WCF Gm#4: KINGS vs. Hawks - 6/6/13 - Kings Go Down 3-1 in the Series

[jml87]

No way in hell you move a hulking, dominant 200-foot center in Kopitar to LW to placate Richards.

Richards can be great on the "third" line while getting tons of PP and PK time.

Man, I really wish that guy was playing for us right now :/

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

I said earlier in this thread that I'd pay Penner 1.5m only. I thought I made that clear.

And why the hell would Penner take 1.5?

 

[Papa Mocha 15]

No point in bringing in a square peg to fit in a round hole.

Grab a hammer

 

[Live in the Now]

And why the hell would Penner take 1.5?

I don't know if he would or wouldn't. That doesn't mean you turn around and give a player like him 4 million if he wouldn't.

 

[agentfouser]

I don't know if he would or wouldn't. That doesn't mean you turn around and give a player like him 4 million if he wouldn't.

It really is desperately unfortunate that he never worked out here, as his goal totals are pretty respectable each year--except when he came here. Someone's going to offer him a decent contract, and I think we'll have seen the last of him.

 

[Herby]

The lack of drafting wingers over the years has sort of caught up with the Kings.If the Teubert, Hickey or even the Lewis picks were used on a scoring winger the Kings have a much more balanced roster. Pearson very well may make the team next season and be expected to contribute if the Kings can't add anyone because of cap restrictions, because right now the Kings have Dustin Brown (a natural RW) and two players coming off dismal seasons in Clifford and King, who really shouldn't play above the 4th line on a contending team. I don't see the Kings bringing back Penner.

The Kings drafting in all other aspects has been excellent, but it's not even that the wingers have failed, there were none even given a chance.

If they are going with Kopi-Carter-Richards next season up the middle, perhaps Dean could move Stoll for a pick, and then use the money to bring someone in. I loved the way Stoll played this season, but his value may never be higher and paying over 3 mill for a 4th line center isn't smart asset management.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The lack of drafting wingers over the years has sort of caught up with the Kings.If the Teubert, Hickey or even the Lewis picks were used on a scoring winger the Kings have a much more balanced roster. Pearson very well may make the team next season and be expected to contribute if the Kings can't add anyone because of cap restrictions, because right now the Kings have Dustin Brown (a natural RW) and two players coming off dismal seasons in Clifford and King, who really shouldn't play above the 4th line on a contending team. I don't see the Kings bringing back Penner.

The Kings drafting in all other aspects has been excellent, but it's not even that the wingers have failed, there were none even given a chance.

If they are going with Kopi-Carter-Richards next season up the middle, perhaps Dean could move Stoll for a pick, and then use the money to bring someone in. I loved the way Stoll played this season, but his value may never be higher and paying over 3 mill for a 4th line center isn't smart asset management.

It seems like a Dean Lombardi/organizational philosophy that the two most critical positions, defense and center, be a high priority when drafting players, which would explain why they haven't selected any wingers in the first round but will take a chance on one in the 2nd round. Lombardi has also said that it is tough to trade for top caliber defensemen and centers, and generally you see wingers being moved around more often or are often available via free agency.

Seeing how the Kings are well established at center, in net, and on the right side of their defense, I would think that maybe some more emphasis may be placed in addressing their organizational need for centers. And it isn't just on the parent club but on the farm team and in the pipeline where the Kings are lacking wingers. Even the Monarchs have had to shift natural centers to play wing.

 

[agentfouser]

It seems like a Dean Lombardi/organizational philosophy that the two most critical positions, defense and center, be a high priority when drafting players, which would explain why they haven't selected any wingers in the first round but will take a chance on one in the 2nd round. Lombardi has also said that it is tough to trade for top caliber defensemen and centers, and generally you see wingers being moved around more often or are often available via free agency.

