Garth Snow Pt. III - Snow’s inactivity

[Sidney the Kidney]

Not trying to defend Snow, as I want him gone either way, but as far as I can tell, they're only looking at a 5 year span of 2011-2015, which is a little recent to be judging based primarily off of games played per pick. By this methodology, Quine is a MUCH better draft pick than Sorokin, Ho-Sang and Toews combined, which is a weird methodology at this point in time. But either way, I think most fans would agree that 2011-2014 were the worst drafts of Snow's tenure, which isn't the fairest way to judge a GM as a whole at the draft.

I don't have access to that article (I don't subscribe to the Athletic), so you might me right. I was just basing on what that tweet said.

Having said that, even if you factor in the entirety of Snow's drafting, has it really been much better than what that article's time period suggests? A handful more games played, but the gist of the article (ie. not enough high end players drafted) still holds true, with only Tavares being a "star" among all the picks Snow has made prior to 2011.

If we look at Snow's drafts since he fully took over as GM (he missed the 2006 draft as he wasn't named GM until July that year) up until the point of that article (2011), these are the players Snow has drafted during his tenure that have played more than 164 games (or two full NHL seasons worth of games):

2007:
None

2008:
Bailey
Hamonic
Martin
Spurgeon (all with another team, so who knows if he would have developed properly in NY under Snow)

2009:
Tavares
De Haan
Cizikas
Lee

2010:
Niederreiter
Nelson

From 2011 and on, his list includes one name:
Strome (2011)

Other players will likely reach that point (Barzal, Beauvillier, Pulock, Mayfield, Pelech), but only the former three look to be anything special. The last two names are the kind of fringe bottom pairing guys that pretty much every NHL franchise has a handful of in their system at any given time.

Considering the fact Snow drafted high most of those years, that doesn't seem very much to show for it.

 

[Instant]

Let's hope Garth isn't making this decision. I also thought I read it was Ledecky who was speaking with Brisson. Is it possible that Garth is out at the end of the year and Ledecky wants to be hands on with Brisson? Why else would Ledecky be speaking with Brisson so often and not let Garth handle everything.

I think Brisson was meeting with Malkin, not Ledecky? And I think those are rumours, nothing was officially confirmed and nothing will until Tavares re-signs/signs a contract with a different team.

And lord, I hope you're right and Garth is out. But I don't think it would be that weird that the owners are being hands on in this situation, Tavares means to this franchise a really f***ing lot.

 

[CupHolders]

Personally, at this point might as well hope for something completely out of left field. Such as... Malkin was meeting with Brisson to lay the groundwork for him to become the third owner! Wang and Dewey cashing out.

Malkin = Money and development
Ledecky = Fan and public relations
Brisson = Hockey ops

Snow/Weight out. New GM/Coach in. Tavares commits to the new vision. Isles go on to win a lot.

 

[Seph]

I don't have access to that article (I don't subscribe to the Athletic), so you might me right. I was just basing on what that tweet said.

Having said that, even if you factor in the entirety of Snow's drafting, has it really been much better than what that article's time period suggests? A handful more games played, but the gist of the article (ie. not enough high end players drafted) still holds true, with only Tavares being a "star" among all the picks Snow has made prior to 2011.

If we look at Snow's drafts since he fully took over as GM (he missed the 2006 draft as he wasn't named GM until July that year) up until the point of that article (2011), these are the players Snow has drafted during his tenure that have played more than 164 games (or two full NHL seasons worth of games):

2007:
None

2008:
Bailey
Hamonic
Martin
Spurgeon (all with another team, so who knows if he would have developed properly in NY under Snow)

2009:
Tavares
De Haan
Cizikas
Lee

2010:
Niederreiter
Nelson

From 2011 and on, his list includes one name:
Strome (2011)

Other players will likely reach that point (Barzal, Beauvillier, Pulock, Mayfield, Pelech), but only the former three look to be anything special. The last two names are the kind of fringe bottom pairing guys that pretty much every NHL franchise has a handful of in their system at any given time.

