Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    I don't know if anyone has seen this but it's a pretty amusing look at drafting and scouting through the Canucks.


    http://canucksarmy.com/2014/5/20/we-think-the-vancouver-canucks-may-have-a-scouting-problem" rel="nofollow">http://canucksarmy.com/2014/5/20/we-think-the-vancouver-canucks-may-have-a-scouting-problem


    For those with an aversion to reading, they basically analyze 10+ years of drafting by comparing the Canucks selections to a robot drafter with no experience/scouting/analysis and a very basic set of criteria.  Of course the robot drafter has absolutely killed the Canucks scouting staff at this over a fairly long period.


    I wonder if the Bruins results would be similar.  Are draft scouts a big waste of money?


     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    That's a pretty interesting article. Truth be told, drafts are crapshoots for the most part anyway and just because a player makes it in one org does not mean he will do the same in another. Development plays a key role in this.

    That said, I would be willing to bet the B's would not do much better in a matchup like this...

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    Observations:

    • Their dummy refused to pick either goaltenders or defensemen.  This can either be taken as evidence that avoiding picking such players really is a good idea, or a bias in their results (since the real GMs did take those players, and those players inherently aren't going to score as many goals as forwards drafted, of course the robo-picker would get more offense).
    • 2009 the robo-picker took Caron before the Bruins could get their hands on him.  I don't think I need to comment further on this.

    -- Proud user of http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8vclq_sgc2c-69-chambraigne" rel="nofollow">Chambraigne; Now with Wiener Scent! --

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    In response to jmwalters' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That's a pretty interesting article. Truth be told, drafts are crapshoots for the most part anyway and just because a player makes it in one org does not mean he will do the same in another. Development plays a key role in this.

    That said, I would be willing to bet the B's would not do much better in a matchup like this...

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I think it is relatively easier to identify those with no chance than it is to identify sure things.

    Yes, you have those no drafted and 7th round drafted guys who make it, but I would bet a large percentage of those would show personality traits that would signal future success in interviews.

    Some teams are better at this than others.

    And some scouts make me wonder, the guy the Bruins have in Sweden has been there a million years and in all that time only a handful of players to show for it.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    In response to DrCC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Observations:

    • Their dummy refused to pick either goaltenders or defensemen.  This can either be taken as evidence that avoiding picking such players really is a good idea, or a bias in their results (since the real GMs did take those players, and those players inherently aren't going to score as many goals as forwards drafted, of course the robo-picker would get more offense).
    • 2009 the robo-picker took Caron before the Bruins could get their hands on him.  I don't think I need to comment further on this.

    -- Proud user of http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8vclq_sgc2c-69-chambraigne" rel="nofollow">Chambraigne; Now with Wiener Scent! --

    [/QUOTE]

    Ha.  Yeah.

    I have long advocated for 1st round picks to exclude goalies, and defensemen unless the pick is just obvious (amid lots of duress here).  That's just because forwards seem to be a safer bet to transfer junior/college success, and do so faster.  Naturally, the Canucks would have to fill out their D and goalies.

    But I think another interesting thing to consider is whether drafting so many viable forwards would allow to deal for everything else you need (as long as others teams aren't trying to do this too).

    Of course I don't think the robo-drafter is foolproof or some ingenious system at all.  But it is interesting purely as an illustration of how overrated the analysis of scouts might be.  

    I wouldn't use it.  But you might refer to the robo-pick at some points during the draft just to remind you how far your scout Skippy McKnuckles has drifted from conventional player rankings based on his trip to Saskatoon last year where he saw a goalie prospect hold the door for someone in a wheelchair outside the rink (character guy!)

    Or in the Bruins case, it might remind them that the 5'7 kid who says "wicked" and grew up going to Fenway isn't the surest bet on the board.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And some scouts make me wonder, the guy the Bruins have in Sweden has been there a million years and in all that time only a handful of players to show for it.

    [/QUOTE]


     Maybe he works part time, for food stamps or something. The last drafted player to become a regular for the B's from Sweden was who...Axelsson?

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    In response to jmwalters' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And some scouts make me wonder, the guy the Bruins have in Sweden has been there a million years and in all that time only a handful of players to show for it.

    [/QUOTE]


     Maybe he works part time, for food stamps or something. The last drafted player to become a regular for the B's from Sweden was who...Axelsson?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He may have scouted Soderberg along the way...who they took a pretty big risk with in signing someone who had never played N. American hockey.

