2016 NHL Entry Draft Discussion

[Daximus]

This is the current list from a fan poll draft over on the Mock Drafts board. So as a Jets fan, depending on who Calgary takes (the current lead is Julien Gauthier @ 47.83%), who do you pick at #10?

I'd be leaning towards one of McLeod or Fabbro here.

1. Columbus Blue Jackets - Auston Matthews (SWI)
2. Carolina Hurricanes (+1) - Patrik Laine (FIN) = 36.36%
3. Tampa Bay Lightning (+11) -Jakob Chychrun (OHL) = 64.29%
4. Anaheim Ducks -Jesse Puljujarvi (FIN) = 75.68
5. Edmonton Oilers - Matthew Tkachuk (OHL) = 57.63%
6. Buffalo Sabres - Olli Juolevi (OHL) = 62.96%
7. Vancouver Canucks -Alexander Nylander (OHL) = 51.92%
8. Toronto Maple Leafs - Mikhail Sergachyov = 43.66%
9. Calgary Flames - On The Clock Until - 1/18/16
10. Winnipeg Jets

 

[Daximus]

Oooh, sorry, that's incorrect. The correct answer is of course, the Reuben.

Well okay!
I'd be bad at drafting sandwiches, they all look so good!

 

[Jetabre]

Luc Dubois for me there.

 

[Daximus]

Luc Dubois for me there.

He wouldn't be a bad pick either, a physical power forward center/winger with good hands.

 

[untouchable21]

Count me in for Michael Mcleod

 

[lanky]

Count me in for Michael Mcleod

I second that

 

[garret9]

Which only further proves the point that BPA is subjective. Edmonton actually thought they were drafting the best players, gritty and tough. Those players were likely BPA on their scouts lists. They obviously opted to take a Dman over a forward in some cases, and vice versa, but not all cases.
BPA is subjective outside of the top guys between almost every single scout, team, fan and analyst. Very few even agree on even how the top and middle of the 1st round should look this year. I despise the words BPA because it assumes that everyone thinks player A is definitely the #43 pick in this years draft, which is never ever the case. BPA is just a way of saying take who you think is best and its obvious there will be some biases in that decision.
Simply saying I will take BPA could mean 5-6 different players in a given draft position depending on who you personally like more.

BPA isn't subjective, it just isn't always known to the individual...

BPA is the player that gives the best odds to be the best overall player. Draft picks are lottery tickets. The ticket with the best shot at the most value is the best. The whole game of drafting is to accumulate the most value, because the teams below average end up actually losing talent/assets relative to the rest of the league.

Who the team THINKS is the BPA due to their own opinion of which variables are most important and which games they viewed IS. This is part of the foundation to models like PCS and why they out draft most NHL teams.

It's like the story of the blind guys and the elephant. Each persons experience made them view it as something different. What it was though was what it was.

Oilers didn't not draft poorly because they didn't draft for need. They drafted poorly because their opinion of what was BPA was both 1) wrong and 2) influenced by what they thought they needed.

 

[Board Bard]

BPA isn't subjective, it just isn't always known to the individual...

BPA is the player that gives the best odds to be the best overall player. Draft picks are lottery tickets. The ticket with the best shot at the most value is the best. The whole game of drafting is to accumulate the most value, because the teams below average end up actually losing talent/assets relative to the rest of the league.

Who the team THINKS is the BPA due to their own opinion of which variables are most important and which games they viewed IS. This is part of the foundation to models like PCS and why they out draft most NHL teams.

It's like the story of the blind guys and the elephant. Each persons experience made them view it as something different. What it was though was what it was.

Oilers didn't not draft poorly because they didn't draft for need. They drafted poorly because their opinion of what was BPA was both 1) wrong and 2) influenced by what they thought they needed.

That sounds like nothing more than a team's opinion to me; an informed opinion, but still just an opinion. You said it yourself -- it's the player they THINK is the BPA according to their own criteria. That's not always going to be the definitively best player. Who says they're using correct criteria, and weighing them correctly? Boston's three picks in the first round of the last draft might have been the best from their point of view, but are they all better definitively than everybody drafted after them? I doubt it. But they'd probably insist they took the BPA. Likewise, PCS can be helpful, but it can't be definitive until you've nailed every single variable from genetics to environment to psychology -- there could be a thousand contributing variables, ten thousand, a million. I doubt all the algorithms on the planet can manage that yet, or may ever. If a team has several players ranked within a hair's breadth of each other, it would be catering to pride and ego to dismiss a player who fits an organizational need because there's a player at a different position who's "ranked" a fraction of a fraction higher, especially given how much a youngster can change on the road to manhood.

 

[Flair Hay]

Did Edmonton really draft the wrong players? Or did they develop the players they did take at number one poorly? Probably a bit of both. Bad organizations help ruin good young players and good organizations make the most out of lesser guys.

