So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft

Thomas wrote:
>
> Holland has had two successful picks during his tenure.
>
>
> Wings idiots have been posting about how good Holland has been at the
> draft table because of these two guys and these two guys only. Here's
> how I am proving it.
>
> We're going to subtract Datsyuk and Zetterberg from the equation, as
> well as Lacroix' top two point producers. Here's the totals...
>
> Datsyuk & Zetterberg - 643gp 217g 351a 568p
> Tanguay & Vrbata - 877gp 234g 417a 651p
>
> I just eliminated MORE PRODUCTION from Colorado's totals, as well as THE
> HIGHEST FIRST ROUND PICK COLORADO HAS HAD. Let's run the overall numbers
> now, and see what we get.
>
>
> Total picks
> Holland - 76
> Lacroix - 88
>
> # > 1gp
> Holland - 17 22.4%
> Lacroix - 33 37.5%
>
> # > 100gp
> Holland - 3 3.9%
> Lacroix - 12 13.6%
>
> Totals
> Holland - 1043gp 83g 151a 234p
> Lacroix - 4271gp 380g 698a 1078p
>

FYI,

You can give Zetterberg and Datsyuk back to Detroit, and Colorado still
wins.

That would give Holland 5 picks who played more than 100 games to
Lacroix' 12, and Holland's picks would have a total of 802 points to
Lacroix' 1078.

You could even throw out Lacroix' 3rd best point producer, and the Avs
would STILL beat the Wings in production.

-Thomas
 >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft 

"Hockeyguy" <heymorons.RemoveThis@whatever.net> wrote in message
news:47018433$0$9115$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> "Thomas" <noneman.RemoveThis@none.man> wrote in message
> news:frmdnRh76ecZ15zanZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...
>> Hockeyguy wrote:
>>> "Thomas" <noneman.RemoveThis@none.man> wrote in message
>>> news:upOdnfxxM-ivopzanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@wideopenwest.com...
>>>> Holland has had two successful picks during his tenure.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK sparky - you can have the last word and then it is off to bed.....
>>
>> That's all you've got?
>>
>
> Jesus Christ you are a petulant and ignorant child.

D'ya think?
 >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft 

> What Tom posted in indisputable, Lacroix drafted far more NHLers than
> Holland did.
>
> End of story.
>

Ya the end of a story written by someone with a seventh grade education.
THE ANALYSIS NEEDS WEIGHTED METRICS AS HIS ANALYSIS IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED.
Under his analysis 1st round pick Scott "Fucking" Parker is equal to
Zetterberg - even your neighbors dog knows this is a joke. To work it must
be compared and contrasted and tested on various combinations of data
points - he doesn't know how to do that either. I have not seen your
resident loudmouth respond to my (or anyone's) explanation of need for
relative worth on evaluation criteria....probably never will. End of
story - end of his fairy tale seem more appropriate.
 >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft 

"Freedom Elz" <mediadawg1 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191329564.642944.141800@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> What Tom posted in indisputable, Lacroix drafted far more NHLers than
> Holland did.

If that's the only factor you'll allow yourself to consider, alas.

HD.
 >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft 

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 08:31:48 -0500, "Hockeyguy"
<heymorons.RemoveThis@whatever.net> wrote:

>
>> What Tom posted in indisputable, Lacroix drafted far more NHLers than
>> Holland did.
>>
>> End of story.
>
>Ya the end of a story written by someone with a seventh grade education.
>THE ANALYSIS NEEDS WEIGHTED METRICS AS HIS ANALYSIS IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED.
>Under his analysis 1st round pick Scott "Fucking" Parker is equal to
>Zetterberg - even your neighbors dog knows this is a joke. To work it must
>be compared and contrasted and tested on various combinations of data
>points - he doesn't know how to do that either. I have not seen your
>resident loudmouth respond to my (or anyone's) explanation of need for
>relative worth on evaluation criteria....probably never will. End of
>story - end of his fairy tale seem more appropriate.

