Prospect Info: Sharks Prospect Info & Discussion Thread XX

[gaucholoco3]

2003-21: Sharks #1 (top contributors in order: Vlasic, Demers, Labanc, Tierney, Pavs)

Is this not DW’s tenure?

Doug Wilson's tenure was in the 3rd quartile (aka worse than average, around 30-40%, but not bottom 25%)."

You didn’t quantify after 2013.

I’m not even pulling from others words.

 

[coooldude]

Is this not DW’s tenure?

You didn’t quantify after 2013.

I’m not even pulling from others words.

You didn't admit that you just told me I said 4th quartile when I actually said 3rd?

You didn't read the entire other exchange where the other guy pissed me off because he got VERY specifically mad like you are that I didn't specify the analysis (that I encouraged people to click to) was for 2013-2021?

You then somehow think that I didn't make up for it by doing a bunch more work to spoon-feed you what the analysis says about DW's tenure from 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 on to 2021? Talk about missing the forest for the trees man.

Please try to see the point of the posts -- please try to discuss the point of the posts, not get stuck on detail and then get that detail wrong.

 

[ChompChomp]

But curious whether you think Wilson getting Pavelski was more skilled drafting or good luck?

It was both. You look at Pavs' numbers in his D year, 69 points in 60 games in the USHL (36-33-69). You see a guy like that today, and he's not falling to the 7th round. But Pavs had knocks on his size and skating, that's why he was written off by most teams, including the Sharks. I say including the Sharks because they didn't draft him until the 7th round.

It was skilled drafting (you see a guy with those USHL numbers still on the board in round 7, you take him) and good luck (that the entire league passed on him because of his size and skating).

 

[gaucholoco3]

You didn't admit that you just told me I said 4th quartile when I actually said 3rd?

You didn't read the entire other exchange where the other guy pissed me off because he got VERY specifically mad like you are that I didn't specify the analysis (that I encouraged people to click to) was for 2013-2021?

You then somehow think that I didn't make up for it by doing a bunch more work to spoon-feed you what the analysis says about DW's tenure from 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 on to 2021? Talk about missing the forest for the trees man.

Please try to see the point of the posts -- please try to discuss the point of the posts, not get stuck on detail and then get that detail wrong.

I unfortunately did read all of the exchanges. Yes it was a typo to write 4th instead of 3rd. I will correct that. That still doesn’t change that you cite analysis that DW was #1 for the entirely of his tenure which is very different from your original title.

 

[OrrNumber4]

• You spelled de-escalate wrong

You are technically correct, but I still cling to the old ways of English where you don't hyphenate if the prefix ends with an e/o and the base words begins with the same letter.

• You said it was my original analysis - I was summarizing someone else's analysis

OK, then in your original summary. Don't be a pedant!

• You put words in my mouth by saying I concluded DW is a bad GM, I said no such thing,

When you say that DW was in the 3rd quartile for drafting in his tenure, doesn't that strongly imply that you think he's a bad GM, at least in the context of drafting?

• and many times I said what I meant, which is that DW was a great drafter early in his tenure (first 4 years, but even some other good years in the first 10) and fell off, which the data readily shows, which you ignored (both the data, and my clearly written conclusions, instead creating a strawman out of me)

Was "tl;dr Doug Wilson's tenure was in the 3rd quartile (aka worse than average, around 30-40%, but not bottom 25%)" one of those things where you said what you meant?

• I am 40, I am betting you are not 80-120 years old, although that would explain a lot of things, and you are getting blocked. Sorry bro. I don't need this shit.

OK, so almost 2x. I assumed someone using "bro" so much was a member of Gen Z or Gen alpha .

• And even so, in this response, you don't acknowledge the plain to see dropoff after DW's amazing first 4 years from 2003-2007.

Let's take this at face value. Between 2003 and 2006, DW ranks 2nd. But between 2007 and 2010 he ranks...5th! Not much of a fall-off. It's between 2014 and 2017 where he starts to fall off more, though still at #9. And once you adjust for Norris and Roy (and do the same on other teams) I'm sure he shoots up.

Also, if you look at 2007 to 2017 (so after those first four years), the Sharks are still 3rd overall. Pretty darn good!

• You once again accused me of being a lazy gardener when I used someone else's tool to do the analysis.

Ah, I think we have different interpretations of "lazy gardener". A lazy gardener is someone who doesn't want to "get in the weeds". I'm saying that as you shrink your sample size it's more appropriate to get into the nitty-gritty of the underlying data.

