I started doing this sort of thing a few years ago. The scale of the differences in the draft lists generated by the scouting organizations, all of which are independent from the teams, was very interesting.
I wondered what a combined listing might look like and ended up creating a list that used the scouting bureau's rankings of the draftees (from 1 to 15) and then reversing that order for purposes of creating a points system (from 15 to 1).
Running that system through the different lists I came up with an aggregated ranking order (see below). I further refined my dataset by counting the number of time a draftee made the top-10 of a list. In this way I got perspective on both ranking order and overall preference.
i.e. Cherepanov may have more ranking points than Gagner but Gagner shows up on more top-10 lists than Cherepanov - this can allow me to infer that Gagner may be a safer bet than Cherepanov (yes, I know... Redline's opinion is noted below).
For the Oilers purposes, at pick #6, they:
-- will pick one of Alzner, Cherepanov and Gagner,
-- should know there is no top-end talent outside the top-4,
-- the wildcard is Cherepanov (given Redline),
-- should trade up,
-- can always hope other teams get stupid
So, without further ado:
The Scouts and Who They Recommend
.... McKeens ..... ISS ........ *Redline ..... Hockey News . CSB**
1 .. Kane ........ Kane ........ Kane ........ Kane ........ Turris
2 .. Turris ...... vanReimsdyk . Voracek ..... vanRiemsdyk . Kane
3 .. Voracek ..... Turris ...... Turris ...... Turris ...... Cherepanov
4 .. Alzner ...... Cherepanov .. Alzner ...... Voracek ..... vanReimsdyk
5 .. Cherepanov .. Voracek ..... vanReimsdyk . Cherepanov .. Ellerby
6 .. vanReimsdyk . Alzner ...... Gagner ...... Gagner ...... Backlund
7 .. Shattenkirk . Gagner ...... Couture ..... Couture ..... Alzner
8 .. Gagner ...... Mayorov ..... Hamill ...... Alzner ...... Gagner
9 .. McDonagh .... Ellerby ..... Cole ........ Esposito .... Eller
10 . Hamill ...... Backlund .... McDonagh .... Sutter ...... Voracek
11 . Esposito .... Esposito ... *Esposito .... Ellerby ..... Esposito
12 . Sweatt ...... Gillies .... *Katic ....... Hamill ...... Mayorov
13 . Couture ..... Couture .... *Petrecki .... Gillies ..... Hamill
14 . Ellerby ..... Petrecki ... *Ellerby ..... Mayorov ..... Perron
15 . MacLean ..... Perron ..... *Cherepanov .. Petrecki .... McDonagh
Kane ........ 5 _ 15 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 14 = 74
Turris ...... 5 _ 14 + 13 + 13 + 13 + 15 = 68
vanReimsdyk . 5 _ 10 + 14 + 11 + 14 + 12 = 61
Voracek ..... 4 _ 13 + 11 + 14 + 12 + 06 = 56
Alzner ...... 5 _ 11 + 10 + 12 + 08 + 09 = 50
Cherepanov .. 4 _ 11 + 12 + 01 + 11 + 13 = 48
Gagner ...... 5 _ 08 + 09 + 10 + 10 + 08 = 45
Ellerby ..... 4 _ 02 + 07 + 02 + 05 + 11 = 27
Esposito .... 0 _ 05 + 05 + 05 + 07 + 05 = 27
Couture ..... 2 _ 03 + 03 + 09 + 09 + 00 = 24
Hamill ...... 2 _ 06 + 00 + 08 + 04 + 03 = 21
Backlund .... 2 _ 00 + 06 + 00 + 00 + 10 = 16
Mayorov ..... 1 _ 00 + 08 + 00 + 02 + 04 = 14
McDonagh .... 2 _ 07 + 00 + 06 + 00 + 01 = 14
Shattenkirk . 1 _ 09 + 00 + 00 + 00 + 00 = 09
Gillies ..... 0 _ 00 + 04 + 00 + 03 + 00 = 07
Petrecki .... 0 _ 00 + 02 + 03 + 01 + 00 = 06
Cole ........ 1
Eller ....... 1
Sutter ...... 1
Sweatt ...... 0
Katic ....... 0
Perron ...... 0
The groupings are clear:
Kane, Turris and vanReimsdyk are ahead of everyone else in terms of regard (ranking) and safety. Every scouting service out there likes their skill set and, as a collective, consider them a safe pick at that ranking.
Voracek, Alzner, Cherepanov and Gagner run closely behind the top-three - either because one of the scouting groups had major reservations (CSS vs. Voracek and Redline vs. Cherepanov) or because, overall, they clearly ranked them lower (Alzner and Gagner).
