Toggle sidebar

GDT: 2024 NHL Draft (June 28 - June 29, Las Vegas Sphere)

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Cush said:
2:38: "We're not really concerned what country that you come from"
Click to expand...
In response to a Q on the Russian Factor. I wouldn't read into that a nod to the Norwegians per se. They've always operated as though they didn't really care about nationality.
 
I'd also say Connelly is an unlikely possibility at 17 all things considered. The Q posed to Ross alluding to Connelly and his response about character/leadership more broadly makes it hard to believe he'd be considered BPA. They'd need to have a sky high assessment re: his upside and I don't quite see it.

It does seem like Tarik and others have really talked up the idea of them taking a defenseman. Hard to say how much of that is informed or just an obvious organizational need. Also hard to say if they'll be able to move for one of the top six or even if either Solberg or Jiricek make it to 17. If not then that should mean a forward slides to them, likely either Eiserman or MBN.

One player seeming to get some late helium is Luchanko. Pretty high floor center but 17 seems a tad high.
 
Marshall said:
Whether or not they are able and decide to draft him, it occurs to me that Yakemchuk seems like a Mahoney Guy.
Click to expand...
I keep thinking the same thing. Seems like a perfect fit for need in the pipeline here too. If I were a betting man I'd say there's going to be a big run on defenders and he might go earlier than mid 1st like a lot of people have him projected. Our only hope is that there's a run on talented forwards since the pickings are a little slim there and not everyone drafts BPA. Could bump him down a bit and make a trade up to secure him more possible. I would be ecstatic if we found a way to get him. He or Eiserman are who I'm really pulling for but probably tough at 17.
 
Very little chance Yakemchuk gets to 17. They'd have to move up for him. He's the most realistic target of the top six defensemen because it's tough to imagine any of the other five not going top ten. 12-14 seems like Yak's floor and if it's on the earlier side of that you wonder if SJS at 14 doesn't further the run picking Solberg or Jiricek.

There's definitely a chance a forward could slide to them...conceivably Eiserman. If I had to wager Jiricek is the floor pick ahead of Hage. AJ definitely seems like the sort of pick they've made recently, banking on missed time causing a slight slide. I'm not sure it's an extreme slide but certainly there's a big picture fit and a super thin pipeline compared to what's immanent up front.
 
Solberg & Yakemchuk are the two D I would feel comfortable w/ at #17. Anyone else, try to trade down.

What was Jiříček's injury & what's the outlook?
 
Last edited:
Kazer said:
We're in silly season.

A reminder that Bacon's model in 2021 gave Wyatt Johnston a .84% chance of being a star (yes, .84 not 84%) and Sasha Pastujov (he of 23 points in 46 AHL games this season) a 31.82% chance of being a star.
Click to expand...

Further to what @kicksavedave said, these models certainly miss but they also hit where scouts miss and they hit more often on average. Examples are guys like Point, Kucherov, DeBrincat who were identified as top talents in their drafts by NHLe models but fell in the actual draft for various reasons. Cristall is another guy who fell that NHLe loved, and as Caps fans we can hope he also turns into a star.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hivemind, Kazer and kicksavedave
Cush said:
Solberg & Yakemchuk are the two D I would feel comfortable w/ at #17. Anyone else, try to trade down.

What was Jiříček's injury & what's the outlook?
Click to expand...
Jiricek just seems too much of a gamble at 17.
 
Concussion and knee injuries for Jiricek. I just think the parallels to Lapierre & Miro are hard to ignore. Doesn't mean they'll take him but...I don't doubt it depending on how the board falls.
There's pretty fair defensive upside. It's more polished than his offensive game and overall the tools are more fair than elite.
 
twabby said:
Further to what @kicksavedave said, these models certainly miss but they also hit where scouts miss and they hit more often on average. Examples are guys like Point, Kucherov, DeBrincat who were identified as top talents in their drafts by NHLe models but fell in the actual draft for various reasons. Cristall is another guy who fell that NHLe loved, and as Caps fans we can hope he also turns into a star.
Click to expand...
I have not seen an analysis that shows models are inherently more accurate than team scouts. I view them as a guiding tool that requires knowledge and insight to interpret them properly. Further, every NHL team has an analytics department in 2024, though I will acknowledge that I am sure some teams rely on them more than others.

