Again, it is ludicrous for you or any other draftnik to start waxing poetic about 'kids achieving dreams' when part of the business is just sorting young men into who will succeed and who will fail. It's impossible to count how many times you've mentioned that you don't like Philip Broberg, how he's not any good, and how he will fail. You'll then pull back very slightly and be like 'I don't like being negative' but you toot your own horn on this sort of thing constantly. It's nice to see Chayka and Rowe appearing in a post too.
Bader's model will be wrong sometimes - it will be wildly wrong sometimes too, probably more than scouts will be, because it can't see the players, their strengths and their limitations. But it's also going to be right a fair amount too because it doesn't have the same biases. Models like this shouldn't draft - there's a lot more going into drafting than just numbers. But it's certainly the kind of thing every NHL team should have, in order to focus in on the players that are desirable and to remove the ones that aren't. A model like this kicks a guy like Pavel Zacha to the curb as a 6th overall selection.
One of the good things about Bader's model is that it re-evaluates players every year. If Power has success, his star % will increase, if he does not, it will decrease.
For the sake of accuracy, I have said Broberg was over-ranked -- not destined to fail. I would never say such a thing, and to be honest I rather resent the implication. I feel Broberg has a very good shot to make it as an NHL-er, but I also think Edmonton will spend several years wishing they took Trevor Zegras, who was drafted in the next spot. There is a very, very large difference between saying a player is being over-valued in relation to other players and saying they will fail.
I do agree that, in the draft analysis business, you have to scrutinize the likelihood of a prospect's NHL success -- and thus, also the likelihood of their failure. I think it's better to do this by saying "player X needs to improve greatly in the areas of so-and-so and so-and-so in order to succeed at the professional level" as opposed to what Bader does, which is: "these completely scientific numbers I've just completely invented put his star probability percentage at 7%".
I don't have to agree with a writer or draft analyst in order to respect them. There's a writer at the Athletic named Dom Luszczyszyn whom is constantly re-evaluating his own analytic model. I disagree with much of what he writes, but I really like him because he's constantly looking for new ways to advance his own model because, ultimately, every model of player evaluation will have its flaws. He's never complacent or self-congratulatory. Bader has come up with a singular model and sold himself on it -- the implication being that "he's figured it out, and now he's done. Pay him to see the genius of his finished statistical model." The fact that Bader's model completely ignores compete level, hockey IQ, defensive play, physicality, how hockey is played in the NHL vs. how it is played in other leagues, role, deployment, quality of teammates, quality of competition etc. etc. is irrelevant, because people like you subscribe to his snake oil site and he's getting paid.
Because let's face it, when you take the consensus #1 prospect for a draft and slag him in your tweets and articles -- people notice! People check out Byron Bader! More hits on the site! And this makes me sad, because it spreads misconceptions. Owen Power is a 6'6, offensively skilled and defensively air-tight blueliner who skates well, put up a solid 16 points in 26 games as a freshman at U. of Michigan during a pandemic-marred year, and then excelled as one of the youngest players in the World Championship tourney. I'm putting my money on him, not the almost-always-wrong-but-still-getting-paid-for-it Byron Bader, thank you very much.
It's nice to see you defend Rowe and Chayka -- despite utter failure as NHL GMs -- because they also subscribe to analytics. I've defended you several times on these boards as well, despite the fact that you consistently -- almost obsessively -- criticize my posts. I will continue to do so, because my ego is irrelevant to me. I'm often telling readers to not just listen to me, but rather to read as many draft writers as possible and watch film to educate themselves. I'm one prospect-watching eye out of many, but check back on my track record in mock drafts and prospect rankings and you'll hopefully see I don't completely suck at this. I think the best thing I do is educate the readers here -- and thankfully I've got quite a few -- on all of the prospects, so they can familiarize themselves with prospects both before and after the draft. When the Devils drafted Dawson Mercer, everyone who read my draft writing knew all about him already, in part because I wouldn't shut up about what a tremendous prospect he was. When the Devils drafted Jaromir Pytlik a few rounds later, the only reason some readers knew anything about him was because I pumped him up a good deal as a nice sleeper pick leading up to the draft. This is not "tooting my horn", it's just what I do. I put a lot of work in -- watching tons of games and game film and reading everything I can in my research. It's a lot more work than Byron Bader, who plugs numbers into a computer and waits for the algorithm to print out. But I would never say I'm
better than a draft writer who actually watches the prospects and disagrees with me. The difference is, Byron Bader doesn't bother watching the prospects, so what could he possibly know?
Can we at least admit that
some analytics are better than other analytics? Because the analytics community turns off many traditional hockey fans, analysts and scouts by trumpeting every new statistic as immutable truth before it has been proven in practice. It's almost cult-like in its unconditional embrace of all things statistical. I actually love certain analytics -- I'm always checking out zone entry and exit statistics, especially for defensemen and centers. I enjoy assessing at the high-danger chart statistics for scoring forwards. I incorporate these into my player evaluations. But "star probability percentage"? I mean, you've got to be kidding me. Save your subscription fee, give that to charity instead.
On the same wavelength, there are many NHL GMs who smartly incorporate analytics into their team-building philosophy, and almost every NHL team wisely employs an analytics department. However, there have been three GMs hired into the NHL with almost entirely analytic backgrounds -- John Chayka, Tom Rowe and Kyle Dubas. Chayka and Rowe are two of the biggest unmitigated failures in modern NHL history, while the jury is still out on Dubas. I like that Dubas incorporated some traditional hockey aspects into his philosophy by acquiring some more physicality and compete level before the season and at the deadline, but his lack of understanding of traditional hockey aspects led him to acquire the wrong ones -- spending too much to get Nick Foligno and Wayne Simmonds when they were already clearly shells of their former selves.
So, look. Feel free to disagree with me -- I welcome it. Just please don't put words in my mouth -- I would never say a player is destined to fail. Because I do not wish to disparage NHL prospects, I'd rather save my vitriol and venom for charlatans hoodwinking a susceptible audience, like Byron Bader.
