%. How does this help in our analysis of Couturier.
Completely off-topic, but it's something that I'd like people's opinions on:
Retire #39?
Reasons against: No Cup with the Oilers. Slightly less than half his career as an Oiler. Just slightly over half his points as an Oiler. Most likely not a Hall of Famer.
Counter-points: NO chance of a Cup with the Oilers, not in that era. His limited time in Edmonton was the product, again, of that era.
Best reason I've heard for:
Do you think the Oilers would still be in Edmonton, if we had Esa Tikkanen instead of Doug Weight? Would the Oilers have done well enough to draw fan support? Would we have had those playoff series (and all that revenue)? Would there be the stunning upsets of the heavily favored Stars and Avs? I say no, and without those things, I'm not sure the EIG would have come together.
Hockeyguy you are on crack. we know the trend knock nhle down 45-55%
kariyas knocked down NHLE is still superior to those other guys. so you take him. Not even close.
Gagner in his draft year while knocked down is still top 10 for the pathetic draft. but the system would have taken Perron second for forwards.
Were the problem is RNH NHLE @22 says 1.53ppg X .65 = .9945 .9945/2 = .49725 X 82 = 40.775 12G 29A
#1 beauty. we al use NHLE and aplly it. we need to study more. 20 years? all have large %. but now it makes the golden child look like crap. the hipocrite train starts to roll.
LT: yes 200 Christ i am surpised you can not look at the game at its most unbiased influenced level.
Goals in or out. Put in by one player. dvancing bases while not be out by hitting a stick. the better obp.
you win by both. you forsake the mendosa line fr periferial skills relative to the game.
30% goals 200 batting may not be the correct analogy.
batting average is NHLE. and goals are runs driven in or Homers.
RNH is a low rbi player who shows a great high school batting average. but in expected MLB hitting he only generates half.
TG: Malhotra 31.5% ????????? expect NHLE @22 .58ppg real .24ppg Olesz drafted 19 year 18 year 66% ????????????
Frolik you got me. while his two year pre draft average was 42% with limited play in europe. oh he could be an outlier. yeah! I get to use one.
maybe just regular shift NCAA, CHL should be considered.
Forgive me for using all that has been learned at this site. to trend for pattern like done for equipment performance on industrial sites.
I am sorry i came to this site thinking this was lt's but it must be HF board in Disguise!
Now we return to HF board RNH love fest.
RNH is the best player ever and it will be a mistake not to take him #1 Oh and Math Sucks. and trends are for losers.
Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have.
an alcoholic's advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy so long as the alcoholic made no pretense of constant sobriety
Ducey: nhle and league translation is about determining performance.
Kariya is not a failure in drafting terms:
But his Real NHLE is almost half of expected NHLE. which is not a problem for a guy who rates off the board like Kariya. even after the adjusted drop he was still going to be that 1.4ppg guy. christ that is still top of the class.
Gagner 2.22ppg in CHL expected nhle 1.55 modified NHLE .775 + 65 pts. that is still top 30 center @ #6. so great choice.
RNH 1.53ppg around 1ppg NHLE half of that .5ppg the trend says that. do you want to risk the #1 pick on a guy that maybe 45PTs @22.
Draft management! that is a dumb ass risk based on a trend. you are taking a risk that the high % trend might not be correct. dumb!
A proper risk is Ritchie who's 16 year season fits the elite group. Sick period was well below 16 year old season showing affected results. Healthy period in the season that shows the proper progression for points. that priod goal production and NHLE says 40G 40A. Oh look a player selected by the shooter factory. all these are positive trends. you take the risk for a elite outcome at worst a 25G 25a guy. That is the proper risk.
"...And selfish. A good socialist game like keep the puck does not need any Goal scoring Glory seekers.
The key indicator of the 70% assits guy (make you feel better) is they can be easily dominated physically, they shy from tough areas an are dependent on the glory seeking goal scorers. (those bastards)
Now we return you to the real world."
Frankly, I don't know which is a greater cause for hilarity: describing puck possession as a "socialist" attribute or this whole "30% G/P" mumbo jumbo :)
Someone who actually who spends a bit of time observing the "real world" (or at least the hockey version of it) may actually notice the following:
Over the last decade (or, more precisely, since the 2000/01 season):
- 5 of 10 Art Ross winners have scored at <= 0.3 pts/game in their award winning seasons.
- 4 of 8 forwards who won the Hart have scored at <= 0.3 pts/game in their award winning seasons.
Last season, Toews (admittedly not a pure playmaker) lead CHI in playoff scoring with 29 pts on a measly 7 goals (0.24 g/pts), captained them to the Stanley Cup as well as the winning Conn Smythe for good measure. This season, Henrik Sedin may accomplish a comparable feat with perhaps an even lower goals/points ratio.
So more than a few players who are proficient at chalking up assists have proven to be quite helpful to his team's cause in the "real world", it seems.
As for that whole "30% G/P" shebang...let's just say that the most diplomatic adjective I can muster up to describe it is: "inconclusive"...
Pop Quiz:
This season RNH lead his team in scoring at 1.54 pts/gp and had less than 0.30 goals/pts. He's listed as 6 feet in height and is about to be picked in his first draft-eligible year.
Name ALL the other CHLers since the 1990 draft who were taken in their first draft-eligible season, are at least 6 ft tall, scored over 1.5 pts/gp that season with less than 0.3 goals/pts.
Note: the stats are from hockeydb.com while nhl.com provide the height info, which reflects a player's current size so the players in question may actually be shorter than 6 ft at draft time. But that would make RNH stands out even more.
Ducey: You took the math out yourself. There's no reason to exclude those guys. Exept other ''Red flags'' everyone should have known earlier. Could be RNH's problem. We don't know.
Choppystride: 6''1 and the goal scoring pace doesn't matter in the exercise. It's to demonstrate the negative effect on reaching your NHLE. Which in all of the cases does. No matter the context it did have a negative effect on EVERYONE.
Hf board lingo at its best. way to give us the adjective stuart smally.
so you guys do not like trending. cause it doesn't fit the academic statistical model.
WAH! when it comes to this you may only end up with 7 or 8 examples of a piece of product in a defined situation in the whole world. if 7 of 8 are shit. you fire the dumb asses who try to convince you to use it in the same situation. if they are vendors you tell them to F off.
This is why there are industrial trending resources all over the world. so we don't end up with 1000 examples of the messed up situation you end up with 7 or 8.
RNH TELL ME he is going to make the Goal scoring jump and be that NHLE guy he is proported to be. Give me 7 or 8 examples so the risk only becomes 50/50.
Complaining about the trend is just petty whinning without supportive proof.
All the ad hominem crap does not help your argument, ricki. Defending a thesis should be assumed in the making of one.
I like the idea as it may have some predictive capacity, but 8 players is begging for a Black Swan to occur. There is always a problem extrapolating to a population from such a small sample.
This site was a breath of fresh air to read when I tired of the partisan bickering of HF. It has taught me a lot about hockey, and I have been following the sport since Ken Dryden was a rookie.
Now it's getting to the point where a very small number of posters and their lack of respect for others are making it a painful place to visit.
I know my contributions pale compared to some of the great minds that post here, but I am getting to the point where I no longer feel the need to even read and lurk anymore.
Kris stated correctly that you need context and that relatively small changes in SP can affect results - true - but it cuts both ways. RNH has had exactly ONE elite month in junior hockey (March) with respect to goal scoring. I have no idea if anything and everything he threw at the net went in that month or not - maybe yes and maybe no - but it certainly had a very large impact on his season. But that one month made up over 1/3 of his modest goal scoring total - and luck may have had a lot to do with it.
Risk management my friends - you don't get ahead without it - and you end up with a sack full of Niinimaki's and Stefans if you think you don't need it. RNH may be great - but without a doubt he's a risky #1 pick - and the numbers seem to suggest that a lower ceiling is very possible. Best strategy is to talk this kid up a ton and hope that someone gives us something good for a small trade down that still nets us our target player. Savvy mgmt would do this - however- we do not have savvy mgmt.
People are hot under the collar re the virtues or non-virtues of this Ryan Nugent-Hopkins kid.
Last season it was the same thing but Hall/Seguin was the big debate topic.
Lowetide is one of the nicest, most rational online people I've met, lol.
HF Boards for what little it's worth is run like a PC gulag - dare to raise or lower the tone of conversation out of a fairly narrow bandwidth and you're banned. Luckily there is an endless supply of middle school posters to choose from, so they're in good shape going ahead.
So what if from now and again some posters start getting fed up wih each other? What else do you expect on a 30th place team?
Then to top everything off, the Vancouver Canucks are poised to win the championship - making the bizzaro world NHL even more so.
I see the Oilers like the sucker at the poker table - Kevin Lowe's irrational behaviour over the past 5 years providing the proof. Therefore, when I read suggestions of Lowe, or whoever else is supposed to be running the team trading away the 1st round pick for more inferior prospects, I tend to hit my own online roof.
The point being, that a lot of fans are close to breaking point. The excitement of Edmonton having an NHL franchise has somewhat faded for some of us, and it's getting kind of old listening to what a lousy city Edmonton is also - simply due to the fact that Lowe alienated anyone with half a brain playing in the NHL.
ricki: I'm open to the discussion, but as others have mentioned it doesn't quite look like your theory has been battened down.
I would also request that you back off from the loose cannon verbal approach. If we're not buying what you're selling, there are two possibilities: we're being deliberately obtuse or you haven't proven your theory.
I request you assume the second one and proceed accordingly.
Does NHL-E predict NHL production greater than 1 year in advance?
Consider the following setting: Player A spends 2010/11 in CHL and gets X points. Player A gets drafted into NHL in 2011 draft. Player than spends an extra year in CHL (2011/12) and then jumps to the NHL the year after (2012/13).
Question: Does NHL-E make any predictions on Player A's NHL production based on his draft year in this case? (i.e. In this setting does the 2010/11 CHL year predict the 2012/13 NHL year?)
Fine: you guys like to have a large data table. With reasons why!
As we all love to have TOI. SH% and the like that is not readily available. I can understan your Learines.
Ask yourself why low scoring % players are not the norm.
Because they are weed out by a result driven peer driven hockey system.
No goals you usuck no AAA for you.
I have stated a small sample but highly negative trend. AsiaOil and FPB have explained the Risk Mgmt for a pick in the draft. As well as what i would like to have occur.
That kind of certainty does not cut it.
As for cleaning it up LT: ?????? more work.
You look at the last 20 years of first round picks (600) and see if the NHLE matches. Nope!
You say wait a second. that is all.
As for theory. Here is one! any of the measures created/used on this site that are based on shots are flawed.
To the point of useless.
The reason being shot count does not look at quality. With scoring results varying by up to 17X difference. 17X. 1700% error in equating data.
