Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
Whaler1

2015 NHL Entry Draft

Recommended Posts

http://thehockeywriters.com/the-nhl-has-a-scouting-problem/

Here's an article about scouting/ drafting I just read that touches on a lot of what we're kicking around here. I found it fascinating and a bit surprising.  Here's a couple of excerpts:

 

"On average teams hope to select at least 1 future NHLer, but 2 or more is considered a success. This is much easier said than done because the odds of making a selection, that converts to become an NHL full-timer, is very difficult."

 

The following relates to a retrospective comparison of actual team picks (based on scouting staffs) vs. the author's computer algorithm.

 

Jessop and I partnered for a much larger experiment looking at over a decade of drafting from the position of all 30 teams.  Using metrics to determine when scouting staffs have outperformed the very simple algorithm, based on money spent and NHL games played to earn a profit, we found that 19 of 30 teams did not outperform the computer.

 

More recent work of ours has correlated scouts rankings and simple metrics to NHL games played.  Using Pearson’s r correlation we found that the NHL’s Central Scouting Staff rankings compared to those players’ NHL games played only had a correlation of -0.19 (or “No or negligible relationship”).  When using very simple metrics such as a prospect’s draft-year points/game, the correlation with NHL games played is much higher, at 0.41 (or “Strong positive relationship”).

 

This is absolutely mind blowing.  An average small-market NHL teams are spending over $2 million dollars a year on scouting.  They have staff of all sizes, full of human experts, traveling around the world for the majority of the year and watching games daily.  Yet these humans cannot do better than simple algorithms?  The return on investment is terrible."

 

The author thinks that size bias is one of the principle reasons that contributes to poor drafting.

 

"There’s a number of reasons why teams are failing to do well with their draft picks.  With the low possibility of draft picks succeeding it’s easy to see that even the best selection can fail to yield results.  However, there is also evidence that scouts constantly make the same mistakes over and over.

 

Size of prospects is an example of this.  It’s shown time and time ago that size of prospects is given a heavy weight in scouting opinion; larger players are over-drafted, but there’s little evidence bigger players succeed more often than smaller players."

 

Authors conclusion:

 

"Drafting is a very tough and tricky subject to deal with, but like every other area it is possibly to quantify it and analyze it to measure how teams are performing.  By moving focus away from the biggest players, and starting to focus on players who excel at hockey," teams can find market inefficiencies in their scouting to try and select future NHLers."

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read, but I think if it were as simple as using a computer algorithm, somebody would have figured that out by now, especially our cheap owner that owned Compuware for a long time.

 

Seems we are divided into 2 camps.  One thinks size has an impact, and the other does not.  I think it's part of the total picture and can not be ignored. I guess I've said that about all I need to at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read, but I think if it were as simple as using a computer algorithm, somebody would have figured that out by now, especially our cheap owner that owned Compuware for a long time.

 

Seems we are divided into 2 camps.  One thinks size has an impact, and the other does not.  I think it's part of the total picture and can not be ignored. I guess I've said that about all I need to at this point.

 

I don't think it's that simple s_d.  

 

On your first point, I don't think the author is suggesting that teams use a computer algorithm to replace scouting staffs. Rather, I think he uses the algorithm to illustrate how bad many teams have been with respect to scouting/ drafting in the past.  

 

And I don't see this board as being reduced to binary contingents, either.  I don't think anyone here thinks that size doesn't matter. It's more a matter of how much weight you give "size" vs. "skill".  All things equal, of course you go with the bigger player.  Unfortunately, all things are rarely equal; so how do you weight the 2 factors when making your choice?  The article points to several studies that indicate that generally NHL teams have historically placed too high an emphasis on size vs. "skill".  But that's very different from the argument that you should ignore size completely.  E.g., here's how I think if Strome vs. Marner.  Similar scoring numbers (a rough indicator of skill), so I'd use size as a factor that pushes me to pick Strome over Marner if both were available.  Crouse vs. Marner?   Consensus seems to be that there's clearly a difference in skill sets, so it comes down to how heavily you weight relative size vs. skill for each of the two.  Further complicated by trying to factor in the intangibles that don't show up in raw scoring stats (i.e. the Jordan Staal factor :) ).

