Blömqvist Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 10 hours ago, Noseforthenet said: Just been reading up some more on Tyson Jost. He's committed to...North Dakota this season coming up. Is this why his stock has dropped? If he is such a stud out there, this shouldn't matter. By all accounts, he should be a high pick. Definitely higher than mid teens. A team like the Blackhawks would be licking their lips at a chance to draft this guy. I'm sold. If we are talking about guys like Pullijarvi, Dubois, Tkachuk, Nylander all being in our wheelhouse where we will likely draft, why not Jost? He's gonna be playing with Boeser next year anyways. We know he would be in a great development program. With him skating circles around guys like McLeod and Chychrun looking less prominent around players whom they should be dominating against, Jost deserves a HARD look. I'm just getting that feeling we would regret not drafting that kid. Yea I read that too, that Jost is committed to UND. BUT IIRC I think he announced that in sometime in Summer 2015, so it shouldn't be so much that his stock has dropped because of that, just moreso the BCHL factor I think. That said, imagine if he played with Boeser on the same line! I could see him surpassing someone like McLeod but the top 10 seems to be pretty set. Maybe he gets into 11/12/13, same with Fabbro. The usual prospects from 1-7 8. Juolevi 9. Sergachev 10. Keller 11. Bean 12. Jost? 13. Fabbro? 14. McLeod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stierlitz Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 36 minutes ago, prix57 said: Also when will we know when Columbus decides to give us their 2nd pick for which draft year? They need to make decision by June 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noseforthenet Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 17 minutes ago, Blömqvist said: Yea I read that too, that Jost is committed to UND. BUT IIRC I think he announced that in sometime in Summer 2015, so it shouldn't be so much that his stock has dropped because of that, just moreso the BCHL factor I think. That said, imagine if he played with Boeser on the same line! I could see him surpassing someone like McLeod but the top 10 seems to be pretty set. Maybe he gets into 11/12/13, same with Fabbro. The usual prospects from 1-7 8. Juolevi 9. Sergachev 10. Keller 11. Bean 12. Jost? 13. Fabbro? 14. McLeod I should add to this...so did Jamie Benn. He played in the BCHL. He was drafted in the 5th round. This guy has NHL size, speed, and shooting. I think it would be a mistake to pass on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prix57 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 30 minutes ago, Stierlitz said: They need to make decision by June 1st. Got it thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spotted Zebra Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 I feel like there's a lot of Erik Johnson in Chychrun, just a gut feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 3 minutes ago, Toews said: No one is saying that secondary assists are meaningless. Their value is less than primary points provided there is a sufficiently large sample size. We don't necessarily need the eye test to predict certain trends. There is enough data available that we can achieve a greater understanding of which stat is more valuable. Bringing up individual instances in order to prove a point is meaningless. No one has the time to go through every single game and document the importance of every single point which of course is also entirely subjective. Besides there is no need to do that when we can predict a trend with enough data. To give you an example Team A regularly gets outshot but somehow finds ways to win. The fans of Team A who claim to watch the team say that the coach is employing a strategy where the volume of shots may have increased but the quality of chances is much lower. Of course the next season the team's PDO declines and they start losing again. The statistics predicted that they would decline as regularly getting outshot is not sustainable means to success. Do I need to watch every single game to know the quality of the shots? No, because based on what the stats tell us, in a large enough sample size the quality of shots does not matter. Does that actually mean that the quality of a shot is not important? No, just when we are examining large amounts of data. Similarly in the case of secondary assists there is a high degree of variance telling us that secondary assists are "luck" based. Hence primary points are a much more accurate indicator of a player's play. Here is an article that is an oldie but still a goodie that illustrates this effect. http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2011/3/15/2046512/simplify-scoring-drop-secondary-assists Baumerman asked the best question. If we were to track tertiary assists, would we need to watch every play to know the importance of the stat? No, because it's far more likely that the further removed a play is from the goal the less likely will be it's importance. Well I completely disagree. Your large sample data doesn't exist. There is no stats for how much value a play was, there is nothing being calculated to determine the difference