There does seem to be an awful lot of Kool-Aid drinking in regards to
Tom's Excel homework. I was rather hoping at least one person on that
side of the fence had any experience with analysis, metrics, DOE,
anything at all. Oh well.

Math is neat.

In related news, I've just finished my exhaustive study of Stanley Cup
winners from 1997 to 1998 and have determined that the Detroit Red
Wings are the greatest hockey team in history.

Viva le math!
 >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft 

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:04:25 -0500, "Hockeyguy"
<heymorons DeleteThis @whatever.net> wrote:

>>>> Holland has picked THREE PLAYERS other than Datsyuk and Zetterberg who
>>>> have played in over 100gp.
>>>
>>> Why is 100 GP any kind of standard?
>>
>> Because it factors out cup-of-coffee guys, and nobody put forth anything
>> better as a standard.
>>
>
>Again - see above. The GP is an absolute 7th grade comparative approach.
>You need a weighed analysis - this has been said about 134 times now - GP is
>a bullshit metric just about as valid as comparing/contrasting the merit of
>a pick based upon the size of their sakes.

GP is a great metric if your goal is merely to determine that teams
with more holes in their roster draft better than good teams. Good
teams don't have the luxury, or roster space, to bring up as many kids
for "top level tryouts" as teams that aren't jockying for playoff
position. Teams which rely on veterans, and find success doing so,
also tend not to offer kids top level tryouts.
 >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft 

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 08:31:48 -0500, "Hockeyguy"
<heymorons RemoveThis @whatever.net> wrote:

>
>> What Tom posted in indisputable, Lacroix drafted far more NHLers than
>> Holland did.
>>
>> End of story.
>>
>
>Ya the end of a story written by someone with a seventh grade education.
>THE ANALYSIS NEEDS WEIGHTED METRICS AS HIS ANALYSIS IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED.
>Under his analysis 1st round pick Scott "Fucking" Parker is equal to
>Zetterberg -

He put point production out there as criteria. How does that equate
Parker to Zetterberg?

And how in the world would you reasonably weight metrics? Talk about
a disputable factoid. I actually don't have a huge problem with the
idea, but if you can't agree on hard numbers (# games played, #
players that made the NHL, # points by draftees), how in the world
would anyone agree on soft, made up numbers, like weighted metrics?

I still don't see why it's so hard to look at the picks the teams used
on players, and see how many of those players either played in the
NHL, played significantly in the NHL, or scored significantly in the
NHL.

You keep saying that the analysis needs something different, but fail
to suggest specifically what that is. Go ahead and create some
weights if you want, and do the analysis.

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft 

"Chris" <noone DeleteThis @goaway.com> wrote in message
news:c1t4g39o39o6clq4nusaop17cv8b23tt0o@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 08:31:48 -0500, "Hockeyguy"
> <heymorons DeleteThis @whatever.net> wrote:
>
> You keep saying that the analysis needs something different, but fail
> to suggest specifically what that is. Go ahead and create some
> weights if you want, and do the analysis.
>

Hey now whoa there Chris. You are talking to "hockeyguy" guy here, not
"analysisguy."
 >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft 

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:28:12 -0600, Chris <noone RemoveThis @goaway.com> wrote:

>>>>> Why is 100 GP any kind of standard?
>>>>
>>>> Because it factors out cup-of-coffee guys, and nobody put forth anything
>>>> better as a standard.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Again - see above. The GP is an absolute 7th grade comparative approach.
>>>You need a weighed analysis - this has been said about 134 times now - GP is
>>>a bullshit metric just about as valid as comparing/contrasting the merit of
>>>a pick based upon the size of their sakes.
>>
>>GP is a great metric if your goal is merely to determine that teams
>>with more holes in their roster draft better than good teams. Good
>>teams don't have the luxury, or roster space, to bring up as many kids
>>for "top level tryouts" as teams that aren't jockying for playoff
>>position. Teams which rely on veterans, and find success doing so,
>>also tend not to offer kids top level tryouts.
>
>So, would you guys like to see something like this:
>
>Weight 1st round picks 1:1, 2-3rd round picks 1.5:1, 4-9th round picks
>2:1. Give one weighted point to players who've graduated to the NHL,
>another weighted point to players who've played 80 games or more (one
>full season), and another weighted point to players who've scored 100
>or more points.
>
>So for example, a 1st round pick who made the NHL, played 100 games,
>but was a scoring scrub gets 2 points. The same player who was
>drafted in the 5th round gets 4 points, etc. Then, add up the points?
>
>Something like that?
>
>Sounds like an interesting analysis, though then you'd get caught up
>in the weighting factors, how much to weight, what are the cutoffs,
>etc.