    I assume he scouted Arnesson too...we shall see...

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    I think this Bruins FO in particular could benefit from focusing a little more on forwards at the draft.  They seem far better at identifying worthwhile D after their draft year than during.

    -- Proud user of http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8vclq_sgc2c-69-chambraigne" rel="nofollow">Chambraigne; Now with Wiener Scent! --

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    He may have scouted Soderberg along the way...

    [/QUOTE]


     Hmm....maybe. I'd bet he wishes he'd have drafted Soderberg though...

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    In response to marco0863's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The top swede bruins drafted was michael thelven..

    [/QUOTE]

    P. J. Axelssoon was the better Bruin.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    In response to jmwalters' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    He may have scouted Soderberg along the way...

    [/QUOTE]


     Hmm....maybe. I'd bet he wishes he'd have drafted Soderberg though...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    They got a little mileage out of Hannu and it took a million years for Soderberg to come here.  Soderberg never went to any training camps for either the Blue or Bruins and only came over last season.  Actually that was the perfect way to get him was by trading.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    They got a little mileage out of Hannu and it took a million years for Soderberg to come here.  Soderberg never went to any training camps for either the Blue or Bruins and only came over last season.  Actually that was the perfect way to get him was by trading.

    [/QUOTE]

    I could be wrong but I do recall Yeti attending a blues training camp or something...like a decade ago.

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    I have long advocated for 1st round picks to exclude goalies, and defensemen unless the pick is just obvious (amid lots of duress here).  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Unless "the pick is obvious" seems to be the key statement with your line of thinking.

    I recall others with the same theory ( don't draft defense or a goalie in the 1st round ) as you who brought up this theory when Hamilton and Subban were drafted.

    Suggestions were given that a forward would have been a better option in both cases.

    The "pick is obvious" option was used by Bruins scouts. 

    In both cases from my viewpoint they were the best options available from the league I watch. Drafting a forward with less talent then these two would have been a blunder IMO.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And some scouts make me wonder, the guy the Bruins have in Sweden has been there a million years and in all that time only a handful of players to show for it.

    [/QUOTE]

    And the quality could be scrutinized pretty hard, Mattias Timander,Lars Jonsson,Mats Thelin to name a few,basically they all accomplished nothing.Maybe with Axelsson joining the scouting staff there will be an improvement.He will specialize in wispy forwards who work hard.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    In response to BadHabitude's comment:

    but I would bet a large percentage of those would show personality traits that would signal future success in interviews. Some teams are better at this than others.


    And some scouts make me wonder, the guy the Bruins have in Sweden has been there a million years and in all that time only a handful of players to show for it.




    A 17, 18, 19 and 20 year old kid show traits of a teenager in an interview:


    Will you play hard for this organization ? "Uh Yah"


    Will you work hard ? "Uh Yah"


    Do you like big B***** ? "Uh yah"


     


    So what questions would you add ?


     


    MOC talked about the 2000 draft in a pretty recent interview. He stated that everyone team was trying to emulate the Red Wings recent success and pick some European, higher picks than usual for most organizations. He went on to say which players his scouts said to pick in the 2000 draft and which players to stay away from. MOC said it was his most regretful draft as the Bruins GM. Vowed to always listen to his scouts from there on in after ignoring them and taking who he wanted in 2000.


    The Bruins have picked 4 Europeans or from over seas in the first three rounds since Chiarelli took over. Only one returned to Russia to collect cash after each game instead of riding the AHL bus every night. One of those scouts said sign that free agent, undrafted Svedberg. I'm not seeing where the Bruins are wasting money in Europe.


    Lets hear it Danny Ainge.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I recall others with the same theory ( don't draft defense or a goalie in the 1st round ) as you who brought up this theory when Hamilton and Subban were drafted.

    Suggestions were given that a forward would have been a better option in both cases.

    The "pick is obvious" option was used by Bruins scouts. 

    In both cases from my viewpoint they were the best options available from the league I watch. Drafting a forward with less talent then these two would have been a blunder IMO.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not me with Hamilton ^.  I liked that pick and said so at the time.  I was not in favor of the Subban pick, but was also not all that upset about it because at last it was late in the round (and because people like you who watch lots of junior seemed happy with it).  

    My preference remains for a forward to be taken with a first round pick.  In Hamilton's case I was so shocked that he slid and was still on the board when the Bruins picked, that I figured you've gotta take him there.

