Time for our dream on dream on mocks

[The 91 of Ryans 3,019]

6 minutes ago, F.Michael said:

I "want" to see Yzerman go retro with his drafting strategy (according to Devellano rounds 1 and 2 were skill - rounds 3 and up were toughness back in the day).

Ah yes. Which resulted in known pugilists like Lidstrom, Fedorov, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg.

Also pretty much everyone needs to be able to skate now. So if you want a guy who "plays hard" you're still going to have to grab him early-ish. 

Edited June 7, 2023 by The 91 of Ryans

[kipwinger 8,772]

47 minutes ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

Teams don't draft for "need" they draft for "want". 

 

Either way, the point is that the talent evaluation is completely subjective. There's no "best player available" because every team has a different idea of what "best" means. The reality is that teams take the player they like the most at that particular spot. But because many other teams would like different players at that same draft position, it becomes a truism. If SY came out and said "I drafted the guys I liked the most" a chorus of "no s***" would ring from the fanbase. Not to mention the fact that the minute he got one wrong everyone would question his judgement. So he says "BPA" and all the dummies look at their preferred draft rankings and see how far he "reached" before the decide whether they like the pick as much as he did.

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

2 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Either way, the point is that the talent evaluation is completely subjective. There's no "best player available" because every team has a different idea of what "best" means. The reality is that teams take the player they like the most at that particular spot. But because many other teams would like different players at that same draft position, it becomes a truism. If SY came out and said "I drafted the guys I liked the most" a chorus of "no s***" would ring from the fanbase. Not to mention the fact that the minute he got one wrong everyone would question his judgement. So he says "BPA" and all the dummies look at their preferred draft rankings and see how far he "reached" before the decide whether they like the pick as much as he did.

Exactly.  The only actual BPA pick of the Red Wings recently was Filip Zadina.  And Holland was terribly wrong about it, as we all now know.

[Axl Foley 334]

Teams do draft BPA. They draft the best player they think is left on the board. Position and need certainly plays into it, but a good GM isn't going to draft a center if he thinks there are 5 better D left.

[kipwinger 8,772]

26 minutes ago, Axl Foley said:

Teams do draft BPA. They draft the best player they think is left on the board. Position and need certainly plays into it, but a good GM isn't going to draft a center if he thinks there are 5 better D left.

Nobody is saying that. And that's not how the draft happens anyway. GMs aren't faced with the choice of 5 good defensemen and a mediocre center. They're choosing between a good center and a good defenseman. There is absolutely no objective way of determining whether Dalibor Dvorsky is a "better" center than David Reinbacher is a defenseman. But pretty much everyone universally agrees that they're roughly as good at their respective positions as the other is. THAT'S the decision GMs have to make.

"Best" is an objective term that denotes quality. If you have a scale from 1-10, 1 being worst and 10 being best, then the "best" player available would be the player highest on the scale who can still be chosen. But that's not how teams work because there's no way of determining whether a good playmaker is better than an equally good shooter (for example). They chose the player they "like" the most of the remaining choices. And that's totally subjective and could be based on a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with hockey skill. Every single year we hear about a kid who would have gone higher if not for "character issues". Or a goalie with starter upside who gets drafted later than a middle six winger because "goalies are voodoo". GMs also routinely choose players with a higher floor but a lower ceiling, not because they're "better" but because they're safer. These aren't objective talent evaluations, they're preferences.

Take the Seider draft as an example. Literally nobody (other than Yzerman) thought he was going to get picked 6th. So one of two things must be true. Either Yzerman is the only person in hockey who is capable of accurately determining who the "best" player is, or Yzerman took the player he liked the most, who also happened to play a position of need, and that player turned out to be the best player after the fact. Zadina is the same example in reverse. EVERYONE agreed he was the best player for Detroit to take based on their evaluations. But clearly he wasn't. So either everyone has no idea what the "best" player looks like, or there is absolutely no way of telling on draft day. In either case, it would be completely idiotic to base your draft strategy on it.

Edited June 7, 2023 by kipwinger

[bIueadams 776]

You can absolutely draft based on BPA. Most scouts score players based on certain abilities in their reports. Those scores get totaled up to an overall score. Then those get compiled and averaged by the scouting director.

They can then rank their draft board.

If anything teams are picking based on BPA first, but might deviate for need when appropriate. 

[kipwinger 8,772]

2 hours ago, bIueadams said:

You can absolutely draft based on BPA. Most scouts score players based on certain abilities in their reports. Those scores get totaled up to an overall score. Then those get compiled and averaged by the scouting director.