Interesting to see how many of the Canucks' depth players came from FA. Hopefully Tambi is paying attention. Would be great to see some serviceable vets added to hopefully avoid another Vortex of Suck next year.
With what Shanahan has done for the league in the last number of years, he automatically elevates that post from the depths that Campbell has taken it to. Good on the NHL for finding a statesman and respected voice to take over a thankless and tarnished position.
ankibil - what my 3 year old wandered around the house saying after watching Tarantino movies.
BTW, I do find it interesting that on a day when the NHL returns to Winnipeg and MBS signs an extension, not to mention the day before the SCF begins, the discussion around here has centred on how to regard a metric to evaluate CHL players as draftees. And that the discussion moved people to anger/angry words. I enjoy that passion which is brought and the attempt to reason out who's position is more valid.
Bar - I was just about to make a comment on how everyone's gone and lost their brains and it is only June 1. How do you see that discussion that just took place as progress? I see little to no actual attempt at hockey understanding in it. Still all a discussion of what and no why. The great scouts seem to understand the why and draw the players out then show the coaches how to develop them using that why.
Frankly the brief Betty and Veronica (with a side of Midge) was more interesting/amusing. The actual answer is Cheryl, followed by Veronica (for Archie, that is).
Bar Qu: Well. Everytime it ends it takes me some time, just to say in my mind ''This is all fucking useless''. But then a comment puts the flame back on and here we go again.
was just about to make a comment on how everyone's gone and lost their brains and it is only June 1. How do you see that discussion that just took place as progress?
I dunno, I guess I find that arriving at a consensus is overrated. The process of discussion is much more valuable, especially when there is disagreement. You don't get value from a bunch of people nodding their heads in agreement (witness the Oilers management process), but from passionate people espousing differing views. Witness the art and learning developed in the political nightmare of renaissance Italy versus the lack of anything from the much more placid Switzerland of the same time. And if this discussion can happen with a modicum of civility attached (ie. I know I shouldn't call you a moron, you moron ...) then all the better. I have not spent time at HF boards so I can't compare, but I have spent(and no longer spend) time on the ON comment threads and there is no comparison in the level of discussion.
Bar Qu: Well. Everytime it ends it takes me some time, just to say in my mind ''This is all fucking useless''. But then a comment puts the flame back on and here we go again.
Endless cycle.
Its only endless if either side won't let it go.
Most of the questions put to rickibear and you were valid and even handed.
Some of your and his responses were inflammatory and bordered on hysterical.
Tone is important.
Discussion about merits of arguments are what I enjoy about lowetide.blogspot.com, but let's not lose site that we are all hobbyists.
Serious and well informed hobbyists, but hobbyists nonetheless.
If you are proposing a theory, expect it to have holes poked it in and back up your assertions.
a. Saying "Archie being Archie he should go after X" is like saying the Oilers should go off the boards because they had a history of screwing up the draft.
Given how many good picks we have in the first and second round, Erixon re-entering the draft is only a very good thing. MacKenzie is now tweeting it might not get done, though it might not be new info.
One of the problem CAL might be encountering in negotiations with Erixon is the lack of a bonus overage next season, as I understand it (haven't looked into that, so someone please correct me if I'm mistaken). That might not be a big deal if he doesn't want much for bonuses, but if his agent thinks Erixon can get bigger bonuses by re-entering the draft and being picked by a team nowhere near the cap, maybe CAL is in a situation where they feel their hands are tied?
For what it's worth, Hopkins had a points from goals of 36.9% in his pre-draft year. He scored 24 goals and 41 assists for 65 points. A jump of 7 goals is well within the realm of reasonable improvement from year to year for a 16 year old kid, but his assist totals went through the roof.
It's entirely possible that Hopkins wasn't getting the same kind of PP time last year that he got this year, so he wouldn't have had a chance to rack up PP assists.
It's also possible that Hopkins had his teams on-ice SH% spike this year, so more of his passes were finished off this year as opposed to last.
Bar - I'm not advocating consensus at all. I'm saying this is a very strange line of discussion with a lot of unnecessary conflict that isn't related to the discussion.
There is no number that will prove any of what is being said. Discuss all anyone wants but there's no reason for multiple people to go to pieces over it.
Gog - That's not exactly what I'm saying re: Archie. I was taking into account what his character expressed re: the characters mentioned. Other people preferring Betty for themselves is rather superfluous to Archie.
Has anyone actually studied Hopkins (or any of the other players for that matter) to determine why his season broke down the way it did? The how and the why of his development and goals/assists and all the other stuff? Has anyone actually watched it and figured it out using a solid knowledge of the game as perspective?
I'd love to hear from that person. I skip over all the "my permutations are better than your permutations" stuff. That runs against the semi-consensus around here but it has served me well for some time.
No one wants to take a stab at the pop quiz? Perhaps it does sound like too arduous a task to come up with an unspecified number of players. How about I give a hint:
Of over 1200 CHL forwards taken in past 21 drafts since 1990, only a single player has ever met the criteria I specified. He was a 3rd round pick.
Imagine if it was Marincin going in that deal instead of Erixon. That's gotta kill Flames fans.
I wonder how Feaster will spin this. Since he signed so quickly with NYR, sounds like he just didn't want to play for the Flames or really had his heart set on a big city.
So there likely would have been no point in the Oilers trying to get him.
Something to be said for picking guys who want to be here. In the final analysis, it can definitely trump BPA.
Do any of you ever listen to Rob Kerr on the Fan in Calgary? Sort of like Stauffer here, real jerk, loves to make fun of Edmonton and how it is the worst place to play in the NHL, spent all day yesterday saying that Oilers fans are thrilled that Winnipeg is now lower than Edmonton on players lists etc etc
Wonder how he is spinning this Erixon thing? Maybe he realizes Calgary is pretty similar to Edmonton and once your superstar is in decline, it ain't all that much better, if at all, place to play.
I wonder if Feaster was trying to cheap out on him because of no cap space?
I wonder if the Oilers drafted Larsson if they could somehow trade the 19th for Erixon and if he would come with his buddy here along the other swedes?
Might give them a good top pairing for the next 15 years..
unless he has a ntc though, Sather could trade him to the Oilers for the 19th he could win the trade for two second rounders and we could really laugh at Calgary.
I would happily trade the 19th for Erixon wouldn't all of you?
It'll be interesting to see if it was the city that drove Erixon away or the organization. If it was the city, well then I doubt he would've wanted to play in Edmonton had we traded/re-drafted him. If it was the organization, on the other hand, maybe he would have signed here. Perhaps he would have rather played with Paajarvi, Omark and Lander and on a team that *should* be on the rise rather than the Flames who look like they have no where to go but down.
Correct. Brad Richards is only one. RNH will be the second.
Richards was taken in the 1998 Draft. He had 115 pts in 68 gp => 1.69 pts/gp .
He and Lecavalier were tied in points but Vinny played 10 fewer games so Vinny was effectively the team's leading scorer.
Even if I lift the height constraint, the number of players who hit those criteria increase by a whopping count of 2. They are Sam Gagner and Kyle Wellwood.
Gagner has skating issues. And he was riding on Kane's coattail. Moreover, Kostitysn also scored at the same rate as Gagner. And that London team not only scored more goals than RNH's Red Deer team, but they also allowed close to a whopping 100 goals in GA more than Red Deer. Imagine RNH played on a team with that kind of defensive laxity and surrounded by those kinds of players....
Wellwood is only 5'10, has skating issues, has conditioning/work ethics issues. In any case, the scouts correctly identified his flaws. He was not taken til the 5th round, 134th overall.
No, he is French. Expert anthropologist Mikhail Grabovski made the revelation in this 2009 interview: "I think he is not Belarusian now, he is French, because I never fight with Belarusian guys," he said. "I don't know why he wants to fight with me. If he wants to fight, we'll go in the street and, every minute of every day, I'll wait for him and we'll fight."
I love how some Flames posters are consoling themselves by pointing out that this Horak guy was over a point a game in the WHL last year, with someone I saw even calling him a sniper prospect who could end up as a top-6 forward.
I know nothing about the guy, but just go look at the 2009 draft and try to find any random 5-7th round forward who didn't put up over a point per game in the WHL as a 20-year old this last season.
This just in: In the wake of his new contract extension, Stu MacGregor has sold his home in Edmonton and will be taking up residence in Acapulco, Mexico.
ReplyDeleteHopefully he doesn't use his job security to buy a house in Mexico...
ReplyDeleteGreat news.
Dang it misfit:-)
ReplyDeleteThis gentleman may be the only person with any real credibility in the entire management team. I'm not so sure he wouldn't be a better GM than the puppet master and his puppet.
ReplyDeleteMBS already lives in Kelowna, which is the closest place in Canada to Mexico.
ReplyDeleteSo he's got that going for him.
Good one misfit!
ReplyDeleteGreat Bastard news.
ReplyDeleteOther news from Larsson's agent...
Normally in most cases, we Euros think it's sometimes an advantage to stay one or two seasons after the Draft," Elefalk told NHL.com. "It's a tremendous culture change but it's not unusual to see players playing in Europe stay there an additional year or two. Victor Hedman (Tampa Bay Lightning) was an exception but we'll have to see what happens. Our belief is we'll stay another year or two in Sweden."
I guess it's not fair to leave this bit from Larsson out...
ReplyDelete"I can play in the NHL next year (despite being under contract) but I haven't decided yet what I'm going to do next season," Larsson said. "But I'm ready, but am still learning every day. I think if I do decide to play in North America, I want to feel very prepared for it."
Best move of V 3.0's tenure...
ReplyDeleteThat lady is sad because there's no MacGregor equivalent on the pro side of the franchise.
ReplyDelete@Woodguy....bastard might be in "Canada's Mexico", but at least he's not in the actual Mexico phoning it in!
ReplyDeleteThat lady is sad because there's no MacGregor equivalent on the pro side of the franchise
ReplyDeleteHow did Morey Gare and his crew escape v3.0's epic cleaning of the Augean Stables?
Off topic but it would seem that the Oilers just have one significant draft pick they have to sign, Robbie Dee.
ReplyDeleteIs this correct?
I don't think they will sign Dee given they signed his teammate House.
The only other guy would be Hesketh, but I am unclear whether Hesketh is somehow in the college system.
Congratulations to Winnipeg for finally getting a National Hockey League team again. Now if only Edmonton could get theirs back.
ReplyDeleteI hope they don't call it anything but the Jets. Polar bears make them sound like they're a beer league club.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.2kproject.net/jerseysets/SizedWinnipegJetsSet.jpg
Those jerseys are pretty sweet.
Rob Schremp being interviewed on TSN about the move to Winnipeg. Fun.
ReplyDeleteVerification word: nolosess
When you have a good name and great jerseys ready to use, it would be pretty lame not to go with them.
ReplyDeleteAnnouncing a new name would remind me of when Jordan came back the first time wearing 45. Just wrong and with no chance of sticking.
