• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
DickieDunn

perspective on the #7 overall pick

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

No skill. All luck. I think I'm getting it now... But you give LeftWinger a hard time because he thinks some here would make good scouts... I guess you feel people on here wouldn't be lucky enough...

Anyway, what does this have to do with anything I was saying? There are stars picked after 7th overall every single year, in every single draft. My point is, there will be stars available for us to pick wherever we end up, we just need to pick the right player (or luck into it...).

The best farmer in the world can't tell which seed will grow the tastiest fruit, but that doesn't mean that every dips*** that's ever eaten an apple should buy an orchard.

So OK, every draft there are stars picked later in the draft. You're suggesting that the players that will become stars are absolutely certain to do so, and that this fact is knowable with sufficient skill. But at the same time they do fall later in the draft. Often times into the late rounds, meaning everyone in the league, including the team that eventually takes them, passes on them. Multiple times even, and often in favor of players who never make the NHL. How could that happen unless no one in the whole of the NHL had sufficient skill?

So either it's not really a skill at all, or just not a skill that anyone actually has. Semantics.

What I'm trying to say is that "the right pick" shouldn't be determined by whether or not that player goes on to become a star. 

1 hour ago, Bannedforlife said:

This entire argument obviously depends on your definition of a "star player", but there are currently more All Stars playing in the NHL that were selected 7th overall or later than in the top 6.

There are also more players in the Hall of Fame that were selected 7th or later.

In any given year there are 6 players drafted top 6 overall. More than 200 drafted 7th or later. Hardly a fair comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buppy said:

The best farmer in the world can't tell which seed will grow the tastiest fruit, but that doesn't mean that every dips*** that's ever eaten an apple should buy an orchard.

So OK, every draft there are stars picked later in the draft. You're suggesting that the players that will become stars are absolutely certain to do so, and that this fact is knowable with sufficient skill. But at the same time they do fall later in the draft. Often times into the late rounds, meaning everyone in the league, including the team that eventually takes them, passes on them. Multiple times even, and often in favor of players who never make the NHL. How could that happen unless no one in the whole of the NHL had sufficient skill?

So either it's not really a skill at all, or just not a skill that anyone actually has. Semantics.

What I'm trying to say is that "the right pick" shouldn't be determined by whether or not that player goes on to become a star. 

In any given year there are 6 players drafted top 6 overall. More than 200 drafted 7th or later. Hardly a fair comparison.

Where the f*** did I ever suggest this? Literally all I'm saying is that there are elite players picked every single year after the 7th overall pick. There will be this year and next year and forever. You know why? Because of the reason you just mentioned, and I've mentioned in the past. It's not an exact science, and there are always going to be players that exceed or deceed expectations. 

What you said, or at least the way I interpreted what you said, was that there is absolutely no skill involved and it is pure luck of the draw. This couldn't be further from reality. There is a ton of skull involved, otherwise, why would team spend millions of dollars every year on scouting? 

38 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Dickie,

You are just not going to find the blue chip player after picks 1 thru 3.  You're dreaming if you think we can land a guy like Hedman or Landeskog at pick #7.

Please tell me this is a joke... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Where the f*** did I ever suggest this? Literally all I'm saying is that there are elite players picked every single year after the 7th overall pick. There will be this year and next year and forever. You know why? Because of the reason you just mentioned, and I've mentioned in the past. It's not an exact science, and there are always going to be players that exceed or deceed expectations. 

What you said, or at least the way I interpreted what you said, was that there is absolutely no skill involved and it is pure luck of the draw. This couldn't be further from reality. There is a ton of skull involved, otherwise, why would team spend millions of dollars every year on scouting? 

So basically this whole time you've been agreeing with me, you'd just prefer to call it an inexact science with a degree of uncertainty.

Reread my second post. Skill in recognizing potential, but not in predicting who will achieve it.