They can then rank their draft board.

If anything teams are picking based on BPA first, but might deviate for need when appropriate. 

You could absolutely do that, and pick players based on an aggregated score of their physical traits. But if you think that would find the "best player" you're a dumb dumb. Why? Because one bad trait can pretty easily upset the apple cart.

Scouts: Player X is really really really fast, he's got size, excellent hands, scores goals, can be used on the powerplay, and has versatility enough to play all forward positions.

GM: Is he a p*ssy?

Scouts: Kinda.

GM: The Detroit Red Wings are proud to select Andreas Athanasiou (in the 5th round).

Edit: Not to mention the fact that you'd end up having a bunch of guys with the same scores and you'd still have to choose between them. Also, the NHL already does this for teams at the scouting combine and GM after GM say the combine doesn't factor that much into their selection process.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by kipwinger

[bIueadams 776]

51 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

You could absolutely do that, and pick players based on an aggregated score of their physical traits. But if you think that would find the "best player" you're a dumb dumb. Why? Because one bad trait can pretty easily upset the apple cart.

Scouts: Player X is really really really fast, he's got size, excellent hands, scores goals, can be used on the powerplay, and has versatility enough to play all forward positions.

GM: Is he a p*ssy?

Scouts: Kinda.

GM: The Detroit Red Wings are proud to select Andreas Athanasiou (in the 5th round).

Edit: Not to mention the fact that you'd end up having a bunch of guys with the same scores and you'd still have to choose between them. Also, the NHL already does this for teams at the scouting combine and GM after GM say the combine doesn't factor that much into their selection process.

 

 

Im not saying you could do that. Im saying scouting depts DO that. And not just on physical traits either. They rank everything down to personality traits.

You dont know how scouting works.

Raymond is a prime example of where SY went out and selected by BPA, not on need.

 

[kipwinger 8,772]

1 minute ago, bIueadams said:

Im not saying you could do that. Im saying scouting depts DO that. And not just on physical traits either. They rank everything down to personality traits.

You dont know how scouting works.

Raymond is a prime example of where SY went out and selected by BPA, not on need.

 

I've never argued that scouts don't score players. I'm suggesting that how GMs weight each score is entirely subjective. Which is better, a player with the highest scoring shot or the highest scoring passing ability? What about size vs. speed? Ceiling vs. floor? Even strength vs. powerplay scoring? Character vs. compete? Scores only give GMs a picture of who the player is, not whether he should pick them or not.

 

[bIueadams 776]

2 hours ago, kipwinger said:

I've never argued that scouts don't score players. I'm suggesting that how GMs weight each score is entirely subjective. Which is better, a player with the highest scoring shot or the highest scoring passing ability? What about size vs. speed? Ceiling vs. floor? Even strength vs. powerplay scoring? Character vs. compete? Scores only give GMs a picture of who the player is, not whether he should pick them or not.

 

No, they total them, and give players overall scores. Which also then gets averaged on a department level. Which determines which players are more talented than others...

And because it's so hard to project how a player will develop, the overall score is often taken in higher regard than "is this player a passer or a shooter, what do we really need"

You're so far off on this you have no idea. 

Edited June 8, 2023 by bIueadams

[kipwinger 8,772]

9 hours ago, bIueadams said:

No, they total them, and give players overall scores. Which also then gets averaged on a department level. Which determines which players are more talented than others...

And because it's so hard to project how a player will develop, the overall score is often taken in higher regard than "is this player a passer or a shooter, what do we really need"

You're so far off on this you have no idea. 

You say these things like you know. It's cute. Except that we see year after year that it's not the case. A year ago we need centers and to nobody's surprise the BPA each time we picked just happened to be a center? The year before that we needed a goalie and we were able to trade up and the BPA just happened to be a goalie? This after drafting a stud left defenseman instead of a stud RHD, and that's just because he was the BPA and not because we had two stud righties on our team already? And not just the top picks. Yzerman says he wants to build from the back end out and the "BPA" for three of his first four draft picks are defensemen? That's odd. In fact it's extremely unlikely statistically. 

Also, a ranking doesn't determine a player's talent level (as you say above). A players talent is not changed by a ranking. They don't become more or less talented depending on which team's scouts are evaluating them. Boards don't reflect who's the most talented player. They reflect who the team values the most at each draft position. And it's absurd to think the team doesn't weight things like position, handedness, and organizational needs when determining who they value the most for each draft position.