However it has to come with a caveat that Winnepeggers can't act like some Cleveland fans who just apply Ravens history to the new Browns. Teemu never played for this team, and that's just the way it is.
And yes, if the Oil had ever moved and this was us getting the Thrashers and renaming them the Oilers, I would be dead-set against us hanging the banners up again.
Whats the over/under for when those in the Peg get tired of "Rob Schremp hockey"?
ReplyDeleteThey may not even get Rob Schremp hockey, he's still a RFA and doesn't know if he'll be resigned.
ReplyDeleteSay what you want on Schremp he's still less painful to watch than all the army of tools EDM employed.
ReplyDeleteI put this on the other thread thinking things were still going there, but I'll repeat it here (because it is so worth your time).
ReplyDeleteWith the Thrashers/Peggers having 28 mill in cap space and a bunch of excited new owners now, forget raiding their team for any good pieces. That means Bogosian is off the table.
Welcome back MB. Hope to despise you as a rival later.
Commonfan:
ReplyDeleteThat'd be a lot better than the Irsay's pretending they had anything to do with Johnny Unitas...
I agree BQ-even though Chipman mentioned they were going to be a "budget" team,I don't see them making any radical changes over the summer.Apparently Bogo wanted to be closer to home and maybe a change of scenery would have done him good,and he's getting that with this move.
ReplyDeleteEven the best scouts burn out. But MacG should have a few more good years, one would hope.
ReplyDeleteGR beat me to it and I tuned out before the Chipman comments but I'll be very curious to see just how high the budget is and how much money the owners want to suffer.
ReplyDeleteWe're all guessing here but wouldn't a good first dart be that they might be in Preds range budget-wise?
Or am I off the mark?
Dennis said:
ReplyDeleteWe're all guessing here but wouldn't a good first dart be that they might be in Preds range budget-wise?
Or am I off the mark?
While I am not sure of the specifics of the corporate sponsorship support in NAS, I am confident that there will be far more corporate $$$ in WPG.
Each CDN NHL team has a national sponsor from each of five top tier categories, namely Non-Alcoholic Beverages (ie Coke), Beer (ie Molson and Labatts), Energy (ie EPCOR, or Manitoba Hydro), Telecom (ie Telus, or MTS), and automotive (ie Ford). There is also generally one or two large sponsors from regionally relevant categories in each building, like Rexall in EDM, BC Ferries in VAN, Corel in OTT, and maybe GWL or Boeing in Winnipeg. There are also large organizations with advertising in multiple NHL markets, like Air Canada, Boston Pizza, and Forzani.
My point is, national advertising dollars will come to Winnipeg regardless of the presence of corporate head-offices in the city. Further, given the attention that will be focussed on the team in its first season, the projected TV numbers on HNIC, TSN, and RSN will be well within the range of CGY and EDM.
Even if the ticket revenue in Winnipeg is similar to NAS (someone on Twitter calculated a $1.3mil gate per game based on announced ticket prices), the Corporate sponsorship revenue will likely be greater.
Also, from my understanding, TNSE has a non-compete clause for major concerts in Winnipeg, meaning that even when U2 plays at CanadInns Stadium, TNSE has their hand in the pot. I doubt the owners of the Preds get a cut every time Vince Gill cuts a Twang at the Grand Ole Opry.
The organization is a well-run machine. Betting on them to fail is a losing proposition.
Rickibear should repost his stuff on guys with 30% goals to points ratio.Pretty much put the last nail in the coffin for RNH in my head. Not even top 5.
ReplyDeleteFPB: here is your request: Part 1:
1. So you have the best young dman for p/GM in SEL history who played a Primary shutdown Role in a league 1.73 harder NHLE than the AHL.
And your advocating drafting a player #1 who has a points from G ratio below 30% which relates to a multitidue of draft bust as the core of that type of group.
the most current example.
Sam Gagner:
He dominated a super series of his pers.
Had 2.2PPG in Junior which said he should be a 100 point player. however the trend for below 30% from goal guys is to be only 50% of NHLE. Is Sam currently a 50 point guy yes.
So if trend holds: You are advocating drafting a young man who might put on the weight needed to not be physically dominated in the league. who will likely be a 45point player in NHL based on past history including Gagner and Kariya.
To expect him to be better than Gagner when RNH is 1.5PPG and Gagner is 2.2ppg.
2. Spoiler responds:
Kariya was a 45-50 point guy? Is my memory really that shot? I would've sworn he cleared 90 points at least once in his career.
(At this point he does not get it.)
3. Ducey Says:
Wow, 21 years old and already capped out at 50 points. Somebody should let him know. Math says there is no point in trying, Sam.
So if the Nuge would have scored 5 less assists and went 31 70 101 he would be a better prospect than he is now, because the math would have put him at +30% goals?
Very valid point by him.
How about Hemmer, he only scored on 27% of his points the year after he was drafted. We should have known he would have busted.
Ricki, I like math too. Its a useful filter but there are plenty of exceptions to the rule. (Marc Savard has had a nice career but for the concussions - he scored 30.9% of the time in junior. Jumbo Joe had 33% of his points by way of goals. We gonna get caught up over 3%?)
The more you post though, the more I think the Oilers should be trading down.
(He gets it its not the player I am targeting it is the risk related to the pick and regression of NHLE.)
4. Then I give a hyperbole based example for a metaphor.
Ducey: i will half file a firing pin on a shotgun. that way there is a 40% chance it will not fire. Still a 60% negative outcome.
I will bring it over and you can load it, put it in your mouth and pull the trigger.
Most common sense people would say that is silly.
So do not pull the trigger on our first pick!
5. Spoiler then gets angry re kariya.
Fine. Make me look shit up. Kariya had two seasons over 100, one of 99 and three more over 80. If that's Samwise's future, or RNH's... I think I am okay with it
6. FPB intergects re Kariya in NCAA.
7.I respond to All
the whole fear of the 30% guy is the reduction relative to nhlE.
Kariya played in Boston his draft year he was 2.56PPG in a league 1.55 times better than the CHL.
Which translates to 3.97 ppg in the CHL. 3.97 X .62 = 2.48PPG NHLE
Career best 1.4PPG (later response catches the league error of .44 NCAa should have been .41)
The regression rate relative to NHLE is 45 to 55%
Gagner nhle curve says he should have been based on age.
18 years 52 pts
21 years 120 pts I allways wondered why he did not progress even closely relative to the curve.
This trend says bye 50% of NHLE.
Daigle: 2.6pp X .56 = 1.4PPG NHLE
Career best .7PPG 50% NHLE regression.
Working Back: ( TG this is the list of players in 1st round last 20 years)
2007: Gagner(edm)
2004: Chipchura
2002: Ninimaki(edm)
1999: Stefan
1994: Bonsignore(edm)
1993: Daigle, kariya
1992: Hulbig (edm)
See which ORG is Dumb Ass when it comes to this.
TG: (There are only 8 of 600 picks and they all had serious NHLE Regression.)
FPB: here is your request: Part 2:
ReplyDelete8. (What klicked at this point is if you are a high assist low goal guy in nhl you are under aprecited.)
I showed the 30% goal production for point ranges:
The whole point is when I look at the 30 % player. the trend says bad.
30%g Players based on pt production get this Goal Count
18G (135th) from a 60pt (48TH)
15G (169th) from a 50pt (98TH)
12G (214TH)from a 40pt (165TH)
9. I discussed how I trust NHLE:
Showed my Kariya coversion using Desjardins Junior translation curves and League values.
spoiler: how do you project NHL points versus CHL points. League translation.
Kariya got 2.56PPG in a league with league translation of (shit) .41 not .44. how does that equate in CHL points. .41/.29 =1.41 times better.
2.56 X 1.41 = 3.6ppg X .62 = 2.23
38% regression .
I do not want the first pick of the draft on a player around the 30% of points from Goals.
10. TG: wondered about the list
I explained in Brackets above.
But not broadening the list. Other teams are not dumb enough to take a chance on the 30% guy.
30% line in Hockey ???????????
Then it hit
30% goals in hockey
200 batting average
It is the regression 40% of NHLE that scares me. The more you score the more you defensively affect the game. 30% in junior might be hockey's version of the mendosa line.
I also think the EV to PP ratio has an issue. Junior PP success cannot translate to The pro's there is just a set Production range in NHL. A guy cannot be Gretzky on PP and Halpren @ EV.
I wonder if these guys listed have a high PP to Ev points ratio were the PP count is scewed by high assist totals on the PP that cannot translate to the NHL.
Players with 2/3EV 1/3PP and 35% or better points from goals are money to me.
Getting the 50% from goal guys with high NHLE should be taken in the top 3. Total shit Management if you do not.
The key is try and get the steals.
To me Brett Ritchie: he has an high level 16 year old season and based on standard 16yr to 17 year production growth should be in the 1.1 to 1.5PPG range. Is sick first half of the season .4PPG. Is healthy last half and produces at a 1.3PPG rate. while being a 50% goals guy. He is 6'3" a july 93 player.
His Healthy NHLE .71 X 1.3 = .92PPG
Age 22 on Junior transaltion. %0% goals 38G 38A.
this guy is healthy all season his top 5.
I trust stu will get Ritchie he is this years Hamilton.
Ricki,
ReplyDelete2007: Gagner(edm)
2004: Chipchura
2002: Ninimaki(edm)
1999: Stefan
1994: Bonsignore(edm)
1993: Daigle, kariya
1992: Hulbig (edm)
Sorry if I am not understanding this.
Is this the sole list of guys that gives rise to the 30% goals/ 50% regression "rule"?
Randford4life,
ReplyDeleteExcellent post.
Thank you.
Don't forget the Sportsnet $. Its not huge, but each Canadian team has their own deal (afaik)
I know the Flames and Oilers won't be able to count Manitoba as part of their market numbers anymore for SN, and will get a haircut on their broadcast rights.
Can we please stop saying RNH will be a bust because he has a %goals similiar to Daigle and Bonsignore? Did those two bust BECAUSE they had a low goal percentage? Of course not and it is similiar to compare them in that context. There are many factors that come into play on whether these young kids succeed including their support system, their competitive drive, their athleticism, their love of go carts, etc.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to argue the merits of a goal scorer vs a set up guy, that makes sense.
I don't know how closely you've looked at Gagner's draft year but it wasn't exactly 2003. Gagner's PPG is up there with everyone drafted after him and it is too early to fully evaluate any of them.
This may go against the grain here but I don't really see the use of NHLE. It is kind of neat when it works, but it seems to vary more than I like to see in statistical tools and who really cares how these kids do in their first year. I will get excited when they have a NHLE for 5 years in, or their projected ceiling.
