OK, thanks. Then how is that any different than what MS posted? He clearly stated it wasn't a certainty that a lower rated player couldn't exceed the ranking, only that the probability was lower.
Okay lol. Like I said, sounds like pettersson. Also Mika who rangers fans wanna get rid of
Fine I'll edit my post. This guy is just like lurking in the basement vibes
If you don't like what the models says, scroll past. Don't comment. I don't care what you think of the model. I'd tell you that you have might have a problem with your analysis of players but I generally just scroll past.
If you don't like what MS says, scroll past.
Why exactly would it be more accurate? Are players drafted and become exactly what they are projected to be every time?
It's just gonna have to happen.
Unprotected first in 2026 could be real nice. If it's god damn Ottawa Senators nice.
When someone chimes in to have the same conversation for a 3rd time and no I wasn't talking to him, I was having a conversation with someone else.
That’s incorrect. UFA was 31 pre-2005. It dropped from 31 to 27 as part of the post 2005 lockout CBA.
Free agent - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
There isn’t any real comparison to be drawn to the 1990s because now there is (1) a salary cap, (2) an individual player cap, (3) revenue sharing, and (4) a limit that 57% of revenue goes toward player salaries through the escrow system.
NY can’t spend 3-4x as much as another team like they did in the 90s, or pay McDavid the equivalent of $20 million per year like they could have done in the 90s. And because of revenue sharing the Canadian teams aren’t going generally going to face the same financial issues they did in the 90s, especially since the league won’t be spending 75% of revenue on salaries (as the league claimed at the time) like they were back then.
I think on balance a significant further reduction in the UFA age would benefit the premier destinations in the league who would have more opportunities to buy players, but to a limited extent because they would always be limited by the cap and the need to sign other players to fill out their roster and we’ve seen that players rarely take big discounts. But if anything I think the primary disparity it would create is magnifying the tax advantage benefit teams in low tax jurisdictions have.
I know I was talking about the poster with 7 posts in almost 3 years.
I don't know how you noticed that.
I don't know the guys that well in here yet. We are all just Canucks fans in the end.
I replied above to the person I don’t think the mods would appreciate me calling the person out. But if you scroll above it’s pretty clear who it is.
I haven't looked yet but if it explains what actually goes into the model could we plug letang on and see what it says
Letang was not a stellar Jr player and had a 8% 7% 10% 12% star potential in draft year to draft plus 3 year. His NHL (200 games) odds went from 28% 34% 54% 81%. He spent his draft plus 3 year in the NHL. The model most likely would have had him around a late 1st round pick. The models are always tougher on defencemen though.
Do you mean that there's no accuracy to any system that evaluates players?
Letang is a poor example. He had a pretty meteoritic rise and was considered by many to be the better of him and Bourdon when they played on the same team. Those stat watching wouldn’t have seen that.
