I agree to a degree, however I have a couple counterpoints.if we are playing kids and fighting for playoff spot, that seems like great outcome to me. Even if we fall short.
With respect to the last point, I think the opposite. If the Blues manage to make the playoffs, then they likely found a way to rid themselves of bad habits, and they’d be rewarded for doing so. With that said, I’m in the “get a better draft pick” camp.I agree to a degree, however I have a couple counterpoints.
1st- I would love to to give our scouting staff every advantage to get a good player out of this draft, even if just a few spots. I think it’s more important to our future at this time. It also seems that since this draft isn’t as loaded as last and we have less 1st rounders, our first round pick is pretty important. I really think we need to nail it, unless it’s traded at which point we need to nail that trade.
2nd and more relevant to your point - I think guys like Kessel, Bolduc, Dean, Peru, Hofer, etc. really don’t need the playoff push as much this year, so much as they just need to focus on evolving their games. To be clear, I don’t think a playoff push necessarily hurts that. But I think their focus should be on growing the technical aspects of their games. I believe next year or the following would be more important to see that push once they have more baseline fundamentals in place.
3rd and also relevant - I sort of don’t want to see us make the playoffs (this is also tied to roster management realizations but I don’t want to get to that) because it rewards a season riddled with poor, lackadaisical, and inconsistent play (aside from a few players). I could see that reinforcing bad habits. I want our guys to come into the off-season with a chip on their shoulders and inspiration to work hard this summer to work on their deficiencies.
That’s fair point. I will concede that some change in habits for the good is better than none. It would give a leaping off point.With respect to the last point, I think the opposite. If the Blues manage to make the playoffs, then they likely found a way to rid themselves of bad habits, and they’d be rewarded for doing so. With that said, I’m in the “get a better draft pick” camp.
What makes you think this?I don't think there is really difference between players drafted from 8 to around 26 in the chances to play over 100 games in the NHL, so how much difference does 9th vs 15th make
Except that chances of anyone picked between 8 and 26 of playing 100 games in the NHL is identical, and just looking through the drafts from 2010 to 2017 there is not a lot of difference in the actual players performance on the ice, some really good players, a lot of solid to good players and some guys who bustedWhat makes you think this?
While every draft is different, over time, pick 8 is more than twice as valuable as pick 26.
Except that chances of anyone picked between 8 and 26 of playing 100 games in the NHL is identical, and just looking through the drafts from 2010 to 2017 there is not a lot of difference in the actual players performance on the ice, some really good players, a lot of solid to good players and some guys who busted
history shows, say, picking 11th vs picking 16th or 21st has very little difference in outcomesIs getting someone who plays 100 games the goal? I know it's a common benchmark, but it's a weak one
Also, this specific draft, I think the top 8 is really strong (draft watchers, correct me if I'm wrong). So picking 9 would only require 1 team to reach to get a top tier player
What proof do you have that the odds of getting a player playing 100 games is identical at picks 8 and 26? Agree with Majorityof1 that that’s a low bar but regardless, I find that claim dubious at best.Except that chances of anyone picked between 8 and 26 of playing 100 games in the NHL is identical, and just looking through the drafts from 2010 to 2017 there is not a lot of difference in the actual players performance on the ice, some really good players, a lot of solid to good players and some guys who busted
What proof do you have that the odds of getting a player playing 100 games is identical at picks 8 and 26? Agree with Majorityof1 that that’s a low bar but regardless, I find that claim dubious at best.
All of the charts out there that try to measure draft pick value, whether it’s games played or other things like Goals Above Replacement that try to measure the value of the player, they all show pick 8 as highly more valuable than pick 26.
What sort of timeframe does that measure? And it still shows pick 8 at an 80% chance and pick 26 at a 60% chance. 60% and 80% are not “about the same.”
that was done in 2020 and measured the 2000-2009 drafts, it more or less shows the chances of a complete bust are spread fairly evenly over that range of picks, I looked for something that showed the higher end impact, but either my search skills are lacking or, as value is more subjective, it isn't out there in a similar formatWhat sort of timeframe does that measure? And it still shows pick 8 at an 80% chance and pick 26 at a 60% chance. 60% and 80% are not “about the same.”
But what’s much more important to me is the quality of those games played. I personally don’t value playing 100 NHL games that highly. Johnny Pohl and Jeff Taffe reached that bar. A graph that measures the impact of players taken at that pick is a much better measurement IMO.
I quite literally posted such a graph in my first reply…that was done in 2020 and measured the 2000-2009 drafts, it more or less shows the chances of a complete bust are spread fairly evenly over that range of picks, I looked for something that showed the higher end impact, but either my search skills are lacking or, as value is more subjective, it isn't out there in a similar format
what are they basing “value relative to first overall” onI quite literally posted such a graph in my first reply…
Here’s another one I find interesting. Shows two different ways of valuing picks but then also includes the average going rate of those picks and shows a bit of a market disparity a shrewd GM could take advantage of.
It’s a base 100 scale so the 1st overall pick would be 100 and the others scaled accordingly.what are they basing “value relative to first overall” on
perceived value?
the actual measurement of what picks hit in the past relative to where they were drafted?
I just hope we can knock vegas out of the playoffs.