Considering the fact Snow drafted high most of those years, that doesn't seem very much to show for it.

I don't have access either, but I did the math and that was the only timeframe that matched up with the numbers in the post.

I had some free time at work to actually look into it, and if we go over Snow's whole timeframe, he actually stacks up pretty well to other teams over that same timeframe. Take a look at the attached image here, which includes 2007-2015 (like I am guessing the original publication did, I felt it was pointless to include the last two drafts).

Turns out Snow's drafting, at least in terms of points and games played, match up right there with his average draft position. So, while it could be better, it's really not nearly as bad as looking exclusively at this one time period would suggest.

But what this exercise really made me realize, is that I want Dean Lombardi as GM really badly. His draft statistics here are CRAZY.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I don't have access either, but I did the math and that was the only timeframe that matched up with the numbers in the post.

I had some free time at work to actually look into it, and if we go over Snow's whole timeframe, and he actually stacks up pretty well to other teams over that same timeframe. Take a look at the attached image here, which includes 2007-2015 (like I am guessing the original publication did, I felt it was pointless to include the last two drafts).

Turns out Snow's drafting, at least in terms of points and games played, match up right there with his average draft position. So, while it could be better, it's really not nearly as bad as looking exclusively at this one time period would suggest.

But what this exercise really made me realize, is that I want Dean Lombardi as GM really badly. His draft statistics here are CRAZY.

A couple of things I'd be curious if you could clarify for me from the above:

1-How is the "average position" calculated?

2-Is points per pick really the best method, when a bunch of average players could skew the results in their favor over a team who drafted only two players, but both were studs?

In regards to #1, I think the problem is it doesn't give enough weight to having a high pick over a low pick. For instance, if a team has two top 10 picks, but trades away its 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round picks, it should still end up with better players than a team who trades away its 1st round pick, but retains its 2-7 round picks.

For instance, if I'm interpreting the calculation correctly, say the Isles pick 1st, 5th, and then don't have a pick until the 4th round at 95, 125, 155, and 185. Their "average position" that year would be 94.33. If the Pens load up by trading away their first round pick, 5th, 6th, and 7th round picks, but retain the 60th, 90th, 120th, their "average position" would be 90.

So by your calculation, the Pens have a higher "average pick" than the Isles that year. Yet I don't think that comes close to showcasing the difference in value between the Isles top two picks (1st overall and 5th overall) and the Pens' top two picks (60th and 90th).

Obviously an extreme example, but the purpose being to highlight that having top five picks should have much, much more weight than anything taken near the end of the 1st round or in the second round, even if the "average position" for that draft is relatively the same due to picks in rounds 3 to 7.

As for point #2, points per pick, the problem is you're giving equal weight to "quantity" rather than focusing on which team drafted the best quality.

It would be like drafting one 100 point guy out of 7 draft picks (the other 6 don't make it), while the other team drafts five 20 point guys out of 7 draft picks. The average points per pick would be the exact same (100 points divided by 7 picks), even though I think we could agree that a team is better off drafting Crosby and a bunch of AHLers over five Cal Clutterbucks.

 

[Seph]

A couple of things I'd be curious if you could clarify for me from the above:

1-How is the "average position" calculated?

No problem. Average position is just taking every pick, and averaging out their overall positions, which is same methodology they appear to have used in the original study we were looking at.

2-Is points per pick really the best method, when a bunch of average players could skew the results in their favor over a team who drafted only two players, but both were studs?

Depends on what you're looking for, really. I was more trying to use the methodologies of the original study we were looking at, so averaging per pick made sense, which overall seems fair to me -- but it does depend on what you value more. I do think that if you don't find a number of solid average contributors, then that should mitigate the value of finding two studs, just like finding a ton of solid average contributors should also be mitigated by a lack of studs -- both of which should be reflected by using the average, but I fully admit it's hardly perfect and ultimately, that's largely why I sorted it by GP, instead of points.

In regards to #1, I think the problem is it doesn't give enough weight to having a high pick over a low pick. For instance, if a team has two top 10 picks, but trades away its 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round picks, it should still end up with better players than a team who trades away its 1st round pick, but retains its 2-7 round picks.