    Looking at the Bruin model for the 2011 championship team roster, neither goalie was drafted by them and none of the 6 defensemen were drafted by them.  Most of the key forwards were though.

    I'm pretty intrigued by the model of drafting forwards with higher picks, maybe taking some chances with a few d-men/goalies with later picks.  Let other teams go through the process of developing young goalies and D-men and then pick them off where you can (trades, FA signings, undrafted FAs, etc.).  I know it won't always work, but I like it better than the alternative.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from asmaha. Show asmaha's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    I love the recap: "If Vancouver never kept a single amateur scout on staff, never paid any attention to junior hockey anywhere in the world, never watched a single game, never did any in-depth research, never prepared for the draft for more than three hours each year, and simply took the next highest scoring CHL forward with every selection they had, they would have drafted over 4000 more games of future NHL experience, nearly 1000 more goals, and over 1500 more assists than they did under the Ron Delorme regime."

    Awesome.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    As much as I enjoy a laugh at the Canucks' expense, I don't find the results that compelling.  The results are skewed by a lot of guys who played a couple of years in fourth line roles on weaker teams.   It includes two guys the Leafs drafted in Wellfed and Stajan, who eventually proved they weren't good enough...for the Leafs.  Other than Giroux, and two thirds of the league passed on him, and Williams I think the scouts got more difference-makers, the stat machine more fringe players and role guys.  And I guess that's largely what scouting is about, or at least, that's one philosophy of scouting: swing for the fences.  You'll strike out more often, but if you hit one home run every few years, you'd be making a pretty good contribution to the team.  The other option is to take surer things and risk lost opportunities rather than waste picks - that is, gamble that the higher risk player you didn't take becomes a star.  Organizations have to be somewhere between the two depending on where they are in their development.  The Bruins might be willing to take a risk on a RW who has huge goal totals in the WHL but who can't play defense right now, just like they did with Kessel, but this time with the assumption that they can handle the risk and wait for him to develop rather than because they needed whatever he could give them on a bad team.  Florida went with Barkov because Drouin's still a smallish kid who needed the extra year in Jr just to grow.  They needed an NHL player - though whether it helped them at all remains to be seen.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    On the drafting by position thing....  The hardest thing for any team to acquire is a "franchise" level player.  A true top-level talent who also has the character and commitment.  Most teams acquire these players through the draft, and since the cap arrived, you can see the importance of the draft in the efforts teams now put into it - collectively if not individually.  There are fewer and fewer busts in the top 10 to 15, and fewer and fewer 4th-7th round picks who turn out to be stars of the Datsyuk or Lundqvist brilliance.  Palat this year is the first guy I can think of in a while who might get there.  So if teams are doing their jobs correctly, they're taking the cream in the first 15-20 picks...if there's that much cream.

    In any given year, I don't think there's ever more than a few franchise type players.  Some years, it's none.  1996, the player drafted with the second most career goals?  Marco Sturm. #1 is tiny Briere with fewer than 300.  Mark Parrish, who only played 720 games or so, is fourth.  You could easily argue that that draft, the best players were the D with players like Salo and Chara drafted later and having more impactful NHL careers - except for the D who went at the top of that year: Phillips, Zyuzin, and 8 more in the first 20 picks including Bustathan Aitken.

    I tend to think you take players you think could be franchise players first regardless of position.  I would rather have a Hamilton, who still looks like he could be the next true #1 D in Boston, than a Sean Couturier who will be a very strong two-way player for a lot of years.  So I'm probably saying what Fletch is saying when he says "it's obvious".  Where we probably differ is that, beyond the first 10 players or so, I wouldn't necessarily say forward first.  If everyone does that, you're pushing forwards who are probably inferior players to some of the D or G into the first round. You're not getting value if that's the case.  I think it's highly likely that the best goalie in a given draft is a better shot to be valuable to you - in net or in trade - than the 28th best forward.  Ditto the best defenseman.  And while the Bruins may not show the value of drafting D high - first two rounds, say - the other finalists do.  Rangers drafted Staal and got McDonagh when he was still not much more than a pick.  Scabs have Subban (and drafted McDonagh...love that every time he scores).  Kings have Doughty, and the Hawks have Seabrook and Keith - and they've taken a D with their second rounder every year for the last four.  Basically, then, that's the top end of the final four Ds, including some guys drafted top 10 and a couple of second rounders.  Next to a 50 goal scorer, a true #1 D-man may be the rarest of commodities in hockey.  Unless the other option is Gretzky, I don't know how often I'd choose not to take a guy I thought could be that #1 D no matter how high the pick.

    There's a lot of this that is about what other teams are doing, too.  If everyone suddenly decided goalie is the most important position on the ice, and goalies are leaders and not weirdos, so the teams with early picks went on a goalie run for a few years, you might have to adjust or the guy you had hoped to get in round 3 will be gone by pick 20.  Then you're stuck waiting for someone else's cast off or the loser of a competition.

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    Yeah, and of course I would agree in pointing out that the preferences for taking forwards, or N. Americans, or whatever, only makes sense if everyone else is not doing the same thing.  If everyone takes forwards, than naturally higher value defensemen are dropping and becoming better picks.  

    IF other teams are taking d-men and goalies in the first round, I would typically prefer to take my chances on the forwards, because the Nathan MacKinnon/Seth Jones scenario seems very predictable from a development standpoint.  Jones could be a better player in 10 years (for whatever team he ends up on), but while he remains a development project and a largely unknown quantity, MacKinnon is already a beast.

    In regards to the Bruins, I haven't been very critical of Chirarelli on his drafting for a few reasons.  One is that I don't think his record is all that bad.  Another is the big role the scouts have in this.  But most importantly I think that so much of this is a crapshoot, and that's why I liked the article.  Set aside the robot drafter, which of course isn't actually smarter, but does represent the huge role of randomness in all of this.

    There are a ton of reasons that a draft pick might not work out, many of them having little or nothing to do with the GM.  After drafting an 18 year old kid, they are often shaped by factors like health, injuries, opportunity, their junior/college coach, physical development, training practices, minor league coaches, roster openings in the NHL, roles needed on the team etc. etc.  The GM controls just a fraction of this, and has a lot of other priorities to balance besides having their 3rd round pick 'make it'.  Spooner would have played a full NHL season on a lot of teams, maybe Subban is in the NHL already in Calgary/Edmonton, and a 4th liner in Calgary might be on the 2nd line in Providence here. 

    I bet the difference in draft preparation and strategy for a GM that has three guys make it in Calgary or a GM who has three guys miss in Chicago isn't really any different.  I think the difference between the robot drafter and the Vancouver staff is probably the same as it is between Vancouver and other teams -- one of circumstance, randomness, and guessing.

    I would credit and/or criticize a GM much, much more based on how they deal with guys once they are in the system, than how they make guesses at which 17-year old player is going to be useful on their roster in 5 years.  And of course, if that GM is doing a great job building his roster through trades and signings, he is less likely to have his own draft picks make the roster and play NHL games. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    If I was only a Sham, then I could be Shamonyou.  

     

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As much as I enjoy a laugh at the Canucks' expense, I don't find the results that compelling.  The results are skewed by a lot of guys who played a couple of years in fourth line roles on weaker teams.   It includes two guys the Leafs drafted in Wellfed and Stajan, who eventually proved they weren't good enough...for the Leafs.  Other than Giroux, and two thirds of the league passed on him, and Williams I think the scouts got more difference-makers, the stat machine more fringe players and role guys.  And I guess that's largely what scouting is about, or at least, that's one philosophy of scouting: swing for the fences.  You'll strike out more often, but if you hit one home run every few years, you'd be making a pretty good contribution to the team.  The other option is to take surer things and risk lost opportunities rather than waste picks - that is, gamble that the higher risk player you didn't take becomes a star.  Organizations have to be somewhere between the two depending on where they are in their development.  The Bruins might be willing to take a risk on a RW who has huge goal totals in the WHL but who can't play defense right now, just like they did with Kessel, but this time with the assumption that they can handle the risk and wait for him to develop rather than because they needed whatever he could give them on a bad team.  Florida went with Barkov because Drouin's still a smallish kid who needed the extra year in Jr just to grow.  They needed an NHL player - though whether it helped them at all remains to be seen.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Funny Canucks Draft Analysis

    Seriously,this is a 21st century selfie.   A team management is responsilbe for the draft results, period.  It is a group of people making decisions.  Only one has the final say, the GM.  It is a fait comppli, now if one is a Nostradamus of hockey then I will bow to your ego tripping at the gates of hell.  My goodness, humas work in groups not in the mode of the benolvolent Louis XIV.  Ah to be a media year tripper.  Stop the nonesense.  This article could have been written in Montreal!

    "Don't judge me monkey" 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share