7/23 GDT - 2021 Entry Draft

[Akakabuto 1,831]

9 minutes ago, F.Michael said:

Great fukin movie

[LeftWinger 5,065]

11 minutes ago, F.Michael said:

I wish I had that much hair...

[kipwinger 8,675]

This is my yearly reminder that there's no such thing as "best player available". There are several reasons why. First, what makes a player "better"? Is being fast "better" than being strong? Is being a good shooter "better" than being a good passer? Is a really good track record "better" than a really high upside? There is no correct answer to any of these questions, because good hockey players come in all shapes and sizes. For example, was Steve Yzerman "better" than Nick Lidstrom? If they were both 17 year old draft eligibles and you had a crystal ball and knew the trajectory of both their careers it would still be IMPOSSIBLE to rank order and determine who's best.

Secondly, there's no objective way of analyzing players to determine what "best" would be, even if it were possible to define it. That's what scouting combines try to do and they're universally panned for how inefficient they are. For example, there's not a single measurable way to evaluate a hockey player that someone like Alex Semin wouldn't max out on. He'd be in the 99th percentile of every single evaluation tool. Unfortunately he doesn't give a f*ck and never did, so he's jerking off in some Russian hellhole right now.

Finally, teams aren't really interested in the "best player available". They're interested in the player who's going to be the "best NHLer" in a few years. In most instances the "best" players in any given draft are all undrafted overagers, and those guys rarely get selected. Teams don't want to draft the "best" player, they want to draft players with the greatest capacity to have "better" NHL careers than their draft class peers.

So the next time you find yourself saying "BPA!  BPA!" just take a second and consider what that actually means, because it's nonsense.

Edited July 23, 2021 by kipwinger

[Dabura 12,228]

23 minutes ago, BarkBurgerman said:

There's just no lightning rod I can point to and declare SEE: PROGRESS

The most improved award seems to be sitting with Rasmussen. If that's our big progress story this season, that's not good.

That's fair. Certainly it wasn't the season any of us had hoped for.

I'm a broken record on this point, but I really do think an inability to find That Goal when we really need it is what's kicking our asses right now. And I think that's a "good" thing in the sense that scoring problems are to be expected. Losing a ton of close games is more or less where we should be, realistically. Now we start adding high-end kids like Seider and Raymond and giving them better veterans to work with (e.g. Leddy).

[LeftWinger 5,065]

I think they determine BPA as to who is still left on there board in order of who they like. Maybe they have Edvinsson listed, on their board, higher than Walstedt, in that case, BPA to them, will be Edvinsson. Of course, I could be way off on this!

Edited July 23, 2021 by LeftWinger

[Dabura 12,228]

46 minutes ago, F.Michael said:

McTavish has the upside to become a Giroux (who he apparently has trained with) or O'Reilly.

I really, really like Giroux as a comparable for McTavish.

3 minutes ago, BarkBurgerman said:

Look at you. Coping like a pathetic coper.

"Losing a lot of close games" is a cope. We lost. We played worse than the opponent. Were still in a basement and our stars didnt show up.

[kipwinger 8,675]

18 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

I think they determine BPA as to who is still left on there board in order of who they like. Maybe they have Edvinsson listed, on their board, higher than Walstedt, in that case, BPA to them, will be Edvinsson. Of course, I could be way off on this!

There's no such thing as "best to them". "Best" implies some objective standard for comparison which, as I've said, doesn't exist when it comes to hockey prospects. I agree though that they take the player they "like" the most. But that's a different thing. For example, if I said the Rolling Stones were the best rock band of all time because I "like" them the most you should probably roll your eyes and disregard pretty much everything I'm saying from that point on.

Edited July 23, 2021 by kipwinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

39 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

This is my yearly reminder that there's no such thing as "best player available". There are several reasons why. First, what makes a player "better"? Is being fast "better" than being strong? Is being a good shooter "better" than being a good passer? Is a really good track record "better" than a really high upside? There is no correct answer to any of these questions, because good hockey players come in all shapes and sizes. For example, was Steve Yzerman "better" than Nick Lidstrom? If they were both 17 year old draft eligibles and you had a crystal ball and knew the trajectory of both their careers it would still be IMPOSSIBLE to rank order and determine who's best.

Secondly, there's no objective way of analyzing players to determine what "best" would be, even if it were possible to define it. That's what scouting combines try to do and they're universally panned for how inefficient they are. For example, there's not a single measurable way to evaluate a hockey player that someone like Alex Semin wouldn't max out on. He'd be in the 99th percentile of every single evaluation tool. Unfortunately he doesn't give a f*ck and never did, so he's jerking off in some Russian hellhole right now.