For instance, if I'm interpreting the calculation correctly, say the Isles pick 1st, 5th, and then don't have a pick until the 4th round at 95, 125, 155, and 185. Their "average position" that year would be 94.33. If the Pens load up by trading away their first round pick, 5th, 6th, and 7th round picks, but retain the 60th, 90th, 120th, their "average position" would be 90.

So by your calculation, the Pens have a higher "average pick" than the Isles that year. Yet I don't think that comes close to showcasing the difference in value between the Isles top two picks (1st overall and 5th overall) and the Pens' top two picks (60th and 90th).

Obviously an extreme example, but the purpose being to highlight that having top five picks should have much, much more weight than anything taken near the end of the 1st round or in the second round, even if the "average position" for that draft is relatively the same due to picks in rounds 3 to 7.

As for point #2, points per pick, the problem is you're giving equal weight to "quantity" rather than focusing on which team drafted the best quality.

It would be like drafting one 100 point guy out of 7 draft picks (the other 6 don't make it), while the other team drafts five 20 point guys out of 7 draft picks. The average points per pick would be the exact same (100 points divided by 7 picks), even though I think we could agree that a team is better off drafting Crosby and a bunch of AHLers over five Cal Clutterbucks.

I'm not saying it's a perfect methodology, but since we were looking at a study using it, I felt it was the best to do the same. While, I do see your point and agree it's a flaw, I don't think it's quite as huge a flaw as you suggest, since it's spread out over 9 years of drafts and if a bunch of super late picks are mitigating the early picks to a lower average then you're also adding in a bunch of garbage picks that are lowering the per pick averages.

Unfortunately, I don't have a better option to go with, but if we want to agree that there's no way to gauge this statistically, I can't really say you're wrong and that was kind of my original point about the first study.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

No problem. Average position is just taking every pick, and averaging out their overall positions, which is same methodology they appear to have used in the original study we were looking at.


Depends on what you're looking for, really. I was more trying to use the methodologies of the original study we were looking at, so averaging per pick made sense, which overall seems fair to me -- but it does depend on what you value more. I do think that if you don't find a number of solid average contributors, then that should mitigate the value of finding two studs, just like finding a ton of solid average contributors should also be mitigated by a lack of studs -- both of which should be reflected by using the average, but I fully admit it's hardly perfect and ultimately, that's largely why I sorted it by GP, instead of points.


I'm not saying it's a perfect methodology, but since we were looking at a study using it, I felt it was the best to do the same. While, I do see your point and agree it's a flaw, I don't think it's quite as huge a flaw as you suggest, since it's spread out over 9 years of drafts and if a bunch of super late picks are mitigating the early picks to a lower average then you're also adding in a bunch of garbage picks that are lowering the per pick averages.

Unfortunately, I don't have a better option to go with, but if we want to agree that there's no way to gauge this statistically, I can't really say you're wrong and that was kind of my original point about the first study.

Agreed, there's not necessarily a perfect methodology. But for me, overall, I just think more emphasis should be on quality rather than quantity, even if said quantity "equals up" to the quality.

I think the best you can say about Snow from 2007-2010 is he drafted some decent quantity, but I don't think he did very good at quality, especially given how many picks he had and where he picked. And from 2011 to 2015, even the quantity fell off.

I know it's a simplistic example, but to me I think walking into a draft and coming away with one Tavares and a bunch of AHL fodder is worth more than drafting two Brock Nelsons and a Cal Clutterbuck, even if the GP and points per pick add up to the same thing. I think that's the kind of area where Snow failed in his drafting all too often.

IMO, game changers and elite players is what builds championship rosters, not drafting support/complimentary players by the quantity.

 

[seafoam]

Staple’s latest mailbag says that L&M essentially have two options. Fire Snow outright and rebuild the front office from scratch (because Snow has basically hired everyone) or do what Carolina’s owner did and move him out of the primary decision making role.

He said no one really knows what will happen, but said the logical assumption would be to do it right after the season and have someone ready to take over immediately (because of how crucial the offseason is).