Edit: Also, every single year we hear Yzerman or Draper or someone say "This is the player Hakan Andersson was banging the table for". Why would that be necessary if there was no variability in who was selected at any given pick? And if there is some variability then there's no BPA...or teams are ignoring it.

Edited June 8, 2023 by kipwinger

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

Truth is probably in the middle.  

First 5 picks - BPA and Need match each other.  So there's zero guesswork.  If the Oilers had the first pick, would they select Fantilli over Bedard because they need more grit?  No.  Every team needs more of what Bedard has.  He is THE BPA without doubt.  After pick 5, the selection process switches to preference/need.  Teams have their targets for the top 50-60 players based on how quickly they think a player can fill a hole.  Seider, Cossa, etc.  These guys were reaches on draft day, but filled holes the Red Wings had in their system.  After the 2nd round, the process Colin is describing is spot on.  The teams have players 63 thru 300 scored based on their scouting.  They might have certain positions they put out of play until later rounds considering their prospect pools - the Wings might be passing on any left handed defensemen until rounds 6/7, for example.  But for the most part, it's BPA from rounds 3 thru 7.

 

Agreed?

Edited June 8, 2023 by Jonas Mahonas

[kipwinger 8,772]

1 hour ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Truth is probably in the middle.  

First 5 picks - BPA and Need match each other.  So there's zero guesswork.  If the Oilers had the first pick, would they select Fantilli over Bedard because they need more grit?  No.  Every team needs more of what Bedard has.  He is THE BPA without doubt.  After pick 5, the selection process switches to preference/need.  Teams have their targets for the top 50-60 players based on how quickly they think a player can fill a hole.  Seider, Cossa, etc.  These guys were reaches on draft day, but filled holes the Red Wings had in their system.  After the 2nd round, the process Colin is describing is spot on.  The teams have players 63 thru 300 scored based on their scouting.  They might have certain positions they put out of play until later rounds considering their prospect pools - the Wings might be passing on any left handed defensemen until rounds 6/7, for example.  But for the most part, it's BPA from rounds 3 thru 7.

 

Agreed?

I don't agree, but not because I find fault with the theory you're proposing per se. It's because there I don't think there's any good way of determining who the "best" player is. For a bunch of reasons.

First, you shouldn't really care who the best player is on the day you draft them. You should care who the best player is going to be. If you took the "best" player in the draft each year most of them would be 2nd year eligible players since they tend to dominate 1st year eligibles both physically and statistically. But NHL teams don't take those players often. Why? Because even though they're the best now, they probably won't be long term.

Second, You can easily determine who the fastest, strongest, most accurate shooter, etc. But that doesn't denote the "best" player. Not even close. In fact, it's that kind of thinking that made Ken Holland (along with every other talent evaluator) think that Filip Zadina was the BPA and not Quinn Hughes right? You can score players across a bunch of variables and aggregate them, but often a player with a singular skill (or two) that's far and above his peers becomes the better player. Quinn Hughes is a better player than Zadina because Zadina is a little better than his peers in several ways, and Hughes is WAY better than his peers in one or two ways. But that makes him more effective.

Third, every team weights different characteristics differently. Why would Yzerman tell his scouting staff (as he did) that he wanted to focus on drafting the most competitive players (at the expense of skill) if the Wings' scouting department could reasonably figure out who the "best player" is without emphasizing competitiveness? Some teams might prefer the inverse too (value skill over compete). It's no secret that managements draft players based on how well they fit with a team's "identity" and style of play. You think a team that values transitional play is going to draft a player that's bad in transition but good at everything else? Probably not before that draft a slightly less skilled player who excels in transition. Remember when Yzerman said he likes big defenseman and then drafted a million big defensemen? If the BPA was the BPA regardless of what the manager wants then it would be EXTREMELY unlikely that the BPA every time Yzerman steps to the podium to select a defenseman just happens to be really big and athletic right? Matter of fact, the only time the Yzerman used a pick on a sub 6ft. defender was Johansson and that was because Hakan Andersson was "pounding the table for him", not because he was the next best guy on their draft board (they've admitted this publicly).

SY: I want big, mobile, defensemen.

KD: Sorry Steve, we've crunched the numbers and it looks like the BPA is slow, 5'9 midget defenseman Lane Hutson so that's who you're taking.

SY: You're right Kris, my hands are tied.

Edited June 8, 2023 by kipwinger

[town123 236]

I want that table to be pounded with every pick.   

[kipwinger 8,772]

3 minutes ago, town123 said:

I want that table to be pounded with every pick.   