between Williams dump in that bounced of the stanchion in front of the net vs Backstroms perfect sauce to Ovi. Both are primary assist and nothing to determine the skill level behind line player that made the play. So you can throw that argument out of the window. Quote There's nothing inherently "better" about a primary assist - they can be every bit as ugly and cheap as any secondary helper. Quote The fact is that the second assist, while less predictive than a primary assist, still conveys information about a player’s play-making ability, and consequently improves prediction. That wasn’t what Broad Street Hockey found in March 2011, when they compared forwards’ secondary assist rate in the 2007-08 season with the 2008-09 season. In their study, they took all skaters with at least 60 games played in both seasons, and compared their even-strength goal, primary assist and secondary assist production rate from year to year. They found relatively weak correlations between goals (0.22) and primary assists (0.18) and almost none with secondary assists (0.05). Thus, they concluded the following: So in the end, we’re left to conclude that — at least for forwards, at even strength — secondary assists aren’t really a talent at all. By including them in people’s point total, we’re just adding noise, and making it harder to tell who’s having a good season. But the great thing about Eric Tulsky’s study at Broad Street Hockey study is that it is repeatable. If their conclusion is accurate, than testing different years should show the same results: a noticeable correlations for goals and primary assists, and extremely weak correlations for secondary assists. So I set out to check their work with a different data set – all of the forwards who played at least 400 minutes at 5-on-5 in both 2010-11 and 2011-12. I found the following correlations: Goals/60 minutes played: 0.37 Primary assists/60 minutes played: 0.39 Secondary assists/60 minutes played: 0.25 All assists/60 minutes played: 0.49 So, like Tulsky, I found that goals and primary assists had stronger repeatability than secondary assists did. However, I also found a much stronger correlation between secondary assists from one season to the next than Tulsky’s study did. That prompted me to run a few more correlations: Secondary assist rate in 2010-11 to primary assist rate in 2011-12: 0.25 Primary assist rate in 2010-11 to primary assist rate in 2011-12: 0.39 Total assist rate in 2010-11 to primary assist rate in 2011-12: 0.43 So, even if my belief is that primary assists are all that matter, adding in the secondary assist rate makes me a better predictor of primary assists in the future. Intuitively, that makes sense: assists come by making passes, so the same abilities that allow players to pile up second assists help them to make primary assists. But, we’ve now looked at two seasons and had contradictory results – I found a significant correlation year over year, while Broad Street Hockey found almost no correlation. So I tried something else: I took all of the forwards who had played at least 1,250 minutes from 2008-11 and compared their scoring rates with the group of forwards with at least 400 minutes played in 2011-12. I found the following correlations: Secondary assist from 2008-11 to total assist rate in 2011-12: 0.41 Primary assist rate from 2008-11 to total assist rate in 2011-12: 0.52 Total assist rate from 2008-11 to total assist rate in 2011-12: 0.56 Again, second assist production lags, but once again we see a noticeable correlation between secondary assist production and total assist production. My conclusion from that data is that for forwards, secondary assist production provides useful data, and that an analysis incorporating it is likely to produce better data than one that doesn’t. http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/the-edmonton-oilers-ryan-nugent-hopkins-and-the-second-assist Finally, is it a smart idea to really base which player is better purely off manipulated statistics? Or have we come to the conclusion that Spooner is a better players then Henrik Sedin because he also has more 5on5 points and 5on5 primary assist........ Or Jagr over Jamie Benn, Or how about Colborne over D.Sedin, Pacioretty, voracek and Ryan Johansen....Hey, the stats show right? I'm going to take that as a no.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 9 minutes ago, Spotted Zebra said: I feel like there's a lot of Erik Johnson in Chychrun, just a gut feel. I'd mentioned Bogosian in the past, and I think Button used that as a comparison as well. Johnson's not that far off I guess. Both end up as players you buck up for in a contract but don't really every impress you enough to live up to it. That's my worry with Chychrun, but that's saying he'll still be a player that could get that contract to begin with, so grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 13 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: ... Finally, is it a smart idea to really base which player is better purely off manipulated statistics? Or have we come to the conclusion that Spooner is a better players then Henrik Sedin because he also has more 5on5 points and 5on5 primary assist........ Or Jagr over Jamie Benn, Or how about Colborne over D.Sedin, Pacioretty, voracek and Ryan Johansen....Hey, the stats show right? I'm going to take that as a no.... I don't think anyone's saying we should do that, but it is something you shouldn't completely ignore either to see if that's something that might make you more concerned about drafting that player over another you rank equally high. You should use everything you can (regular stats, advanced stats, eye test, etc.) to help get a picture of the strengths and weaknesses of a player. So, basically the same debate that happens every time advanced stats are brought into the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 8 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Well I completely disagree. Your large sample data doesn't exist. There is no stats for how much value a play was, there is nothing being calculated to determine the difference between Williams dump in that bounced of the stanchion in front of the net vs Backstroms perfect sauce to Ovi. Both are primary assist and nothing to determine the skill level behind line player that made the play. So you can throw that argument out of the window. http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/the-edmonton-oilers-ryan-nugent-hopkins-and-the-second-assist Finally, is it a smart idea to really base which player is better purely off manipulated statistics? Or have we come to the conclusion that Spooner is a better players then Henrik Sedin because he also has more 5on5 points and 5on5 primary assist........ Or Jagr over Jamie Benn, Or how about Colborne over D.Sedin, Pacioretty, voracek and Ryan Johansen....Hey, the stats show right? I'm going to take that as a no.... I never claimed there was. In any case even in the stats you have provided there is less variance in primary points than in secondary ones. I still believe that over a sufficiently large sample size that primary points would be a better indicator of a player's play than secondary assists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spotted Zebra Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 8 minutes ago, elvis15 said: I'd mentioned Bogosian in the past, and I think Button used that as a comparison as well. Johnson's not that far off I guess. Both end up as players you buck up for in a contract but don't really every impress you enough to live up to it. That's my worry with Chychrun, but that's saying he'll still be a player that could get that contract to begin with, so grain of salt. I agree, not someone you'd necessarily wan't the Canucks to spend a 4th overall pick on, but would be acceptable if they'd done better this year and ended up with the 8th/9th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 2 minutes ago, Toews said: I never claimed there was. In any case even in the stats you have provided there is less variance in primary points than in secondary ones. I still believe that over a sufficiently large sample size that primary points would be a better indicator of a player's play than secondary assists. Is there a stat for guys (like Hansen) who are great on the forecheck, and at digging out pucks along the wall, who create the scoring chance with their efforts, but get no points? Or the net front presence guy, who is much needed? I guess I'm thinking about players like Hansen, where points don't reveal their true value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 1 minute ago, Toews said: I never claimed there was. In any case even in the stats you have provided there is less variance in primary points than in secondary ones. I still believe that over a sufficiently large sample size that primary points would be a better indicator of a player's play than secondary assists. I'd agree with that (and have). Even in Forsberg's example of William's dump in vs Backstrom's saucer pass, the dump in would be a low value primary assist - but then any secondary assist on that play would be even less value as a direct connection to being a cause for the goal. That should be a reasonable expectation that, in general, each step further removed from the goal had less of an impact on the goal being scored. Sure, sometimes you'll get a play where the 2nd assist (or the touch or three before that) was a massive play to start the chain and the goal wouldn't have happened without it even if the touches in between had only a little impact, but then a lot of scoring chances die on a missed play after a great one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noseforthenet Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 4 minutes ago, Alflives said: Is there a stat for guys (like Hansen) who are great on the forecheck, and at digging out pucks along the wall, who create the scoring chance with their efforts, but get no points? Or the net front presence guy, who is much needed? I guess I'm thinking about players like Hansen, where points don't reveal their true value. Those aren't normally the type of guys you try to land in the top 10. There needs to be a bit more natural ability than that. Hansen is a valuable player, but isn't exactly the guy you wanna spend a 1st on. If we are gonna rely on Hansen to help manufacture a good amount of our team's goals, we'rein trouble. Case in point: this entire season!