Sometimes you just get plain lucky or unlucky. Sometimes you make your own luck.

 

[meedle]

Did Edmonton really draft the wrong players? Or did they develop the players they did take at number one poorly? Probably a bit of both. Bad organizations help ruin good young players and good organizations make the most out of lesser guys.

Sometimes you just get plain lucky or unlucky. Sometimes you make your own luck.

Their development was really bad.

Yakopov had poor defensive game, should never had started in the NHL at 18
Schultz is still/hasn't bulked up, I think he is still the same weight he came at. He decided last offseason, hey I need to put on some weight after 3? years in the NHL.
RNH is good but was plagued with injuries, not sure if that is because of bad luck or being too fragile and not putting on enough bulk to handle the rigors of the NHL.
MPS was brought in too soon, never developed and has had a non impactful career.

 

[puck stoppa]

This is the current list from a fan poll draft over on the Mock Drafts board. So as a Jets fan, depending on who Calgary takes (the current lead is Julien Gauthier @ 47.83%), who do you pick at #10?

I'd be leaning towards one of McLeod or Fabbro here.

1. Columbus Blue Jackets - Auston Matthews (SWI)
2. Carolina Hurricanes (+1) - Patrik Laine (FIN) = 36.36%
3. Tampa Bay Lightning (+11) -Jakob Chychrun (OHL) = 64.29%
4. Anaheim Ducks -Jesse Puljujarvi (FIN) = 75.68
5. Edmonton Oilers - Matthew Tkachuk (OHL) = 57.63%
6. Buffalo Sabres - Olli Juolevi (OHL) = 62.96%
7. Vancouver Canucks -Alexander Nylander (OHL) = 51.92%
8. Toronto Maple Leafs - Mikhail Sergachyov = 43.66%
9. Calgary Flames - On The Clock Until - 1/18/16
10. Winnipeg Jets

I think Fabbro will slide but he is an intriguing pick. Somebody asked me if I seen him play, no I haven't but a friend of mine watches a lot of BCHL and speaks very highly of him. He mentioned he reminds him of Fowler with his skating and offensive instincts and he can slip just like Fowler did maybe because some are unsure how his skill set will translate to the next level. He may be available if the Jets pick even 12-13.

 

[puck stoppa]

Am I the only one who is high on Gauthier? I think he is a top 10 pick but he's all over the place in mock drafts.

 

[Daximus]

BPA isn't subjective, it just isn't always known to the individual...

BPA is the player that gives the best odds to be the best overall player. Draft picks are lottery tickets. The ticket with the best shot at the most value is the best. The whole game of drafting is to accumulate the most value, because the teams below average end up actually losing talent/assets relative to the rest of the league.

Who the team THINKS is the BPA due to their own opinion of which variables are most important and which games they viewed IS. This is part of the foundation to models like PCS and why they out draft most NHL teams.

It's like the story of the blind guys and the elephant. Each persons experience made them view it as something different. What it was though was what it was.

Oilers didn't not draft poorly because they didn't draft for need. They drafted poorly because their opinion of what was BPA was both 1) wrong and 2) influenced by what they thought they needed.

That means BPA is subjective.
If my team has seen player A 15 times, we have probably built a very nice profile around how he plays in numerous situations.
If my team has seen player B 1 time, we probably don't have a whole lot of information on that player.
Consensus rankings could have player B way ahead of player A, yet we take player A instead. That is a subjective opinion on who we think is the best possible player at that pick. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't make it any less subjective.
Draft models may out draft NHL teams but they again can only go so far like Board Bard pointed out there are so many variables that PCS cannot predict, even if it's the best predictor, it can be wrong.

 

[Daximus]

Am I the only one who is high on Gauthier? I think he is a top 10 pick but he's all over the place in mock drafts.

To be honest I really wasn't all that high on him before and after seeing him at the WJC I soured on him a little bit.
He looks like a pure shooter type. Plays a physical game too. Good offensive positioning. Not sure how his game will translate from the Q to the NHL. Could be a good pick. I'm just higher on a couple of other guys in the 6-12 range.

 

[lanky]

Luc Dubois for me there.

I really like what I've read about him and I look forward to seeing him for the first time at the TPG. The problem I see with picking him is he would be the third straight left-shooting winger with our first pick. We haven't used our first pick on a C since 2011. Would love to add Mcleod to the pool.

 

[VictoriaJetsFan]

Dubois would be nice...or Clayton Keller.

But God, it hurts to see Juolevi, Segachyev and Chychrun all gone at 10..

 

[Daximus]

Dubois would be nice...or Clayton Keller.

But God, it hurts to see Juolevi, Segachyev and Chychrun all gone at 10..

