The kids are alright

[major major]

I'm going to finish the study I started a couple years back (I believe it was my first ever post here). Basically I rank Howson's picks compared with the two players picked before and the two players picked after (feel free to offer corrections). A ranking of 3rd indicates average, 2nd above average, 4th below average, etc... I'll omit later round picks because the method doesn't work there (most players equally worthless), and we all agree Howson did well.

2007
Couture
Voracek
Alzner
Gagner
Hamill

2nd

2008
Pietrangelo
Boedker
Luke Schenn
Wilson
Filatov

5th

2009
Kreider
Moore
Erixon
Josefson
Schroeder

2nd

2010
Seguin
Johansen
Neiderreiter
Gudbranson
Connolly

2nd

2012
Incomplete

So even despite the Filatov disaster, Howson still beats the curve. Combine this with Howson's late round drafting and he is decidedly above average. Why do you think the cupboards came to be so well stocked?

Edit: As you can see, I didn't finish the study. Its still way too early to rank the 2012 draft.

 

[EspenK]

Don't forget the trade that cost us a chance to draft Kreider. Should at least be a minus 1 somewhere.

 

[major major]

Don't forget the trade that cost us a chance to draft Kreider. Should at least be a minus 1 somewhere.

Say we kept the 16th, and terribly took John Moore there.

He'd still be better than perhaps all but one of the players taken in the two spots before and the two spots after.

Kulikov
Moore
Holland
Rundblad
Leblanc

Of course Nick Leddy ended up going 16th, and I'd rather have him. But I'm not sure how you look at this and come up with a minus for Howson. Maybe if you think that Erixon is better than Moore, then Howson comes up average.

 

[Mayor Bee]

This is all completely wrong. Don't you guys read Mayor Bee's posts?

Seriously, though, you guys have no clue. Players from Howson's first two drafts: Voracek, Calvert, Atkinson, are just now ripening into their primes. Building through the draft is a long-term process. It does not build winners in the short run. A rigorous comparison of Howson's picks with those picks immediately before and after shows that Howson, on average, outperformed other GM's.

I simply have no idea what you mean that Howson had a "failure to understand the importance of the draft." Is there any evidence for this? It is widely agreed that good drafting is how you build teams, and I haven't heard a thing to suggest Howson believed otherwise.

Howson's problem was that he didn't do a particularly good job of organizing the meager level of talent that he was given to start with. Mistakes like handing the keys to Steve Mason and Scott Arniel cost him what little chance he had.

Jarmo, on the other hand, can screw up over and over again, and it wouldn't really matter, because of Howson's drafting; the cupboards came well-stocked, it doesn't really matter if you lose a little on a trade here and there.

I've mentioned previously that the Pirates' GM Neal Huntington was in a similar situation. He had some talent on the roster, a little bit in the system, and not much else. So he put an axe to the entire franchise, trading or turning over something like 80% of the system in two years. He signed some low-risk players as free agents, traded guys who had value but were unlikely to be on the roster of a contending team, and drafted.

After three years, people had declared him the worst of all the GMs Pittsburgh had during their inglorious run. And then the young talent started to come together a little bit...72-90 in 2011 was their best record in seven years. Then it was 79-83, with people starting to take notice. Then 94-68, with the first playoff spot in 21 years, and suddenly he's brilliant. Nothing changed except time, circumstance, and the development of a lot of young players who he'd acquired.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I'm going to finish the study I started a couple years back (I believe it was my first ever post here). Basically I rank Howson's picks compared with the two players picked before and the two players picked after (feel free to offer corrections). A ranking of 3rd indicates average, 2nd above average, 4th below average, etc... I'll omit later round picks because the method doesn't work there (most players equally worthless), and we all agree Howson did well.

...

So even despite the Filatov disaster, Howson still beats the curve. Combine this with Howson's late round drafting and he is decidedly above average. Why do you think the cupboards came to be so well stocked?

Edit: As you can see, I didn't finish the study. Its still way too early to rank the 2012 draft.

Although I'll agree with your conclusion, I don't think the methodology is necessarily solid. The unusual liquid nature of the first round of the draft places less of an emphasis on astute picking, especially at the top.

Remember that people were ready to riot when Johansen was taken over Fowler and Gormley (among others), who were absolutely consensus better players.

Don't forget the trade that cost us a chance to draft Kreider. Should at least be a minus 1 somewhere.

