Marky9er
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2008
- 7,476
- 729
Guess we lock in Edmonton 2020 4th round pick and it won't be 2021 3rd. (He's not playing.)
I will be up front in saying that you cannot scout through a stat sheet, or by looking at two profiles side by side (measurements and athleticism).
But the end of the video was not at all kind to Jamie Drysdale. He was put in a body bag.
Sanderson is kind of the profile of a prototypical defenseman of the NHL, but it’s also very easy to look and see all the top flight defensemen who buck the trend when it comes to that prototype. The mobility is there, the size is there, the fundamentals are there, the basic instincts are there. What it comes down to is trying to assess if he has a more dynamic range to his offensive game that would allow him to excel quarterbacking an NHL powerplay.
Is he more McDonagh, or is he more Vlasic?
But the end of the video was not at all kind to Jamie Drysdale. He was put in a body bag.
I didn't see a body bag, just some dude with glasses saying Sanderson was so much better than Drysdale in obscure statistics, some of which I'm pretty sure this dude with glasses made up, and talking so fast that there wasn't really time to figure out what those stats were.
And then he added the caveats of:
Drysdale played more 5v5, Sanderson more powerplay time, for the games used to compile the stats;
And Drysdale plays in a tougher league.
Maybe next dude-with-glasses will determine that apples are tastier than oranges based on his own proprietary NLsI (normalized lip-smacking index). I'll wait with bated breath.
I believe he's going to be much better than either of those guys.
I think he just turned 18 like this week.
Same kind of defensive game as those guys - but a major 5 on 5 ice tilter. I suspect he'll be a possession monster because he breaks up so many transitions and is so good at turning defense into offense and then gaining the line with possession.
Not sure if he'll ever be a true #1 PP guy (though I wouldn't bet against it). But we've got Hronek to handle the first unit.
I don’t always find his conclusions to make a ton of sense, but just because you don’t understand advanced metrics doesn’t mean they aren’t real. But I understand that using big words and numbers can be scary for some people.
I feel like selecting a dman in this draft is a mistake.
I don’t always find his conclusions to make a ton of sense,
but just because you don’t understand advanced metrics doesn’t mean they aren’t real.
Do you have any idea how good of a hockey player a prime Vlasic and McDonagh were?
This gushing over Sanderson is out of hand, dude. And yeah, we are talking about a 17 year old... exactly. So maybe hedge your bet a little, instead of constantly making these grandiose claims.
A little conflicting here... no?
Yes.
I also know that when people talk about Vlasic and McDonagh as comparables, they're doing so as an argument against drafting Sanderson.
If I thought Sanderson's upside was either of those to, I wouldn't advocate for him a 3 or 4.
I'd be more likely to draft him at 8 - 12.
Yup Greener is sitting this one out.Guess we lock in Edmonton 2020 4th round pick and it won't be 2021 3rd. (He's not playing.)
I think our lack of talent gives us the luxury of drafting the best available player regardless of position.
And if we end up with too many high-end fast right-handed two-way defenseman prospects, trade one -- it's only the most valuable type of prospect there is. Trade one for a proven center, or a prospect plus a first-rounder. Build that talent puddle into a pool. Our only concern is whether we have enough roster spots for them, to showcase them and develop them.
Do you have any idea how good of a hockey player a prime Vlasic and McDonagh were?
This gushing over Sanderson is out of hand, dude. And yeah, we are talking about a 17 year old... exactly. So maybe hedge your bet a little, instead of constantly making these grandiose claims.
Do you not have at least some concern that the last 3 months of the season that catapulted him up draft lists is sustainable long-term?
Or, let me ask you this. What makes Sanderson a better prospect than Cam Fowler was when he was drafted? What could make Sanderson turn into the better pro? Because those two are very comparable for me, and I have a hard time seeing what Sanderson really does better.
I don’t always find his conclusions to make a ton of sense, but just because you don’t understand advanced metrics doesn’t mean they aren’t real. But I understand that using big words and numbers can be scary for some people.
As someone who does not follow the analytics movement as close as I probably should, I would probably be more interested in his work if I knew the significance of what he is trying to measure. I understand for the most part what he is trying to measure and track but I still do not know how it relates to future NHL play and how predictive it is of future NHL success. Hell, I don't even know the statistical significance of the gap between Sanderson and Drysdale in those metrics.
Where did you find those numbers and how does O'Rourke measure up? I think we're taking a forward at 4, so.That's the question, isn't it?
Offensive controlled zone transitions: 74.7% vs 63.2%
Defensive controlled zone transitions: 34.4% vs 44.6%
These are kind of the ones I wonder about most. Sanderson controls the puck through zone transitions 10% more often, while stopping the opponents controlled transitions 10% more. What does this yield at the end of the day? How much more likely is a team to score on a controlled transition? That's the missing piece.
On surface, it seems like a good thing. Maintaining possession of the puck, and not allowing the opponent to maintain possession. Logic checks out. But to what extent should it be valued?
That's the question, isn't it?
Offensive controlled zone transitions: 74.7% vs 63.2%
Defensive controlled zone transitions: 34.4% vs 44.6%
These are kind of the ones I wonder about most. Sanderson controls the puck through zone transitions 10% more often, while stopping the opponents controlled transitions 10% more. What does this yield at the end of the day? How much more likely is a team to score on a controlled transition? That's the missing piece.
On surface, it seems like a good thing. Maintaining possession of the puck, and not allowing the opponent to maintain possession. Logic checks out. But to what extent should it be valued?
That's the question, isn't it?
Offensive controlled zone transitions: 74.7% vs 63.2%
Defensive controlled zone transitions: 34.4% vs 44.6%
These are kind of the ones I wonder about most. Sanderson controls the puck through zone transitions 10% more often, while stopping the opponents controlled transitions 10% more. What does this yield at the end of the day? How much more likely is a team to score on a controlled transition? That's the missing piece.
On surface, it seems like a good thing. Maintaining possession of the puck, and not allowing the opponent to maintain possession. Logic checks out. But to what extent should it be valued?
I’d be more interested in how they stack up to their individual leagues and then comparing them afterwards.
Where did you find those numbers and how does O'Rourke measure up? I think we're taking a forward at 4, so.
He also only takes 8 game sample sizes for his metrics. Which amounts to a whole turd burger.As someone who does not follow the analytics movement as close as I probably should, I would probably be more interested in his work if I knew the significance of what he is trying to measure. I understand for the most part what he is trying to measure and track but I still do not know how it relates to future NHL play and how predictive it is of future NHL success. Hell, I don't even know the statistical significance of the gap between Sanderson and Drysdale in those metrics.
It's sort of the naive theory of hockey analytics. You assume measurements are significant, precise, noteable, and relevant, and that collection is faithful and stable. Once you fix those things, only then can you evaluate the players with whatever metric you've thought up--provided it works as intended. Obviously, that's a very high bar, and few can meet it.As someone who does not follow the analytics movement as close as I probably should, I would probably be more interested in his work if I knew the significance of what he is trying to measure. I understand for the most part what he is trying to measure and track but I still do not know how it relates to future NHL play and how predictive it is of future NHL success. Hell, I don't even know the statistical significance of the gap between Sanderson and Drysdale in those metrics.