Confirmed with Link: Cagnoni signed to ELC

[Lebanezer]

Or we can have some humility and admit that NHL amateur scouts, most of whom have years if not decades of high level scouting and playing experience, watch each prospect play in person dozens of times, have the opportunity to meet with and interview the player and his teammates, coaches and family, have access to medical reports, etc. are better in the aggregate at evaluating prospects than a model that seems to rely exclusively on points.

If we start from there then it's obvious that someone who was passed on 122 times by NHL scouting staffs in a draft that happened less than a year ago probably doesn't have "a good chance to succeed." This is of course supported by the data on actual pick success rates which is not a model but an objective historical record. We can also look at the current landscape of NHL defensemen and notice not a single one is as short as Cagnoni.

None of this is to say there's a 0.0% chance Cagnoni has a NHL career but 65% is so laughable as to completely discredit everything that guy puts out in my eyes. The ridiculous Merkley projection is just another of many examples.

There are no perfect methods. Statistical models are wrong in part because of the reasons you listed, along with their limited scope but they do not only rely on points. Scouts are wrong because they overvalue one trait and undervalue another, or get a bad vibe from a player due to their own subjective analysis (See Tim Burke and Anze Kopitar.)

The infinite number of variables that can make or break the development of a career are not not quantifiable, by a scout or a statistical model.

Appealing to one flawed method as a means to discredit another flawed method is not a valid form of proof. It is also why you can't dismiss either method. They are a means to create the best picture that you can of a player given their development to that point.

Merkley is a perfect example of this, where the statistical models loved his play, and only his play, but his personality and other various issues absolutely derailed his career. The statistical model is simply saying that players with similar statistical projections made the NHL a certain percentage of the time. If you interpret that prediction as the full evaluation on a player then you as the consumer are dismissing the other factors involved, and that is not a strike against the model.

There's no need to be dismissive Byron's work or the work that goes into those statistical models. Those people work hard to create them, and while they're built on an imperfect science, because the games are not played on a spreadsheet, there is value in the patterns that emerge.

Also, the irony of you appealing to the authority of NHL amateur scouts when you have a severe personal vendetta against one, is not lost.

 

[Hodge]

There are no perfect methods. Statistical models are wrong in part because of the reasons you listed, along with their limited scope but they do not only rely on points. Scouts are wrong because they overvalue one trait and undervalue another, or get a bad vibe from a player due to their own subjective analysis (See Tim Burke and Anze Kopitar.)

The infinite number of variables that can make or break the development of a career are not not quantifiable, by a scout or a statistical model.

Appealing to one flawed method as a means to discredit another flawed method is not a valid form of proof. It is also why you can't dismiss either method. They are a means to create the best picture that you can of a player given their development to that point.

Merkley is a perfect example of this, where the statistical models loved his play, and only his play, but his personality and other various issues absolutely derailed his career. The statistical model is simply saying that players with similar statistical projections made the NHL a certain percentage of the time. If you interpret that prediction as the full evaluation on a player then you as the consumer are dismissing the other factors involved, and that is not a strike against the model.

There's no need to be dismissive Byron's work or the work that goes into those statistical models. Those people work hard to create them, and while they're built on an imperfect science, because the games are not played on a spreadsheet, there is value in the patterns that emerge.

Also, the irony of you appealing to the authority of NHL amateur scouts when you have a severe personal vendetta against one, is not lost.

I have a "vendetta" against Junior precisely because his picks suffered from the same flawed thinking that fuels those models: the idea that scoring trumps all other considerations in a prospect including size, skating or competitiveness.

Also are we really blaming Merkley being a bust entirely on his personality and not on the fact he was tiny and couldn't skate? The exact same shortcomings Cagnoni reportedly has? Which would make him a prime candidate to be another model false positive.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Sorry Jux, but Girard was not a healthy scratch in the Avs Cup run. Barbashev broke his sternum with a dangerous hit and he was out.

Oh I know. I just remember @Hodge claiming that Girard was a healthy scratch to support the claim that small defensemen couldn’t get it done in the playoffs. Fit the theme of this thread.

I have a "vendetta" against Junior precisely because his picks suffered from the same flawed thinking that fuels those models: the idea that scoring trumps all other considerations in a prospect including size, skating or competitiveness.

Also are we really blaming Merkley being a bust entirely on his personality and not on the fact he was tiny and couldn't skate? The exact same shortcomings Cagnoni reportedly has? Which would make him a prime candidate to be another model false positive.