I'm with Jamie here. I don't necessarily think numbers are bad and scouts are good, but relying only on numbers likely is not wise when it comes to these junior leagues. If there is a number of scouts that feel RNH is going to be good, then so be it. I am more in favour of Larsson, but I won't cry a river (or curse a blue streak) if he is not taken. And staking out an all-or-nothing position on a draft position is, to my mind, unwise.
ReplyDeleteUnless it is Seguin, in which case I make an exception.
sommunc - playing a little bit of Theolonius Munk on the 8 track.
Jamie: Read the whole post.
ReplyDeleteIt says that players with 30% goals in Junior have AT LEAST 40% regression from their projected NHLE numbers.
So it applies to everyone. It's not dooming if you score in sky high numbers (Kariya, Savard) but it is when you don't.
Rob Schremp is going to make the Oilers suffer!
ReplyDeleteRob Schremp is going to make the Oilers suffer!
ReplyDeleteAgain? Geez, I thought once around was bad enough
Bar Qu: There's all 8 guys under the same condition, that all regressed to a same percentage, the percentage would project RNH under N1 center.
ReplyDeleteIt's 8 guys. They all had major regression. Why in the hell should we trust RNH to be THE exeption?
All this strategizing about the 1st overall and other 1st round pick is just checkers over at Oilers HQ. The true chess game will be figuring out where to draft Keegan Lowe, and Tambo will have to channel his inner Deep Blue to pull it off without getting either fired or roasted in the media.
ReplyDeleteI'm not remotely against this by the way. If he turns out anything at all like his Dad, we'll be glad to have him.
Just so long as we don't have him negotiating contracts for us in 2035. I shudder to think of the offer sheet he'd be capable of signing Trevor Gretzky's kid to.
What I am saying, is that there are reasons above and beyond the numbers (including RNH's professed interest in developing his two way game, plus a lot of other stuff Bruce dug up, plus what the scouts see) that apply to his case. I am not arguing for him as the #1 pick, I am arguing that it is futile to argue solely on the numbers.
ReplyDeleteBTW, average 10 rounds, 30 teams is 300 players, making over 2100 players in the last 8 years. 8 players of 2100 is not a representative sample. I could go further into the whole numbers as deception thing, but I pulled my amygdala just doing that math.
2400 players. See, I am not up to this numbers stuff.
ReplyDeleteIt's 600 (Only 1st rounders).
ReplyDeleteI would be okay with that assertion if it was split. But it's 100%. Can'T deny there's a trend here.
Even if he says he's developing it, it doesn't mean it's effective, or going to change his NHL scoring. He wasn't that effective in Junior either.
Unnecessary risks.
yep: the goal performance level is so pathetic! No one is stupid enough to draft these guys. at that level. there has to be end of the spectrum.
ReplyDelete30% guys and 50% guys! with high NHLE +.85
30%
2011: RNH, Strome
2007: Gagner(edm)
2004: Chipchura
2002: Ninimaki(edm)
1999: Stefan
1994: Bonsignore(edm)
1993: Daigle, kariya
1992: Hulbig (edm)
50%
2011: Ritchie (50%) Armia (62%) kOKLACHEV (45%)
2010: Hall(50%) Skinner(55%)
2009: Tavares (50%) Kane (50%)
2008: Stamkos (55%)
2007: Perron (48%) (.82PPG)
2006: Toews (56%)
2004: No around 50% but 42% Crosby, Ryan
2004: Ovechkin (56%)
2003: Vanek (50%)
2002: Nash (47%)
2001: Kovolchuk (60%) D Roy (52%) 32nd RD2
2000: Heatley (50%)
Such small sample sizes on both sides of the spectrum. Neither groups shows us anything.
Baha!
I can read the words, I know it is english, but all the numbers make it really hazy. Something about goals, I think
ReplyDelete(Have I got your goat yet? Maaa)
ReplyDeleteThis information doesn't make sense to me. Are these just select players with their percentage listed next to them? Why aren't we seeing all players that turned into NHLers in those draft years, along with their percentages? Maybe I'm missing part of the analysis.
ReplyDeletetribbes
I wonder where exactly some would have Mark Messier being drafted, since he scored about 10 goals during his WHA season.
ReplyDelete4th round?
It seems to me that an actual statistical analysis would not actually be that difficult for this type of exercise.
ReplyDelete- Utilize the sample of all players drafted in a given year (perhaps for CHL players only for uniformity).
- Determine whether their goals as a % of total points was above or below 40% (this demarcation is arbitrary).
- Determine the number of players in each group to play in more than 100 NHL games (also arbitrary).
One can then determine if there is a correlative relationship that is statistically significant.
I'm just guessing on this and trying to recall rudimentary statistics. Individuals who are more statistically inclined could probably come up with a more sophisticated analysis.
In their draft years:
ReplyDeleteGagner - 29.6% (3rd in team scoring)
Bonsignore - 25.5% (4th in team scoring)
Chipchura - 31.3% (5th in team scoring)
Niinimaki - 33.3% (? team scoring)
Daigle - 32.8% (1st in team scoring)
Stefan - 31.4% (5th in team scoring)
Kariya - 25% (1st in team scoring?)
Joe Thornton? - 33.6% (1st in team scoring)
Henrik Sedin? - 35.2% (2nd in team scoring)
Again, does RNH=Niinimaki because 30% of 106 points equals 33% of 6 points? Can I expect him to not reach his NHLE becuase Niinimaki didn't?
What is your cut-off for "30% guys"? Thornton's pre-draft year assist% is 33.6. Does Thornton's NHL performance approach his NHLE? Sedins is 35.2% and his entire SEL career 25.6%. Does his NHL performance approach his NHLE?
Your list proves that junior players with high percentage of their points from assists are unlikely to be drafted as high as guys with high goal%. When they are leading their team in points, they are justifiably drafted higher and perform better in the NHL.
@rickibear and to a lesser extent fpv.
ReplyDeleteI went to hockeydb and looked at the majority of players on your list.It's like you gathered up a bunch of names that were busts(not sure why Kariya is on your list) and then came up with a stat to tie them all together.The year Messier was drafted he had a goal to pts. ratio of less then 10%.Daigle was closer to 35% then 30% but had a well known bad attitude,Hulbig and Stefan were just bad picks.Having never really shown much before they were drafted.Lastly Bonsignore,if you go back and read Desjardins article about projecting based on age this is more where he fits(along with Wickenheiser).This article would also cast a shadow over Larsson and Couturier.It can be found here..http://www.behindthenet.ca/projecting_to_nhl.php
Haven't missed much, ricki & fpb still shotgunning the same deceased equine.
ReplyDeletericki must have this all saved on a word document now, it's been spell checked and is very readable. Nice research, and I am not being sarcastic.
When the Oilers draft RNH anyway, will they be praying for him to fail so they can say it all over again?
Moving to the later picks, what about Musil for #31? He seems to have fallen out of favour, but I still like him as a solid stay-at-home type.
TG,
ReplyDeleteAlso:
Lecavalier 44 71 115 38%
Kesler 11 20 31 35%
Crosby 66 102 168 39%
Marc Savard 43 96 139 30.9%
If I get what Ricki is saying: "Watch out for guys at 30% and aim for guys closer to 50%."
But to be of any predictive value it should explain all the guys in between 30% and 50% and guys outside the 1st round. Making a rule based on 8/600 guys (1 of which had seasons of 101 and 108 NHL points) seems more than a little speculative.
(I know I said I wouldn't post about content, but I can't help it today: Need to procrastinate.)
ReplyDeleteRickibear and fpv need to think about SH% and random fluctuations in boxcars a little more. Seriously.
1. We all know boxcars without context are notoriously unreliable: See Jones, Cogliano, Brule, etc.
2. Let's look at ricki's test for prospects in more depth. Let's look at a hypothetical case for illustrative purposes. Imagine that player X takes 250 shots and has a SH% of 10%. Obviously, x will score 25 goals. Suppose X recorded 63 assists and thus 88 points. X has 28% of his points as goals.
Now suppose we adjust X's SH% -just to due to good bounces and a little luck- to 13.5%. On 250 shots, X will have scored roughly 34 goals. 34 goals plus 63 assists is 97 points. Now player X has 35% of his points as goals.
It's the same player, mind you. It's just that he got a little lucky and scored at 13.5% instead of 10%. That small fluctuation in SH% is going to happen constantly. It happens with every player in every major league. (And we've said nothing of team on-ice SH%, which can vary wildly too, throwing off assists as well.)
But apparently, before we adjusted his SH% very modestly, X was a crappy pick, at least by fpv and Ricki's standards. But once we adjust, X is a fine pick. But X was the same player all along.
Again, boxcars fluctuate rapidly. And without context, like SH%, TOI, zonestarts, qual team, boxcars hide more about a player than they reveal. With context, I'm a numbers guy all the way. Without context, being a "boxcar-numbers" guy is nothing to be proud of.
3. Regarding RNH:
Another set of numbers to look at, especially with prospects, is splits. (The scouts are saying -I heard Button say this on LT's show- that RNH is ranked number 1 because of who he turned into at the end of the season. That's important.)
In the first 35 games, RNH scored 10 goals, only 5 not on the PP, and 47 points. That's good for a scrawny kid, but not great for a first overall pick.
In the second half, i.e. the last 34 games, RNH scored 21 goals and 59 points. He scored 15 ES goals. If you stretch those scoring rates out over a whole season, RNH would've scored roughly 77 assists and 42 goals (many at ES) for 119 points.
That's a first overall pick, no? Passes the "Boxcar-Ricki Test"?
Now, you might say, maybe RNH hit a lucky run of SH%'s. I mean, it's only 34 games we're talking about. I agree: context is everything, e.g. SH%, TOI, etc. Maybe the real RNH is the first half RNH. (Crappy) Or maybe the real RNH is somewhere in between the results we saw in the first half and the truly awesome second half. We don't know.
Let me repeat: We don't know.
The scouts say that RNH was a changed player in the second half. That he surpassed Couturier. (The Button interview said as much.) I find that story plausible: RNH is young. He's small. Maybe it took him longer to adapt to the WHL game. (Some good D-men there.). If that story is true, we'd be insane not to take RNH.
So, if you're interested in whether we should take RNH, and you want to see what the numbers really tell us, you need to go get the numbers that show us context. Because context is everything. Without it, we're blind. Without it, we'd believe 18 goal Jones is a great player and should've been given a much bigger contract.
I suspect some NHL scouts have a good -maybe even well recorded- idea of RNH's TOI and SH% and that's part of why he's #1. I sincerely hope the Oilers have some of this info too and that they use it in their evaluation.
But without it, all we have is the word of scouts that the real RNH is the second half RNH.
So please stop repeating the same boxcar analysis over and over again.
(I will now return to my lurking-hole.)
Hal Gill signs a 1 year deal with the Habs
ReplyDeleteTo everyone : The players were NOT picked randomly.
