Jump to content

Photo

2013 NHL Draft


  • Please log in to reply
1269 replies to this topic

#601 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,133 posts

Posted 08 June 2013 - 10:37 PM

Btw, Fucale is a dead ringer for Michael Cera. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#602 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,892 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 11:07 AM

Just to be the contrarian here, you could end up with Tukka Rask, Marty Brodeur, Cam Ward or Carey Price if you take a goalie in the first round. You could draft a forward in the first round that turns into Pavel Brendl, Jamie Lundmark, Patrik Stefan when guys like Pavel Datsyuk, Ryan Callahan or Brett Hull are just waiting there in the later rounds. You could easily go to Europe and nab a defenseman like Brian Rafalski, or sign Andy Greene as an undrafted free agent instead of wasting a first round pick on Cam Barker. Just to be clear, I would have a Jets fan draft day reaction if the Devils took a goalie with the ninth pick. Things just aren't as simple as "never draft a goalie in the first round". Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

This is a perfect example of non-stochastic thinking.  The trouble is that the uncertainty about goalies is too high, not that goalies picked in the 1st round always bust.  There might be some great goalies picked in the 1st round this year or subsequent years (or past years - Malcolm Subban had a great draft year + 1), but they've consistently underperformed their draft slot relative to defensemen and especially to forwards.  So drafting a goalie high is almost always a mistake, regardless of whether it actually works out, in the same way that doubling down in blackjack is always a mistake on hard 17 even if you hit a 4.

 

I don't believe that any organization has privileged thinking on goalies or has somehow figured out which ones will be NHLers.


Edited by Triumph, 09 June 2013 - 11:09 AM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#603 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,133 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 11:23 AM


This is a perfect example of non-stochastic thinking. The trouble is that the uncertainty about goalies is too high, not that goalies picked in the 1st round always bust. There might be some great goalies picked in the 1st round this year or subsequent years (or past years - Malcolm Subban had a great draft year + 1), but they've consistently underperformed their draft slot relative to defensemen and especially to forwards. So drafting a goalie high is almost always a mistake, regardless of whether it actually works out, in the same way that doubling down in blackjack is always a mistake on hard 17 even if you hit a 4.

I don't believe that any organization has privileged thinking on goalies or has somehow figured out which ones will be NHLers.


I looked up stochastic thinking and still don't know what it means.

In any event, each draft is different, and each player is different, which is why one should not view a particular draft pick's chance of success based on position. It's not something you discount, but it's not as simple as the categorical assertion that one should never use this particular pick on this particular position.

Your comparison to blackjack is ridiculous. A hockey player's chance of success is not based on some kind of quantifiable probability, like your chance of drawing a particular card. When someone invents a computer program that selects draft picks better than any human, then we can talk.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#604 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,892 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 11:32 AM

Your comparison to blackjack is ridiculous. A hockey player's chance of success is not based on some kind of quantifiable probability, like your chance of drawing a particular card. When someone invents a computer program that selects draft picks better than any human, then we can talk.

 

It doesn't have to be exactly quantifiable for it to strongly involve probabilities.  It's exactly this kind of rigid, non-probablistic thinking that gets teams into trouble ('we have to have THIS player').  And yes, past results don't guarantee future outcomes - maybe there was some sort of flawed scouting metrics, maybe goalies have gotten a lot more predictable in the last 5 years and the data hasn't caught up to it, but all of these things seem unlikely.  Point is, you're dealing with future outcomes which involve a great deal of unknowns - you're dealing in probability, whether or not you'd like to admit it.  As such, you have to think probabilistically, with a range of outcomes, and the range of outcomes for drafting 1st round goalies is too often either 'Not an NHL player' or 'Not an NHL player that provided any value to our organization'


Edited by Triumph, 09 June 2013 - 11:33 AM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#605 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,133 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 11:40 AM

Your comparison to blackjack is ridiculous. A hockey player's chance of success is not based on some kind of quantifiable probability, like your chance of drawing a particular card. When someone invents a computer program that selects draft picks better than any human, then we can talk.

It doesn't have to be exactly quantifiable for it to strongly involve probabilities. It's exactly this kind of rigid, non-probablistic thinking that gets teams into trouble ('we have to have THIS player'). And yes, past results don't guarantee future outcomes - maybe there was some sort of flawed scouting metrics, maybe goalies have gotten a lot more predictable in the last 5 years and the data hasn't caught up to it, but all of these things seem unlikely. Point is, you're dealing with future outcomes which involve a great deal of unknowns - you're dealing in probability, whether or not you'd like to admit it.


I never said probability has no role, but that it ought to be a much smaller part of the equation than you think it should. If you're playing blackjack correctly, you're going solely on probabilities. A human being's probability of success at playing a game on skates is an entirely different animal.

There can be a time and a place to take a goalie with a top ten pick. It's certainly not the case this year.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#606 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,892 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 11:50 AM

I never said probability has no role, but that it ought to be a much smaller part of the equation than you think it should. If you're playing blackjack correctly, you're going solely on probabilities. A human being's probability of success at playing a game on skates is an entirely different animal. There can be a time and a place to take a goalie with a top ten pick. It's certainly not the case this year. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

It is not the case any year.  A goalie should never be drafted with a top 10 pick ever.  You seem to imagine that just because teams get value out of 1st round goalie selections that they were good picks, that's why I brought up the blackjack analogy.


Edited by Triumph, 09 June 2013 - 11:50 AM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#607 DH26

DH26

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,671 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 11:55 AM

I never said probability has no role, but that it ought to be a much smaller part of the equation than you think it should. If you're playing blackjack correctly, you're going solely on probabilities. A human being's probability of success at playing a game on skates is an entirely different animal. There can be a time and a place to take a goalie with a top ten pick. It's certainly not the case this year. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

Just look at the different top 10 goalies recently, not that many have contributed anything. Some have been really good but probably a low percentage of them actually do anything. Look at top 10 forwards, a lot of them can contribute somewhat already when they're 18 and are closer to finished products so you know what you're getting. The best goalies weren't drafted high (at least not most of them). Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Parise, Kopitar, Toews, Kane, Seguin, Hall, Landeskog, Heatley, and I could go on and on showing all the top 10-15 successful forwards and there are fewer defenseman and hardly any goalies 


  • 0
Follow Me on Twitter @mtorino75 I Need Followers!

Visit My Devils Blog! www.theTrapezoidConspiracy.com
Rutgers-New Brunswick '11, Rutgers School of Law-Newark '14

#608 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,133 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 12:07 PM


It is not the case any year. A goalie should never be drafted with a top 10 pick ever. You seem to imagine that just because teams get value out of 1st round goalie selections that they were good picks, that's why I brought up the blackjack analogy.


And that's why blackjack is, at best, a very shaky analogy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#609 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,133 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 12:12 PM


Just look at the different top 10 goalies recently, not that many have contributed anything. Some have been really good but probably a low percentage of them actually do anything. Look at top 10 forwards, a lot of them can contribute somewhat already when they're 18 and are closer to finished products so you know what you're getting. The best goalies weren't drafted high (at least not most of them). Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Parise, Kopitar, Toews, Kane, Seguin, Hall, Landeskog, Heatley, and I could go on and on showing all the top 10-15 successful forwards and there are fewer defenseman and hardly any goalies


I understand this. And, absent the right goalie, the other alternatives, and the needs of a particular team, you should be hesitant to draft a goalie with a high pick.

Life is just not a series of black and white scenarios, and mathematical models, rough or approximate, aren't always particularly useful.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#610 MadDog2020

MadDog2020

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,865 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 01:33 PM

NHL.com's latest mock draft, which has us taking Elias Lindholm at 9: http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=673460

Edited by MadDog2020, 11 June 2013 - 01:34 PM.

  • 0
iq0p.pngUploaded with ImageShack.com

#611 thefiestygoat

thefiestygoat

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,007 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:06 PM

NHL.com's latest mock draft, which has us taking Elias Lindholm at 9: http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=673460

That's from Kimelman's mock and I'd be happy with that. Morreale and Hoffner both have the Devils taking Hunter Shinkaruk whom I'm also a fan of.


  • 0

RIP Pat Burns -- RIP Alexander Vasyunov and Lokomotiv Yaroslavl

My New Jersey Devils Prospect Blog
Winner of the 2008 Sergei Brylin Award for Most Underrated Poster
Co-Winner of the 2011 Scott Bertoli Award for Best Minor League Poster, Winner of the 2012 Scott Bertoli Award


#612 nessus

nessus

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts

Posted 12 June 2013 - 01:42 AM

Shinkaruk's stock seems to be rising lately. Apparently he's a really talented goal scorer, drawing some Parise comparisons from certain people. I'm starting to think that he's our most likely guy, unless Buffalo picks him and leaves us one of the Europeans...which of course, is what I'm hoping for. I don't know, for some reason I just can't see the Devils drafting Shinkaruk, though.

 

Most mocks have Carolina choosing a defenseman, despite their GM hinting (or full-on stating?) that he wants to go for a forward. I still don't know why both Carolina and Edmonton are opting to add forwards when Nurse and Ristolainen both have good shots at becoming franchise defensemen, which is exactly what they need (lol Schultz).