He goes on to say that there are not many experienced execs floating around (that are outright available and not working for another team and it would require permission and a lengthy interview process to talk to guys currently working for other teams (He mentioned Bill Guerin PIT, Mike Futa LAK, Paul Fenton NSH). He also says Dean Lombardi is not coming to work for the Islanders, but wasn’t able to obtain as to the reason why.

He said there is no chance a new GM would be willing to take over a team after a hypothetical Tavares signing because at that point in the summer, the team would basically be set already for the next season.

That’s essentially what he said regarding Snow.

 

[PK Cronin]

We're getting stuck with Snow and Weight for another season...

 

[12Dog]

Guerin the GM with Weight the coach?
What could go wrong?

For Pete’s sake enough with the half-assed measures. Owners invested millions to buy controlling interest, according to Ledecky they’ve spent millions more upgrading practice facility, amenities. Why leave the guys who can only be looked at as incompetent in any position with your franchise?

Clean house, top to bottom. Forget rushed hiring. Do your diligence, interview everyone you can. Hire the BEST person for the job.

 

[PK Cronin]

Guerin the GM with Weight the coach?
What could go wrong?

For Pete’s sake enough with the half-assed measures. Owners invested millions to buy controlling interest, according to Ledecky they’ve spent millions more upgrading practice facility, amenities. Why leave the guys who can only be looked at as incompetent in any position with your franchise?

Clean house, top to bottom. Forget rushed hiring. Do your diligence, interview everyone you can. Hire the BEST person for the job.

What do they do when the best person isn't available?

 

[Seph]

Agreed, there's not necessarily a perfect methodology. But for me, overall, I just think more emphasis should be on quality rather than quantity, even if said quantity "equals up" to the quality.

I think the best you can say about Snow from 2007-2010 is he drafted some decent quantity, but I don't think he did very good at quality, especially given how many picks he had and where he picked. And from 2011 to 2015, even the quantity fell off.

I know it's a simplistic example, but to me I think walking into a draft and coming away with one Tavares and a bunch of AHL fodder is worth more than drafting two Brock Nelsons and a Cal Clutterbuck, even if the GP and points per pick add up to the same thing. I think that's the kind of area where Snow failed in his drafting all too often.

IMO, game changers and elite players is what builds championship rosters, not drafting support/complimentary players by the quantity.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but expecting to walk away with a Tavares at every draft without a top 3 pick is a pretty unrealistic expectation. I tend to think of Tampa as the gold standard in drafting over this time period, and even they only found one Tavares level talent outside of the top 2. The problem with only focusing on elite talent is that no team drafts it with enough consistency for it to be all that telling.

But at the end of the day, if we want to agree that the methods of the original study and the one I did are both too flawed to be of much value, I'm not going to argue.

 

[kasper11]

When you look at those 2008 and 2009 drafts, it's amazing how bad Garth Snow has been since then. In just 2 drafts, we ended up with:

1 Superstar forward (JT)
2 other Top-line forwards (Bailey, Lee)
2 fourth line forwards (Cizikas, Martin)
1 Top-Pair defenseman (Spurgeon)
2 other Top-Four defensemen (Hamonic, de Haan)

That's a hell of a core to a start a rebuild around. We also had just 1 bad contract (DiPietro), which was erased in the lockout. Since then, we have had 4 more top-5 picks, and 3 playoff appearances. It's crazy. Between godawful drafts, bad free agent signings, and inexperienced coaches, this team is in a worse position now.

I don't have access to that article (I don't subscribe to the Athletic), so you might me right. I was just basing on what that tweet said.

Having said that, even if you factor in the entirety of Snow's drafting, has it really been much better than what that article's time period suggests? A handful more games played, but the gist of the article (ie. not enough high end players drafted) still holds true, with only Tavares being a "star" among all the picks Snow has made prior to 2011.