ReplyDeleteIt is the players who were drafted in the 1st round from now back to 1990 for some exercise, and then to 2000 for the other.
Kris: Seriously?
The fact of the matter is, everyone of these players could have been subjected to splits or high SH%. BUT THEY STILL ALL HAD A 40% REGARDLESS. SH% and Icetime is irrelevant to the exercise.
Ducey: Those guys you proposed scored a lot more (exept Kesler) then RNH.
It's a DROP FROM PROJECTED NHLE. Not a guarantee bust.
Savard, Lecvalier, Crosby and still panned out because even with his drop NHLE was still great.
Kris,
ReplyDeleteThat's the kind of post that attracted me to Lowetide in the first place.
Thank you sir.
Let's say RNH's ''variation'' is from 25% to 35% and he's at 30% now.
ReplyDeleteTo get to 30% you still have to be in a ''danger zone'', and everyone in that danger zone had significant drops. It would be silly to suggest all of them had either low or high SH% and low or high icetime.
But they all suffered the same consequences. Significant drop. The ones who got away with it scored in a crazy way. RNH doesn't.
Kris: Seriously?
ReplyDeleteI'm totally cereal, Judith.
Kris: Well that's the whole point of the exercise.
ReplyDeleteFinding a rule that will predict a range of player WITHOUT context. And it does. If we would need it why did they all drop ?
Thanks WG,
ReplyDeleteAnd let me say your excellent comments are one of the only reasons I keep reading the comments page here.
Too little MC79, Bruce, JW, Vic, WG, and too much... Well, I won't be specific, cause LT deletes my posts when I identify specific commenters who I believe are ruining the page.
If we would need it why did they all drop ?
ReplyDeleteOur testicles dropped because we are male.
We need "it" because without it, the voices come back.
Kris: Yeah. Sure. Whatever. Honestly, everytime you don't have anything left to say to counter-point you just act like it's dishonest, or some form of rubbish.
ReplyDeleteMichael Frolik 10th overall 2006 22.2% goals. He's about 0.5 PPG in the NHL, after scoring only 9 points in 48 games in draft year (NHLE?)
ReplyDeleteRotislav Olesz 7th overall 2004 8.3% goals. His best NHL PPG is 0.47, after scoring 11 points in 35 games during his draft year (NHLE?)
Manny Malhotra 7th overall 1998 31% goals. His best NHL PPG is 0.464, after scoring 51 points in 57 games in his draft year (NHLE?)
I think the certainty of a 50% drop from your NHLE is overstated and I think the list of the players taken in the first round that had around 30% of their production from goals is more than 8.
kris:
ReplyDeleteNice case you've made there. While I'm still very skeptical about RNH, that was about as even handed an analysis of the numbers as I've seen.
You're bang on - we don't know. All we can do is trust that the Oilers scouts have access to info we don't and will ultimately make the correct call.
MBS has an established track record. As long as he doesn't move to Mexico after the draft, I think we'll be ok.
TG: Well those you've named aren't exactly killers either.
ReplyDelete@fpv
ReplyDeleteHere is a stat for you.I can guarentee you 100% if you draft a player with a Patrik Stefan resume(18 goals in 90 games)and you(Don Wadell) take him first overall,your record as a general manager will not be very good.He shouldn't have been a first round pick never mind first overall.Comparing him to RNH or Strome is sheer stupidity.
Hockeyguy: Stop making the point.
ReplyDeleteStefan was highly regarded at the time, and he was unsuccessful, and in the 30% range.
Both RNH and him have 30% range. Both have not exeptional scoring for N1 and both were propelled by scouts. Yes it's idiocy.
FPV,
ReplyDeleteThis will be my last post for some time.
The key premise in your argument that NHLE's are more stable for players who score a higher percentage of their points as goals.
Fine. That makes sense, intuitively, and I am inclined to agree. (However, I don't think you or Boxcar-Ricki have made the case for it. You need to look at a wider range of cases and a larger sample.) Let's call this the "Boxcar-Ricki Rule."
My point is that if you want to use the Boxcar-Ricki Rule as a test to evaluate which prospect is the best to take (ignoring D-men, who boxcars tell us nothing about), you need to recognize the weaknesses in the rule, and that there are times it will certainly fail. (I'd say the same hting about the strategy of automatically picking the player with the best NHLE, without context. Really, stripping away the sophistry, all you and Ricki are arguing for is using NHLE's but with goals only and not assists.)
Primarily, we need to see if a player's goal totals are effected by SH%, TOI, and qualteam. A player may fail the Ricki test for no other reason than that he had a bad run. A player like Jones may pass the test for no other reason than a hot SH%. (BTW, would you use the same rule if we had to draft active NHL players in an expansion draft or fantasy draft?)
If we have a reason to believe that player X scored at a 43 goal pace over, say half a season, when healthy, when he matured physically, when shooting at a career-reasonable pace, then it would be absurd to not draft because X also scored 130 points, and has fallen under the Boxcar-Ricki Line.
Indeed, I think the Boxcar-Ricki rule is just a proxy for testing for how much offense a junior player got because of high quality teammates. If player Y was on a great line, and racked up assists because of the quality of his teammates, then maybe Y's point totals aren't reflective of his underlying abilities. If so, we should expect Y's actual point totals to be lower than his NHLE.
So, failing the Boxcar-Ricki test raises a red flag: it says "Hey, check to see if my offense is inflated by quality of linemates." It seems that in many cases it will be: see Gagner and many London Knights.
But we have every reason to believe that RNH's numbers were not inflated by high power teammates. And we have some reason to believe that RNH is the real-deal in terms of play-making and thus should have a very high assist total.
Moreover, I think it's quite plausible that some of RNH's early failures to score goals are attributable to SH% and possibly late physical development. It would be insane to hold that against RNH.
Kris: Well you seem to be missing a piece here.
ReplyDeleteThe ''boxcar-ricki'' rule doesn't nick the 130 guy. Because his NHLE is already high enough to assume the drop.
The ''boxcar-ricki'' rule only attest that players with high assist ration will have a lesser percentage of theyr NHLE translated (Min 40%).
If RNH potted 140 points it wouldn't matter, because he'd still be well clear even with the drop. But at 105 (I think?) It's not well clear.
Anyone that doesn't agree are obviously 30% ignorant, and 70% stupid.
ReplyDeleteNot everyone an be 50% handsome, and 50% genius.
Stu Macgregor, the verdict is out on him. If he does select RNH first overall, my suspicions that he is neither 50% handsome nor 50% genius. Obviously regressing to 30% ignorant like the rest of you putz that can't understand how to draft hockey players.
Interesting points all. I think it really points out that:
ReplyDelete1. we need TOI
2. sometimes math tells us they're all about equal. The being the internet and all of us having strong opinions on everything from Betty versus Veronica through Sleemans versus Pabst it is somewhat foreign to reach the obvious conclusion:
we can't see him from here. We don't know who is better. I suspect MBS is having the same nightmares.
Being a member of SABR with many years and reading and discussing statistical analysis for Collegiate and Minor League players and projecting their major league production.
ReplyDeleteI can confidently say that SABRs advanced stats regarding baseball are more advanced then anything were discussing regarding hockey and very few baseball guys talk with the confidence and certainty that people do in the comment section of this blog.
Maybe approach the numbers with a little more of LT's humbleness and little less insufferable.
LT:
ReplyDeleteAs for point #2.All I have to say on that is if you have enough Sleemans or Pabst,a girl that you think looks like Betty or Veronica could in fact look more like Jughead.
a. Betty and it isn't close, unless you're talking about who to have an extra-marital affair with. Moose's girl was the really hottie, though.
ReplyDeleteb. Kris, great post, agree completely.
c. I know you can't trust him but hasn't MBS basically said he knows for certain who he is picking?
Kris, Woodguy:
ReplyDeleteI think this is kind of what Scott Reynolds was getting at with this post:
http://www.coppernblue.com/2011/5/5/2155222/does-improvement-matter
When you have players jump from 30 points to 100, and have only the limited statistical data we have (for OHL and WHL guys, no sh%), it's hard to know which guys genuinely made that much improvement at that age, and which guys ran hot in their draft year.
I may have been the only one who didn't know, but Don Waddell is not going to Winnipeg
ReplyDeleteLots of people are laying the demise of the Thrashers at his feet. I don't know all the conditions he worked under with fractured ownership, but you'd have to think the he owns a huge part of the blame.
I think rickibear may be onto something, but I agree that it needs further and deeper analysis, and less exclamations of certainty and derisions of those who disagree.
It reminds me of the arguments for spontaneous generation that you read about in junior high school.
Leave meat to rot and maggots will appear on the meat. Therefore rotting meat maggots.
Kris, I hope that's not your last post for a while.
LT,
Its Betty, but secretly its always been Midge.
Yeah, agreed. Betty all the way, but would definitely have time for Midge. Plus she's attracted to stupid guys! :-)
ReplyDeleteShould read: "Therefore rotting meat creates maggots"
ReplyDeleteI'm counting the days until you are on your own site with an edit button LT.
Speeds,
I read that article. Scott always finds interesting things to look at.
Shortly after reading that I heard an interview with MBS where he mentioned that they look at year over year improvement as a huge plus for a player.
Interesting that the players who maintain a high level over two years do better on the whole than the shooting stars. (of course good and bad NHL players being in both groups, and Scott acknowledging the limitations of his sample size)
Certainly puts more weight behind Couturier.
Plus she's attracted to stupid guys! :-)
ReplyDeleteThat was the clincher for me proposing to Mrs. Woodguy.
Kris: would youu draft a .200 hitter first overall in the MLB draft?
ReplyDeletePS. if there were enough players I would like to break them up in to 2% intervals to get NHLE curves for each group. so we get a more accurate nhle.
Now my Box car pology.
Forgive me gentleman for using goal production as a major NHLE translation indicator. It is silly of me to use such an insignificant stat like goals to judge prospects.
Especially since you win games by staying away from the oppositions net and maintaining the puck the longest. that is how you win the game. pass the puck around to each other and keep the puck for the most TOI.
Forgive me for wanting the players who go to the dirty areas near the net who try to score goals. Scoring Goals. Just a terrible idea.
And selfish. A good socialist game like keep the puck does not need any Goal scoring Glory seekers.
The key indicator of the 70% assits guy (make you feel better) is they can be easily dominated physically, they shy from tough areas an are dependent on the glory seeking goal scorers. (those bastards)
Now we return you to the real world.
And all you baseball guys who use hitting and pitching as a measure of a player. Come on now that is just silly.
ReplyDeleteHow does RNH figure to be a 0.200 hitter with 106 points? Wouldn't he be a high percentage hitter in the minor leagues who, as an example of LT's, can't hit curveballs?
ReplyDeleteI think a ,325 hitter with few HR's would make a better analogy.
ReplyDeleteOh, Christ. Now RNH is a .200 hitter. We're off the rails.