Ellerby, Esposito, Couture and Hamill are a group that is considered, distinctly, second rate to the top 7 players. Esposito is an interesting case - everyone acknowledges his skill set but no one sees him as a top-10 guy.
After that it is all over the map.
------
When looking at the list I tend to apply an arbitrary rule of thumb: any draftee within 10 points of another draftee is at threat to be picked ahead or behind that draftee. This is to recognize, in part, the modestly random (to me) aspect of what teams prefer in their players.
It is also a measure of reasonableness. Sutter, if I had listed him, has 6 pts - it would not be a big surprise to see him preferred over Backlund by any number of teams. It would also, however, be a surprise to see him picked ahead of Hamill or Couture.
Using that rule of thumb I can expect that Turis could go #1 and Voracek could overtake vanReimsdyk but not Turris or Kane. Alzner and Cherepanov may overtake Voracek but Gagner will not.
If anyone ranked below Gagner is chosen in the top-7 it SHOULD be a major surprise. If anyone ranked below Hamill is taken in the top-9, the team making that call probably just made a big mistake.
------
* USAToday only publishes Redline's top-10 so I do not have an official top-15 list. Luckily for me they publish the Redline top-10 every month. The extra 5 players listed have shown up on more recent Redline listings at one point in time or another.
** CSS does not aggregate their European and North American lists. So I did it. Given the weakness of the Old World's offerings this year I started the highest CSS ranked Euro two spots behind and followed on from there.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
I wondered what a combined listing might look like and ended up creating a list that used the scouting bureau's rankings of the draftees (from 1 to 15) and then reversing that order for purposes of creating a points system (from 15 to 1).
Running that system through the different lists I came up with an aggregated ranking order (see below). I further refined my dataset by counting the number of time a draftee made the top-10 of a list. In this way I got perspective on both ranking order and overall preference.
i.e. Cherepanov may have more ranking points than Gagner but Gagner shows up on more top-10 lists than Cherepanov - this can allow me to infer that Gagner may be a safer bet than Cherepanov (yes, I know... Redline's opinion is noted below).
For the Oilers purposes, at pick #6, they:
-- will pick one of Alzner, Cherepanov and Gagner,
-- should know there is no top-end talent outside the top-4,
-- the wildcard is Cherepanov (given Redline),
-- should trade up,
-- can always hope other teams get stupid
So, without further ado:
The Scouts and Who They Recommend
.... McKeens ..... ISS ........ *Redline ..... Hockey News . CSB**
1 .. Kane ........ Kane ........ Kane ........ Kane ........ Turris
2 .. Turris ...... vanReimsdyk . Voracek ..... vanRiemsdyk . Kane
3 .. Voracek ..... Turris ...... Turris ...... Turris ...... Cherepanov
4 .. Alzner ...... Cherepanov .. Alzner ...... Voracek ..... vanReimsdyk
5 .. Cherepanov .. Voracek ..... vanReimsdyk . Cherepanov .. Ellerby
6 .. vanReimsdyk . Alzner ...... Gagner ...... Gagner ...... Backlund
7 .. Shattenkirk . Gagner ...... Couture ..... Couture ..... Alzner
8 .. Gagner ...... Mayorov ..... Hamill ...... Alzner ...... Gagner
9 .. McDonagh .... Ellerby ..... Cole ........ Esposito .... Eller
10 . Hamill ...... Backlund .... McDonagh .... Sutter ...... Voracek
11 . Esposito .... Esposito ... *Esposito .... Ellerby ..... Esposito
12 . Sweatt ...... Gillies .... *Katic ....... Hamill ...... Mayorov
13 . Couture ..... Couture .... *Petrecki .... Gillies ..... Hamill
14 . Ellerby ..... Petrecki ... *Ellerby ..... Mayorov ..... Perron
15 . MacLean ..... Perron ..... *Cherepanov .. Petrecki .... McDonagh
Kane ........ 5 _ 15 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 14 = 74
Turris ...... 5 _ 14 + 13 + 13 + 13 + 15 = 68
vanReimsdyk . 5 _ 10 + 14 + 11 + 14 + 12 = 61
Voracek ..... 4 _ 13 + 11 + 14 + 12 + 06 = 56
Alzner ...... 5 _ 11 + 10 + 12 + 08 + 09 = 50
Cherepanov .. 4 _ 11 + 12 + 01 + 11 + 13 = 48
Gagner ...... 5 _ 08 + 09 + 10 + 10 + 08 = 45
Ellerby ..... 4 _ 02 + 07 + 02 + 05 + 11 = 27
Esposito .... 0 _ 05 + 05 + 05 + 07 + 05 = 27
Couture ..... 2 _ 03 + 03 + 09 + 09 + 00 = 24
Hamill ...... 2 _ 06 + 00 + 08 + 04 + 03 = 21
Backlund .... 2 _ 00 + 06 + 00 + 00 + 10 = 16
Mayorov ..... 1 _ 00 + 08 + 00 + 02 + 04 = 14
McDonagh .... 2 _ 07 + 00 + 06 + 00 + 01 = 14
Shattenkirk . 1 _ 09 + 00 + 00 + 00 + 00 = 09
Gillies ..... 0 _ 00 + 04 + 00 + 03 + 00 = 07
Petrecki .... 0 _ 00 + 02 + 03 + 01 + 00 = 06
Cole ........ 1
Eller ....... 1
Sutter ...... 1
Sweatt ...... 0
Katic ....... 0
Perron ...... 0
The groupings are clear:
Kane, Turris and vanReimsdyk are ahead of everyone else in terms of regard (ranking) and safety. Every scouting service out there likes their skill set and, as a collective, consider them a safe pick at that ranking.