For instance:
Draft pick A puts up huge numbers (but he was playing with the presumptive #1 overall pick and another guy who was drafted last year in the first round)

Draft pick B puts up mediocre numbers (but he was playing mostly with 3rd/4th liners and majorly stepped up his production when given a chance)

The model, at least as I understand it (focused on age and production), would look at Draft pick A as a significantly better player. A scout might realize that player B actually has a higher long-term upside when put in a position to succeed. I am very pro-analytics in general, but I find there are some who rely on data without understanding the context (though I have been extremely impressed by how some of the models are rapidly improving on incorporating context into their models)

I'd love to take a deeper look at this a few years from now. The earliest draft I can find reliable data on Bacon's model is 2021, which is far too recent to properly evaluate. (ideally 2018 or before) Looking specifically at 2018, I'd love to see how the data looked at guys who were drafted high and haven't done super well and vice versa (Hayton, Kotkaniemi, Zadina, Kravtsov, Wahlstrom on the negative side and Miller, Romanov, Durzi, Fehervary, Sharangovich, and others on the positive side).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kalopsia
Kazer said:
I have not seen an analysis that shows models are inherently more accurate than team scouts. I view them as a guiding tool that requires knowledge and insight to interpret them properly. Further, every NHL team has an analytics department in 2024, though I will acknowledge that I am sure some teams rely on them more than others.

For instance:
Draft pick A puts up huge numbers (but he was playing with the presumptive #1 overall pick and another guy who was drafted last year in the first round)

Draft pick B puts up mediocre numbers (but he was playing mostly with 3rd/4th liners and majorly stepped up his production when given a chance)

The model, at least as I understand it (focused on age and production), would look at Draft pick A as a significantly better player. A scout might realize that player B actually has a higher long-term upside when put in a position to succeed. I am very pro-analytics in general, but I find there are some who rely on data without understanding the context (though I have been extremely impressed by how some of the models are rapidly improving on incorporating context into their models)

I'd love to take a deeper look at this a few years from now. The earliest draft I can find reliable data on Bacon's model is 2021, which is far too recent to properly evaluate. (ideally 2018 or before) Looking specifically at 2018, I'd love to see how the data looked at guys who were drafted high and haven't done super well and vice versa (Hayton, Kotkaniemi, Zadina, Kravtsov, Wahlstrom on the negative side and Miller, Romanov, Durzi, Fehervary, Sharangovich, and others on the positive side).
Click to expand...

You are correct that context (aside from age and league) is not taken into account when most NHLe stats are calculated.

For 2018 here is what Bader's NHLe has for the top 16:

1719499371749.png

1719499426652.png


Durzi and Miller were given an 8% chance at being a star and a ~50% chance of being an NHLer.

Fehervary and Romanov were given a 5% chance to be a star and a 22% chance to be an NHLer by Bader.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kazer
twabby said:
You are correct that context (aside from age and league) is not taken into account when most NHLe stats are calculated.

For 2018 here is what Bader's NHLe has for the top 16:
<removed for size>

Durzi and Miller were given an 8% chance at being a star and a ~50% chance of being an NHLer.

Fehervary and Romanov were given a 5% chance to be a star and a 22% chance to be an NHLer by Bader.
Click to expand...
Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

There's a decent number of wins and losses on that list. The model picked out guys like Kurashev, Addison, and McLeod who have become solid NHL players, but they also highlighted guys who haven't played a game like Shafigullin (and barely played like Hallander). It also threw up some caution flags on guys like Zadina and Kotkaniemi.