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 10 minutes ago, elvis15 said: I'd agree with that (and have). Even in Forsberg's example of William's dump in vs Backstrom's saucer pass, the dump in would be a low value primary assist - but then any secondary assist on that play would be even less value as a direct connection to being a cause for the goal. That should be a reasonable expectation that, in general, each step further removed from the goal had less of an impact on the goal being scored. Sure, sometimes you'll get a play where the 2nd assist (or the touch or three before that) was a massive play to start the chain and the goal wouldn't have happened without it even if the touches in between had only a little impact, but then a lot of scoring chances die on a missed play after a great one. IMO the quality of a player in relation to those on the ice also plays a big factor. If Crosby has a significant amount of secondary assists playing with Kunitz and Dupuis, most likely those secondary assists contributed more to the goals than the primary points. In the case of Tkachuk, he is an inferior player to his linemates. Hence the secondary assists that he earned are quite likely the result of his linemates doing most of the heavy lifting. I still wont be unhappy if the Canucks draft him as he has shown that he can play seamlessly with skilled linemates. This was also his first year in the OHL and he is also younger than both of his linemates. The fact that his stats maybe slightly inflated is not that much of a concern to be as the talent is obvious to anyone who watches him play. I still prefer Dubois over him as I think the Canucks could use someone of his skill set more. I hope Benning agrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NameFaker Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 9 minutes ago, elvis15 said: I'd agree with that (and have). Even in Forsberg's example of William's dump in vs Backstrom's saucer pass, the dump in would be a low value primary assist - but then any secondary assist on that play would be even less value as a direct connection to being a cause for the goal. That should be a reasonable expectation that, in general, each step further removed from the goal had less of an impact on the goal being scored. Sure, sometimes you'll get a play where the 2nd assist (or the touch or three before that) was a massive play to start the chain and the goal wouldn't have happened without it even if the touches in between had only a little impact, but then a lot of scoring chances die on a missed play after a great one. Taking the example of the dump in, it seems to me there's a problem when we evaluate. We don't know what the player was thinking. We can't say for sure what the intent behind the action was. Maybe be the player knew his line mates and figured they'd be able to win the race. Maybe it was more of a tactical decision than we expected. Maybe it was an unconscious move made from intuition, and so it was similar to a "knee-jerk" pass in a 2 on 1 in terms of "intent". My point is that when we're analyzing actions, we're operating with a huge box of assumptions, and "value" becomes a strange and specious notion specific to the observer or observer-group. On the other point, that of secondary vs primary assists, I agree with elvis. If we think about the sequence of actions, the goal was most important. I don't care how many dekes Kyle Wellwood makes if he can't score. I don't care if he makes brilliant dekes and a smooth pass to John Scott who garbles the puck and misses a yawning cage. I care about the goal. After the goal, I care about the guy who passed to the scorer, or whoever shot for the rebound. Then I care about who set that play up in the first place. It's like being a general with the second assist - it's tactical, but the other players still have to perform, and that's what's truly important when you're evaluating a goal-scoring contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 28 minutes ago, Noseforthenet said: Those aren't normally the type of guys you try to land in the top 10. There needs to be a bit more natural ability than that. Hansen is a valuable player, but isn't exactly the guy you wanna spend a 1st on. If we are gonna rely on Hansen to help manufacture a good amount of our team's goals, we'rein trouble. Case in point: this entire season!!! Those are definitely not the players you try and draft with a top 10 pick, even if a few top 10 picks have ended up as that guy. Offence still has to be a part of that assessment, but you start to look at other stats as a bigger part. Hits, giveaway/takeaway ratio, blocks, etc. and then advanced stats, like possession, zone entries, with/without you metrics for linemates, etc. all can factor in to help explain those intangibles. 