Merkley’s big problem is that he played a junior style game, not any physical limitation. His head was the problem, no hockey IQ. I can’t pretend to know with certainty what Cagnoni ends up being but you comparing him to Merkley just goes to show how you love to place players in the same bucket just because of their height.

 

[Hodge]

Oh I know. I just remember @Hodge claiming that Girard was a healthy scratch to support the claim that small defensemen couldn’t get it done in the playoffs. Fit the theme of this thread.

I didn't claim Girard was a healthy scratch. I simply pointed out that he didn't play for the final 2.5 rounds of that playoff run, which is true.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

There are no perfect methods. Statistical models are wrong in part because of the reasons you listed, along with their limited scope but they do not only rely on points. Scouts are wrong because they overvalue one trait and undervalue another, or get a bad vibe from a player due to their own subjective analysis (See Tim Burke and Anze Kopitar.)

The infinite number of variables that can make or break the development of a career are not not quantifiable, by a scout or a statistical model.

Appealing to one flawed method as a means to discredit another flawed method is not a valid form of proof. It is also why you can't dismiss either method. They are a means to create the best picture that you can of a player given their development to that point.

Merkley is a perfect example of this, where the statistical models loved his play, and only his play, but his personality and other various issues absolutely derailed his career. The statistical model is simply saying that players with similar statistical projections made the NHL a certain percentage of the time. If you interpret that prediction as the full evaluation on a player then you as the consumer are dismissing the other factors involved, and that is not a strike against the model.

There's no need to be dismissive Byron's work or the work that goes into those statistical models. Those people work hard to create them, and while they're built on an imperfect science, because the games are not played on a spreadsheet, there is value in the patterns that emerge.

Also, the irony of you appealing to the authority of NHL amateur scouts when you have a severe personal vendetta against one, is not lost.

So well said. If a model is giving a 90% probability of something happening and it doesn’t, the model didn’t fail, your understanding of probabilities did. This is not to say a model can’t be wrong, just that one case does not break the model. Models describe aggregate outcomes not individual outcomes.

In the case of Cagnoni, I don’t get the reason to scoff. He’s a fourth round pick, that would already have a tough time getting to the show. Cagnoni is interesting because he has first round tools in a 7th round box.

At least Cagnoni is a stocky 5’9”. If he adds 10-15lbs of muscle, holy shit that’s a helluva interesting build.

 

[Lebanezer]

I have a "vendetta" against Junior precisely because his picks suffered from the same flawed thinking that fuels those models: scoring trumps all other considerations in a prospect including size, skating or competitiveness.

Also are we really blaming Merkley being a bust entirely on his personality and not on the fact he was tiny and couldn't skate? The exact same shortcomings Cagnoni reportedly has? Which would make him a prime candidate to be another model false positive.

None of DWJr’s pick did very well in any statistical models. Here are Jfresh's player cards from the "vaunted" 2020 draft that you always like to bring up.

Bordeleau was the best case scenario, and that was a only a 36% chance.

You also seem to have overlooked where I said Merkley's "personality and other various issues."

 

[Juxtaposer]

I didn't claim Girard was a healthy scratch. I simply pointed out that he didn't play for the final 2.5 rounds of that playoff run, which is true.

To claim that small defensemen couldn’t get it done in the playoffs.

 

[TheBigDrunkPanda]

Seems like an AHL signing more then an NHL move

 

[Hodge]

To claim that small defensemen couldn’t get it done in the playoffs.

Well, do they? Vegas certainly didn't have any. Neither did the Avs for the final 2.5 rounds. Nor the Bolts, famously. Blues top 6 was Bouwmeester, Pietrangelo, Parayko, Edmundson, Bortuzzo, Gunnarsson. Starting to sense a pattern here...

 

[TealManV]

Dan Boyle won a cup with Tampa.

 

[tiburon12]

To claim that small defensemen couldn’t get it done in the playoffs.

I'm actually starting to think this is true honestly. Not 100%, of course, but for your horse #1, you want them to be big over small. Small doesnt have to mean height, like Makar is 5'11 but is not a small player, if that makes sense. I see Hughes and Fox getting beaten down and it makes me think, especially after what Marchand said out loud lol.

All of this is to say we'd be in a good spot if Cagnoni could pan out to a 3/4 PMD that can be paired with a more traditional lumbering Dman.

 

[Hodge]

None of DWJr’s pick did very well in any statistical models. Here are Jfresh's player cards from the "vaunted" 2020 draft that you always like to bring up.

