stawns Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, Noseforthenet said: It's pretty awesome when someone has the ability to admit they were wrong. I was also under the impression 6th overall was kind of a crap shoot. I still think we made a good pick, but in hindsight, Willie Nylander probably would have been the better pick on account that we would have had better control over his development curve. It's not always raw skill which gets you there, it's how the team can develop its players. I hate that stupid CHL transfer agreement rule. Some guys do well with it and some guys can totally regress because of the lack of challenge. I mean, what on Earth are you supposed to do?! Keep them on the big club and maybe risk how good they can be or send them back to junior and risk how good they can be...? With some guys, it sounds like a lose-lose situation. Also a little aside, here. If we did draft Willie, would Jared have been picked with 24? Maybe Benning decides to pick someone else and blows that pick completely. Will Willie Nylander be better than Jake: there's a good chance, but is having Jake and Jared better than having just Willie...yeah, it definitely is. I'd much rather have Virtanen than Nylander. There's been too many Nylanders in Vancouver over the last 20 years. They needed a player like jake, and I was extremely happy with his season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 1 hour ago, baumerman77 said: First, I am not saying that secondary assists are meaningless. Just that generally speaking - in most cases - primary assists should be weighted more heavily. Moreover, I was really using secondary assists as a proxy to see who were the driving forces on the line. If you follow the premise that more often than not primary assists are a more important aspect in scoring a goal than secondary (remember only more often than not; I'm not saying 100% of the time) the data shows that Marner and Dvorak are the ones driving the play. That is not to say that Tkachuk doesn't make great break out passes that turn into secondary assists that are the key to the goal on a play but the same would be true of the other two. Once again, I am not talking in absolutes just the majority of the time. Second, I agree, as I noted, that comparison between the two leagues is difficult and that it very much favours the OHL and thus Tkachuk. Third, I agree with you that eye test factors and personal interviews are very important to analyze and project future development. But personally I like to attempt to dissect the numbers. Because 1) I am a numbers guys and I feel more comfortable analyzing them; 2) my eye test is not nearly as good as scouts especially in very limited viewing (I don't want to be swayed by the small sample size of games I watch of prospects) 3) I'm not sitting-in on interviews so I don't know what they are like first hand, only through secondary sources. I'm not saying these factors aren't important, they are very important, but rather from a fan perspective with my background I am more interested and comfortable deconstructing the statistics. But that’s what I’m saying, you’re assuming the secondary assist isn’t the driving force of offence. You’re writing it off as if the importance is less value than the primary assist. You cannot do that. An assist is an assist doesn’t matter where they puck was touched, it was a part of a step that resulted in a goal. Next thing we going to be breaking down goals that went in off a players foot unexpectedly. How do we know that the primary assist was a result of a driving force of the play, it could have just as easily been a break out pass where the goal score walk around 5 players and scored. More often than not, the secondary assist is the direct cause for a goal. That’s my point, unless you’re going through each goal and deconstructing how important Tkachuks presence was, you’re providing a misleading statistic. You’re assuming and assumption do not belong in definite statistics. You’re putting way to much work into something that has about the same value as me stating an opinion. Neither have accurate evidence to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noseforthenet Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 9 minutes ago, stawns said: I'd much rather have Virtanen than Nylander. There's been too many Nylanders in Vancouver over the last 20 years. They needed a player like jake, and I was extremely happy with his season. Agreed. I still like how the draft turned out and Jake will get better. There's still no replacement for Henrik yet and that has to weigh on the mind of a few, but that's okay. Toronto will probably still screw Willie up anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_The_Schneid! Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 How did Dubois do in his game yesterday that Benning was scouting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Re: the topic of trading up rather than pick at 33rd.... I think it's easiest to take a sample of players you think will definitely be gone by 20....then each of us could make a reasonable assumption about the players that WE, individually, would have as the bottom of the 1st round. When the statistical variation of those next 12 selecting teams gets taken into account, one of those 10 players will likely slip to us at 33rd from our own list. That's the player you take...the guy you had in the 1st round. Simple as that. For example, I say I could strike these 20 names from the list easily as not being available at 33rd (in no particular order): 1) McLeod 2) Bean 3) Rubtsov 4) Keller 5) Chychrun 6) Jones 7) Tkachuk 8) Sergachev 9) Nylander 10) Jost 11) Matthews 12) Puljujarvi 13) Gauthier 14) Dubois 15) Bellows 16) McAvoy 17) Fabbro 18) Laine 19) Brown 20) Tkachuk Once that is done, then you come up with a reasonable block of the next 10 names of 12 (this is not my list, this is just an example): 1) Tufte 2) Stanley 3) Niemelainen 4) Debrincat 5) Asplund 6) Howden 7) Laberge 8) Hart 9) Kunin 10) Mattson Then, if people are talking about Clague or Johansen as a D prospect to help, you need to ask yourself how many of those players would you pass over to pick them? Who else is off of the list? If the answer is 'Zero' you don't trade up because you hope one of those 10 falls to you. If the answer is 'Five' then you only want to move up that same amount of spots to 28th, because you have a good shot there without overspending or over reaching. If the answer is 'All of them' then you need to get to 23rd and take that player or the faller if your targeted player was taken, who ever it is. Does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumerman77 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 31 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: But that’s what I’m saying, you’re assuming the secondary assist isn’t the driving force of offence. You’re writing it off as if the importance is less value than the primary assist. You cannot do that. An assist is an assist doesn’t matter where they puck was touched, it was a part of a step that resulted in a goal. Next thing we going to be breaking down goals that went in off a players foot unexpectedly. How do we know that the primary assist was a result of a driving force of the play, it could have just as easily been a break out pass where the goal score walk around 5 players and scored. More often than not, the secondary assist is the direct cause for a goal. That’s my point, unless you’re going through each goal and deconstructing how important Tkachuks presence was, you’re providing a misleading statistic. You’re assuming and assumption do not belong in definite statistics. You’re putting way to much work into something that has about the same value as me stating an opinion. Neither have accurate evidence to back it up. That's very interesting. I've never heard anyone make the argument that in most cases secondary assist is more of a direct cause than the primary assist. Let me ask you this hypothetical, if we started to keep track of third assists would it be more important than secondary assists (and primary assists)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 21 minutes ago, baumerman77 said: That's very interesting. I've never heard anyone make the argument that in most cases secondary assist is more of a direct cause than the primary assist. Let me ask you this hypothetical, if we started to keep track of third assists would it be more important than secondary assists (and primary assists)? I don't think that was his point at all. I believe his point is that, without seeing and examining each goal, it's impossible to assume how important that 2nd assist was on the play leading to the goal. It could have been the a major contribution or it could have had very little little to do with the play/goal. For all we know ~80% of Tkachucks 2nd assists were major contributions to those goals. Or it could only be ~20%. Without that data there's not enough information to make an informed opinion about the worth of his second assists and hence their overall contribution to (or lack thereof) to his point totals. And that doesn't even get in to the very subjective: what constitutes a 'major contribution'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 23 minutes ago, J.R. said: I don't think that was his point at all. I believe his point is that, without seeing and examining each goal, it's impossible to assume how important that 2nd assist was on the play leading to the goal. It could have been the a major contribution or it could have had very little little to do with the play/goal. For all we know ~80% of Tkachucks 2nd assists were major contributions to those goals. Or it could only be ~20%. Without that data there's not enough information to make an informed opinion about the worth of his second assists and hence their overall contribution to (or lack thereof) to his point totals. And that doesn't even get in to the very subjective: what constitutes a 'major contribution'? Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Sure, bet then how about the point on the 3rd touch before a goal? How do we know that is less important and shouldn't be tracked? At what point down the line do they become unimportant enough? It's common sense to a point that the further you are away from directly influencing a goal, the less important your contribution is likely to be. Exceptions for everything of course, and I agree we can't just write off those second assists, but it's indicative of something that might affect his value if he has such a large portion and it's also observed that he wasn't necessary for the goal to happen. If we're all aware of that then we're good. 1 hour ago, Noseforthenet said: ... Also a little aside, here. If we did draft Willie, would Jared have been picked with 24? Maybe Benning decides to pick someone else and blows that pick completely. Will Willie Nylander be better than Jake: there's a good chance, but is having Jake and Jared better than having just Willie...yeah, it definitely is. That's a pretty big 'what if'. You might as well say maybe us passing on Virtanen for someone else causes the rest of the draft order to change and maybe Larkin falls to us. Or maybe we pick Pasternak. Or maybe still McCann. Is having Jake and Jared better than William and David? That's a much more comparable question than assuming our second pick changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Just now, elvis15 said: That's a pretty big 'what if'. You might as well say maybe us passing on Virtanen for someone else causes the rest of the draft order to change and maybe Larkin falls to us. Or maybe we pick Pasternak. Or maybe still McCann. Is having Jake and Jared better than William and David? That's a much more comparable question than assuming our second pick changes. What if rome never hit nathan horton... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, Gooseberries said: What if rome never hit nathan horton... Butterfly wings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 4 minutes ago, elvis15 said: Butterfly wings... Stanley cup rings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noseforthenet Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 14 minutes ago, elvis15 said: Butterfly wings... If it's and butts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. Personally, I like the way it turned out anyways. Especially with how physical our division is. LA, Anaheim, and San Jose all play the game hard. Not to mention Chiarelli is now GMing Edmonton. It's not exactly gonna get less physical. We are going to need every bit of physicality and tenacity along with skill just to survive it in the next 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 1 hour ago, theminister said: Re: the topic of trading up rather than pick at 33rd.... I think it's