Seeing how the Kings are well established at center, in net, and on the right side of their defense, I would think that maybe some more emphasis may be placed in addressing their organizational need for centers. And it isn't just on the parent club but on the farm team and in the pipeline where the Kings are lacking wingers. Even the Monarchs have had to shift natural centers to play wing.

I wonder if that strategy is statistically sound. I know people have done analyses of the chances of success (usually defined by number of games played) for players based on how high they were drafted, but I wonder what those numbers would look like if you included position.

In other words, is a winger, center, defenseman, or goalie more or less likely to be successful if drafted in the first, second, third round?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If you run through all of the top two centers in the league, I think you will find a pattern with many being former 1st round selections.

You look at the Kings top forwards, Kopitar, Brown, Richards, Carter, Williams are all former 1st round picks. Crosby, Malkin, Iginla, Morrow, Sutter, former 1sts. It's the same if you look at the #1-2 defensemen on most clubs, but you get varying results with starting goaltenders.

 

[agentfouser]

So you would hypothesize that, goaltending aside, one would have roughly the same chances of getting a successful (measured by games played) player from the first round, irrespective of position?

I know some advanced stat gurus have done this, but I've no idea where to find it. What terms would one even use?

 

[Reclamation Project]

So you would hypothesize that, goaltending aside, one would have roughly the same chances of getting a successful (measured by games played) player from the first round, irrespective of position?

I know some advanced stat gurus have done this, but I've no idea where to find it. What terms would one even use?

An algorithm of TOI, games played, and performance numbers (relative to position) I would assume.

 

[agentfouser]

I mean search terms; I've tried googling things, but I get back nothing but chaff.

 

[Reclamation Project]

How about this?

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects/f/draft_success.htm

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So you would hypothesize that, goaltending aside, one would have roughly the same chances of getting a successful (measured by games played) player from the first round, irrespective of position?

I know some advanced stat gurus have done this, but I've no idea where to find it. What terms would one even use?

Definitely. The probability of drafting a decent quality player increases the higher the draft pick is. You have your anomalies here and there, but those are very rare. That's why certain clubs stand out when they hit that home run outside of the first round.

I've seen the percentages of how successful players will be based on draft position and they tend to be heavily skewed towards picks in the top two rounds, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean much. Look at how many first round picks the Kings let go to waste under Dave Taylor's era.

Taylor made the following first round selections when he took over as GM in 1997:

Olli Jokinen, Matt Zultek, Mathieu Biron, Alex Frolov, Jens Karlsson, Dave Steckel, Denis Grebeshkov, Dustin Brown, Brian Boyle, Jeff Tambellini, Lauri Tukonen, Anze Kopitar

Of that group of 12 first round selections, how many would you say developed into top line material? Jokinen, Brown, Frolov, and Kopitar. So 33% of Taylor's 1st round selections amounted into something while only two others (Steckel and Boyle) found roles as bottom six players, and the others fizzled out of the NHL or never made it.

That's not a very good rate of success when drafting in the first round.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I mean search terms; I've tried googling things, but I get back nothing but chaff.

Have you looked at this?
http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

 

[agentfouser]

Have you looked at this?
http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

That's a fascinating paper; the value chart at the end is incredible.

Also check out table 3, about halfway through. It looks like one is statistically more likely to get a 200-game player out of a defenseman taken in the first round, and then forwards in the second and third rounds. The Ds really drop off, going from .43 in the 1st to .12 in the 2nd. Forwards don't drop nearly as a much, and third-round forward selections are almost as likely as second-round forwards to play 200 games. They go from .35 to .18 to .17. Those third-round forward selections are kind of a good deal, I wonder if GMs look to maximize those (which would, of course, skew the numbers in the next few years).

Unfortunately, the forwards aren't broken down by LW-C-RW. That would be super interesting, since it seems tougher to get left wingers of real quality, and obviously center is a vitally important position.

 

[Reclamation Project]

Success is also relative to how many were drafted at each position. I'd assume centers are the largest commodity.