 

edit:

Put another way, I'd be surprised if anyone here has the perspective that it doesn't matter that Marner is small.  Rather, they probably think that his skill set and potential ceiling more than offset the risks associated with his lack of size. Notice that I've avoided directly weighing in on Marner vs. Crouse.  I personally think there's some risk with either, and that the separation between "group 2" and "group 3" is small enough, that I'm leaning towards trading down to get a "group 3" player plus something more.    

 

edit 2:

I have a feeling that if Marner were bigger, rather than "McEichel" we'd be talking "McEichNer" (McMarChel?) :grin:

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an intersting recent attempt to statistically rank size vs junior point production in drafting:

 

http://canucksarmy.com/2015/1/22/the-nhl-draft-maybe-size-does-matter

 

The conclusion is that size does matter, but point production matters more.

 

They use ppg in juniors cutoffs and then look at height. You have to look at the graph to really see. Weight is not used because it is so hard to get good data and guys add weight but not so much on height. While height data is misleading at least they use the same source on height for all players.

 

Also, they consider success as >200 NHL game career. In fairness when picking #5, and at forward, that is a low bar. Bigger guys will have a greater chance of staying on as 4th line bangers, and bottom pair dmen. So, while this works for "did I get an NHL player?". It almost certainly underestimates who to pick at #5 (the study design still biases in favor of bigger guys, even with that, and even just saying 200 NHL games, points win dramatically over size).

 

Also, this study was done in Jaunuary, the half way point. It really doesn't affect the Crouse/Marner debate as they kept the same rate, but some others scored alot in the back end, so the list of names will have changed order some.

 

 

Interesting points:

 

1. The success rate for big guys scoring .75 to .9 ppg in Juniors is low around 17%, but .5 - .75 ppg is 10%. This is guys 6'1" and up.

2. There isn't much difference above 6'1" in lower scoring guys, but once above 1.1 ppg 6'2" and 6'3" do matter.

3. The success rate for big guys scoring >1.3 ppg in Juniors is 70%.

4. The success rate for 5'11" guys who score >1.3 ppg in Juniors is 60%.

 

So big guys who score less than .9 ppg: 17% success, 5"11 guys who score 1.3 ppg or more: 60% success.

 

Lawson Crouse: .91 ppg. All else even, that puts his success chance at around 20%. Now don't get me wrong, clearly not all else is even. The scouts LOVE this guy. But that IS risk. And that is just to get to a 200 NHL game mark, not to justify the #5 overall pick. On the flip side, his scoring is right on the edge of the range where size above 6'1" didn't add anything to being 6'1".

 

Mitch Marner: based on those stats Marner has a 60% chance of 200 NHL games. BUT two KEY factors must be added in.

 

1. If he makes it, it will be because he is putting up buku points. So the chance of making it might be lower, but the reward IF he makes it would be much higher.

 

2. The cutoff they used was >1.3 ppg. No distinction above that. Marner put up 2.0 freaking points per game. The author lists guys who scored at that level and the numbers: Connor McDavid, Sidney Crosby, Eric Lindros, Marc Savard, Jason Spezza, Joe Thornton, Patrick Kane, Jonathon Drouin, Alex Daigle, PM Bouchard, John Tavares are listed).

 

Clearly Marner has a greater upside than the 1.3 cutoff. The reason those uber scorers were not included at their levels? There are so few of them.

 

Marner is alternately listed as 5'10" and 5'11" I suspect that 5'10" was earlier in his career, but oddly the difference in success is not huge in that high scoring range.

 

Just as we are discussing the size vs. points argument is perfectly set up in Marner vs. Crouse. They are the two sides of the argument.

 

Here is what the author wrote:

 

* So as I alluded to earlier, Connor McDavid obviously goes 1st regardless of his ranking. His points-per-game--and Mitch Marner for that matter--literally broke the model with no direct comparables to either of their heights in the >2 points-per-game range. Pick them, be confident, and pray hope they don't turn into Alexander Daigle.

The name that really caught my eye was ISS's 3rd overall ranked, Lawson Crouse, who shows up at #24 on my list, even when factoring in his huge 6'3 frame. Of course, the CHL season is only half over, and there's a lot of players on this list who hope to redeem themselves in the second half (I'm looking at you too, Travis Konecny and Pavel Zacha), it is an interest view of potential through the lens of their peers who came before them.

 

 

My take as per the author and others: size does matter, but acutal point production matters far more. If you have two players who are roughly even on point production: take the bigger guy without question.

 

With Marner and Crouse? They are not even close to even. Marner has more than 2X the points.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's a no brainer, then the decision is easy for GMRF.  If it's a brainer, then we'll know.

 

I'm done with this discussion.  It's been going in a circle for weeks.  Wake me up when something happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the size debate gets old, but valid points are being made.

 

Lake's article suggests that GMs and Scouts have an exagerated bias to bigger players. My article suggests that size is a factor in success, but again, maybe less than people think. IF scounts and GMS have a historically provable tendancy to overweigh size, then just trusting our scouts is not the end of the discussion, though it is the end of what will actually happen.

 

It is a difficult argument to make in the face of our recent failures and JR's tendency to pick smaller players admittedly, but it is relevant since it is very possible that the choice might actually come down to Crouse vs Marner, the very embodiment of this discussion. It is also relevent to the team need vs. best player available discussion. Ours has been a relatively soft team. Ours has been an unsuccessful team. Thus our need for size and grit is bigger than, say, LA or Anaheim. Just makes it a more complicated stew.

 

Sometimes it seems to come down to just advocating a position over and over and that gets old. But I can tell you that I just looked for size vs. points data, not for an article that supported one or the other. If the data keeps suggesting one course of action, well that's what it does.

 

I just want us to get the guy who most helps us win. I just want to sit in my seat or my recliner and watch this team win. If that means Lawson Crouse banging heads and potting goals, I'm down with it. If that means Noah Hanifin solidifying one of the future best defenses in hockey, well I'm even more down with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's a no brainer, then the decision is easy for GMRF. If it's a brainer, then we'll know.

I'm done with this discussion. It's been going in a circle for weeks. Wake me up when something happens.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't hate it if we drafted Crouse. I do think he'll be a nhler, I just question what kind of a role he'll play moving forward. This team has plenty of 2nd/3rd line players. My main reason for campaigning for Marner is he projects to be a top line player, which I think is what this team as far as the forward position.

I think this team lacks top line forwards and a top line Dman. That's also why I said if GMRF wants to draft based on size, I'd rather him draft Pavel Zacha, as I think he can be a big #1 center one day.

And I was going to PM you this, I really don't want you to think I'm singling you out. Many on this board want size, when they really want physicality. We have big players that don't play that way. I think this team needs to be mentally tougher more so than physically.

Edited by PenaltyKiller17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I was going to PM you this, I really don't want you to think I'm singling you out.

 

Never thought it, and don't worry, my skin is pretty thick and I don't take this stuff personally.  I have just debated this subject enough and there's really nothing to be added at this point. 

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never thought it, and don't worry, my skin is pretty thick. I have just debated this subject enough and there's really nothing to be added at this point.

Me too. I've always just wanted to talk about the prospects and what each one can offer to the team in the future. I don't know how this spiraled to a size debate. Either way getting a new player will be exciting no matter what

Edited by PenaltyKiller17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly interested in thoughts on other guys. Barzal is thought by many to have a very high upside as a potential #1 center. I heard some guys talking about his recent tourney showing. Lots of skill, maybe not as good compete on the boards, and a bit too fancy at times. Still would be a real good pick if we trade down. But two recent mock draft have him going to us, or even at #4.

 

They described him as:

 

  a visionary playmaking centreman and the next coming of Claude Giroux.

 

and this sounds pretty good:

 

After struggling with injury much of the season, over the past two months Barzal has played as well as anyone in Canadian juniors not named McDavid and has superstar upside as a high-scoring, two-way, top-line center at the NHL level.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I ran across this site, and thought given the discussion here, it might be of interest:


 

Overview: The main tool [project] allows you to forecast a prospects probability of success based on their statistical production and height. The methodology is explained in more detail on the website. 

 

I brought up the top 10 ISS ranked players to find their probabilities of success. Here they are, ranked from most to least likely to succeed:

 

McDavid 100

Marner 100

Strome 88

Eichel 80

Provorov 71*

Barzal 55

Hanifin 54*

Zacha 38

Crouse 35

Rantanen 20**

 

* Defensemen probabilities are not as accurate as forwards, since the evaluation is based on points.

** Players in non-NA Pro leagues may not get the same level of ice time as players in juniors and college, so their probability of success may be understated.

 

There's a lot more there, for anyone that wants to check it out. Be aware that it is new, so there may be some things still being worked out with it, but I though it was worth sharing.

Edited by InvisibleCane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rantanen plays against men in the Finnish Elite League, so a points comparison obviously isn't going to favor him.

This wasn't mentioned in the Bleacher Report article by Mark Jones either, which I thought was pretty lame/ignorant.

College players also play against older guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fancy stats.....

 

I mean come on, all these so-called projection tools rely heavily on point production in juniors, college, or Europe.

 

It's all just wrapped up in a pretty package to make the consumer think it's an analytical tool.

 

Elias Lindholm has a 50/50 chance of being a bust.  Do you believe that?

 

Fancy stats....

 

(thanks for posting Invisible)

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fancy stats.....

 

I mean come on, all these so-called projection tools rely heavily on point production in juniors, college, or Europe.

 

It's all just wrapped up in a pretty package to make the consumer think it's an analytical tool.

 

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"  Mark Twain

 

edit: Not re-entering the size debate, but this is one of my favorite quotes and this was a perfect chance to use it.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Provorov  for defense, Rantanen for big, tough winger

 

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=91186

 

Mikko Rantanen

 

"An exceptionally talented playmaker and always a consistent threat on the ice; Rantanen is a combination of elite-level hockey sense, silky smooth hands, and nimble skating. Needs to improve his shot and physical play, as he doesn't take advantage of his size in many situations. All-in-all, an intelligent, big-bodied forward that oozes skill."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

super_dave_1, Skimming back and forth thru these circuitous discussions, as many are now concluding, I was struck with those very thoughts. Not to seem all erudite here, but human folly seems to often taint our thoughts(mine included), interjecting bias in our discussions. How that appears to play out, IMHO, we subconsciously "cherry pick" facts, articles, photographic evidence, statistics, etc, to make and bolster our position, while ignoring the contrary.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"  Mark Twain

 

edit: Not re-entering the size debate, but this is one of my favorite quotes and this was a perfect chance to use it.

 

In my case, I fully disclose that I have a size bias, and how, as a Canes fan, could one not shudder when we have so often seen the consequences of a "soft team" being pushed all over the rink? Now, admittedly size = grittiness/toughness does not equate, as I'm often schooled on these boards.

 

I am reminded, in considering all of these upcoming draft discussions, that there is the general consensus amongst hockey fans throughout NHL fandom, that our deemed "fluke success" winning Stanley, came as the result of Rutherford etal. taking advantage of sweeping rules changes which helped to create a more "open ice". As a virtual neophyte interloper on the hockey scene, this team had yet(and still has not) to be ingrained into the heretofore ruggedness that the Original 6 and many others had evolved from. Thus, with magical insightfulness, JR and Laviolette quickly transitioned to a light weight, attacking team.

 

Now, you say, where is this rambling going? Well, did anyone notice that there is a "movement" afoot to increase scoring, spearheaded by none other than the NHL Players Assn. I saw this discussion over on Hockey Buzz just recently, and no, I cannot cite a reference, but recall thinking how that might play into a draft strategy? Seems the consensus is that slowly the flow of the game is drifting back to pre-05-06 days. I just wonder, if rules changes are contemplated and/or made, could this team once again "catch lightening in a bottle"?

 

Now one more time let me return to this draft, and like my hero sd_1, I'm done on this merry-go-round. I sincerely hope that my ruminations above have not offended, and I thoroughly have enjoyed the discussions that have distracted me from another miserable season ending. Truthfully,I could care less who we draft, and I'm also of a mind that past the top 2, down to about the 8th to 10th pick, we'll get a good player. I'm also ready to get off my size mantra, and concede that Marner may be the ticket, particularly if rules favor a more open game!!

 

Thus my final thought. Scouting expertise, statistical analysis, scoring proficiency, metrics and even personal interviews, all likely factor in, but then there is that stroke of pure luck which no one can foresee. RULES CHANGE, who woulda thought?

Edited by KJUNKANE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article I referenced looked only at junior hockey players going back quite a few years.

 

No study is perfect. There are clearly intangibles. I would suspect that the best decision is born out of a combination of statistics, and a scout's best attempt to factor in the intangibles.

 

But discounting statistical analysis can be just as biaised as believing it.

 

For my part I did not cherry pick the article I posted, and the authors were not trying to prove things one way or the other, they were trying to help determine who Vancouver should draft. I just want to know what the data suggests regaurding this issue.

 

I would be very intersted in any data that suggests that bigger is better than points. If there are none, it would be easier to just knock the data that is there.

 

We ALL want a tougher and even bigger team. This is a team need. Hockey is a contact sport. But it would be a shame to overreact to that need for size and toughness with the #5 pick. That issue can be adressed in later rounds, with trades and UFA.

 

There is evidence that NHL scouts frequently overvalue size too. So while overreliance on fancy stats is not good, overreliance on scouts' general opinions is an issue as well.

 

That's the bias I am seeing. We have a deep seated bias that we need to get bigger and tougher and grittier. We do need to, but it also creates a deep bias. So when presented with evidence that maybe at the #5 pick we should go against that bias? Well the frustration is right here in print.

 

All of us want big, tough and points. ALL of us. Not sure that's an option at 5 though and chasing it has outsized risk IMHO. Crouse is really the only one that could fill all three (big, tough, points) this is a very nice upside: all the things we need at once. But the most important in a #5 pick is points, and he could easlily fall short there, if he does he's a bust at that pick. (Oddly Marner might be as tough as Hanifin and Strome, neither of whom are tough guys, but both of whom are bigger).

 

NHL draft history shows that scouts are far from perfect. Drafting is an inexact artform. Pure analytics miss the intangibles: leadership, work ethic, in short Semin? Hopefully we put them together and make the right pick.

 

Marner has work ethic, leadership, and grit though. When you run it all through every filter that hits him hard for his size, he still beats Crouse hands down. Again, if we pick Crouse, I'll be open to all of the reasons why he'll be great. Just one guy's opinion.

 

On the Cup team that is a sore spot w/ me. That team did not win in spite of being soft or figuring the rules out. That team had grit. That team won becuase we had phenominal depth of talented forwards and Cam Ward jumped about 5 years ahead of his growth curve all at once. Few teams can match up with the list of forwards we put out there while they were all still near peak. True, we did not have an elite defense, but it was a solid committee (and if anything the rule changes made playing defense harder) and Cam and the forward depth was enough.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you keep forcing this thread to be a a Marner-Crouse debate Remkin, and ultimately a debate on size vs Marner? 

 

As for statistical analyses:

 

I'm not a lemming and I will continue to question the fact the lone predictor variable driving most of these so-called analyses is point production prior to being drafted.  It may well be the most important predictor variable for NHL success for some players, but for others it simply isn't. 

 

If that is construed as somehow entirely discounting statistical analysis in evaluating NHL success then I'm speechless, and don't have much more to say.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rem, perhaps I was unclear with my disclaimer. I am not pointing a finger at any one individual with regards to my comment "cherry picking", or perhaps I should clarify to again state that I tend to do that. Looking thru articles, some catch my eye, others I ignore. Not infrequently, I skim, then read more in depth articles which are of interest to formulate an opinion. I neither have the time or patience to read volumes of articles posted, many of them biased, on drafting philosophy. Perhaps you do, and if so, you are much more informed than I could ever hope to be. Thus, my friend, forgive my faux pas.

Edited by KJUNKANE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to preface this by saying i'm not trying to start another philosophical debate and this isn't aimed at anybody:

 

I've been looking at the top 5 picks for the last 5 drafts.  And the only two forwards that didn't average at least  1ppg prior to their draft years are Alexander Barkov & Elias Lindholm (also noted that the player projected above Lindholm that we passed, Monahan, averaged 1ppg).  All of the other forwards averaged at least 1ppg or better.  And excluding last year's draft (players are still developing), all of those forwards are full-time nhl players.  The last player we drafted in the first round that was a ppg player prior to his draft year was one Jeff Skinner, who has been a top scorer on our team since being drafted.

 

So there is somewhat of a precedent for statistics within the top 5 of the draft.  I do agree that other intangibles factor into making decisions, but putting up points should be apart of the equation too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to recap:
Marner vs. Crouse developed as a discussion point because it seems that there's a good chance they'll be the 2 "highest rated" players available to us at #5 AND because what each brings is so different (and, because unfortunately we've got nothing better to do until the draft :(). Part of that discussion naturally gravitated towards the size issue. Conventional wisdom seems to be that size should be weighted heavily when considering NHL prospects. Several people (myself included) wondered if that is actually true and if anybody had actually studied the issue. A couple of us looked into that and found several analyses which we shared here. The analyses found so far indicate that, based on historical data, pre-NHL scoring is a better indicator of NHL success than size. I know I didn't screen my search for results that supported a particular position and rem says he didn't either. (I made it a point to see if any of the authors were named "St Louis" or "Gerbe" and they weren't :lol:)

my take (at this point I'm discussing general principles, not Marner vs. Crouse):
Hockey doesn't lend itself to neat and clean advanced analytics as much as sports like baseball or basketball. Precise stats defining "success" aren't as readily available so analysts have to create "coarser" proxy/ surrogate markers which by definition leaves the methodology more open to question. But I've seem how analytics can help in other sports and I believe there is something to be gained in hockey, as well. They're a tool that can be used in conjunction with all of the other tools a professional franchise has. No, decisions shouldn't be made solely on the basis of analytics/ historical analyses. But to completely ignore data can be dangerous as well; knowledge is power.

lastly:
Stats aren't good or bad, they just "are". Unfortunately, they're often used inappropriately, or even worse, deceptively (can you say "politics"?) I know Twain had to make his quote short and pithy, but It's not the "statistics" that lie, it's the people that use them inappropriately. You can say that's just a matter of semantics, but in actuality there's a big difference.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to preface this by saying i'm not trying to start another philosophical debate and this isn't aimed at anybody:

 

I've been looking at the top 5 picks for the last 5 drafts.  And the only two forwards that didn't average at least  1ppg prior to their draft years are Alexander Barkov & Elias Lindholm (also noted that the player projected above Lindholm that we passed, Monahan, averaged 1ppg).  All of the other forwards averaged at least 1ppg or better.  And excluding last year's draft (players are still developing), all of those forwards are full-time nhl players.  The last player we drafted in the first round that was a ppg player prior to his draft year was one Jeff Skinner, who has been a top scorer on our team since being drafted.

 

So there is somewhat of a precedent for statistics within the top 5 of the draft.  I do agree that other intangibles factor into making decisions, but putting up points should be apart of the equation too.

 

I haven't had time to look too closely at it yet, but the site Invisible linked looks interesting.  One thing I did notice is that in their "prediction algorithm" they weight scoring according to a prospects league (e.g., 54 points scored by a prospect in the SHL counts the same as 100 points by a prospect in the OHL).   I''m sure the fact that Lindholm and Barkov were playing against men goes a long way towards explaining their lower scoring numbers as compared to OHL prospects.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had time to look too closely at it yet, but the site Invisible linked looks interesting.  One thing I did notice is that in their "prediction algorithm" they weight scoring according to a prospects league (e.g., points scored by a prospect in the KHL counted twice(?) as much as points by a prospect in the OHL).   That might go a long ways in explaining Lindholm and Barkov's low scoring numbers; I'm sure they would have been significantly higher had they played in the OHL.  

 

As a reference, here's the top 5 picks of last five years

 

2014 Draft:

 

Aaron Ekblad

Sam Reinhart

Leon Draisaitl

Sam Bennett

Michael Dal Colle

 

2013 Draft:

 

Nathan MacKinnon

Alexander Barkov

Johnathan Druin

Seth Jones

Elias Lindholm

 

2012 Draft:

 

Nail Yakupov

Ryan Murray

Alex Galchenyuk

Griffin Reinhart

Morgan Reilly

 

2011 Draft:

 

Ryan Nugent-Hopkins

Gabriel Landeskog

Johnathan Huberdau

Adam Larsson

Ryan Strome

 

2010 Draft:

 

Taylor Hall

Tyler Seguin

Erik Gudbranson

Ryan Johansen

Nino Niederreiter

 

Carolina's last 5 draft years:

 

Haydn Fleury

Elias Lindholm

------

Ryan Murphy

Jeff Skinner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...