I do too. You're better off filling your amateur scouting department with guys who have A) good judgement, and B) a track record of successful talent evaluation and then let them do what they're good at (finding players). Aggregated scoring tends to put different variables on equal footing with one another. And when you do this you get bad results. Across almost every single variable a guy like Joe Pavelski is worse than a guy like Alex Semin, but one of them is good and one isn't? Why? Because all characteristics aren't created equal. Why is Patrice Bergeron better than Tyler Seguin? He shouldn't be if you go through the list of traits that scouts evaluate. He's really only better in two ways, he's smarter and more competitive. But that makes him better overall.

Modern hockey analytics does this same thing (treats all skills equally) and over the years I've become very skeptical of analytics for this reason. Look at possession metrics (which are based on shot attempts). You might have two guys on a line that backcheck, win board battles, fight through checks in transition, and gain the offensive zone. Another guy does none of that but shoots any chance he get (Think Brett Hull or low rent versions like Mikael Samuelsson or Teemu Pullkkinen). At the end of the shift they all get the same possession score, but the cumulative effort it took to generate that shot isn't shared equally. The first two guys did A LOT to contribute to the success of that shift. The latter guy did one thing. Who's better? Now, who should you draft? Depends on what you need.

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

16 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I don't agree, but not because I find fault with the theory you're proposing per se. It's because there I don't think there's any good way of determining who the "best" player is. For a bunch of reasons.

First, you shouldn't really care who the best player is on the day you draft them. You should care who the best player is going to be. If you took the "best" player in the draft each year most of them would be 2nd year eligible players since they tend to dominate 1st year eligibles both physically and statistically. But NHL teams don't take those players often. Why? Because even though they're the best now, they probably won't be long term.

Second, You can easily determine who the fastest, strongest, most accurate shooter, etc. But that doesn't denote the "best" player. Not even close. In fact, it's that kind of thinking that made Ken Holland (along with every other talent evaluator) think that Filip Zadina was the BPA and not Quinn Hughes right? You can score players across a bunch of variables and aggregate them, but often a player with a singular skill (or two) that's far and above his peers becomes the better player. Quinn Hughes is a better player than Zadina because Zadina is a little better than his peers in several ways, and Hughes is WAY better than his peers in one or two ways. But that makes him more effective.

Third, every team weights different characteristics differently. Why would Yzerman tell his scouting staff (as he did) that he wanted to focus on drafting the most competitive players (at the expense of skill) if the Wings' scouting department could reasonably figure out who the "best player" is without emphasizing competitiveness? Some teams might prefer the inverse too (value skill over compete). It's no secret that managements draft players based on how well they fit with a team's "identity" and style of play. You think a team that values transitional play is going to draft a player that's bad in transition but good at everything else? Probably not before that draft a slightly less skilled player who excels in transition. Remember when Yzerman said he likes big defenseman and then drafted a million big defensemen? If the BPA was the BPA regardless of what the manager wants then it would be EXTREMELY unlikely that the BPA every time Yzerman steps to the podium to select a defenseman just happens to be really big and athletic right? Matter of fact, the only time the Yzerman used a pick on a sub 6ft. defender was Johansson and that was because Hakan Andersson was "pounding the table for him", not because he was the next best guy on their draft board (they've admitted this publicly).

I think we are kind of saying the same thing, tbh.  I just think what you are describing only applies to the top 60 to 75 players.  I dont think the Red Wings are researching bloodlines and testosterone levels as they get into the later rounds.  Have they had a scout rate each guy's brains, personality, and competitiveness?  Yah, probably.  But I think those are less important and pnly used as a tie breaker in the later rounds.  The scouts score all the players, and then the teams take the 18 year olds with the best scores.  Tie goes to the kid who has the better intangibles.  Simple as that.

[kipwinger 8,772]

Just now, Jonas Mahonas said:

I think we are kind of saying the same thing, tbh.  I just think what you are describing only applies to the top 60 to 75 players.  I dont think the Red Wings are researching bloodlines and testosterone levels as they get into the later rounds.  Have they had a scout rate each guy's brains, personality, and competitiveness?  Yah, probably.  But I think those are less important and pnly used as a tie breaker in the later rounds.  The scouts score all the players, and then the teams take the 18 year olds with the best scores.  Tie goes to the kid who has the better intangibles.  Simple as that.

I read an article this morning that said teams only have about 100 players that they seriously scout, and don't draft any players outside of that 100 (or so) players. This is mostly because they don't have the resources to accurately scout hundreds of draft eligible players. But also because someone that they've scouted is always available whenever they step to the podium. I'll see if I can find the article.

