Random Forest
Registered User
- May 12, 2010
- 14,515
- 1,083
So, first, I really appreciate the point of evaluating players as a range of outcomes. I agree completely and advocate for taking an “expected value” approach to ranking prospects.I think this is kind of missing the crux of the issue, by focusing on it being about a "boom/bust" factor, rather than what it often really boils down to.
Frankly...in a lot of cases, these smaller, extremely smart, high skill players are often actually a "safer" bet to make it to the NHL in some capacity. Heck, big "power forwards" tend to be about as boom or bust as it comes. But that's not really what the sliding or perceived devaluation of smallish skill players is about.
The critical piece of analysis missing here, is that a large portion of it is about what happens between those two extremes of "boom" or "bust". What is a player's more realistic range of outcomes, and what is their value in that realm?
It's not really about those 99th percentile outcomes of hitting their absolute "ceiling" or absolute "floor" as a complete and total bust.
What really matters, is that "meat" of the curve. What happens if that player ends up in the far more likely middle ~68% of potential outcomes? What is that player's value going to be for your team? As a contributor to build around, or as a trade chip to go out and get what you need in an established player.
That's where you can often get some perceived skew toward bigger, physical type players. Because what happens if a guy like Catton ends up being a small ~40pt "tweener" with lots of smarts and skill but not enough juice to be a star scorer? Contrast with say...a guy like Lindstrom, maybe his hockey IQ and vision really hold him back and he's just a 15G-30pt middle six winger with size and speed. Which one is more "valuable" to most teams?
There's usually a fair bit of wiggle room in that range...but that's what a lot of teams and scouts are really assessing. With their actual jobs and livelihood on the line, it's not always about just "swinging for the fences" on every pitch. What is a prospect going to be worth and contribute if they end up somewhere around halfway between "total bust" and "absolute ceiling". A more common and realistic expectation or projection range than talking about black and white boom/bust outcomes.
And in that equation...due to the way the game of hockey is played, small skilled wingers and little offensive defencemen just often do not tend to fare as well as other types that are generally perceived by fans as "overvalued". There just isn't as much utility, or room for smallish, creative, riskier, east-west high skill players in the bottom half of most coaches rosters.
That's often a factor even with very "smart" management groups and scouting staffs, more so than just "hurrr durrr dinosaurs and biases hate small players just because".
For example, a player with a 10% chance of being a 10/10 player, a 50% chance of becoming a 6/10, and a 40% chance of busting is an expected value of 4/10.
I think talking about “boom/bust” vs “safe” players is stupid. No draft pick is “safe” and every single one of them has bust potential. If I was a GM, I would make all my scouts hand in their rankings with percentage odds assigned to each player’s range of outcomes.
Where I believe we disagree is 1) that a player like Catton doesn’t have much value if he’s a middle six guy or whatever, and 2) that you shouldn’t always swing for the fence, particularly at the top of the draft. I think you can, in fact, win by having skill on your third line, but more importantly, I think you should be trying to maximize your odds of finding elite talent when deciding between players in the top 10. We can disagree what Catton’s percentage odds are of becoming “elite”, but it’s certainly within his range of outcomes, and I just don’t see a weighted model that would have someone like Lindstrom, for example, clearly ahead of him.
The part of all this I’m pushing against are the arguments that suggest Catton’s any more unlikely to become an elite talent than Lindstrom or whomever because of his size. People tend to discount the probabilities associated with small players and put a premium on the probabilities associated with bigger players. It’s why players like Point and Stankoven fall further than they should, and people act surprised when they hit. They won’t all hit, but that’s the arbitrage opportunity if you do it enough times. I think Teddy Stiga is probably another player this year that will not go as high as he should, for example.
Last edited:
