|
Aye Doc posted:i think you are looking from a really narrow view if you believe the D pool is slim right now Dude it's pretty f'n slim in terms of dudes who aren't old/declining and who aren't negative possession players. I still need to fill out my top four and out of the remaining guys left for that role, I'll bank on Werenski over most of them over the next three seasons at a fraction of the cost.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:Dude it's pretty f'n slim in terms of dudes who aren't old/declining and who aren't negative possession players. I still need to fill out my top four and out of the remaining guys left for that role, I'll bank on Werenski over most of them over the next three seasons at a fraction of the cost. Can we compromise on "I like the Werenski pick more than Cam Fowler"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Good Soldier Svejk posted:
I don't think Werenski needs multiple years to develop and think he'll make an immediate impact, or at the very least be better than any of the veterans on D left by the end of his ELC. I legit think he'll be a franchise defenseman within 3-4 years. Again, I don't know if you've been following him but he has absolutely put on a clinic at every level, including the AHL playoffs, and every scout calls him the most NHL-ready D prospect on the planet right now. He's really really really good dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
SuGood Soldier Svejk posted:Can we compromise on "I like the Werenski pick more than Cam Fowler"? Surely
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:Dude it's pretty f'n slim in terms of dudes who aren't old/declining and who aren't negative possession players. I still need to fill out my top four and out of the remaining guys left for that role, I'll bank on Werenski over most of them over the next three seasons at a fraction of the cost. i'm not talking about werenski's value vs. other d right now, i think the pick is fine. there's a lot of defensemen who have value that i think you guys are ignoring just because their corsi is bad. there's a lot more to a player than what his raw shot differential says e: there's probably somewhere around 110-120 dudes who are legitimate top four defensemen in the NHL and we've drafted 70 or so of them because jesus christ y'all drafting cam fowler and poo poo Aye Doc fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jul 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Aye Doc posted:i'm not talking about werenski's value vs. other d right now, i think the pick is fine. there's a lot of defensemen who have value that i think you guys are ignoring just because their corsi is bad. there's a lot more to a player than what his raw shot differential says There are some guys left who are solid, I just don't think they're as valuable a pick for me considering the salary cap and their age. Not to mention that it's far more likely one of them is still around when I pick next, whereas Werenski would have absolutely been gone. This is not a vacuum, there's strategy in constructing a team in a salary cap league.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Well we should be really be doing a 30 player draft, not 23 -- but even in this context gently caress taking some pluggers when I can take a (high probabiliity even) potential elite player
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:Well we should be really be doing a 30 player draft, not 23 -- but even in this context gently caress taking some pluggers when I can take a (high probabiliity even) potential elite player Hell no, half the teams will not even draft 23 guys
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:hrmm umrph arr let's see here TOMAS HERTL never heard of him I'll take Havlat - tofes in 2013
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Werenski will probably be a good defenseman someday but not next year and definitely not under Torts
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Man, now we're getting to the heart of it I think. Picks are a lot more fun when they're contentious because they get you to re-evaluate your criteria and understanding of what makes a good player. It's actually a very interesting question because there are plenty of players deployed as top defenseman that don't have appreciable effects on corsi, but they do on shot suppression. The problem with that is that even traditional shutdown defensemen like Sekera and Hjalmarsson do positively affect corsi whereas a guy like Emelin only prevents the other team from taking shots. (Sorry for mentioning Emelin if you were banking on him being forgotten but he's the best example I could think of who I would hope most folks don't give a poo poo about being mentioned because he is traditional viewed as a bad defenseman). However, by the nature of their being so few defensemen that actually do positively impact corsi do we have to accept that maybe Emelin is not a complete waste by the virtue of him potentially being better than someone who could replace him? In that way I could see someone saying the criteria for what is "good" is skewed, but it could also be fair to say that there were roughly ~300 hockey d-men in the NHL last season so if distribution of professional talent follows a bell curve then there simply couldn't be 100 top-4 dmen. I'm rambling though so I'd like someone else to run with this or refute it. I just think it's an interesting thought but I'm too tired/too far removed from statistics to follow it through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
tofes posted:Werenski will probably be a good defenseman someday but not next year and definitely not under Torts He will use his incredible skating to get into lanes and block shots
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
80+ posts, man the draft must be flying! Nevermind, it's just people complaining about dumb poo poo. I gave Provorov some consideration over Murray, but I felt it was a tad early for him, even if he should be a sure first pairing guy in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
in about 15 minutes Metapod can pick
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Infidel Castro posted:80+ posts, man the draft must be flying! Look, buddy, maybe this draft wasn't adequately explained to you...