ReplyDeleteRico Fata,Mark Bell,Jeff Heerema,Michael Henrich,Eric Chouinard,Pavel Brendl,Kris Beech,
ReplyDeleteJamie Lundmark,Oleg Saprykin,
Barrett Heisten.
What does this stellar bunch all have in common?All first round draft picks,all with goal to assists ratio better then 40%,some at over 50%.All players that Rickibear would draft ahead of Paul Kariya.And the list was compiled looking at only two draft years,1998 and 1999.Good luck MBS.
I blame it on Scientology.
ReplyDeleteFPB - my point wasn't that those three players (Olesz, Frolik and Malhotra) were killers, or good comps for RNH. Neither are Niinimaki, Chipchura, Hulbig etc.
ReplyDeleteYou've taken up rickibear's argument that scoring 30% or less from goals means that you are guaranteed to fall short of your NHLE by 40% or more. I'm arguing that it isn't nearly as clear as has been presented. Here are three players that meet or exceed their NHLE. I've just skimmed a few draft years but I'd guess there are probably more. You can add Kesler, Sedin and Thornton and that's 7. Now the range is about 0% of their NHLE to 400% of their NHLE. Can we predict RNH based on that?
Hockeyguy: I don't think you get the point of all this. His NHLE has to be high in the beginning.
ReplyDeleteKariya wouldn't be nicked because he had a very high NHLE to fall back on anyway.
TG: Agreed it should be researched more.
I'll take Betty, and I also liked Jeannie over Samantha too.
ReplyDeleteWoodguy: Not surprised that Waddell is not part of the package. I remember when he was GM of the Orlando NBA team (and the Int'l Hockey League team) and his strength was not player procurement their - nor was it in Atlanta.
Fractured ownership is never good, but a team that can't procure talent in the draft - even worse. For all his hits in the first round, this was a team that couldn't find any nuggets later in the draft.
Would love to be a fly on the wall with some of the draft discussions taking place for the Oilers right now.
rickibear,
ReplyDeleteI am genuinely trying to understand your point. You can lose the attitude.
You still have not addressed the fact you are relying on 8 guys in 20 years for your theory. Even then several of them are real leaps.
Kariya doesn't help you. He had 100 pts in his draft year and more than that in the NHL twice.
Niinimaki had 2 4 6 in his draft year. Does that give us any insight into RNH's 106 pts? Come on. That kind of sample size is meaningless.
Hulbig went 19 24 43 in his draft year. Thats 44% goals. How does that help your theory?
Chipchura had only 48 pts in 64 games. Did he bust because he had to few goals, or because he just had too few points altogether?
Stephan is an anomoly in that he played in the IHL and everyone bought the fact he was playing against men. He had 35 pts.
Bosignore, Daigle and maybe Stephan I'll give you. (But I note they all were notorious for their lack of heart - possibly the real problem).
Thats three f'in players you are relying on for your theory.
You also ignore the flipside. You know, that the guys closer to 50% are better bets. There are by definition 100's of guys who flopped, busted, underachieved who had goal percentages in the high 30's up to 50%. How does this help in our analysis of Couturier.
It doesn't.
A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
actually fpv reread Ricki's post he included Kariya as a failure.Something I questioned in an earlier post.
ReplyDeleteHockeyguy: Are you fucking kidding me? He's not a FAILURE. He's a 40% drop of his NHLE (Which was insane anyways).
ReplyDeleteDucey: My guess for Hulbig is he took the 1st year in HockeyDB which is 3-13-16.
It doesn't promote Couturier, but it condemns RNH.
I didn't say Kariya was a failure,I questioned why Rickibear thought he was.Try reading something through before over reacting.
ReplyDeleteCompletely off-topic, but it's something that I'd like people's opinions on:
ReplyDeleteRetire #39?
Reasons against: No Cup with the Oilers. Slightly less than half his career as an Oiler. Just slightly over half his points as an Oiler. Most likely not a Hall of Famer.
Counter-points: NO chance of a Cup with the Oilers, not in that era. His limited time in Edmonton was the product, again, of that era.
Best reason I've heard for:
Do you think the Oilers would still be in Edmonton, if we had Esa Tikkanen instead of Doug Weight? Would the Oilers have done well enough to draw fan support? Would we have had those playoff series (and all that revenue)? Would there be the stunning upsets of the heavily favored Stars and Avs? I say no, and without those things, I'm not sure the EIG would have come together.
Hockeyguy you are on crack. we know the trend knock nhle down 45-55%
ReplyDeletekariyas knocked down NHLE is still superior to those other guys. so you take him. Not even close.
Gagner in his draft year while knocked down is still top 10 for the pathetic draft. but the system would have taken Perron second for forwards.
Were the problem is RNH NHLE @22 says 1.53ppg X .65 = .9945
.9945/2 = .49725 X 82 = 40.775
12G 29A
#1 beauty. we al use NHLE and aplly it. we need to study more. 20 years? all have large %. but now it makes the golden child look like crap. the hipocrite train starts to roll.
LT: yes 200 Christ i am surpised you can not look at the game at its most unbiased influenced level.
Goals in or out. Put in by one player. dvancing bases while not be out by hitting a stick. the better obp.
you win by both. you forsake the mendosa line fr periferial skills relative to the game.
30% goals
200 batting may not be the correct analogy.
batting average is NHLE. and goals are runs driven in or Homers.
RNH is a low rbi player who shows a great high school batting average. but in expected MLB hitting he only generates half.
TG:
Malhotra 31.5% ?????????
expect NHLE @22 .58ppg real .24ppg
Olesz drafted 19 year 18 year 66% ????????????
Frolik you got me. while his two year pre draft average was 42% with limited play in europe. oh he could be an outlier. yeah! I get to use one.
maybe just regular shift NCAA, CHL should be considered.
Forgive me for using all that has been learned at this site. to trend for pattern like done for equipment performance on industrial sites.
I am sorry i came to this site thinking this was lt's but it must be HF board in Disguise!
Now we return to HF board RNH love fest.
RNH is the best player ever and it will be a mistake not to take him #1 Oh and Math Sucks. and trends are for losers.
Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have.
an alcoholic's advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy so long as the alcoholic made no pretense of constant sobriety
RNH? I never touch the stuff.
I was angry? I remember being facetious. Is that the same thing? ;op
ReplyDeleteRicki, I understood almost every single word of your post, but no actual sentences...
ReplyDeleteDucey: nhle and league translation is about determining performance.
ReplyDeleteKariya is not a failure in drafting terms:
But his Real NHLE is almost half of expected NHLE. which is not a problem for a guy who rates off the board like Kariya. even after the adjusted drop he was still going to be that 1.4ppg guy. christ that is still top of the class.
Gagner 2.22ppg in CHL expected nhle 1.55 modified NHLE .775 + 65 pts. that is still top 30 center @ #6. so great choice.
RNH 1.53ppg around 1ppg NHLE half of that .5ppg the trend says that. do you want to risk the #1 pick on a guy that maybe 45PTs @22.
Draft management! that is a dumb ass risk based on a trend. you are taking a risk that the high % trend might not be correct. dumb!
A proper risk is Ritchie who's 16 year season fits the elite group. Sick period was well below 16 year old season showing affected results. Healthy period in the season that shows the proper progression for points. that priod goal production and NHLE says 40G 40A. Oh look a player selected by the shooter factory. all these are positive trends. you take the risk for a elite outcome at worst a 25G 25a guy. That is the proper risk.
Now back to HFBoard.
"...And selfish. A good socialist game like keep the puck does not need any Goal scoring Glory seekers.
ReplyDeleteThe key indicator of the 70% assits guy (make you feel better) is they can be easily dominated physically, they shy from tough areas an are dependent on the glory seeking goal scorers. (those bastards)
Now we return you to the real world."
Frankly, I don't know which is a greater cause for hilarity: describing puck possession as a "socialist" attribute or this whole "30% G/P" mumbo jumbo :)
Someone who actually who spends a bit of time observing the "real world" (or at least the hockey version of it) may actually notice the following:
Over the last decade (or, more precisely, since the 2000/01 season):
- 5 of 10 Art Ross winners have scored at <= 0.3 pts/game in their award winning seasons.
- 4 of 8 forwards who won the Hart have scored at <= 0.3 pts/game in their award winning seasons.
Last season, Toews (admittedly not a pure playmaker) lead CHI in playoff scoring with 29 pts on a measly 7 goals (0.24 g/pts), captained them to the Stanley Cup as well as the winning Conn Smythe for good measure. This season, Henrik Sedin may accomplish a comparable feat with perhaps an even lower goals/points ratio.
So more than a few players who are proficient at chalking up assists have proven to be quite helpful to his team's cause in the "real world", it seems.
As for that whole "30% G/P" shebang...let's just say that the most diplomatic adjective I can muster up to describe it is: "inconclusive"...
Pop Quiz:
This season RNH lead his team in scoring at 1.54 pts/gp and had less than 0.30 goals/pts. He's listed as 6 feet in height and is about to be picked in his first draft-eligible year.
Name ALL the other CHLers since the 1990 draft who were taken in their first draft-eligible season, are at least 6 ft tall, scored over 1.5 pts/gp that season with less than 0.3 goals/pts.
Note: the stats are from hockeydb.com while nhl.com provide the height info, which reflects a player's current size so the players in question may actually be shorter than 6 ft at draft time. But that would make RNH stands out even more.
Now if we get ritchie in the draft I will not give arats ......... if we picked RNH. Because will likely have taken the best player in the draft.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't promote Couturier, but it condemns RNH.
ReplyDelete3 heartless guys out of 600 "condemns" RNH?
There is no "math" there my friend.
Ricki: take a breather.
ReplyDeleteIt started off in disagreement but at least thoughtful analysis. New ideas are good to test out and be questioned and refined.
But I think tomorrow you should re-read all of the posts - even yours - and then evaluate which trended the level of discussion and analysis down.
Ducey: You took the math out yourself. There's no reason to exclude those guys. Exept other ''Red flags'' everyone should have known earlier. Could be RNH's problem. We don't know.
ReplyDeleteChoppystride: 6''1 and the goal scoring pace doesn't matter in the exercise. It's to demonstrate the negative effect on reaching your NHLE. Which in all of the cases does. No matter the context it did have a negative effect on EVERYONE.
3 heartless guys out of 600 "condemns" RNH?
ReplyDeleteHf board lingo at its best. way to give us the adjective stuart smally.
so you guys do not like trending. cause it doesn't fit the academic statistical model.
WAH! when it comes to this you may only end up with 7 or 8 examples of a piece of product in a defined situation in the whole world. if 7 of 8 are shit. you fire the dumb asses who try to convince you to use it in the same situation. if they are vendors you tell them to F off.
This is why there are industrial trending resources all over the world. so we don't end up with 1000 examples of the messed up situation you end up with 7 or 8.