  • 0

#613 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,892 posts

Posted 12 June 2013 - 12:56 PM

Shinkaruk's stock seems to be rising lately. Apparently he's a really talented goal scorer, drawing some Parise comparisons from certain people. I'm starting to think that he's our most likely guy, unless Buffalo picks him and leaves us one of the Europeans...which of course, is what I'm hoping for. I don't know, for some reason I just can't see the Devils drafting Shinkaruk, though.

 

Most mocks have Carolina choosing a defenseman, despite their GM hinting (or full-on stating?) that he wants to go for a forward. I still don't know why both Carolina and Edmonton are opting to add forwards when Nurse and Ristolainen both have good shots at becoming franchise defensemen, which is exactly what they need (lol Schultz).

 

This is part of why mock drafts are terrible.  Jim Rutherford is on the record as saying that the CBA makes drafting defensemen in the first round a bad proposition.  I'd be surprised if he took one this year.  I don't think Nurse or Ristolainen project as franchise defensemen.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#614 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,133 posts

Posted 12 June 2013 - 01:36 PM

This is part of why mock drafts are terrible.  Jim Rutherford is on the record as saying that the CBA makes drafting defensemen in the first round a bad proposition.  I'd be surprised if he took one this year.  I don't think Nurse or Ristolainen project as franchise defensemen.

 

How exactly does the CBA make drafting a defenseman in the first round a bad proposition?  I looked around for Rutherford saying anything like that, and couldn't find anything.  If you have a need on defense and you think the defenseman is better than the next best forward, don't overanalyze everything, and just take the defenseman. 

 

Rutherford has noted that he would like to improve the team on defense.  However, he recently said what everyone else is saying that there's a threshold in this draft where the franchise players end and that Carolina is on the good side of that threshold.  So yeah, it's extremely doubtful that Carolina either drafts a defenseman (since Jones won't be there) or trades down. 

 

Basically, the furthest you can realistically expect the Devils to trade up to would be for Edmonton's seven. 

 

Nessus:  Almost every recent mock draft I've seen has Carolina taking Nischuskin. 


  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#615 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,892 posts

Posted 12 June 2013 - 02:11 PM

How exactly does the CBA make drafting a defenseman in the first round a bad proposition?  I looked around for Rutherford saying anything like that, and couldn't find anything.  If you have a need on defense and you think the defenseman is better than the next best forward, don't overanalyze everything, and just take the defenseman.

 

Because Rutherford has said that since defensemen develop later, you get fewer cheap years with them with the UFA age and arbitration age lower in this CBA as compared to the 1995 CBA.  He was totally willing to jettison Jack Johnson when he wanted to play an extra year in school, and I suspect this is part of why he said this.  He's drafted Ryan Murphy since then and that's it.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#616 Colin226

Colin226

    Hall of Famer

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,134 posts

Posted 12 June 2013 - 03:01 PM

It's here!! Get your draft shirts ladies and gentlemen.. I've been waiting on this shirt for a while.. Definitely need to add this to my collection of Devils shirts

http://shop.nhl.com/...235&cagpspn=pla

jy4a8y3y.jpg

Edited by Colin226, 12 June 2013 - 04:08 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Season Ticket Holder since '08 - '09
Section 226 - Row 2 - Seats 15 and 16

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#617 DevilMinder

DevilMinder

    Owner / Administrator

  • Admin
  • 8,976 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 03:45 PM

I am waiting for a hat myself. Should have looked first. I have one on order now.


  • 0

#618 Onddeck

Onddeck

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,647 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 12:02 AM

has anybody heard from the team about tickets to the draft?? if not, how is it that we are less than two weeks away and i don't know of anyone with any tickets... with the exception of one STH on here


  • 0

Somebody's gotta be the hero... Why not me?


#619 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,323 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 08:03 AM

has anybody heard from the team about tickets to the draft?? if not, how is it that we are less than two weeks away and i don't know of anyone with any tickets... with the exception of one STH on here

 

 

From the rumors I hear, after the tickets are given to the STH there will be approx 500 tickets left for the general public given out in pairs to those who have won the raffle they had on the website.

 

The raffle winners are to be announced on the 21st so it looks like if you do not win that you will either have to bum tickets off a STH who has extras or buy them off of someone.


  • 0

#620 Onddeck

Onddeck

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,647 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 09:03 AM

From the rumors I hear, after the tickets are given to the STH there will be approx 500 tickets left for the general public given out in pairs to those who have won the raffle they had on the website.

The raffle winners are to be announced on the 21st so it looks like if you do not win that you will either have to bum tickets off a STH who has extras or buy them off of someone.

o ok gotcha I didn't know the date was the 21st, good to know!
  • 0

Somebody's gotta be the hero... Why not me?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users