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Infidel Castro posted:80+ posts, man the draft must be flying! I was going to respond with something snarky about your team but honestly it's pretty good so far so... gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Good Soldier Svejk posted:Man, now we're getting to the heart of it I think. Picks are a lot more fun when they're contentious because they get you to re-evaluate your criteria and understanding of what makes a good player. there are a lot of things that affect what a player's shot differential is from the big to the small - linemates, zone starts, competition, whatever. a lot of the D left are on bad teams and are going to be getting ice time with bad linemates in their own zone against a line of better players on the whole. for example last year i was arguing about Jake Gardiner being a #1 d-man and a lot of people disagreed because he had a corsi under 50 - nothing about his on-ice performance from last season to this season really changed that much, but his corsi went from 49 to 53. he saw some more starts in the offensive zone and some less in the neutral zone; his teammate's corsi went up like 6% so he was playing with better players, and obviously there was a systems change. i don't personally think Gardiner's value changed much, but it definitely seems like the perception of it has a little because now I see the media and more fans praising him for his play when before he was being torn down as a #4 guy. i think for a lot of the D left, they're being overlooked because people are just seeing a raw number or raw numbers they don't like, but there are a lot of ways you can look at what's making that number what it is - quality of teammate stats, zone starts, relative possession stats, expected goals, whatever your pleasure. but by those metrics, a lot of the dudes left are positive impact players even if they aren't by corsi
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:in about 15 minutes Metapod can pick I'm ready to pick 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Metapod posted:I'm ready to pick It's been more than two hours so you're up
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Colorado selects Mikkel Boedker
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Metapod posted:Colorado selects Mikkel Boedker MOTHERFUCKER
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Metapod posted:Colorado selects Mikkel Boedker Just when he thought he could escape.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
I made a good pick 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Give me Radko Gudas. He's a fancy darling and a dirty piece of poo poo, both things I appreciate
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:Give me Radko Gudas. He's a fancy darling and a dirty piece of poo poo, both things I appreciate His fancy stats darlingness has really only been this season, and it wouldn't be shocking if it turned out that was a mirage. That said, it's fun to watch him play and hit everything all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:His fancy stats darlingness has really only been this season, and it wouldn't be shocking if it turned out that was a mirage. He wasn't bad the two previous years, he just took a big step up this year. Can't put a price on that truculence though. My soft forwards need an rear end in a top hat on the backend to keep the other team honest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
With pick 221 the Blackhawks select Dylan Strome since arguing about prospects is so much fun. It sounds like he'll probably make the NHL next year and he'd be sheltered a bit on my team as 3C behind Scheif and Anisimov. Plus the cap hit and expansion draft considerations that have been brought up lately itt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Yeah that was the other guy I was talking about w/r/t Connor. Strome will be in the NHL next season for sure, especially considering Arizona's situation. If he gets some time with Domi and Duke that could be a fun line.
T-Bone fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Jul 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
There's one more forward prospect who is in that same tier
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
gently caress it tilt time time to bring back a hero to the Canadiens Welcome back Saku.....wait he retired? gently caress. poo poo alright give me his less good brother whos regressing and expensive gently caress it Mikko Koivu
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Paulocaust is skipped as of 6:51 ThinkTank is up, followed by The RECAPITATOR and Otis Reddit. let's go picking whoo yay
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
I'll take Charlie Coyle
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:I'll take Charlie Coyle Forgot about him but he's a solid young player
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:I'll take Charlie Coyle Booooooooooooooooo
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
this is the part of the draft where all the guys I want get taken
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Teemu Pokemon posted:this is the part of the draft where all the guys I want get taken That was the first round, idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
yeah wow darn Charlie Coyle aw shucks
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Recapitator has about 15 minutes to pick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
My strategy of getting the guy I want via nobody making draft picks was risky but has apparently paid off
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Otis Reddit can now pick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 02:19
|
|