• You're moving the goalposts because now you're talking about drafting superstar players, of which DW only did beyond expectation arguably three times - Vlasic, Pavs, and Hertl. Otherwise, he failed pretty miserably.

I'm not moving any goalposts, just having a discussion. Anyways, I'd argue that Vlasic, Pavelski, and Hertl aren't even superstars.

• I addressed this very problem with Celebrini being a ho-hum 2nd liner in the first post of this entire exchange where I noted that there are those in the thread (me included) who would like to see this version of the analysis with cumulative WAR or some other stat vs games played. But no, it's your smart idea.

I don't think you understand why I brought up Celebrini.

• Again -- blocked, sorry man, have a nice sharks fan life

Eesh, you couldn't have started with this?

Edi; wanted to comment on this:

That still doesn’t change that you cite analysis that DW was #1 for the entirely of his tenure which is very different from your original title.

It seems that this is what started this mess. A simple amendment would have de-escalated. And no, I don't think it is pedantic or semantic since arguing that DW was in the 3rd quartile his entire tenure or between 2013 and 2023 are two extremely different things

 

[coooldude]

I unfortunately did read all of the exchanges. Yes it was a typo to write 4th instead of 3rd. I will correct that. That still doesn’t change that you cite analysis that DW was #1 for the entirely of his tenure which is very different from your original title.

So you read all that, and the thing you want to talk about is that I didn't add "the analysis is from 2013-2021"? What a waste of brain power man.

 

[Grinner]

If one wanting judge DW's tenure as GM? It all starts by looking up at the rafters at the Shark Tank

 

[OrrNumber4]

Since it appears that there is no rapprochement coming, I wanted to break down just how wrong this post is (since for some odd reason it's gotten likes?)

Great, the tool when it gets to 7 years post-draft shows that the Sharks are #1 if you start at 2003-2021. And how many games above expected? 1,800. Take Pavelski out and you're at 600. Right back at "pretty good! but not the best."

I can't stress how misguided this is. I assume what happened here as follows:

He first takes SJ's 2003-2021 GPE for 7-years-post-draft (~1,800)
He then takes Pavelski's career GPE (~1,200) instead of Pavelski's 7-year GPE (roughly 250).
He then subtracts the 1200 from 1800 to get 600 and concludes that hence, the Sharks were nothing great at drafting.

If you can't acknowledge this fundamental misunderstanding of the data, then you're just playing tennis without a net.

If we want to give DW credit for being the best drafting GM from 2003 to 2021 because he grabbed Joe Pavelski in the 7th round, we can. That's what the data shows for your date range.

I, however, am not willing to plant a flag that DW is the best drafting GM in the league during his entire tenure because he drafted Pavs in the 7th round in the first year of his tenure, and then the majority of his games++ came from that one pick over the next 18 years.

No, it doesn't. 7 years post-draft GPE, Pavelski is only fifth on the list, behind Vlasic, Demers, Labanc, and Tierney.

At career GPE, Pavelski is #1, but then you still have players like Braun, Vlasic, Bonino, and Demers driving up the value. Even taking away Pavelski's more than 1200 GPE, the Sharks are still at more than 3600 GPE, just under LAK (although I just realized that this analysis excludes goaltenders! That definitely hurts the Sharks) at #2 league-wide.

Stepping back from this pointless shit fight which I stupidly created by sharing someone else's analysis, I think this discussion has been helpful to me in that it gives me a POV on DW's tenure. Here's my summary and no amount of sexy vocabulary is likely to change it at this point:

• There is no objective way to analyze how good a GM is at drafting

No, but there are good ways and bad helped and helpful ways and stupid ways.

• The fuzzy ways we can look at it show that DW was pretty amazing at finding talent deep in the draft - mostly role players, but one bonafide star (Pavs, easily one of the greatest picks ever) and another with an elite ceiling (Vlasic)

Plus players like Demers, Braun, Bonino, Labanc, Carle, who are of course not elite or stars but are better than depth players

• In that first decade he was decidedly less awesome in rounds 1-3, maybe batting at average or in the quartile above average

Can you show your work here? I'd probably agree with you that he was the quartile above average. The main thing driving him down is his 2003 performance, missing out on superstars several times, and of course 2005 with Kopitar...but Vlasic, Hertl, and Couture in 2009 helped. Eyeballing it isn't great because the Sharks often didn't have picks, or often had low ones. There's also the caveat with players like Wishart, who yes, turned out badly but for the Sharks ultimately resulted in Dan Boyle.