RNH TELL ME he is going to make the Goal scoring jump and be that NHLE guy he is proported to be. Give me 7 or 8 examples so the risk only becomes 50/50.
Complaining about the trend is just petty whinning without supportive proof.
But hey RNH is that 1 of 8. Priceless.
Till Horc is Coach:
ReplyDeletethanks i have been a bit of a ...............
All the ad hominem crap does not help your argument, ricki. Defending a thesis should be assumed in the making of one.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea as it may have some predictive capacity, but 8 players is begging for a Black Swan to occur. There is always a problem extrapolating to a population from such a small sample.
@rickibear
ReplyDeleteYou might want to read this.
http://behindthenet.ca/projecting_to_nhl.php
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHockeyguy: He's applicating it all over the theory.
ReplyDeleteSince 1990, There have been 21 drafts, over 2300 picks from CHL, and only a handful have met the pretty reasonable criteria I specified
ReplyDeleteBased on this, can any conclusions really be drawn on RNH?
That's why I say it's inconclusive at best.
BTW, unless my data is wrong, it's less than 8.
So you're saying your own criterias are inconclusive? What does it prove?
ReplyDeleteThis site was a breath of fresh air to read when I tired of the partisan bickering of HF. It has taught me a lot about hockey, and I have been following the sport since Ken Dryden was a rookie.
ReplyDeleteNow it's getting to the point where a very small number of posters and their lack of respect for others are making it a painful place to visit.
I know my contributions pale compared to some of the great minds that post here, but I am getting to the point where I no longer feel the need to even read and lurk anymore.
LT deserves better than this from his guests.
Kris stated correctly that you need context and that relatively small changes in SP can affect results - true - but it cuts both ways. RNH has had exactly ONE elite month in junior hockey (March) with respect to goal scoring. I have no idea if anything and everything he threw at the net went in that month or not - maybe yes and maybe no - but it certainly had a very large impact on his season. But that one month made up over 1/3 of his modest goal scoring total - and luck may have had a lot to do with it.
ReplyDeleteRisk management my friends - you don't get ahead without it - and you end up with a sack full of Niinimaki's and Stefans if you think you don't need it. RNH may be great - but without a doubt he's a risky #1 pick - and the numbers seem to suggest that a lower ceiling is very possible. Best strategy is to talk this kid up a ton and hope that someone gives us something good for a small trade down that still nets us our target player. Savvy mgmt would do this - however- we do not have savvy mgmt.
@Hoil:
ReplyDeletePeople are hot under the collar re the virtues or non-virtues of this Ryan Nugent-Hopkins kid.
Last season it was the same thing but Hall/Seguin was the big debate topic.
Lowetide is one of the nicest, most rational online people I've met, lol.
HF Boards for what little it's worth is run like a PC gulag - dare to raise or lower the tone of conversation out of a fairly narrow bandwidth and you're banned. Luckily there is an endless supply of middle school posters to choose from, so they're in good shape going ahead.
So what if from now and again some posters start getting fed up wih each other? What else do you expect on a 30th place team?
Then to top everything off, the Vancouver Canucks are poised to win the championship - making the bizzaro world NHL even more so.
I see the Oilers like the sucker at the poker table - Kevin Lowe's irrational behaviour over the past 5 years providing the proof. Therefore, when I read suggestions of Lowe, or whoever else is supposed to be running the team trading away the 1st round pick for more inferior prospects, I tend to hit my own online roof.
The point being, that a lot of fans are close to breaking point. The excitement of Edmonton having an NHL franchise has somewhat faded for some of us, and it's getting kind of old listening to what a lousy city Edmonton is also - simply due to the fact that Lowe alienated anyone with half a brain playing in the NHL.
ricki: I'm open to the discussion, but as others have mentioned it doesn't quite look like your theory has been battened down.
ReplyDeleteI would also request that you back off from the loose cannon verbal approach. If we're not buying what you're selling, there are two possibilities: we're being deliberately obtuse or you haven't proven your theory.
I request you assume the second one and proceed accordingly.
Thanks.
Does NHL-E predict NHL production greater than 1 year in advance?
ReplyDeleteConsider the following setting: Player A spends 2010/11 in CHL and gets X points. Player A gets drafted into NHL in 2011 draft. Player than spends an extra year in CHL (2011/12) and then jumps to the NHL the year after (2012/13).
Question:
Does NHL-E make any predictions on Player A's NHL production based on his draft year in this case? (i.e. In this setting does the 2010/11 CHL year predict the 2012/13 NHL year?)
Fine: you guys like to have a large data table. With reasons why!
ReplyDeleteAs we all love to have TOI. SH% and the like that is not readily available. I can understan your Learines.
Ask yourself why low scoring % players are not the norm.
Because they are weed out by a result driven peer driven hockey system.
No goals you usuck no AAA for you.
I have stated a small sample but highly negative trend. AsiaOil and FPB have explained the Risk Mgmt for a pick in the draft. As well as what i would like to have occur.
That kind of certainty does not cut it.
As for cleaning it up LT: ??????
more work.
You look at the last 20 years of first round picks (600) and see if the NHLE matches. Nope!
You say wait a second. that is all.
As for theory. Here is one! any of the measures created/used on this site that are based on shots are flawed.
To the point of useless.
The reason being shot count does not look at quality. With scoring results varying by up to 17X difference. 17X. 1700% error in equating data.
No thanks!
Nice article here on how the Cup finalists were built:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rldhockey.net/2011/05/how-cup-finalists-were-built.html
Interesting to see how many of the Canucks' depth players came from FA. Hopefully Tambi is paying attention. Would be great to see some serviceable vets added to hopefully avoid another Vortex of Suck next year.
Dreger tweets...
ReplyDeleteSources tell TSN Colin Campbell is giving up role as NHL disciplinarian. Brendan Shanahan will likely take over.
Does hiring Shanahan to do the job remove the appearance of bias? He's less than two years from playing in the league. Hmmm..
ReplyDeleteThat means dirty hits will actually be penalized? About time.
ReplyDeleteWith what Shanahan has done for the league in the last number of years, he automatically elevates that post from the depths that Campbell has taken it to. Good on the NHL for finding a statesman and respected voice to take over a thankless and tarnished position.
ReplyDeleteankibil - what my 3 year old wandered around the house saying after watching Tarantino movies.
BTW, I do find it interesting that on a day when the NHL returns to Winnipeg and MBS signs an extension, not to mention the day before the SCF begins, the discussion around here has centred on how to regard a metric to evaluate CHL players as draftees. And that the discussion moved people to anger/angry words. I enjoy that passion which is brought and the attempt to reason out who's position is more valid.
ReplyDeleteCampbell needed to go if for no other reason than the appearance ofa conflict of interest.
ReplyDeleteThe task of disciplinarian is a thankless job and decisions rendered regularly caused disagreement among both reasonable and unreasonable persons.
But when you're having to defend your objectivity (which he had) its time to make a change.
I can't imagine Shannahan can do worse.
Bar - I was just about to make a comment on how everyone's gone and lost their brains and it is only June 1. How do you see that discussion that just took place as progress? I see little to no actual attempt at hockey understanding in it. Still all a discussion of what and no why. The great scouts seem to understand the why and draw the players out then show the coaches how to develop them using that why.
ReplyDeleteFrankly the brief Betty and Veronica (with a side of Midge) was more interesting/amusing. The actual answer is Cheryl, followed by Veronica (for Archie, that is).
It will be interesting to see if Calgary retains Erixon today.
ReplyDeleteHe has Feaster over a barrel. The Flames can't let one of their few prospects walk.
Bar Qu: Well. Everytime it ends it takes me some time, just to say in my mind ''This is all fucking useless''. But then a comment puts the flame back on and here we go again.
ReplyDeleteEndless cycle.
I can barely read rickibear's posts now. It's like his angry switch blew his language/typing breaker.
ReplyDeletewas just about to make a comment on how everyone's gone and lost their brains and it is only June 1. How do you see that discussion that just took place as progress?
ReplyDeleteI dunno, I guess I find that arriving at a consensus is overrated. The process of discussion is much more valuable, especially when there is disagreement. You don't get value from a bunch of people nodding their heads in agreement (witness the Oilers management process), but from passionate people espousing differing views. Witness the art and learning developed in the political nightmare of renaissance Italy versus the lack of anything from the much more placid Switzerland of the same time. And if this discussion can happen with a modicum of civility attached (ie. I know I shouldn't call you a moron, you moron ...) then all the better. I have not spent time at HF boards so I can't compare, but I have spent(and no longer spend) time on the ON comment threads and there is no comparison in the level of discussion.
repycl - how my students spell recycle
Erixon is going to be a real wild card if he goes back into the draft. I would take him at 19, no problems.
ReplyDeleteOiler Mag:
ReplyDeleteThey'd better have a long talk with him first and find out why he didn't sign with the Flames before they even consider taking him with any pick.
Is Erixon a reach with 31? I wouldn't take him at 19, but he is a good bet at 31.
ReplyDeleteFor those who want an afternoon of Flames angst, Flamesnation have an Erixson thread.
ReplyDeletehttp://flamesnation.ca/2011/6/1/erixon-discussion-thread
To lose the only bluechip prospect in the worst prospect pool in the NHL would be a real blow, to put it mildly.
Bar Qu: Well. Everytime it ends it takes me some time, just to say in my mind ''This is all fucking useless''. But then a comment puts the flame back on and here we go again.
ReplyDeleteEndless cycle.
Its only endless if either side won't let it go.
Most of the questions put to rickibear and you were valid and even handed.
Some of your and his responses were inflammatory and bordered on hysterical.
Tone is important.
Discussion about merits of arguments are what I enjoy about lowetide.blogspot.com, but let's not lose site that we are all hobbyists.
Serious and well informed hobbyists, but hobbyists nonetheless.
If you are proposing a theory, expect it to have holes poked it in and back up your assertions.
Erixon is going to be a real wild card if he goes back into the draft. I would take him at 19, no problems.
ReplyDeleteI've seen people rate him as high at 15.
Does he want to play in the NHL?
He's a FA in the SEL this summer. Has anyone from the KHL or SEL offered him some serious coin?
He'd be under a 3 year rookie cap in the NHL.
I'd take him and tell him to make some tax free coin in the KHL next year then come over to the NHL to start the 12/13 season.
I would put more stock into ricki's numbers if his same statistical evaluation didn't conclude Horcoff > Crosby.
ReplyDeleteHe's been screaming wolf for about 3 years now.
And running out of earplugs.
I'll take Crosby and RNH, thanks.
a. Saying "Archie being Archie he should go after X" is like saying the Oilers should go off the boards because they had a history of screwing up the draft.
