Canucks Management and Ownership Thread v30.0 (Post #186)

[CanaFan]

If any drafting GM is able to consistent produce 3-4 NHLers per draft year within 5 years for next 10 years then drafting skills do exist and able to produce at least 1-2 NHLer in a weak draft year then this does exist. With too many 31 teams, every teams would want 31 McDavids on their team but unfortunately, it can get only one and if other GM can win the cup without McDavid then he is considered a great GM with great drafting skill.

I don't think the bar is nearly that high to be considered above average.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

I don't think the bar is nearly that high to be considered above average.

Yeah that's like really damn good category. Some one call up jimmy devellano.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

It's like throwing darts. If you have 10 darts and manage to hit the board with all 10, you'll probably hit the bullseye a couple times.

Jesus you are way better at darts than me.

I don't think the bar is nearly that high to be considered above average.

But that's the other problem. Not only is the data limited and fraught with noise, but the difference between an "above average" drafter and a "below average" drafter are likely to be insubstantial enough that the randomness easily overwhelms it.

I mean if a guy literally drafts a HHOFer with every single pick for 10 years in a row, then yeah, I'm happy to say that he has some skill there. But you're talking about one GM who gets 4 NHL players in 2 years, one of whom is a star, and another GM who gets 5 NHL players in 2 years and none of them are a star but they are all solid, and then you have to take into account where they were selecting and it's just ... how can you even remotely say who was "better?" Even if you have 10 years worth of drafts for both GM's I doubt you could come to any sort of conclusion that had any predictive value.

 

[CanaFan]

Jesus you are way better at darts than me.




But that's the other problem. Not only is the data limited and fraught with noise, but the difference between an "above average" drafter and a "below average" drafter are likely to be insubstantial enough that the randomness easily overwhelms it.

Could be but I don't think so. Of course wouldn't know without actually looking at the data associated with a few different GMs. And of course if the differences were to be truly minute then I would question the notion that "drafting skill" exists at all. I mean if it doesn't result in variability then it doesn't really fit the definition of a skill, does it?

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Let's see ... oh yeah, objectivity and reality?

Hansen? Tanev?

Tanev absolutely, Hansen was a great draft pick of Nonis.

So, let's see ... Aging Sedins still playing as average to solid first liners,

Sedins were Burke draft picks.

with guys entering their prime like: Edler, Hansen

Both drafted by Nonis

Younger guys like: Tanev, Horvat, Hutton

Hopefully Hutton turns into a solid NHL defender. You've already mentioned Tanev and I mentioned Horvat (pick used by trading All Star goalie Schneider)

Average to decent goaltending with Lack and Markstrom (arguable)

. that isn't average goaltending, that is **** poor goaltending.

Decent value for trade player - Kesler

oh you mean the disgruntled all star with a high powered agent who was hell bent on leaving? What a prize!

How anyone in their right mind so blindly defends Benning while blaming every misstep on Gillis is truly unfathomable. I keep thinking you must be joking.

I thought you were joking when you said Gillis left us "average to decent goaltending"

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Could be but I don't think so. Of course wouldn't know without actually looking at the data associated with a few different GMs. And of course if the differences were to be truly minute then I would question the notion that "drafting skill" exists at all. I mean if it doesn't result in variability then it doesn't really fit the definition of a skill, does it?

Yes and no. It is kind of like faceoffs. Clearly, winning a faceoff in the NHL takes skill. But among 90% of centers in the NHL there is not really a big difference in their faceoff ability, which renders the statistic pretty much meaningless in that it has no predictive value outside of a few guys who do dominate every season. Thus when comparing two typical NHL centers, looking at their FO% has no value.

IOW even if drafting is a skill, the difference in drafting "ability" among GM's would be in that example so remote that you wouldn't even take it into consideration when evaluating a GM's performance and comparing him to other NHL GM's.

 

[RandV]

The last part is true, however that is a qualitative issue, namely arriving at a sufficiently strong metric to define "success" in the draft. I believe it can be done using some combination of games played/scoring rates and perhaps a qualitative component as well. It would be a big task to compile the data but it isn't beyond the realm of possibility to do so.

Assuming an adequate classification system can be accomplished then the process of determining draft performance over a reasonable sample size is simple inferential stats.

I've always felt a good metric that never gets used is simply looking at pro experience, rather than just NHL. Kind of like drilling down from goal +/- to corsi. I believe it's only about 12% of players draft from the 3rd round and beyond make it to the NHL. Nabbing an NHL player is a goal, getting a guy onto you farm team or having a career in another comparable pro league is either a shot on net. A guy who gets a few games in the NHL is a scoring chance.