If we look at Snow's drafts since he fully took over as GM (he missed the 2006 draft as he wasn't named GM until July that year) up until the point of that article (2011), these are the players Snow has drafted during his tenure that have played more than 164 games (or two full NHL seasons worth of games):

2007:
None

2008:
Bailey
Hamonic
Martin
Spurgeon (all with another team, so who knows if he would have developed properly in NY under Snow)

2009:
Tavares
De Haan
Cizikas
Lee

2010:
Niederreiter
Nelson

From 2011 and on, his list includes one name:
Strome (2011)

Other players will likely reach that point (Barzal, Beauvillier, Pulock, Mayfield, Pelech), but only the former three look to be anything special. The last two names are the kind of fringe bottom pairing guys that pretty much every NHL franchise has a handful of in their system at any given time.

Considering the fact Snow drafted high most of those years, that doesn't seem very much to show for it.

 

[Costigan77]

The more I watch Columbus, the more I think Torterella would be perfect for this team

 

[PK Cronin]

The more I watch Columbus, the more I think Torterella would be perfect for this team

I think he's great at getting players to buy into his defense first mentality, which would do wonders for this team.

 

[Satan'sIsland81]

Every time I come to this site after another loss I pray to see a thread titled Garth Snow Part IV: Snow files for unemployment

 

[BelovedIsles]

How is Garth Snow still the GM of the Islanders?

Well said Mr. Botta.

 

[Satan'sIsland81]

How is Garth Snow still the GM of the Islanders?

Well said Mr. Botta.

Was just coming to post this. It seems like Botta is on a personal mission at this point to get Snow fired for us. And I applaud him for it because he is the only one in the media who will do it. Everything he wrote is true, sadly true. These are things most of us post about on these boards every day. I just pray the owners can see this and get this idiot out the door.

 

[Dipietro39]

How is Garth Snow still the GM of the Islanders?

Well said Mr. Botta.

Great piece. Loved how he calls out Newsday. But nobody at Newsday is going to risk losing their job to call out Snow. Also, Snow is never going to grant anyone but Staple, who will never ask a tough question, an interview.

 

[doublechili]

Botta mentions Chris Lams as an internal GM candidate. If L&M can hire Lou Lams as President and his son becomes GM, I think I'd be okay with that.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but expecting to walk away with a Tavares at every draft without a top 3 pick is a pretty unrealistic expectation. I tend to think of Tampa as the gold standard in drafting over this time period, and even they only found one Tavares level talent outside of the top 2. The problem with only focusing on elite talent is that no team drafts it with enough consistency for it to be all that telling.

But at the end of the day, if we want to agree that the methods of the original study and the one I did are both too flawed to be of much value, I'm not going to argue.

For clarification, the bolded is not what I meant. It was just an example of how the points per pick method is flawed since drafting 1 Tavares and AHL fodder will yield the same points per pick as drafting 2 Nelsons and a Clutterbuck, yet the former would go a lot further toward building a strong team.

As for judging based on elite (or if you prefer, high end) talent drafted, we're going to have to disagree. I just think you can't build a Cup contender without coming away with multiple elite (or high end) talent. I think the Islanders are proof of that. Like has been posted, Snow's come away with some decent complimentary pieces (Lee, Bailey, Hamonic, Niederreiter, etc.). But until Barzal's emergence, only one elite or high end guy (Tavares). And it's shown in the standings.

The teams that are contenders and have won Cups recently are the teams with multiple home-grown elite talent on the roster. Penguins have depth, but they don't win these past two Cups if you swap Malkin out for Brock Nelson or Anders Lee. Chicago had tremendous depth when they won, but they don't win if they had Josh Bailey instead of Patrick Kane all those years. Boston's resurgence doesn't happen if they'd drafted Dal Colle instead of Pastrnak. Tampa's where they are because they've got three elite players (Stamkos, Kucherov, and Hedman on D).

So I can't agree that judging drafting of elite or high end players isn't a good way to do it because of how much impact those high end players have on a team's success. High end talent is literally the difference between the bubble teams and the contenders. Especially when you're judging a GM through a rebuild, when his entire purpose is accumulating high draft picks and elite prospects.