• In the decade following, he was a lot less awesome, but still not in the bottom quartile.

Not even close to the bottom quartile.

 

[The Nemesis]

Can we wrap this up soon, please? It's been like two pages of back-and-forth and while there's not a ton of other stuff going on in the off-season it is starting to choke out basically anything else that people might want to use the thread for.

How about we give the rest of the evening to get your stuff out as long as it doesn't get more testy. But as soon as the clock turns over to Friday (Pacific time) that's it.

Thanks guys.

 

[tiburon12]

Can we wrap this up soon, please? It's been like two pages of back-and-forth and while there's not a ton of other stuff going on in the off-season it is starting to choke out basically anything else that people might want to use the thread for.

How about we give the rest of the evening to get your stuff out as long as it doesn't get more testy. But as soon as the clock turns over to Friday (Pacific time) that's it.

Thanks guys.

But i just upped my lexicon reading those posts!

 

[Pavelski2112]

Can we wrap this up soon, please? It's been like two pages of back-and-forth and while there's not a ton of other stuff going on in the off-season it is starting to choke out basically anything else that people might want to use the thread for.

How about we give the rest of the evening to get your stuff out as long as it doesn't get more testy. But as soon as the clock turns over to Friday (Pacific time) that's it.

Thanks guys.

Gotta love the offseason

 

[STL Shark]

Question for the board - I'm not super invested in the answer, but curious how people feel.

Personally I think that's kind of a sad Top 5 out of 19 years of drafting that probably is giving too much weight to getting quality players in the later rounds, but others may disagree. But curious whether you think Wilson getting Pavelski was more skilled drafting or good luck?

Not sure the methodology for the top contributors. I'd say Pavs, Vlasic, Couture, Hertl, and Meier are the true top 5. But not sure if the tool is excluding 1st rounders or counting value as contribution relative to draft position in a weird way.

 

[coooldude]

Not sure the methodology for the top contributors. I'd say Pavs, Vlasic, Couture, Hertl, and Meier are the true top 5. But not sure if the tool is excluding 1st rounders or counting value as contribution relative to draft position in a weird way.

It was purely comparing GP vs expected GP based on draft position (based on some smoothing around exact position). An analysis using points, TOI, cumulative WAR, or other metrics would be great to see, hopefully the guy follows up.

 

[bullslugg]

I miss the Hockey

 

[sharks_dynasty]

Doug Wilson was a superstar GM solely based on his amazing hair! Prove me wrong.

 

[coooldude]

Doug Wilson was a superstar GM solely based on his amazing hair! Prove me wrong.

Totally fair take. And good hair in multiple styles. Grier is bottom 5 in hair.

but does Doug beat Hasso? Look at this flow.

 

[SjMilhouse]

Totally fair take. And good hair in multiple styles. Grier is bottom 5 in hair.

View attachment 894458

View attachment 894456

it's a travesty we never got to see those curls when DW was GM (that I can remember).

 

[Shark Finn]

I miss the Hockey

The what now?

 

[bullslugg]

The what now?

U know, the thing, on the ice, C'mon

Doug Wilson was a superstar GM solely based on his amazing hair! Prove me wrong.

No mention of the "TAN"

 

[Mattb124]

Doug Wilson was a superstar GM solely based on his amazing hair! Prove me wrong.

Don't discount the tan. Don't you do it....

 

[The Nemesis]

Trying to work on the new thread material but it's so frigging hot here. Well, not really hot (it's like low-mid 90s) but humid and heavy and unbearable. I was hoping to have everything done this weekend but I might have to shoot for next weekend instead.

 

[tiburon12]

Trying to work on the new thread material but it's so frigging hot here. Well, not really hot (it's like low-mid 90s) but humid and heavy and unbearable. I was hoping to have everything done this weekend but I might have to shoot for next weekend instead.

That's amateur heat

 

[Mattb124]

Trying to work on the new thread material but it's so frigging hot here. Well, not really hot (it's like low-mid 90s) but humid and heavy and unbearable. I was hoping to have everything done this weekend but I might have to shoot for next weekend instead.

Don’t try, do.

 

[SjMilhouse]

With all the shiny new prospects taking up 99% of the posts/attention, anyone have any updates or insight into Lund/Havelid? Just passed up by more exciting prospects or forgotten all together?

 

[landshark]

With all the shiny new prospects taking up 99% of the posts/attention, anyone have any updates or insight into Lund/Havelid? Just passed up by more exciting prospects or forgotten all together?

Who?