This lets you evaluate drafts like say Vancouver 2007 vs 2011 a little deeper than 0 NHLers vs 0 NHLers.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Tanev absolutely, Hansen was a great draft pick of Nonis.

Sedins were Burke draft picks.



Both drafted by Nonis

Hopefully Hutton turns into a solid NHL defender. You've already mentioned Tanev and I mentioned Horvat (pick used by trading All Star goalie Schneider)

. that isn't average goaltending, that is **** poor goaltending.

oh you mean the disgruntled all star with a high powered agent who was hell bent on leaving? What a prize!



I thought you were joking when you said Gillis left us "average to decent goaltending"

Wrong

 

[CanaFan]

Yes and no. It is kind of like faceoffs. Clearly, winning a faceoff in the NHL takes skill. But among 90% of centers in the NHL there is not really a big difference in their faceoff ability, which renders the statistic pretty much meaningless in that it has no predictive value outside of a few guys who do dominate every season. Thus when comparing two typical NHL centers, looking at their FO% has no value.

IOW even if drafting is a skill, the difference in drafting "ability" among GM's would be in that example so remote that you wouldn't even take it into consideration when evaluating a GM's performance and comparing him to other NHL GM's.

It's an interesting premise but I'm not sure the FO% is a proper equivalent.

FO ability is largely based on mechanics that are learned over time. When you say they aren't really distinguishable I think that is an oversimplification. If you compare a rookie to a veteran then there is usually a huge difference. That difference tends to diminish as rookies play games and learn the mechanics that are used against them. Eventually everyone gets to a similar level of ability or, survivorship bias, they don't take face offs anymore. An NHL player with a 30% FO% is going to be moved to the wing eventually. Either way that "skill" has a bit of a natural ceiling.

I'm not sure drafting has the same mix of 'replicable mechanics' and survivorship bias that would limit the variability in performance in the same way as FO%.

It's an interesting thought exercise at least and I'm not saying 100% I'm correct but I'm not sure I see convincing evidence or argument to the contrary yet.

 

[racerjoe]

Tanev absolutely, Hansen was a great draft pick of Nonis.

Do you really want to play this game?

Sedins were Burke draft picks.

Thanks to McCabe who was actually a Keenan pickup...

Both drafted by Nonis

Then Developed under Gillis...

Hopefully Hutton turns into a solid NHL defender. You've already mentioned Tanev and I mentioned Horvat (pick used by trading All Star goalie Schneider)

Horvat is actually playing for a calendar year now like a #1 centre despite getting tough dzone starts... Tanev is this teams defense, and Hutton has been asked to carry his partner on his back, in a role he is not ready for.

. that isn't average goaltending, that is **** poor goaltending.

Funny, both seem to have produced better numbers for this team than what Benning brought in.

oh you mean the disgruntled all star with a high powered agent who was hell bent on leaving? What a prize!

Doesn't take away his value, besides, it was the pieces we got back that was the real problem and that is all on Benning.

I thought you were joking when you said Gillis left us "average to decent goaltending"

I think all your posts are jokes, so can we call it even?

 

[The Drop]

Nah. Weisbrod will find another job. The guy is very personable apparently. I have always questioned Crawford's scouting ability. It's not a big loss.



Gilman wasn't much of a scout. Henning and obviously Crawford were more influential. Crawford's scouting was a hit and miss and I'm not sure I like the idea of drafting based on regions. It seems like you're drafting by odds rather than drafting based on actual scouting. The Canucks under Crawford would have almost certainly bypassed a player like Tarasenko. Benning? Maybe not.

I actually think Benning's drafts have outperformed Gillis' drafts in terms of draft +1/+2 years overall.

Not surprised you questioned his ability.

And Benning is picking much much higher than Gillis did in his draft years.

His 6th overall pick has been a mistake and he dumped McCann.

Crawford is so overrated that he got a job right away.

Burke once described Weisbrod as "i don't even know what his job is"

 

[The Drop]

The formula for successful drafting is pretty simple :

1) volume - the more picks you have, the more hits you'll have.

2) consistently draft players with high talent and high IQ with every pick. These are the guys that make it. Avoid wasting picks on low-upside guys, because they always busy.

It's like throwing darts. If you have 10 darts and manage to hit the board with all 10, you'll probably hit the bullseye a couple times. If you have 5 darts and throw 2 or 3 of them straight at the floor, you probably won't.

Ya but it's irrelevant because our draft history in the 2nd isn't bad anyway so no point in ever trying.

Also remember that cap space during rebuilding years means nothing either.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Ya but it's irrelevant because our draft history in the 2nd isn't bad anyway so no point in ever trying.