Yeah it just goes to show the stock that is being put into defencemen in this draft. So many teams at the bottom of the standings are in need of defencemen.

 

[BrianFromAIH]

Dubois would be nice...or Clayton Keller.

But God, it hurts to see Juolevi, Segachyev and Chychrun all gone at 10..

Embrace the tank.

 

[garret9]

That means BPA is subjective.
If my team has seen player A 15 times, we have probably built a very nice profile around how he plays in numerous situations.
If my team has seen player B 1 time, we probably don't have a whole lot of information on that player.
Consensus rankings could have player B way ahead of player A, yet we take player A instead. That is a subjective opinion on who we think is the best possible player at that pick. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't make it any less subjective.
Draft models may out draft NHL teams but they again can only go so far like Board Bard pointed out there are so many variables that PCS cannot predict, even if it's the best predictor, it can be wrong.

Two hockey teams, A and B.

One is better than the other. One has the higher odds in winning. The one with better odds will win more often, but not always.

You and I can guess what one is better, but it is merely a guess. Still, only one is better.
You can use evidence (both qualitative and quantitative) to make a more informed decision, since one is better it should give signs that it is.
However, you can still get it wrong even with an informed decision.

Draft models work because there IS a right and wrong answer on which player is more likely to work. PCS does not have every variable, so it is not right all the time, but it is right often because there is a right answer.

 

[VictoriaJetsFan]

Embrace the tank.

Seriously yes....

And now, with the top 7 looking so good ... all we need is a nice little 3 game losing streak and a Ladd and Buff trade...

Damn you Connor Hellebuyck....why must you twist my soul into a thousand different places...

 

[Daximus]

Two hockey teams, A and B.

One is better than the other. One has the higher odds in winning. The one with better odds will win more often, but not always.

You and I can guess what one is better, but it is merely a guess. Still, only one is better.
You can use evidence (both qualitative and quantitative) to make a more informed decision, since one is better it should give signs that it is.
However, you can still get it wrong even with an informed decision.

Draft models work because there IS a right and wrong answer on which player is more likely to work. PCS does not have every variable, so it is not right all the time, but it is right often because there is a right answer.

This is very true so then instead of saying "I want BPA." What you're really saying is I want the next highest PCS rated player as that is a better predictor of success.
I'm sure if we were using PCS during Wheeler's draft he would have been vastly overlooked and now it turns out that he was in fact one of the top 5 of his class. It can work, and it can give you clues as to who the right answer might be, but in the end you have to make a decision still and likely that decision will have a bias.

 

[BrianFromAIH]

Seriously yes....

And now, with the top 7 looking so good ... all we need is a nice little 3 game losing streak and a Ladd and Buff trade...

Damn you Connor Hellebuyck....why must you twist my soul into a thousand different places...

I'm not even being selfish, I don't need Matthews, I just want the #2 pick and a mid to late pick (or good young LHD, like Werenski).

 

[drumzan]

Oooh, sorry, that's incorrect. The correct answer is of course, the Reuben.

It's a hot dog.

 

[garret9]

This is very true so then instead of saying "I want BPA." What you're really saying is I want the next highest PCS rated player as that is a better predictor of success.
I'm sure if we were using PCS during Wheeler's draft he would have been vastly overlooked and now it turns out that he was in fact one of the top 5 of his class. It can work, and it can give you clues as to who the right answer might be, but in the end you have to make a decision still and likely that decision will have a bias.

No. I want the best player.

I want to use tools, that include but are not exclusive to PCS, because I want the best chance in being right. The best player will not always have the best PCS, but PCS does well because there is a non-subjective best player and that has a relationship with the variables in PCS.

PCS existence in part is proof that their is a BPA. PCS is a predictor because there IS a better player. One is better than the other and it is not subjective. If BPA was subjective, there would be no way for PCS to better detect more successful players.
Example: Corsi does not cover all variables. Shot volume is probably only about 50-60% of the game. BUT, it predicts teams that are going to win because there is a right answer. Some teams are better than others. Just because Corsi is not perfect in that does not mean that the better team with a better shot is subjective. It just means Corsi is an imperfect tool in finding out which team is the better team.

 

[VictoriaJetsFan]

I'm not even being selfish, I don't need Matthews, I just want the #2 pick and a mid to late pick (or good young LHD, like Werenski).

It's a bonus that the draft has kind of evolved away from Matthews or bust...the top 15 looks sensational..

If you did deal away Buff and Ladd for a prospect and a first each, hoping one of the contenders gets knocked out in round 1..say the Washington Capitals ...and scoring a first rounder mid-round would be perfect...It wouldn't bother me in the least if we drafted 8th and walked away without a Finn or Matthews, if its, say, Keller and Chychrun..