Voracek, Alzner, Cherepanov and Gagner run closely behind the top-three - either because one of the scouting groups had major reservations (CSS vs. Voracek and Redline vs. Cherepanov) or because, overall, they clearly ranked them lower (Alzner and Gagner).
Ellerby, Esposito, Couture and Hamill are a group that is considered, distinctly, second rate to the top 7 players. Esposito is an interesting case - everyone acknowledges his skill set but no one sees him as a top-10 guy.
After that it is all over the map.
------
When looking at the list I tend to apply an arbitrary rule of thumb: any draftee within 10 points of another draftee is at threat to be picked ahead or behind that draftee. This is to recognize, in part, the modestly random (to me) aspect of what teams prefer in their players.
It is also a measure of reasonableness. Sutter, if I had listed him, has 6 pts - it would not be a big surprise to see him preferred over Backlund by any number of teams. It would also, however, be a surprise to see him picked ahead of Hamill or Couture.
Using that rule of thumb I can expect that Turis could go #1 and Voracek could overtake vanReimsdyk but not Turris or Kane. Alzner and Cherepanov may overtake Voracek but Gagner will not.
If anyone ranked below Gagner is chosen in the top-7 it SHOULD be a major surprise. If anyone ranked below Hamill is taken in the top-9, the team making that call probably just made a big mistake.
------
* USAToday only publishes Redline's top-10 so I do not have an official top-15 list. Luckily for me they publish the Redline top-10 every month. The extra 5 players listed have shown up on more recent Redline listings at one point in time or another.
** CSS does not aggregate their European and North American lists. So I did it. Given the weakness of the Old World's offerings this year I started the highest CSS ranked Euro two spots behind and followed on from there.
------
Have a great evening everyone.
3 comments:
So,
the first five picks
Kane, Turris, vanReimsdyk, Voracek &
Alzner
go exactly as predicted.
Its the Oilers turn at 6
Do they take Cherepanov?
Nyet.
Esposito?
If Barry Fraser was still in charge, yes.
Ellerby?
Was so many defencemen available for the NYI pick - Shattenkirk, Petrecki, Plante and so forth - would it not be wise to take a forward at 6 rather than a D?
That leaves a choice between the handy, compact-sized Gagner and the Econo-sized Couture - who was rated higher prior to his brush with mono [was he not?].
An interesting choice.
Hmm... I think Kane's a paper tiger at number one. Sure the scouts may have him out of reach for all but Turris, but Kane has two big negatives in my book.
He's small.
He's older than the other top ranked prospects.
He actually has a 3rd black mark. He played for a junior team that tends to throw tonnes of icetime at the star players. Rumours of 30min/game for Schremp, Perry and Bolland were all over the place during the lockout year. That may have juiced Kane's numners too.
Kane's probably going to be a player, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if he drops 2-3 spots. I imagine he ends up being behind the other 4-5 top forwards mentioned here when it comes to being an NHLer.
Agreed with rivQ on Kane. As far as the 6th goes - best bet at that spot really is Gagner.
-- Cherepanov is too big a gamble and
-- Alzner doesn't appear to have any upside past the 3rd or 4th d-man spot**
By the time Alzner was worth the cash his contracts would require he would be an UFA. wheeeeeee!
I like trading down for more picks or up for Voracek. Anything less is probably a loss in this draft.
Post a Comment