Finally, teams aren't really interested in the "best player available". They're interested in the player who's going to be the "best NHLer" in a few years. In most instances the "best" players in any given draft are all undrafted overagers, and those guys rarely get selected. Teams don't want to draft the "best" player, they want to draft players with the greatest capacity to have "better" NHL careers than their draft class peers.

So the next time you find yourself saying "BPA!  BPA!" just take a second and consider what that actually means, because it's nonsense.

LOL

You think when people say best player available, they're referring to the best player in the draft, at that moment, not who *they believe* will best transition to the NHL?... 

Every GM / amateur scout / draft analyst talks BPA. They're projecting who they believe will be the best player in 3-5 years from now...

6 minutes ago, BarkBurgerman said:

You're arguing purely over diction

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that any team knows whom the "best" player is. BPA is simply a euphemism for "don't draft based on position".

Nerd.

This.

[kipwinger 8,675]

Just now, BarkBurgerman said:

You're arguing purely over diction

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that any team knows whom the "best" player is. BPA is simply a euphemism for "don't draft based on position".

Nerd.

You're kinda right, but there's a bigger point here. I agree that BPA vs. "drafting for position" is generally the dichotomy that most dumbass fans subscribe to. What I'm saying is that since "best" isn't real each team comes up with their own ways of evaluating talent based on a number of different factors. The position a kid plays should definitely be a big part of that evaluation. Why wouldn't it? Nobody would say "don't draft for speed/size/shooting/passing. Draft the best player available" right? Because that would be dumb.

Secondly, drafting for position actually makes tons of sense when you consider that all positions don't hold equal value. For instance, there are some GMs in baseball who almost exclusively draft pitchers at the top of the draft. Why? Pitchers are more valuable than right fielders (for example). So a top ranked pitching prospect has WAY more value than a fielder in the long term.

[The 91 of Ryans 3,019]

Just take the goodest player available then. 

[TLGTrico 647]

36 minutes ago, BarkBurgerman said:

Look at you. Coping like a pathetic coper.

"Losing a lot of close games" is a cope. We lost. We played worse than the opponent. Were still in a basement and our stars didnt show up.

 

What stars are these?

[krsmith17 7,191]

6 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

You're kinda right, but there's a bigger point here. I agree that BPA vs. "drafting for position" is generally the dichotomy that most dumbass fans subscribe to. What I'm saying is that since "best" isn't real each team comes up with their own ways of evaluating talent based on a number of different factors. The position a kid plays should definitely be a big part of that evaluation. Why wouldn't it? Nobody would say "don't draft for speed/size/shooting/passing. Draft the best player available" right? Because that would be dumb.

Secondly, drafting for position actually makes tons of sense when you consider that all positions don't hold equal value. For instance, there are some GMs in baseball who almost exclusively draft pitchers at the top of the draft. Why? Pitchers are more valuable than right fielders (for example). So a top ranked pitching prospect has WAY more value than a fielder in the long term.

LOL "most dumbass fans", and general managers (including Steve Yzerman), scouts and analysts. Of course kipwinger knows better than any of these schlubs...

Yes, all of these factors come into play, which is what makes a player the "best" player available to them. Position is definitely considered, along with handedness, and other factors, but they are (should always be) secondary to overall skill / talent level.

[kipwinger 8,675]

Just now, BarkBurgerman said:

It seems apparent that GM's do draft on position to some extent. We've touched on it with goalies in the first round in like every thread this year. Then you have the Holland/Wright 2017 size draft as evidence.

It also seems apparent that Yzerman is targeting specific players. Especially on defense. He's heavily favoring mobile Dmen, especially if they also bring size/reach.

Then - from his Tampa days - he seems to not care about the size of his forwards at all, and is perfectly willing to take smaller forwards.

If I had to guess - the concept of BPA extends more to the first round. Get the guy you think has the most talent and get out. After that round style and philosophy probably takes a lot more hold.

 

 

I agree with most of this. I think a better maxim than "don't draft on position" would be "don't reach based on position". I'm not saying you should draft a 2nd round talent in the top ten just because you need a defenseman. That would be an absurd premise. But we're all very aware of talent tiers. So in this draft, for instance, a guy like Brandt Clark and a guy like Mason McTavish are generally as talented as one another. As such, it's not unreasonable to take the defenseman if that's what you need.

[The 91 of Ryans 3,019]

3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I agree with most of this. I think a better maxim than "don't draft on position" would be "don't reach based on position". I'm not saying you should draft a 2nd round talent in the top ten just because you need a defenseman. That would be an absurd premise. But we're all very aware of talent tiers. So in this draft, for instance, a guy like Brandt Clark and a guy like Mason McTavish are generally as talented as one another. As such, it's not unreasonable to take the defenseman if that's what you need.

Uh oh.....

Edit: same time lol

Edited July 23, 2021 by The 91 of Ryans

[krsmith17 7,191]

4 minutes ago, BarkBurgerman said:

It seems apparent that GM's do draft on position to some extent. We've touched on it with goalies in the first round in like every thread this year. Then you have the Holland/Wright 2017 size draft as evidence.

It also seems apparent that Yzerman is targeting specific players. Especially on defense. He's heavily favoring mobile Dmen, especially if they also bring size/reach.

Then - from his Tampa days - he seems to not care about the size of his forwards at all, and is perfectly willing to take smaller forwards.

If I had to guess - the concept of BPA extends more to the first round. Get the guy you think has the most talent and get out. After that round style and philosophy probably takes a lot more hold.

Yup. If those are the types of players Yzerman is targeting, it's because they're the players he deems to be the best fit to build around.

I completely agree with BPA more so being geared toward the 1st round, maybe extending into the 2nd round. Beyond that, balance out your board with different positions.

5 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I agree with most of this. I think a better maxim than "don't draft on position" would be "don't reach based on position". I'm not saying you should draft a 2nd round talent in the top ten just because you need a defenseman. That would be an absurd premise. But we're all very aware of talent tiers. So in this draft, for instance, a guy like Brandt Clark and a guy like Mason McTavish are generally as talented as one another. As such, it's not unreasonable to take the defenseman if that's what you need.

Maybe. But maybe Yzerman and his staff have one ranked far ahead of the other... 

When you hear people (everyone) talking about BPA, I feel like you think everyone is just reading off the same list from Bob McKenzie. That isn't the case at all. Every team has their own list based on who *they* believe will be the best player / best fit with their team.

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 minute ago, BarkBurgerman said:

I mean I'd be quite alright if Yzerman went full autismo and drafted literally only RWers because "BPA".

But at the same time, it's nice knowing that he has a more sophisticated idea and plan for the team that he wants to build when he targets Dmen who fit his mold for the style he wants to play.

Go down the list of Dmen in this draft. If you find a Dman with size who can also skate. Chances are he's ours.

Also we're taking Logan Stankoven

If Yzerman takes the same position with his first 4 picks, it wouldn't bother me in the least. I'd hope he'd take some of the different positions in the later rounds though, just to round things out... 

I love the big, mobile defensemen, and small, skilled forward, all with high hockey IQ and compete, building philosophy that Yzerman seems to have. 

I'd love to get Stankover at 38. I'd also be good with taking him at 23, depending on who else is available (drops) there...

[LeftWinger 5,065]

LUKE HUGHES OR SIMON EDVINSSON!!!!

 

[LeftWinger 5,065]

ALSO WHEN STEVE WALKS OUT OF TRADE OR DRAFT NEGOTIATIONS!!!

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by LeftWinger

[krsmith17 7,191]

Dumbass...

[kipwinger 8,675]

36 minutes ago, BarkBurgerman said:

STANKOVEN HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE MOST UNDERRATED PLAYER IN THE DRAFT

5'8" CENTER WHO DOESN'T GET NO RESPEK

BUILT LIKE A FUQQIN TREE TRUNK FOR A SHORT GUY

GOES TO THE DIRTY AREAS, AND PLAYS A FEARLESS HARDWORKING STYLE

HIS WRISTER IS DISGUSTING AND HE CAN SCORE FROM ANYWHERE AT WILL

PLAYER TYPE: BUZZSAW SNIPER

HE IS THE KUCHEROV OF THIS DRAFT

DRAFT THIS BOY

Aren't you the one who said "Manlets aren't people" just the other day?

[kipwinger 8,675]

Just now, BarkBurgerman said:

Short men are inherently inferior. Perhaps even a lesser sub species of human.

But they still deserve gainful employment, and I will allow them to dance on the on ice for my entertainment. I'm no bigot.

Agreed. I always get a good laugh when Ben Shapiro gets on his soapbox and rants about who is or is not a man. Laughable coming from that guy.

[kipwinger 8,675]

1 minute ago, BarkBurgerman said:

Lol my GF is a huge Shapiro fan. I cannot count the amount of arguments we've had that  have devolved into "He's smart" vs. "Nah he's man tiddy child boy"

Now if you want to talk to me about his thot sister, I'll tell you a whole other story

Never seen her. Pic?

[kipwinger 8,675]

Lol, I just saw someone online saying she looks like a "hot" character from The Sims.

[LeftWinger 5,065]

Buffalo just acquired Robert Hagg, 14th OA pick tonight and a 2023 2nd round pick from Philly for Ristoleinen.

Darth Yzerman will use the force today to get more assets. I'm just waiting. 

[kipwinger 8,675]

I think my favorite thing about Ben Shapiro is how he castigates trans people for being non-scientific while wearing a yarmulke. Apparently calling yourself a woman because you wear wigs and skirts and s*** is patently absurd to a man who thinks that a bearded dude in the sky says you're one of his special people so long as you don't eat pork.