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I read an article this morning that said teams only have about 100 players that they seriously scout, and don't draft any players outside of that 100 (or so) players. This is mostly because they don't have the resources to accurately scout hundreds of draft eligible players. But also because someone that they've scouted is always available whenever they step to the podium. I'll see if I can find the article.

This is becoming less viable as the years go by.  You need to know the top 75 guys inside and out at least have a report on the next 225.  The Wings probably had a bit of an advantage on the 2 leagues below the SHL in the early 2000s, bit I would bet that's gone by now.

[kipwinger 8,772]

The Athletic's new two-round mock draft is in. Pronman, Wheeler, and Bultman have the Wings taking:

9. Gabe Perrault (Wheeler's pick)

17. Colby Barlow (Bultman's pick)

41. Felix Nilsson (Bultman's pick)

42. Jayden Perron (Wheeler's pick)

43. Eteinne Morin (Pronman's pick)

[The 91 of Ryans 3,019]

6 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

The Athletic's new two-round mock draft is in. Pronman, Wheeler, and Bultman have the Wings taking:

9. Gabe Perrault (Wheeler's pick)

17. Colby Barlow (Bultman's pick)

41. Felix Nilsson (Bultman's pick)

42. Jayden Perron (Wheeler's pick)

43. Eteinne Morin (Pronman's pick)

That first pick is typical Wheeler nonsense. Yzerman rarely drafts out of the USNTDP and I doubt he starts with a small slow winger. 

Also how many mock drafts are these clowns going to do? 

[kipwinger 8,772]

7 minutes ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

That first pick is typical Wheeler nonsense. Yzerman rarely drafts out of the USNTDP and I doubt he starts with a small slow winger. 

Also how many mock drafts are these clowns going to do? 

I thought the exact same thing. Every mock they do Wheeler has Detroit taking an undersized winger. Benson, Perrault, Perron. He keeps saying, "Detroit needs offense". Which is true, but not THAT kind. Bultman (being a Wings beat reporter) understands the nuance a little better. Barlow and Nilsson seem more like Yzerman picks but even then I'm skeptical. I just don't seem him walking away without a center at that top pick.

They'll put out 10 more if people keep reading them lol

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by kipwinger

[The 91 of Ryans 3,019]

4 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I thought the exact same thing. Every mock they do Wheeler has Detroit taking an undersized winger. Benson, Perrault, Perron. He keeps saying, "Detroit needs offense". Which is true, but not THAT kind. Bultman (being a Wings beat reporter) understands the nuance a little better. Barlow and Nilsson seem more like Yzerman picks but even then I'm skeptical. I just don't seem him walking away without a center at that top pick.

They'll put out 10 more if people keep reading them lol

 

Pronman has Fantilli, Danielson, and Edstrom as being the only locks to play center in the NHL. 

Only two of those guys will be in range. Maybe only one. 

Not that Pronman's ever right......

[kipwinger 8,772]

Just now, The 91 of Ryans said:

Pronman has Fantilli, Danielson, and Edstrom as being the only locks to play center in the NHL. 

Only two of those guys will be in range. Maybe only one. 

Not that Pronman's ever right......

Pronman is usually right about which player is going to go in which draft range. But he ALWAYS thinks centers will play on the wing in the NHL and he always grades guys' skating worse than it actually is. I've read his stuff for years and I always know those two things are coming.

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

Willander and Reinbacher would be a fantastic haul if we can make it happen. I'd feel REAL good about:

Walman-Seider

Edvinsson-Reinbacher

Wallinder-Willander

Johansson

Husso

Cossa

[kipwinger 8,772]

58 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Willander and Reinbacher would be a fantastic haul if we can make it happen. I'd feel REAL good about:

Walman-Seider

Edvinsson-Reinbacher

Wallinder-Willander

Johansson

Husso

Cossa

While those are both good players, I wouldn't like this draft strategy. We'd still be lacking a competitive forward corps and you're not likely to get impact forwards outside the top of the draft so you're just kicking the can down the road yet again. Another way of putting it would be: If I could only have 4 all-stars on my team I'd rather they be two centers and two defensemen than 4 defensemen or 4 centers. You can compliment star players with good free agents and be ok, but you can't build and entire forward corps (or defense corps) through free agency.

Side note, can you believe that the Red Wings have been looking for a quality 2nd line center since signing Stephen Weiss TEN YEARS AGO? It is completely insane to think that we've had a glaring hole in our lineup for a DECADE and every attempt to fill it (not that there were many) has been a half-assed failure. Weiss, Richards, Neilsen, Suter, Copp. Losers.