I remain firmly in the camp of people unconvinced that Kreider will ever amount to anything more than a Raffi Torres type. He'll get 15-20 goals and 35-50 points, but be wildly inconsistent and make everyone question how he doesn't do more.

(Still better than Upshall though)

 

[major major]

Although I'll agree with your conclusion, I don't think the methodology is necessarily solid. The unusual liquid nature of the first round of the draft places less of an emphasis on astute picking, especially at the top.

Remember that people were ready to riot when Johansen was taken over Fowler and Gormley (among others), who were absolutely consensus better players.

Well the point with the method is that it is:
1) consistent to remove more bias.
2) It takes the focus away from fans debating who the pick should be, and who the consensus alternatives are, and puts the focus entirely on comparing GM's picking in proximity to each other.

I think its a complementary approach to the more contextual historical approach you prefer.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Well the point with the method is that it is:
1) consistent to remove more bias.
2) It takes the focus away from fans debating who the pick should be, and who the consensus alternatives are, and puts the focus entirely on comparing GM's picking in proximity to each other.

I think its a complementary approach to the more contextual historical approach you prefer.

I understand the thought process, and I absolutely think that it has merit once we hit somewhere around pick #25 in any given draft. In fact, I'd argue that it makes more sense than any other methodology in the last 80-85% of any given draft. Inside of that is when it starts to break down a bit, simply because the top of any given draft is going to be so heavily stratified.

To use 2010 as an example, Seguin and Hall were an absolute consensus top two. Then came the defensemen (Fowler, Gudbranson, Gormley). After that was that smattering of forwards, with McIlrath as the wild card.

2007 didn't necessarily have a top two or three, but a cluster of a top six who were though to be interchangeable: Kane, Gagner, Van Riemsdyk, Turris, Alzner, Voracek. In all honesty, I don't necessarily give Howson a ton of credit for taking Voracek in that spot; he unexpectedly fell to #7 when the Kings took Thomas Hickey. San Jose definitely deserves credit for taking Couture, and especially moving up to take Couture, when he was a wild card.

I could go on at some length, but I'll stop that part there. Outside of pick 25 is when the interchangeability of prospects starts to take over. That's where the GMs and scouts really earn their money.

 

[major major]

I understand the thought process, and I absolutely think that it has merit once we hit somewhere around pick #25 in any given draft. In fact, I'd argue that it makes more sense than any other methodology in the last 80-85% of any given draft. Inside of that is when it starts to break down a bit, simply because the top of any given draft is going to be so heavily stratified.

To use 2010 as an example, Seguin and Hall were an absolute consensus top two. Then came the defensemen (Fowler, Gudbranson, Gormley). After that was that smattering of forwards, with McIlrath as the wild card.

2007 didn't necessarily have a top two or three, but a cluster of a top six who were though to be interchangeable: Kane, Gagner, Van Riemsdyk, Turris, Alzner, Voracek. In all honesty, I don't necessarily give Howson a ton of credit for taking Voracek in that spot; he unexpectedly fell to #7 when the Kings took Thomas Hickey. San Jose definitely deserves credit for taking Couture, and especially moving up to take Couture, when he was a wild card.

I could go on at some length, but I'll stop that part there. Outside of pick 25 is when the interchangeability of prospects starts to take over. That's where the GMs and scouts really earn their money.

I see what you are saying now. The stratification at the top of the draft does make it tough. With enough of a sample size, i.e. many many drafts, this would all average out, but we don't have that for Howson or most GM's. Anyways, my method is I think useful at best in that its a clear rebuttal to the zombie idea that Howson is a bad drafter. I don't think its the best approach. And I think it actually works best in the 5-25 range, after that its hard to use because so many guys never turn into anything, so there's nothing to rank.

 

[Fro]

my only problem is its all hindsight...when xGMSH made the move down to get extra picks, it was a good move, to move back up to get John Moore who was considered a pretty good prospect, was a good move...the fact it didn't work out as planned isn't totally bad on anyone's part, just that it sucks...

Its not like 2003 where we could have thrown a dart at any part of the round and hit a near elite first line (pairing) talent and WHIFFED...

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

What is this thread even about?

 

[EspenK]

What is this thread even about?

It's all about the kids.

 

[Tulipunaruusu*]

As far as I can tell the culture change came from a combination of JD and the new players Howson acquired - Foligno, Dubinsky, JJ, Bob, etc... Its hard to find anything solid culture-wise to attribute to Jarmo.

Kekäläinen reportedly did the same summer training program as players at least in 2013.