22 minutes ago, Toews said: IMO the quality of a player in relation to those on the ice also plays a big factor. If Crosby has a significant amount of secondary assists playing with Kunitz and Dupuis, most likely those secondary assists contributed more to the goals than the primary points. In the case of Tkachuk, he is an inferior player to his linemates. Hence the secondary assists that he earned are quite likely the result of his linemates doing most of the heavy lifting. I still wont be unhappy if the Canucks draft him as he has shown that he can play seamlessly with skilled linemates. This was also his first year in the OHL and he is also younger than both of his linemates. The fact that his stats maybe slightly inflated is not that much of a concern to be as the talent is obvious to anyone who watches him play. I still prefer Dubois over him as I think the Canucks could use someone of his skill set more. I hope Benning agrees. Oh sure, everything's relative. We see that in trying to do simple comparisons even looking at points where a player might be on a much better team vs another with less but on a worse team. Tkachuk is probably a step behind the offensive talent and creativity of his linemates, but I wouldn't discount him much for that, just like I wouldn't discount Marner much for being so skinny. Drafting is a game of inches though, and little things might be amplified in the NHL. 23 minutes ago, NameFaker said: Taking the example of the dump in, it seems to me there's a problem when we evaluate. We don't know what the player was thinking. We can't say for sure what the intent behind the action was. Maybe be the player knew his line mates and figured they'd be able to win the race. Maybe it was more of a tactical decision than we expected. Maybe it was an unconscious move made from intuition, and so it was similar to a "knee-jerk" pass in a 2 on 1 in terms of "intent". My point is that when we're analyzing actions, we're operating with a huge box of assumptions, and "value" becomes a strange and specious notion specific to the observer or observer-group. On the other point, that of secondary vs primary assists, I agree with elvis. If we think about the sequence of actions, the goal was most important. I don't care how many dekes Kyle Wellwood makes if he can't score. I don't care if he makes brilliant dekes and a smooth pass to John Scott who garbles the puck and misses a yawning cage. I care about the goal. After the goal, I care about the guy who passed to the scorer, or whoever shot for the rebound. Then I care about who set that play up in the first place. It's like being a general with the second assist - it's tactical, but the other players still have to perform, and that's what's truly important when you're evaluating a goal-scoring contest. We do the best we can with what we have. To get more, you'd have to have someone tracking (and rating) each aspect for worth, and once you do that you start to get subjectivity leaking into the discussion. Look at hit statistics, and just how much they can vary from arena to arena, and consider how that would impact something like importance or intent of primary and secondary assists. This is why we look at something simply and trust the assumption (to a point, understanding it's flaws) that the goal is the most important event as you say, and each previous action generally had less and less importance. Otherwise it becomes far too complex an exercise, and each step is important to the outcome regardless of intent. And besides, if you want to talk about importance in that way and so specifically for each instance, shouldn't we assign more weight to a goal where someone skated through the whole team and deked the goalie out of his jock strap vs one where a rebound landed on a guy's stick right in front of an open net? Imagine trying to figure that out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_The_Schneid! Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 I really hope we get a top 3 pick so that it takes all this guess work out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 There's a lot of Debbie Downers talking about Chychrun, but I remember the same conversations were had about Seth Jones as well. Cam Fowler got the same treatment. Should be careful of writing off a defenceman at such a young age when they have all the tools to be a star. My only concern at this stage is what Chychrun's work ethic and mental makeup is like. I'll admit, I haven't heard much about his work ethic or mental makeup, but if he's got that competitive edge and work ethic to improve, he'll become that full package defenceman one day... likely in his mid-20s (where most defencemen blossom). From what I've seen of him, he has all the tools to be a player like Pietrangelo. I'll take that chance if I'm picking 4th, 5th, or 6th in this draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stierlitz Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Thomas Drance @ThomasDrance 2h2 hours ago Jim Benning was scouting U18s in Grand Forks, also saw PL Dubois on his trip. Got back to Vancouver today and got the Demko deal done. #busy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S N Y P E R S 7 Posted April 21, 2016 Author Share Posted April 21, 2016 If the Canucks don't sign Caggiula, I can legitimately see them taking Tkachuk or Dubois in the 4-6 range. Not only would they be the best players available, but they're as close to sure-fire elite NHLers as you could possibly get in that range, and there is a definite need for left wingers in the system; they could also take Cam Morrison in the second round. Andrew Peeke is a guy that they could look at for the third round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.