ReplyDeleteGiven how many good picks we have in the first and second round, Erixon re-entering the draft is only a very good thing. MacKenzie is now tweeting it might not get done, though it might not be new info.
it = the signing by the deadline
ReplyDeleteSecond the need for an edit function.
WG:
ReplyDeleteOne of the problem CAL might be encountering in negotiations with Erixon is the lack of a bonus overage next season, as I understand it (haven't looked into that, so someone please correct me if I'm mistaken). That might not be a big deal if he doesn't want much for bonuses, but if his agent thinks Erixon can get bigger bonuses by re-entering the draft and being picked by a team nowhere near the cap, maybe CAL is in a situation where they feel their hands are tied?
For any of you who are interested, Speeds has a rather creative look at asset management and player development options up over at the Symposium
ReplyDeletehuh.. what are the odds...
ReplyDeleteSorry for the double, but I had to say something...
For what it's worth, Hopkins had a points from goals of 36.9% in his pre-draft year. He scored 24 goals and 41 assists for 65 points. A jump of 7 goals is well within the realm of reasonable improvement from year to year for a 16 year old kid, but his assist totals went through the roof.
ReplyDeleteIt's entirely possible that Hopkins wasn't getting the same kind of PP time last year that he got this year, so he wouldn't have had a chance to rack up PP assists.
It's also possible that Hopkins had his teams on-ice SH% spike this year, so more of his passes were finished off this year as opposed to last.
On the only thing an Oiler is winning this post-season:
ReplyDeleteEberle has a 2-1 lead on Carey price in the semi-final for Play of the Year.
The Symposium finally has a new post? Woohoo! About friggin time.
ReplyDeletetries: this captcha is not in my vocabulary
PDO says V3.0 should offer the 31st for Erixsson.
ReplyDeleteMight be best offer Feaster gets if he won't sign.
Word is Rangers are trying to trade for him.
Assuming Erixsson would sign with EDM.
Bar - I'm not advocating consensus at all. I'm saying this is a very strange line of discussion with a lot of unnecessary conflict that isn't related to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteThere is no number that will prove any of what is being said. Discuss all anyone wants but there's no reason for multiple people to go to pieces over it.
Gog - That's not exactly what I'm saying re: Archie. I was taking into account what his character expressed re: the characters mentioned. Other people preferring Betty for themselves is rather superfluous to Archie.
Has anyone actually studied Hopkins (or any of the other players for that matter) to determine why his season broke down the way it did? The how and the why of his development and goals/assists and all the other stuff? Has anyone actually watched it and figured it out using a solid knowledge of the game as perspective?
ReplyDeleteI'd love to hear from that person. I skip over all the "my permutations are better than your permutations" stuff. That runs against the semi-consensus around here but it has served me well for some time.
Found this at HF on the Flames board:
ReplyDeleteNYP_Brooksie Larry Brooks
Rangers have been given permission to negotiate contract with Erixon, Post has learned....believed conditional trade deal in place with Calg
Those Flames fans are not happy BTW :-)
McKenzie tweets...
ReplyDeleteCGY trades Tim Erixon and 5th rounder to NYR in exchange for Roman Horak and two second-round picks.
Erixon has already signed a deal with the NYR, beating the 5 p.m. deadline. Big add for the Rangers. Believed to be NHL ready.
No one wants to take a stab at the pop quiz? Perhaps it does sound like too arduous a task to come up with an unspecified number of players. How about I give a hint:
ReplyDeleteOf over 1200 CHL forwards taken in past 21 drafts since 1990, only a single player has ever met the criteria I specified. He was a 3rd round pick.
This seems the right audience to enjoy an idiotic Canucks fans story.
ReplyDeletehttp://deadspin.com/5807325/the-canucks-fan-who-drove-1000-miles-for-a-game-partied-with-the-owner-drank-with-beautiful-women-nearly-died-and-got-comped-for-game-5
Morale of the story? You can ignore the commands of hot but manipulative women and their repeated cries of 'again' 'again' 'again'!
Yikes.
ReplyDeleteImagine if it was Marincin going in that deal instead of Erixon. That's gotta kill Flames fans.
I wonder how Feaster will spin this. Since he signed so quickly with NYR, sounds like he just didn't want to play for the Flames or really had his heart set on a big city.
So there likely would have been no point in the Oilers trying to get him.
Something to be said for picking guys who want to be here. In the final analysis, it can definitely trump BPA.
san jose booed our anthem. this whole thing made me laugh. johnny ringo.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theawl.com/2011/06/dear-vancouver-please-dont-boo-our-national-anthem#more
@choppystride
ReplyDeleteBrad Richards?
commonfan13:
ReplyDeleteSomeone on Twitter mentioned that Erixon has family in the NY area and that was a major concern for him.
Errr...minor correction. Here is the tweet I was thinking about:
ReplyDelete"RT @steffeg: Rumour out of Swe are that Erixon want to bring his entire family with him. The #Rangers make sense since father played there."
That was a Uffe Bodin tweet re-tweeted by Kent Wilson.
Do any of you ever listen to Rob Kerr on the Fan in Calgary? Sort of like Stauffer here, real jerk, loves to make fun of Edmonton and how it is the worst place to play in the NHL, spent all day yesterday saying that Oilers fans are thrilled that Winnipeg is now lower than Edmonton on players lists etc etc
ReplyDeleteWonder how he is spinning this Erixon thing? Maybe he realizes Calgary is pretty similar to Edmonton and once your superstar is in decline, it ain't all that much better, if at all, place to play.
I wonder if Feaster was trying to cheap out on him because of no cap space?
I wonder if the Oilers drafted Larsson if they could somehow trade the 19th for Erixon and if he would come with his buddy here along the other swedes?
ReplyDeleteMight give them a good top pairing for the next 15 years..
anybody know if the two picks are both this year or one this year and one next year (not sure where the Rangers got a second pick...)
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Tambellini even called Feaster?
ReplyDeleteI doubt it. It involved something other than signing shitty players to give MBS some picks.
31st and their 3rd back from the Staois trade trumps what Sather offered.
Horak is rated as the Ranger's 14th prospect by HF.
woodguy
ReplyDeleteas much as I am happy about this and will shove it up my Calgary friends' backsides, if he wouldn't sign there I doubt he would have signed here.
Although with all the swedes around here maybe he would have.
san jose booed our anthem. this whole thing made me laugh. johnny ringo.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theawl.com/2011/06/dear-vancouver-please-dont-boo-our-national-anthem#more
By my recollection the booing had more to do with Torres's cheapshot on Milan Michalek.
In any case, the San Jose fans didn't boo our anthem when they played Vancouver so it's a somewhat dated point now.
unless he has a ntc though, Sather could trade him to the Oilers for the 19th he could win the trade for two second rounders and we could really laugh at Calgary.
ReplyDeleteI would happily trade the 19th for Erixon wouldn't all of you?
The Rangers own(ed) the 47th and 54th picks. That + a bit prospect likely trumps the 31st and a 3rd rounder.
ReplyDeleteIf Erixson won't play for Calgary, why would he play for EDM?
It will be interesting to find out what the problem was.
if he wouldn't sign there I doubt he would have signed here
ReplyDeleteWhy would you say that?
I heard that they wouldn't give him the rookie max and that was it.
If the Oilers have one thing, its cap space for the next 3 years.
The Rangers own(ed) the 47th and 54th picks. That + a bit prospect likely trumps the 31st and a 3rd rounder.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The prospect is not much and the 31st is almost a first.
Feaster needs to save face and a "1st" rounder + does that more than 2 2nds and Horak.
Why is everyone assuming he didn't want to play in Calgary due to the city/geography/climate?
The only info out there is that they were arguing about money and everyone assumes its about the city.
I may be wrong, but jumping to conclusions about Erixon's motivation isn't right.
It'll be interesting to see if it was the city that drove Erixon away or the organization. If it was the city, well then I doubt he would've wanted to play in Edmonton had we traded/re-drafted him. If it was the organization, on the other hand, maybe he would have signed here. Perhaps he would have rather played with Paajarvi, Omark and Lander and on a team that *should* be on the rise rather than the Flames who look like they have no where to go but down.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, well played by Slather.
Sather could play it even better and trade him to the Oilers for the 19th.
ReplyDeleteWin for NYR, WIn for us, LOSE for flames
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@hockeyguy10
ReplyDeleteCorrect. Brad Richards is only one. RNH will be the second.
Richards was taken in the 1998 Draft. He had 115 pts in 68 gp => 1.69 pts/gp .
He and Lecavalier were tied in points but Vinny played 10 fewer games so Vinny was effectively the team's leading scorer.
Even if I lift the height constraint, the number of players who hit those criteria increase by a whopping count of 2. They are Sam Gagner and Kyle Wellwood.
Gagner has skating issues. And he was riding on Kane's coattail. Moreover, Kostitysn also scored at the same rate as Gagner. And that London team not only scored more goals than RNH's Red Deer team, but they also allowed close to a whopping 100 goals in GA more than Red Deer. Imagine RNH played on a team with that kind of defensive laxity and surrounded by those kinds of players....
Wellwood is only 5'10, has skating issues, has conditioning/work ethics issues. In any case, the scouts correctly identified his flaws. He was not taken til the 5th round, 134th overall.
Lee: RE: VANCITY NUCKS
ReplyDeleteIf either Boston or Vancouver wins, one surely must assume that the oiler model of modelling after the previous cup winners.
will factor that in.
ReplyDeleteMan i'm bad at writting.
choppy
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt Gagner's numbers were inflated by playing with Kane and Kostitsin, and by the no defence syle of the London Knights.
That being said, he was the MVP of the Russia-Canada 8 game series with 16 points, with no Kane or Kostitsin, unless Kost was on the Russian team...
So he is a legit talent but the strange offensive situation screwed up the predictive power of the points he scored in London
Oilersfan: Kostitsyn is from Belarus. Not Russia.
ReplyDeleteOilersfan: Kostitsyn is from Belarus. Not Russia.
ReplyDeleteNo, he is French. Expert anthropologist Mikhail Grabovski made the revelation in this 2009 interview: "I think he is not Belarusian now, he is French, because I never fight with Belarusian guys," he said. "I don't know why he wants to fight with me. If he wants to fight, we'll go in the street and, every minute of every day, I'll wait for him and we'll fight."
I love how some Flames posters are consoling themselves by pointing out that this Horak guy was over a point a game in the WHL last year, with someone I saw even calling him a sniper prospect who could end up as a top-6 forward.
ReplyDeleteI know nothing about the guy, but just go look at the 2009 draft and try to find any random 5-7th round forward who didn't put up over a point per game in the WHL as a 20-year old this last season.
I assure you it's very difficult.
Noodles: Haha. Says the guy from Potsdam Germany.
ReplyDeleteCommonfan: I guess his progression is still enjoyable. Nowhere near what they just lost tough.
@jon k
ReplyDeletethey still booed our anthem and you're wrong, dated even though it may be.