Also remember that cap space during rebuilding years means nothing either.

Or how about this: with fewer draft picks our scouts will work harder and are more likely to draft better.

Ahh the laughs.

 

[The Drop]

Do you really want to play this game?



Thanks to McCabe who was actually a Keenan pickup...



Then Developed under Gillis...



Horvat is actually playing for a calendar year now like a #1 centre despite getting tough dzone starts... Tanev is this teams defense, and Hutton has been asked to carry his partner on his back, in a role he is not ready for.



Funny, both seem to have produced better numbers for this team than what Benning brought in.



Doesn't take away his value, besides, it was the pieces we got back that was the real problem and that is all on Benning.



I think all your posts are jokes, so can we call it even?

Destroyed

And funny how he always avoids how Marty St Louis would only go to New York yet returned a much much better return

Almost like you need a good GM to get value. Of course St Louis was worth more at the time but there isn't a objective soul that believes TB lost that trade.

 

[timw33]

Ya but it's irrelevant because our draft history in the 2nd isn't bad anyway so no point in ever trying.

Also remember that cap space during rebuilding years means nothing either.

Have you seen what teams like Carolina and Phoenix have been able to do with extra cap space?

Carolina picked up Teravinen for taking on Bickel. Phoenix took on Datsyuk's dead cap and got to move up to grab Chychrun.

 

[The Drop]

Or how about this: with fewer draft picks our scouts will work harder and are more likely to draft better.

Ahh the laughs.

Previous regime handcuffed this team with 20 mil of cap space.

That's like giving a child $2000 at a grocery store and telling him to do the shopping.

Nothing that's good for you long term will be purchased

 

[y2kcanucks]

Do you really want to play this game?



Thanks to McCabe who was actually a Keenan pickup...



Then Developed under Gillis...



Horvat is actually playing for a calendar year now like a #1 centre despite getting tough dzone starts... Tanev is this teams defense, and Hutton has been asked to carry his partner on his back, in a role he is not ready for.



Funny, both seem to have produced better numbers for this team than what Benning brought in.



Doesn't take away his value, besides, it was the pieces we got back that was the real problem and that is all on Benning.



I think all your posts are jokes, so can we call it even?

This is like watching Brock Lesnar fighting a featherweight. Absolutely destroyed. Helps when facts are used.

 

[The Drop]

Have you seen what teams like Carolina and Phoenix have been able to do with extra cap space?

Carolina picked up Teravinen for taking on Bickel. Phoenix took on Datsyuk's dead cap and got to move up to grab Chychrun.

Ya umm sarcasm dude

 

[The Drop]

Benning has picked 6th and 5th in 2 of his 3 years and hasn't drafted an impact NHL player despite players picked after making their mark.

Gillis picked once in the top 9 and got it right.

And Benning somehow is the scouting pro despite how abysmal the Bruins drafts were when he was there. Ok. Lol

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Benning has picked 6th and 5th in 2 of his 3 years and hasn't drafted an impact NHL player despite players picked after making their mark.

Gillis picked once in the top 9 and got it right.

And Benning somehow is the scouting pro despite how abysmal the Bruins drafts were when he was there. Ok. Lol

Zach Hamill.

 

[PG Canuck]

Do you really want to play this game?



Thanks to McCabe who was actually a Keenan pickup...



Then Developed under Gillis...



Horvat is actually playing for a calendar year now like a #1 centre despite getting tough dzone starts... Tanev is this teams defense, and Hutton has been asked to carry his partner on his back, in a role he is not ready for.



Funny, both seem to have produced better numbers for this team than what Benning brought in.



Doesn't take away his value, besides, it was the pieces we got back that was the real problem and that is all on Benning.



I think all your posts are jokes, so can we call it even?

Well said and all 100% true.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Benning has picked 6th and 5th in 2 of his 3 years and hasn't drafted an impact NHL player despite players picked after making their mark.

Gillis picked once in the top 9 and got it right.

And Benning somehow is the scouting pro despite how abysmal the Bruins drafts were when he was there. Ok. Lol

Top 9? Why not top 10?

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Do you really want to play this game?



Thanks to McCabe who was actually a Keenan pickup...

im confused...McCabe and Keenan told Burke to draft the Sedins?

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Destroyed

And funny how he always avoids how Marty St Louis would only go to New York yet returned a much much better return

Almost like you need a good GM to get value. Of course St Louis was worth more at the time but there isn't a objective soul that believes TB lost that trade.

Martin St. Louis, the first ballot hall of gamer? Good comparison!

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Eddie lack 3.80 .856
Ryan miller 2.73 .908

Lack is garbage. Great trade.