OT: BPA or Centre Prospect @15OA?

[bbny]

Three years ago, we would have said RD is by far the biggest position of need. Now we have the best RD depth in the league.

And that's with losing a good at hockey RD this year. Phenomenal turnaround on the depth at the position.

 

[bbny]

I'd be shocked if the Rangers make this pick. It's as good as gone.

 

[Barnaby]

Re: Take the best centre prospect. But if the BPA is considerably better, then take the BPA.

I'm very much of the same mindset as @Amazing Kreiderman. I think a lot of people tend to think of BPA as linear or singular in the sense that everyone comes in with a prospect score and that those scores are clearly defined, with tiers and an obvious winner.

In reality you tend to have clusters and guys in the same range. Different teams might value things differently that could modestly push someone up a tier or down a tier, but for the most part you tend to have a group of players who are more or less seen as having equal value or close enough value.

For shits and giggles lets assume that Pinelli, Coronato and Chayka are all on the same tier. In that situation you could have a scenario where all three guys are ranked 15, 16 and 17 by the Rangers, with Pinelli ranked last (17th) of the trio.

The Rangers aren't necessarily inclined to take the guy ranked 15th, unless there is a pretty obvious gap there. If all guys are more of less ranked the same, they very well could go with the guy ranked 17th if they feel the gap is negligible or deemed to be worth the trade-off.

Teams also rank players differently. I know some teams who give a numerical order to each player, while I know of others who strictly go by tiers. Most use a hybrid system.

I would thing you’d have some numerical rating within the tiers. I guess if they had another position ranked as the same tier and we are saying the value between are rather negligible, then sure take the ranked 14th over the guy ranked 12th if he’s a center. However, if I have a guy ranked a tier above then go BPA. I feel like going back through previous drafts you never go back and say, you know, we took the best player but we should’ve taken a weaker player at a different position.

 

[Barnaby]

See, this can be changed. Analytics can help (wow for all the people who trashed me saying I'm anti analytics SMFH).

You can run several models with x-variables (height, weight, Corsi, country of origin, age, goals, faceoffs) and see which ones are statistically significant in determining NHL effectiveness. Then apply it to the upcoming draft class and use it as a tool when making the selection.

This is a very simple way of explaining it but you get where I'm trying to go. This plus a psychological evaluation to prevent more headcases like Kovacs, Zborovsky, Anderson, Gropp, etc. along with final discussion can help in finding centers that are solid, not just the "we watched him and he has character and plays a 200 ft. game".

Im sure analytics are considered, but you also have to keep in mind that you have kids playing anywhere from Juniors against kids, to college against bigger opposition, to Europe against adults and everything in between. I’m sure it’s considered and looked at but it’s not apples to apples like it might be in NHL scouting.

 

[Barnaby]

Christian Dube
Bruce Graham
Lee Farladeau
Lias Andersson
Carl Henrikkson ( yet to be seen)
Manny Malhotra ( as a Ranger)
Jaime Landmark
I'm obviously missing a bunch but this is who came to mind for me initially.

Derek Stepan
Marc Savard
JT Miller can play C
Dom Moore

mostly terrible but a few hits along the way...

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I disagree. I think you need to make a board and stick to it as much as possible. Thats how you decide whether to slide up or down the board. Sure you may have 2-3 guys about even but even then you should hopefully have some preference - not just let’s roll a dice to decide between these 6 guys.

This only makes sense if you think BPA is a player-by-player basis. It's not

 

[Daves a mess]

Derek Stepan
Marc Savard
JT Miller can play C
Dom Moore

mostly terrible but a few hits along the way...

Was thinking more of the higher round sucky pics than the good ones.

Brandon Dubinsky is a good pick

 

[Barnaby]

This only makes sense if you think BPA is a player-by-player basis. It's not

So let’s say you have 8 guys in a tier. You don’t attempt to rank them ahead of time based on preference? Sure, if the difference is negligible then have at it and go C but I’d think you’d compare player A and player B and if the number comes up - know who you’d value as the better prospect. If we are saying the difference is razor thin then sure, I agree with your take.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

So let’s say you have 8 guys in a tier. You don’t attempt to rank them ahead of time based on preference? Sure, if the difference is negligible then have at it and go C but I’d think you’d compare player A and player B and if the number comes up - know who you’d value as the better prospect. If we are saying the difference is razor thin then sure, I agree with your take.

That would be the definitition of players in the same tier, yes.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Re: Take the best centre prospect. But if the BPA is considerably better, then take the BPA.

I'm very much of the same mindset as @Amazing Kreiderman. I think a lot of people tend to think of BPA as linear or singular in the sense that everyone comes in with a prospect score and that those scores are clearly defined, with tiers and an obvious winner.

In reality you tend to have clusters and guys in the same range. Different teams might value things differently that could modestly push someone up a tier or down a tier, but for the most part you tend to have a group of players who are more or less seen as having equal value or close enough value.

For shits and giggles lets assume that Pinelli, Coronato and Chayka are all on the same tier. In that situation you could have a scenario where all three guys are ranked 15, 16 and 17 by the Rangers, with Pinelli ranked last (17th) of the trio.

The Rangers aren't necessarily inclined to take the guy ranked 15th, unless there is a pretty obvious gap there. If all guys are more of less ranked the same, they very well could go with the guy ranked 17th if they feel the gap is negligible or deemed to be worth the trade-off.

Teams also rank players differently. I know some teams who give a numerical order to each player, while I know of others who strictly go by tiers. Most use a hybrid system.

We may have different reads on the poll choices.

I view the proper philosophy like you and @Amazing Kreiderman do, which is that you slot players into tiers, the way most NBA teams rank them. Now, it's possible that a player might occupy a tier to himself (e.g. Lafrenière last year), but more often than not, especially as you move down in the draft, you'll have clusters of multiple guys who you value more or less the same. Keeping it simple, say 4 guys from 12-15 who you rate at like 84-85 on a 100 point scale. In that case, by all means take the center.

But I read the choices to indicate that if none of those 4 was a center, you would instead pick a guy you rank at like ~80, which I would not do.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

I'd be shocked if the Rangers make this pick. It's as good as gone.

This might be the probable outcome

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Center

 

[Fireonk]

Reading all the replies it sounds like a lot of people are on similar pages, but just interpreted the poll answers differently. When I saw "Take the BPA. Period." it implied to me that there was a BPA on the board and not a group of similar players basically tied in a tier together.

 

[Ola]

Not sure how Raty goes from #1 overall to potentially slipping to 15 or beyond. Honestly, how does that happen?

So i’m looking for kid with a cannon shot among a likely log jam of equally talented players. I figure with Fox, Nils and company there will be enough to pass the biscuit so find the cannon to shoot it.

Speed, size, shot, etc . . . i’m opting for shot.

It happens, both Mikael Backlund and especially Markus Nilsson in Calgary where seen as legit FOA a year plus before their drafts.

It’s players that are very good and have matured early, but then their development just slow down and you realize that they never will become dominating players in terms of raw skill.

It’s kind of like with Lias Andersson, it doesn’t matter how clutch you are and how well you can deliver, if when the puck is dropped you just aren’t on top of the play with your speed and skill, and in Lias case, behind the pace.

 

[AKA Chief]

Not sure how Raty goes from #1 overall to potentially slipping to 15 or beyond. Honestly, how does that happen?

So i’m looking for kid with a cannon shot among a likely log jam of equally talented players. I figure with Fox, Nils and company there will be enough to pass the biscuit so find the cannon to shoot it.

Speed, size, shot, etc . . . i’m opting for shot.

Del Zotto was being spoken about in the same breath as Doughty one year before their draft year. Reality happens in that year.

 

[AKA Chief]

P.S. Always go BPA. This is the NHL not the NBA or NFL. Players other than the top 1 or 2 will take years to develop. If you have a surplus, you trade for what you need.

 

[Unknownbutfamous1]

I think you go BPA, but it has to be weighted/adjusted on two factors. Importance of position and future trade value. Right Handed Defensemen should hold more value than a LHD. A center holds more value than a winger. A 91 graded center prospect should be picked over a 92 graded winger or a 91 graded RHD should be picked over a 92 graded LHD. Goalies are tricky. The talent may be there but Goalies don't generally bring back fair value in trades.

 

[Off Sides]

I think they should take a center with every pick they have and am only half joking.