An analogy: You might, through observing me, notice that I like jelly beans. If your observational skills are particularly sharp you might notice that I particularly favor purple jelly beans, and sometimes pink. But you can not with any significant certainty, accuracy, or repeatability determine which specific few jelly beans I'll pick out of a bowl of 200. That part is luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Buppy said:

So basically this whole time you've been agreeing with me, you'd just prefer to call it an inexact science with a degree of uncertainty.

Reread my second post. Skill in recognizing potential, but not in predicting who will achieve it.

An analogy: You might, through observing me, notice that I like jelly beans. If your observational skills are particularly sharp you might notice that I particularly favor purple jelly beans, and sometimes pink. But you can not with any significant certainty, accuracy, or repeatability determine which specific few jelly beans I'll pick out of a bowl of 200. That part is luck.

Purple/pink jelly beans suck dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Buppy said:

The best farmer in the world can't tell which seed will grow the tastiest fruit, but that doesn't mean that every dips*** that's ever eaten an apple should buy an orchard.

So OK, every draft there are stars picked later in the draft. You're suggesting that the players that will become stars are absolutely certain to do so, and that this fact is knowable with sufficient skill. But at the same time they do fall later in the draft. Often times into the late rounds, meaning everyone in the league, including the team that eventually takes them, passes on them. Multiple times even, and often in favor of players who never make the NHL. How could that happen unless no one in the whole of the NHL had sufficient skill?

So either it's not really a skill at all, or just not a skill that anyone actually has. Semantics.

What I'm trying to say is that "the right pick" shouldn't be determined by whether or not that player goes on to become a star. 

In any given year there are 6 players drafted top 6 overall. More than 200 drafted 7th or later. Hardly a fair comparison.

Thats true. But the argument being presented is that we will be unable to select a "real star" with the 7th pick, which couldnt be further from the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Buppy said:

So basically this whole time you've been agreeing with me, you'd just prefer to call it an inexact science with a degree of uncertainty.

Reread my second post. Skill in recognizing potential, but not in predicting who will achieve it.

An analogy: You might, through observing me, notice that I like jelly beans. If your observational skills are particularly sharp you might notice that I particularly favor purple jelly beans, and sometimes pink. But you can not with any significant certainty, accuracy, or repeatability determine which specific few jelly beans I'll pick out of a bowl of 200. That part is luck.

Here's my argument AGAIN... There are stars picked every year at or after the 7th pick. We can find a star player wherever we end up picking. That's not to say we will, just that we "can"... Please explain what you disagree with there...

Now here's where we do disagree. I believe there is skill involved in making these selections. Of course no one knows for certain which players will boom or bust, but based on hours and hour of watching these kids play, meeting with them and their parents several times, the better scouts can use this information to better determine what type of player / person they will develop into. You think it's pure luck. Whatever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Here's my argument AGAIN... There are stars picked every year at or after the 7th pick. We can find a star player wherever we end up picking. That's not to say we will, just that we "can"... Please explain what you disagree with there...

Now here's where we do disagree. I believe there is skill involved in making these selections. Of course no one knows for certain which players will boom or bust, but based on hours and hour of watching these kids play, meeting with them and their parents several times, the better scouts can use this information to better determine what type of player / person they will develop into. You think it's pure luck. Whatever...

I am really not sure how anyone can disagree with this statement. I 100% agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Here's my argument AGAIN... There are stars picked every year at or after the 7th pick. We can find a star player wherever we end up picking. That's not to say we will, just that we "can"... Please explain what you disagree with there...

Now here's where we do disagree. I believe there is skill involved in making these selections. Of course no one knows for certain which players will boom or bust, but based on hours and hour of watching these kids play, meeting with them and their parents several times, the better scouts can use this information to better determine what type of player / person they will develop into. You think it's pure luck. Whatever...

Never said I did disagree. What I disagreed with is if whether or not we do should determine if a pick is right or wrong.

You say it yourself, "no one knows for certain which players will boom or bust". So if you pick a player that "booms", and it's not based on something you knew for certain....