Sounds like an interesting project. While we're at it, let's add a
few other factors:

1. I'd propose treating draft picks as any other form of team
capital. Spending a draft pick on a veteran who comes in and nets 80
points per year is a much better use of capital than using it to draft
a guy who who nets 10 points. When determining effective use of draft
picks, that simply has to be accounted for.

2. Weight the long-term make-up of a team's roster, as it pertains to
stability throughout the lineup. Stable lineups allow for fewer
call-ups and "top level tryouts" for youngsters. Unstable lineups,
lineups that shift more from year to year, allow for more chances.
Perhaps a multiplier based on lineup stability could be used.

For instance, as Eric pointed out, the number of Red Wing call-ups
would be seriously impacted by the fact that they used basically the
same fourth line for the better part of a decade.

Sounds like a lot of work that I don't have the time or patience for.
Then again, unlike Tom's numbers, you could actually start to draw
real-world conclusions about not only specific draft choices, but
about the successful USE of draft picks.

If all you could do with a draft pick was make a selection on draft
day, Tom's chart would be a lot more applicable.
 >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft 

>Sounds like a lot of work that I don't have the time or patience for.

Nope. Me either.

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft 

On Oct 2, 8:57 am, "HockeyinHD" <hid....DeleteThis@home.com> wrote:
> "Freedom Elz" <mediada....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191329564.642944.141800@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > What Tom posted in indisputable, Lacroix drafted far more NHLers than
> > Holland did.
>
> If that's the only factor you'll allow yourself to consider, alas.

When evaluating draft prospects what the hell else matters?
 >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft 

On Oct 2, 9:31 am, "Hockeyguy" <heymor... DeleteThis @whatever.net> wrote:
> > What Tom posted in indisputable, Lacroix drafted far more NHLers than
> > Holland did.
>
> > End of story.
>
> Ya the end of a story written by someone with a seventh grade education.
> THE ANALYSIS NEEDS WEIGHTED METRICS AS HIS ANALYSIS IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED.
> Under his analysis 1st round pick Scott "Fucking" Parker is equal to
> Zetterberg - even your neighbors dog knows this is a joke.


> To work it must
> be compared and contrasted and tested on various combinations of data
> points - he doesn't know how to do that either.

It does why? So Holland won't look as bad?


I have not seen your
> resident loudmouth respond to my (or anyone's) explanation of need for
> relative worth on evaluation criteria....probably never will. End of
> story - end of his fairy tale seem more appropriate.

I agree the fairy tale of Holland being a draft genius has been
skewered
once and for all.
 >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft 

>
> So, would you guys like to see something like this:
>
> Weight 1st round picks 1:1, 2-3rd round picks 1.5:1, 4-9th round picks
> 2:1. Give one weighted point to players who've graduated to the NHL,
> another weighted point to players who've played 80 games or more (one
> full season), and another weighted point to players who've scored 100
> or more points.
>
> So for example, a 1st round pick who made the NHL, played 100 games,
> but was a scoring scrub gets 2 points. The same player who was
> drafted in the 5th round gets 4 points, etc. Then, add up the points?
>
> Something like that?
>

Our Judges say .....Ding, Ding, Ding - Close enough - we have a winner..
You have no idea how refreshing it is to see this. This is it - however
the GP is a flawed item to compare/contrast as it yields the conclusion that
value of 1st rounder Scott Parker is equal to 7 th Rounder Zetterberg at the
point each had finally both played 100 games - a serious flaw in the
analysis approach.
 >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft