ATD 2020 Draft Thread IV

[tabness]

I have an internal rule that I don't draft any player or coach still active professionally, but there are a few that went recently that I would like for my teams. Panarin was one, would have been an amazing fit with Hawerchuk and Bure. Green was another, sad how injuries derailed his career but he exceeded my expectations in Detroit (well, except for this year). Fleury is one of my favorites and would have been the perfect backup or platoon goalie because of his attitude and character, and if there was one exception to my rule it would have been for him.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I have an internal rule that I don't draft any player or coach still active professionally, but there are a few that went recently that I would like for my teams. Panarin was one, would have been an amazing fit with Hawerchuk and Bure. Green was another, sad how injuries derailed his career but he exceeded my expectations in Detroit (well, except for this year). Fleury is one of my favorites and would have been the perfect backup or platoon goalie because of his attitude and character, and if there was one exception to my rule it would have been for him.

Not picking active players puts you at a disadvantage though. But I know you're playing for fun.

I'll probably play Panarin with Roenick and Amonte. I was forced to get more playmaking from the wing with Messier and Roenick in my Top 6. Not bad playmaking centers per say, but it's not their main strenght.

 

[tinyzombies]

Not picking active players puts you at a disadvantage though. But I know you're playing for fun.

I'll probably play Panarin with Roenick and Amonte. I was forced to get more playmaking from the wing with Messier and Roenick in my Top 6. Not bad playmaking centers per say, but it's not their main strenght.

that's a hell of a line. they can all fly with skill.

 

[BenchBrawl]

No worries. Health is (slightly) more important than playing ATD.

No

 

[VanIslander]

He did say slightly.

 

[BenchBrawl]

He did say slightly.

Still no.

 

[Dreakmur]

Thing with Panarin is while he only has 5 seasons, he hit the ground running in the NHL, scoring at least 70 pts in every season. He never slowed down neither.

His VsX scores are as follows, in chronological order:

86.5
83.1
79.6
79.1
97.9

For an average of 85.3 in VsX 5 years. This is better than Bobby Bauer VsX 5 years score (84.4).

How did you get 79.1 in 2019? Unless I'm reading wrong, Panarin scored 87 points and 2nd place Mcdavid scored 116.

He has good scores in his 5 seasons, but the baseline is 7 seasons for a reason, right? His 7 season score is 60.4.

 

[tinyzombies]

xxx Wait, why does that say 4 hour clock. I have a feeling I'm not up yet.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How did you get 79.1 in 2019? Unless I'm reading wrong, Panarin scored 87 points and 2nd place Mcdavid scored 116.

He has good scores in his 5 seasons, but the baseline is 7 seasons for a reason, right? His 7 season score is 60.4.

The original baseline for post-expansion players was supposed to be 10 years, though I realize that has fallen out of fashion in favor of simplicity.

Maybe that's not fair to active players... Or is it?

 

[VanIslander]

The original baseline for post-expansion players was supposed to be 10 years,...

In terms of decent career, that is the modern length or thereabouts.

Contemporary players picked with 5-7 years only had better have impressive peaks to replace career length deficiency.

A 15-year productive career, 7-year peak us equivalent to some older era average 10-year, 5-year peaks.

All considerations should be relative to the contemporaries from their era. This is first and foremost an exercise in hockey history not in era prejudice.

 

[BenchBrawl]

How did you get 79.1 in 2019? Unless I'm reading wrong, Panarin scored 87 points and 2nd place Mcdavid scored 116.

He has good scores in his 5 seasons, but the baseline is 7 seasons for a reason, right? His 7 season score is 60.4.

No idea why 110 was the benchmark actually, but this is what @Hockey Outsider came up with in the "official VsX thread", so I used it.

This is not how I evaluate players. People are free to do as they wish. What I do is take his VsX best 5 years score, and just live with the fact he has extreme lack of longevity. I see him as a guy who would have a few games at the 85 level, then disappear for other games. To reduce his number to 60 is completely sucking out the soul of what the player was. Like using 7 years for Guy Lafleur, an abomination. I use 6 for Lafleur and adjust mentally for extreme lack of longevity.

That said, 5 is my absolute minimum of seasons. I wouldn't use VsX best 3 years for a 3 seasons active player and do the same. Doesn't cut it to me. 5 does, because that's more a real prime. That is a personal preference. (some exceptions might be made for players before 1930).

I always disagreed with 7 years anyway. I feel more players had prime that lasted 5 or 6 years than 7 years, empirically speaking, but that's just an impression.

 

[rmartin65]

No idea why 110 was the benchmark actually, but this is what @Hockey Outsider came up with in the "official VsX thread", so I used it.

This is not how I evaluate players. People are free to do as they wish. What I do is take his VsX best 5 years score, and just live with the fact he has extreme lack of longevity. I see him as a guy who would have a few games at the 85 level, then disappear for other games. To reduce his number to 60 is completely sucking out the soul of what the player was. Like using 7 years for Guy Lafleur, an abomination. I use 6 for Lafleur and adjust mentally for extreme lack of longevity.

That said, 5 is my absolute minimum of seasons. That is a personal preference. (some exceptions might be made for players before 1930).

Do you take other players at their best 5 year score too? If not, it feels rather subjective.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Do you take other players at their best 5 year score too? If not, it feels rather subjective.

If I compare them to Panarin yes. But it's a case by case thing.

If say I pick a Modano-type player, I feel VsX just becomes a useless tool to compare him with Panarin.

I try to use the best and fairest tool for the comparison at hand.

Benn vs. Panarin, use 5 years, then adjust for longevity.

Lafleur vs. Panarin, use 5 years, then adjust for longevity.

Modano vs. Panarin, why use VsX? Maybe as a secondary angle, but it's not a very good way to compare the two players.

 

[VanIslander]

In a top-6 role on an ATD team, offense (as 33-66% of a scoring player's value usually) over 7 years in the modern era has to be the minimum. A 10-year modern record speaks well to top-line production.

The O6 era, early NHL era and pre-consolidation/Stanley Cup challenge era is more arguably a 5-year career consideration.

 

[tinyzombies]

I'm up at 8:20pm - 6 hour clock

 

[BenchBrawl]

In a top-6 role on an ATD team, offense (as 33-66% of a scoring player's value usually) over 7 years in the modern era has to be the minimum. A 10-year modern record speaks well to top-line production.

The O6 era, early NHL era and pre-consolidation/Stanley Cup challenge era is more arguably a 5-year career consideration.

So why did you pick McDavid? Be coherent.

Panarin has better longevity than McDavid as of today. Sure his peak is not comparable, but he did play 5 real seasons. McDavid 4 and a half. And Panarin is a LWer, so options are not growing on trees.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A 5 year VsX makes sense for Bobby Baeur because he lost all or parts of FIVE seasons to World War 2. Perhaps we should use 5 year scores for higher level players like Schmidt and Apps too.

Also, I think maybe a 5 year standard might make sense for the really early era players who did tend to have really short careers.

 

[VanIslander]

As long as one thinks TWICE about recency bias... drafting an active player could make sense.

Note: I have a long history of not picking active NHLers, but Connor McDavid after Joe Primeau and before Pit Lepine seemed an easy choice.

I chose him (agreed with my co-GM, that is) out of rational considerations. (Believe me i initially loathed the idea, but reflecting on options, it made perfect sense.)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm up at 8:20pm - 6 hour clock

tabness was the last GM to pick on the clock - at 1:47 pm EST. So you would be up at 7:47 EST.

Right?

 

[BenchBrawl]

A 5 year VsX makes sense for Bobby Baeur because he lost all or parts of FIVE seasons to World War 2. Perhaps we should use 5 year scores for higher level players like Schmidt and Apps too.

Also, I think maybe a 5 year standard might make sense for the really early era players who did tend to have really short careers.

Panarin is a peak-only player, with his peak being 5 years only. I don't see why it would be hard to mentally adjust to that. To me that means Panarin has a few spike games and disappears otherwise.

5 years is not 3 or 2. Many, many good players had their prime be 5 years top with a huge drop to the 6th season. It's a decent stretch of time.

Also, Bauer was taken a long time ago and is much better than Panarin this year in the ATD because of what you mentioned. Being peak-only brings severe punishment o nthe value of the player... but we are pretty far in the draft now aren't we? Feel Panarin's peak is valuable enough at this point, but just putting him at 60 is unnecessarily artificializing his value. It's a bad use of VsX, like using a hammer to nail a screw.

 

[BenchBrawl]

As long as one thinks TWICE about recency bias... drafting an active player could make sense.

Note: I have a long history of not picking active NHLers, but Connor McDavid after Joe Primeau and before Pit Lepine seemed an easy choice.

I chose him (agreed with my co-GM, that is) out of rational considerations. (Believe me i initially loathed the idea, but reflecting on options, it made perfect sense.)

OK, so when the other LWers that are better options than Panarin get taken, warn me. I'm legitimately curious.

 

[BenchBrawl]

VsX is a tool that was created to compare players across eras, not to artificialize their longevity value into a simple number. Two very different things. It was used a lot as the latter, and it was always wrong to do so IMO.

 

[RustyRazor]

The Portland Penguins select James Patrick, D.

 

[Habsfan18]

It’s quite funny that Van and I took some heat (some also seemed to think it was a great move, to be fair) for selecting McDavid who only has 4 and a half seasons to his credit yet one of those posters criticizing us just selected Panarin who has a whopping half a season more of games played to his credit. Different position I know..

And for anyone who says “but McDavid went much earlier” my answer would be to look at the players who went around the same time, especially the centers who were left on the board. McDavid made all the sense on the world there and many would have done the same thing.

I do like Panarin. I can even “sort of” understand the MacKinnon selection even if I wouldn’t have done it. The Scheifele one to me makes absolutely zero sense. That one was the worst pick in the draft by far next to Marc-Andre Fleury being drafted wayyyyyyyy too early.

 

[BenchBrawl]

It’s quite funny that Van and I took some heat (some also seemed to think it was a great move, to be fair) for selecting McDavid who only has 4 and a half seasons to his credit yet one of those posters criticizing us just selected Panarin who has a whopping half a season more to his credit. Different position I know..

And for anyone who says “but McDavid went much earlier” my answer would be to look at the players who went around the same time, especially the centers who were left on the board. McDavid made all the sense on the world there and many would have done the same thing.

I do like Panarin. I can even “sort of” understand the MacKinnon selection even if I wouldn’t have done it. The Scheifele one to me makes absolutely zero sense. That one was the worst pick in the draft by far next to Marc-Andre Fleury being drafted wayyyyyyyy too early.

The bolded says it all, as well as the fact we are much deeper into the draft.

Also, if Panarin missed half a season in those 5 years, I wouldn't have taken him.