And as I've said multiple times, and you keep ignoring, there is skill in recognizing potential. But potential is only probability, not certainty. Sure, given enough picks, higher skill is likely to produce more success. But star players are so rare that skill does not significantly change the probability of selecting one with a later pick.

9 hours ago, Bannedforlife said:

Thats true. But the argument being presented is that we will be unable to select a "real star" with the 7th pick, which couldnt be further from the truth.

That isn't the argument at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that the Wings have a 23.5% chance at the first overall. Not bad chances. For some reason Colorado and one other team I forget were given extra "tickets" due to some problem with having Vegas in the top 4. Vegas actually gets better odds than Arizona, who played a full season and ended up third last. This draft system is so flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chaps80 said:

I read somewhere that the Wings have a 23.5% chance at the first overall. Not bad chances. For some reason Colorado and one other team I forget were given extra "tickets" due to some problem with having Vegas in the top 4. Vegas actually gets better odds than Arizona, who played a full season and ended up third last. This draft system is so flawed.

Not for first overall. It's like 7%, about 21% for a pick in the top 3. 23.3% is the odds for 7th. ~40 for 8th, ~15 for 9th, ~1% for 10th.

Those are just estimates though. I don't think the exact odds have been given anywhere, 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Not for first overall. It's like 7%, about 21% for a pick in the top 3. 23.3% is the odds for 7th. ~40 for 8th, ~15 for 9th, ~1% for 10th.

Those are just estimates though. I don't think the exact odds have been given anywhere, 

 

Ahh ok. I'll take 21% for top 3 though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kliq said:

According to this NHL Lottery Simulator website, our odds are 6.713%

http://nhllotterysimulator.com/

I just did it 5 times and we picked:

Try 1: 8th

Try 2: 2nd

Try 3: 8th

Try 4: 9th

Try 5: 7th

 

Well i just did it once and we won 1st overall so youre obviously wrong or just bad at stimulators 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chaps80 said:

What's weird is, if the WIngs finished 7th worst, then you add Vegas in, how can they get anything lower than the 8th overall pick? Choosing 9th or 10th would just be...wrong.

The same reason why even though we finished 7th, we can still pick 1st. For teams to have a chance to move up, a direct result is other teams moving down. You literally can't have one without the other. Then add LV and moving two spots down can happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, kliq said:

The same reason why even though we finished 7th, we can still pick 1st. For teams to have a chance to move up, a direct result is other teams moving down. You literally can't have one without the other. Then add LV and moving two spots down can happen.

True. I think Vegas shouldn't even be involved in this draft though. They should play a full season first and then be slotted in the 2018 draft. Surely it'll be a high pick anyways. They're already taking 30 players from the other teams. Why give them a top 6 ( I think that's as low as they can drop?) pick just for joining the league? Plus they're guaranteed a high pick in all the other rounds. Guess it's good that this draft is supposedly not very deep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you guys that said there's a problem with just limiting it to the specific draft number without the context of each draft and I don't think it really shows what level of player to expect, but - for curiosity's sake - if we do Dickie's perspective thing, the list of 9th picks 2000-14 is:

Nikolai Ehlers, Horvat, Trouba, Hamilton, Granlund, Jared Cowen, Josh Bailey, Couture, James Sheppard, Brian Lee, Ladislav Smid, Phaneuf, Petr Taticek, Toumo Ruutu, Brent Krahn

Edit: And I thought could be interesting to compare the #9 list to Dickie's #7 list to see just how much of a difference order does make when it's a small difference and not that near the top.

The original list: Haydn Fleury, Nurse, Dumba, Mark Schiefele, Skinner, Kadri, Colin Wilson, Voracek, Okposo, Jack Skille, Rostislav Olesz, Suter, Lupul, Komisarek, Lars Jonsson.

There are more busts in the #9 list. Plenty of players that would help us  immensely in both lists.

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this