View attachment 874666
View attachment 874667

View attachment 874669
View attachment 874670

View attachment 874671

Bordeleau was the best case scenario, and that was a only a 36% chance.

You also seem to have overlooked where I said Merkley's "personality and other various issues."

But this is a completely different model no? It seems more rooted in reality.

The average draft produces something like 40-50 guys who play 200+ NHL games. An easy smell test for these models would be to see if they project a significantly higher number than that to emerge out of a single draft class (or adjust the numbers accordingly if they're using a 100 game cutoff).

 

[Alaskanice]

Cagnoni is only one of six on defense.

 

[Kcoyote3]

I will attempt to find out how thick Cagnoni's sternum is before next week's podcast.

 

[Lebanezer]

But this is a completely different model no? It seems more rooted in reality.

The average draft produces something like 40-50 guys who play 200+ NHL games. An easy smell test for these models would be to see if they project a significantly higher number than that to emerge out of a single draft class (or adjust the numbers accordingly if they're using a 100 game cutoff).

The models are similar, but unfortunately I don’t have access to all of Bader’s player cards. The ones from Jfresh are from a model built by JTR.

 

[Hodge]

I'm actually starting to think this is true honestly. Not 100%, of course, but for your horse #1, you want them to be big over small. Small doesnt have to mean height, like Makar is 5'11 but is not a small player, if that makes sense. I see Hughes and Fox getting beaten down and it makes me think, especially after what Marchand said out loud lol.

All of this is to say we'd be in a good spot if Cagnoni could pan out to a 3/4 PMD that can be paired with a more traditional lumbering Dman.

Or even an Alexandre Carrier who was a big scorer in junior but reinvented himself as a hardworking defensive puckmover in his mid 20s.

 

[Lebanezer]

@Hodge here's JTR's card for Cagnoni after he was drafted.

https://x.com/i/web/status/1674462541894897664

 

[tiburon12]

Or even an Alexandre Carrier who was a big scorer in junior but reinvented himself as a hardworking defensive puckmover in his mid 20s.

For sure. "Puck Mover" in my opinion doesnt mean "point scorer", and while the latter often comes with the former, the former is the much more needed skill.

I actually don't know how Cagnoni is in terms of his ability to buy time in the D zone and make a crisp first pass, but that role is one we desperately need on each pairing.

 

[jarr92]

But this is a completely different model no? It seems more rooted in reality.

The average draft produces something like 40-50 guys who play 200+ NHL games. An easy smell test for these models would be to see if they project a significantly higher number than that to emerge out of a single draft class (or adjust the numbers accordingly if they're using a 100 game cutoff).

Do you actually know how Bader and JFresh/Mr. Rooster come up with and calculate their models?

 

[themelkman]

Do you actually know how Bader and JFresh/Mr. Rooster come up with and calculate their models?

I believe its taking into account players on the same pathway and their scoring rates once in the NHL. So basically 64% of players who scored like Cagnoni in the OHL in their draft year became NHLers.

 

[Lebanezer]

Do you actually know how Bader and JFresh/Mr. Rooster come up with and calculate their models?

If you want to know you can read it here. This is for player evaluations, not prospects, but you can see the complexity.

Wins Above Replacement — High Level Overview

 

[tiburon12]

Do you actually know how Bader and JFresh/Mr. Rooster come up with and calculate their models?

I don't want to dig in to the archives but before he disappeared JTR posted about how he derives his NHLe. If not here then it was on twitter. As much as I think his takes were bad, I recall thinking the logic behind his NHLe made sense.

 

[CanadienShark]

Wouldn't you agree there is something fundamentally flawed about a model that gave Ryan Merkley a 85% chance to make the NHL (and 76% chance to be a star!) in January 2023? At that point I would just go back to the drawing board and start over.

To paraphrase Anton Chigurh: if the model you follow brought you to this, of what use was the model?

That's why it wasn't 100%... He fell into the relatively unlikely part. Lots of reasons, such as attitude aren't captured by the model either.

 

[karltonian]

There really was no reason Merkley couldn't be in the NHL, dude straight up showed enough skill to be in. He must have just been uncoachable.

 

[hohosaregood]

There really was no reason Merkley couldn't be in the NHL, dude straight up showed enough skill to be in. He must have just been uncoachable.

His late season audition that one year was promising. It looked like there was a chance he could add that burst to his skating and learn some hockey but then he just stopped trying to get better.