 

[doublechili]

For clarification, the bolded is not what I meant. It was just an example of how the points per pick method is flawed since drafting 1 Tavares and AHL fodder will yield the same points per pick as drafting 2 Nelsons and a Clutterbuck, yet the former would go a lot further toward building a strong team.

As for judging based on elite (or if you prefer, high end) talent drafted, we're going to have to disagree. I just think you can't build a Cup contender without coming away with multiple elite (or high end) talent. I think the Islanders are proof of that. Like has been posted, Snow's come away with some decent complimentary pieces (Lee, Bailey, Hamonic, Niederreiter, etc.). But until Barzal's emergence, only one elite or high end guy (Tavares). And it's shown in the standings.

The teams that are contenders and have won Cups recently are the teams with multiple home-grown elite talent on the roster. Penguins have depth, but they don't win these past two Cups if you swap Malkin out for Brock Nelson or Anders Lee. Chicago had tremendous depth when they won, but they don't win if they had Josh Bailey instead of Patrick Kane all those years. Boston's resurgence doesn't happen if they'd drafted Dal Colle instead of Pastrnak. Tampa's where they are because they've got three elite players (Stamkos, Kucherov, and Hedman on D).

So I can't agree that judging drafting of elite or high end players isn't a good way to do it because of how much impact those high end players have on a team's success. High end talent is literally the difference between the bubble teams and the contenders. Especially when you're judging a GM through a rebuild, when his entire purpose is accumulating high draft picks and elite prospects.

Agreed. People like to reminisce about Nystrom, Tonelli, Morrow, etc., but the Isles had a dynasty mostly because they had HOFers Trottier, Potvin, Bossy and Smith.

 

[Seph]

For clarification, the bolded is not what I meant. It was just an example of how the points per pick method is flawed since drafting 1 Tavares and AHL fodder will yield the same points per pick as drafting 2 Nelsons and a Clutterbuck, yet the former would go a lot further toward building a strong team.

As for judging based on elite (or if you prefer, high end) talent drafted, we're going to have to disagree. I just think you can't build a Cup contender without coming away with multiple elite (or high end) talent. I think the Islanders are proof of that. Like has been posted, Snow's come away with some decent complimentary pieces (Lee, Bailey, Hamonic, Niederreiter, etc.). But until Barzal's emergence, only one elite or high end guy (Tavares). And it's shown in the standings.

The teams that are contenders and have won Cups recently are the teams with multiple home-grown elite talent on the roster. Penguins have depth, but they don't win these past two Cups if you swap Malkin out for Brock Nelson or Anders Lee. Chicago had tremendous depth when they won, but they don't win if they had Josh Bailey instead of Patrick Kane all those years. Boston's resurgence doesn't happen if they'd drafted Dal Colle instead of Pastrnak. Tampa's where they are because they've got three elite players (Stamkos, Kucherov, and Hedman on D).

So I can't agree that judging drafting of elite or high end players isn't a good way to do it because of how much impact those high end players have on a team's success. High end talent is literally the difference between the bubble teams and the contenders. Especially when you're judging a GM through a rebuild, when his entire purpose is accumulating high draft picks and elite prospects.

Again, I'm really not disagreeing with your assertion here. I am not trying to claim that Snow is a top notch draft GM. My only real point was that the original study was flawed. I used this methodology, because it was the methodology being used when people were using the original study as evidence.

If you do have a good way of trying to measure this statistically though and the data isn't too difficult to compile, I'd probably be interested in taking a look at it the next time I have some free time at work.

 

[Glory Days]

Was just coming to post this. It seems like Botta is on a personal mission at this point to get Snow fired for us. And I applaud him for it because he is the only one in the media who will do it. Everything he wrote is true, sadly true. These are things most of us post about on these boards every day. I just pray the owners can see this and get this idiot out the door.

Botta isn't wrong but he comes across as somebody with a grudge. I doubt L&M care what Botta has to say.

 

[Lame Lambert]

Botta isn't wrong but he comes across as somebody with a grudge. I doubt L&M care what Botta has to say.

It’s not a grudge if it’s true