easiest to take a sample of players you think will definitely be gone by 20....then each of us could make a reasonable assumption about the players that WE, individually, would have as the bottom of the 1st round. When the statistical variation of those next 12 selecting teams gets taken into account, one of those 10 players will likely slip to us at 33rd from our own list. That's the player you take...the guy you had in the 1st round. Simple as that. For example, I say I could strike these 20 names from the list easily as not being available at 33rd (in no particular order): 1) McLeod 2) Bean 3) Rubtsov 4) Keller 5) Chychrun 6) Jones 7) Tkachuk 8) Sergachev 9) Nylander 10) Jost 11) Matthews 12) Puljujarvi 13) Gauthier 14) Dubois 15) Bellows 16) McAvoy 17) Fabbro 18) Laine 19) Brown 20) Tkachuk Once that is done, then you come up with a reasonable block of the next 10 names of 12 (this is not my list, this is just an example): 1) Tufte 2) Stanley 3) Niemelainen 4) Debrincat 5) Asplund 6) Howden 7) Laberge 8) Hart 9) Kunin 10) Mattson Then, if people are talking about Clague or Johansen as a D prospect to help, you need to ask yourself how many of those players would you pass over to pick them? Who else is off of the list? If the answer is 'Zero' you don't trade up because you hope one of those 10 falls to you. If the answer is 'Five' then you only want to move up that same amount of spots to 28th, because you have a good shot there without overspending or over reaching. If the answer is 'All of them' then you need to get to 23rd and take that player or the faller if your targeted player was taken, who ever it is. Does that make sense? Yes, it does, and is probably (hopefully?) something that they game once they've done their final assessments after the combine. Moving up 5 instead of 18 places, where it is more about concrete preferences in the same tier than real thresholds of talent, is likely to be a lot more doable with a depth player thrown into the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 22 minutes ago, Noseforthenet said: If it's and butts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. Personally, I like the way it turned out anyways. Especially with how physical our division is. LA, Anaheim, and San Jose all play the game hard. Not to mention Chiarelli is now GMing Edmonton. It's not exactly gonna get less physical. We are going to need every bit of physicality and tenacity along with skill just to survive it in the next 5 years. Yup, but then that's my point. Also, you can get good physicality and tenacity through trades and free agency fairly easily. Skill usually costs a little more. Both in a good package is the goal of course, but then so is elite skill to balance that out across your lineup. Getting both at an elite level? The holy grail, and not too often found. But, there's no time machine (and I'm not advocating for one) so I'd like to see us go after that top end skill this draft. Who we have now is doing well at being good to high skill levels, while bringing lots of compete and even some physicality, but we don't have a game breaker who's a threat whenever they're on the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedman Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 3 hours ago, baumerman77 said: We had some heated debates in 2013/2014 over William and I can honestly say that you were right and I was wrong. I try to form and update my opinions based on evidence and since those debates the evidence has overwhelmingly favoured your position. I agree with what you're saying here. Looking back I think the biggest risk with William was his attitude and not his play. I think a lot of people are still locked into the opinion they had (and I had) of William before the 2014 draft. Furthermore, when we took Virtanen I think it exacerbated this sentiment and people doubled-down on their opinion of William (and Ehlers for that matter) despite subsequent evidence proving otherwise. I do agree that Williams attitude is "special", especially if you see it from a swedes POV. He's definitely not your "ordinary swede". I don't think, and i believe i never thought that it would hold him back from reaching success though. If anything, it would've been him being a "smaller player" playing a "smaller type of game". I do like Alex better in this regard though (attitude), seems like a more humble guy with both his feet on the ground. Won't knock your socks off with his answers, but will still say the right things that you want to hear from a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noseforthenet Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 26 minutes ago, elvis15 said: Yup, but then that's my point. Also, you can get good physicality and tenacity through trades and free agency fairly easily. Skill usually costs a little more. Both in a good package is the goal of course, but then so is elite skill to balance that out across your lineup. Getting both at an elite level? The holy grail, and not too often found. But, there's no time machine (and I'm not advocating for one) so I'd like to see us go after that top end skill this draft. Who we have now is doing well at being good to high skill levels, while bringing lots of compete and even some physicality, but we don't have a game breaker who's a threat whenever they're on the ice. We might in 2 months anyways. I certainly hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 18 hours ago, SekaniCanuck said: Found an article and they predicted us staying at 3rd. So they said this was going to be our draft choices Vancouver Canucks 1(3) Jesse Puljujarvi RW 2 (33) Sam Steel C 3 (63) Ryan Lindgren D 4 (93) Beck Malenstyn C 6 (153) Hayden Verbeek C/LW 7 (183) Dylan Coghlan D 7 (193) Brandon Crawley D Any good? Lol I like that ex player's son, what's his name - at 33? Left handed center in the USDL? Bellows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanisleryan Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Im going to the Royals and Rockets game 7 tonight. Im familiar with the Royals but any Rockets prospects I should be looking for going into the draft this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, Vanisleryan said: Im going to the Royals and Rockets game 7 tonight. Im familiar with the Royals but any Rockets prospects I should be looking for going into the draft this year Lucas Johansen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.