(Separate from this discussion, only 3 NHL first rounders from 2018 haven't played a game, but there's also a level of confirmation bias as first round picks are way more likely to get a chance, deserved or not.)
 
Kazer said:
there's also a level of confirmation bias as first round picks are way more likely to get a chance, deserved or not
Click to expand...

Yeah this is a key point. I'm not exactly sure how to weigh this but it needs to be taken into consideration when evaluating draft models.
 
twabby said:
You are correct that context (aside from age and league) is not taken into account when most NHLe stats are calculated.

For 2018 here is what Bader's NHLe has for the top 16:

View attachment 888003
View attachment 888004

Durzi and Miller were given an 8% chance at being a star and a ~50% chance of being an NHLer.

Fehervary and Romanov were given a 5% chance to be a star and a 22% chance to be an NHLer by Bader.
Click to expand...
It looks like by and large the players the model was significantly higher on than NHL teams have busted. Credit for being a bit higher on Bouchard than the NHL was, for picking Kurashev out of the rough, and being lower on Zadina, but the model was much higher on Merkley, Smith, Hallander, Addison, Shafigullin, Perunovich, Zhuravlyov, and McLeod and they all busted or at least underperformed their ranking.

Filling in the gaps here, the players that NHL teams evaluated highly but the model didn't would be Brady Tkachuk at 4th overall (massive whiff for the model), Brett Hayton at 5 (win for the model), Adam Boqvist at 8 (win), Vitali Kravtsov at 9 (win), Oliver Wahlstrom at 11 (win), Noah Dobson at 12 (whiff), Ty Delleandre at 13 (win), Grigori Denisenko at 15 (win), Martin Kaut at 16 (win), and Liam Foudy at 18 (win). Most of the guys I'm giving the model credit for as wins are still NHL players, just not what you'd expect for the draft slot, but as mentioned above there's some bias since the teams that drafted them so high are incentivized to play them.

I guess the takeaway is to focus on players where the NHL and the model agree, because when one of them is much higher on a player than the other that player will probably bust.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kazer and CapitalsCupReality
I'm going to say there's never going to be a model that can measure what is in a man's heart, and therefore his desire and ability to work his ass off to get better to become a star in the NFL. A grand total of almost zero players are NHL "star" caliber talents at 17 year old, every one of them, Bedard, McDAvid, all of them, need to improve to actually meet that highest level in the NHL. No model will measure their desire to put in the work to get better. Its why family lineage can be overlooked in a model that puts Ignila 23rd, or the Tkachuk brothers lower than their outcome would deserve. Kids from NHL parents usually understand what's needed to be great, and its not just showing up. No model will account for this, which is why scouts and in person meetings will always be part of the overall picture.
 
He also replied to his own post and self admitted the KHL isn't really the same quality anymore so his models over value KHL players quite a bit.
 
When evaluating how accurate draft models are there should be more things taken into account then draft position vs. games/points etc.

How good are organizations at developing/integrating their prospects? what’s in the pipeline ahead of that drafted players? is the team drafting in a rebuild or contending etc?
 
kicksavedave said:
I'm going to say there's never going to be a model that can measure what is in a man's heart, and therefore his desire and ability to work his ass off to get better to become a star in the NFL. A grand total of almost zero players are NHL "star" caliber talents at 17 year old, every one of them, Bedard, McDAvid, all of them, need to improve to actually meet that highest level in the NHL. No model will measure their desire to put in the work to get better. Its why family lineage can be overlooked in a model that puts Ignila 23rd, or the Tkachuk brothers lower than their outcome would deserve. Kids from NHL parents usually understand what's needed to be great, and its not just showing up. No model will account for this, which is why scouts and in person meetings will always be part of the overall picture.
Click to expand...
Can’t put a number on intangibles….but they certainly matter.

Prime example is the Semin we know and experienced and the elite talent that could have been a HOFer if he had that drive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Calicaps
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom