-
Posts
2,221 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by baumerman77
-
There is no doubt Nylander had a good year in Sweden. The reason people are skeptical of Nylander is because he is a European under 6 feet. European hockey is less physical for whatever reason (big ice plays a part). Because it is less physical size matters less. There are dozens of cases of smaller, highly skilled, European players not being able to implement their skill in NA because of their smaller size. Take for example Ehlers, he was very smart to come over and play in the CHL. He showed scouts that he can adapt to the NA game and be successful (albeit at the junior level). Some European players just can't make the transition and it can become apparent in Juniors if they decide to play in the CHL. The other thing that makes some people uncomfortable is that there is comfort for European players to go back to Europe. This is most often brought up with regard to Russian players going back to the KHL (Radulov, Filatov) but can often be applied to other European players. The reward of Nylander is tantalizing but the risk turns many off.
-
New article... http://thehockeywriters.com/2014-nhl-draft-rankings-war-room-june-edition-intro/
-
The Petan point was just to illustrate that skill isn't everything. I think we can agree that guys need to be a certain size to succeed in the NHL regardless of skill. And conversely guys need a certain amount of skill regardless of size. I just think a lot of people are overestimating the skill of Ehlers and Nylander. Moreover, they are underestimating their impact of their smaller size.
-
For hockey the causal mechanism doesn't need to be established. I agree skill is the most important criterion but if a player doesn't reach a certain size he can't implement his skill-set. Remember Nic Petan why do you think he went 43rd overall last year? It wasn't because of a lack of skill...
-
I agree. Virtanen skillset looks to be better suited for the NHL.
-
Why do people continually point to the small players in the NHL as evidence that drafting small is an good strategy? Yes, there are small players in the NHL. However, drafting smaller players because they put up big point totals in Juniors is a horrible drafting strategy. I am assuming these are the same people who spend their retirement savings on lottery tickets because they've seen lottery winners on TV. There is something called probability. Drafting is about strategy. Teams should draft prospects that have the best chance of succeeding at the NHL level. There is a correlation in the NHL between size and point production. And the average height at the start of the 13-14 season was 6'1.3" and 203.7 pounds.
-
Nylander, Ritchie, Ehlers, Virtanen... none of these guys really appeal to me. They all have second line potential but we need top end talent. We need to trade up and get Reinhart or Ekblad.
-
A three-way trade is the solution to that problem...
-
25 even strength goals in 64 games for a guy who was six week removed from being in the 2013 draft. Doesn't really get me excited.
-
I'm not sure if I would want the Canucks to draft Draisaitl if he fell out of the top 5 (I think he is most likely to fall).
-
Generally speaking, I think size only becomes a detriment if the player is under 5'11" 180lbs. Conversely size becomes an asset when a player is over 6'2.5" 220lbs. With big players like Ritchie you have to be careful that they are not just manhandling less developed teenagers in junior and that is the reason they are putting up big points. Every year you get a man-child or two who dominates junior, the question becomes when the size playing field becomes more even (the NHL) will his skill still make him effective? With smaller players like Nylander and Ehlers you have to be careful that they are not just using their speed and high-end skill (stick-handling, fancy moves, etc) to put up big points. Sure they can make nice plays in junior but what about when they get to the NHL and the players all have a much higher skill-set and Hockey IQ, not too mention bigger size. Can they still be effective in the NHL? In sum, we should analyse both big and small players based on how they will/could adapt to the NHL not how they went about dominating juniors.
-
This definitely offer a more qualitative insight. Good work. I really hope we move up into the top 3. Look at the Oilers they have had three 1st picks and one 7th pick and they might make playoffs next year. Imagine how long our rebuild will be if we don't get into the top 3.
-
Correct. But you can see the average rating for the 6th pick is 5.11 whereas for the 4th pick it is 5.33. Very similar, even more of a reason to trade into the top 3 - those prospects are normally on another level.
-
From time to time it is nice to post this article from 2012: http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/scott_cullen/?id=398986 On an average draft year there's a 38.9% the 6th pick becomes a top 6 forward or better.
-
If or 6th pick, whoever that is, turns out to be like Torres or Brown that's a big win. I think everyone here drastically overvalues: Nylander, Ritchie, Virtanen, and Ehlers. We will be lucky if we draft an above average second liner.
-
Why take Virtanen at 10. Button says we could grab him at 36.
-
I don't like Nylander at 6th. But Craig Button is an absolute idiot how can anyone take him seriously. In his new rankings (updated today) he has Travis Sanheim before Nylander. I do agree with his assessment of Kempe, he is a top 3 European skater and could turn out to be the best European NHLer in this draft. http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=49649
-
McKeown looks like a pretty good prospect. Ehlers is just too small at 162.
-
Absent-minded Canuck: I know you were disappointed the Canucks took Horvat over Nic Petan last year. I feel bad critiquing your opinion because you are probably a younger Canuck fan. But one thing you should know going forward is that looking just at points to measure NHL potential is a very poor way to assess prospects. There is a lot of context and perimeters that go into evaluating a prospect that's why there are actually scouts who watch games and not just a guy one draft day that sorts the prospects point totals.
-
Great post
-
You know what matters more than size? Possession numbers. I have a dream that one day my kids will judge prospects not on their weight or point totals but on their corsi and fenwick ratings.
-
Absent-minded Canuck I am surprised you think Carl Soderberg and Mikkell Boedker are both better than Daniel Sedin. That is a very controversial position, but I guess you are right because the math backs you up right?
-
You care far too much about point totals. Why are there scouts? Why doesn't the GM just look at the math like you? Seems simple enough. People continually citing small players like Kane, St.Louis, etc. are missing the point. For every one of those guys you mention there are ten stand out junior players that failed. Unless a guy has unbelievable skill (a way to figure this out is if the scouts unanimously have him in the top 2) it is a bad strategy to draft very small players (I am not saying Ehlers or Nylander are very small players). Look at Ottawa with Karlsson. People will say what a steal, which it was, because a gamble with the odds stacked against them paid off. If Ottawa implemented that strategy with every pick every year they would have the worst draft record in the NHL.
-
If you think that size doesn't matter you really don't know anything about hockey.
-
You're insulting Kane by comparing him to Nylander.