Jump to content

Sabres Move Up to 34, Select John Jason Peterka


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

This could really be a thread unto itself. The philosophy of (predominantly) using draft picks as collateral for other moves so you have fewer than 7 per year, vs. stockpiling draft picks so you have as many kicks at the can as possible and average greater than 7 per season. Myself, I tend toward more picks when practical because they can *all* play hockey. It's a matter of which ones rise, which ones can't hack the professional lifestyle, and which get hurt along the way.

It's easier to see in the NFL with compensatory picks also included -- you can take a one-year flier on a resurrect/injured player and then let him walk for a comp. pick there to inflate your numbers.

Yep - everyone said when buffalo traded for diggs that they moved 4 picks.  But in reality they had already added 2 picks in 2020 with the teller trade, and moved 1 of those and 1 of their own.  The pick they moved in 2021 is a 4th, but they moved zay jones for a 5th - so they have the same number of picks.  The lack of minor leagues helps in the NFL too since fringe players can be moved prior to cut day for picks.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thorny said:

 

Analytics says you don't trade up - founding principle of analytical draft strategy. Combined with the Quinn selection this is why I am personally doubting their speak to incorporating analytics better. Yes, I know, they could be using different numbers. I don't see that as much of an argument - that could support either side's argument equally as it's an Unknown. 

So it’s not about Peterka’s analytics, it’s about what analytics show about trading up in general?

This segues into where I think people are tripping in Adams’ pledge to use more analytics. The pledge was to use analytics to inform decisions, not to dictate decisions.

Basically it’s about “these numbers tell me this, why is that the case?” Analytics should help determine when a move up might make sense, as opposed to dont trade up ever because it only works 20 per cent of the time, or trade Risto for whatever you can get because his Corsi is terrible, and give Larsson $6 million because his is great.

Edited by dudacek
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dudacek said:

So it’s not about Peterka’s analytics, it’s about what analytics show about trading up in general?

This segues into where I think people are tripping in Adams’ pledge to use more analytics. The pledge was to use analytics to inform decisions, not to dictate decisions.

Basically it’s about “these numbers tell me this, why is that the case?” Analytics should help determine when a move up might make sense, as opposed to dont trade up ever because it only works 20 per cent of the time.

It really depends on how stringent one wants to be to the principles, I guess. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't think their first pick was informed enough by analytics considering who they passed up, and on the surface trading up goes against the philosophy as well. But at first glance - they at least traded up for a player who analytics would speak FOR so the second move is kinda a wash.  

I hate their 3rd pick so.....there just isn't much for me this draft so far to my personal preferences. I hope they take a CHL guy in the final 2 picks so we can get that moved on from, at least. 

If not it'll be 4 straight years of refusing to venture into the CHL outside the first round. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It really depends on how stringent one wants to be to the principles, I guess. 

I think that is crux of the analytics argument.

You get your Neanderthals who choose to ignore the truth of what they are being shown by the numbers versus your zealots who think personnel can be dictated by a spreadsheet without even watching the game.

I find both hard to talk to, and I think Adams’ whole philosophy is about developing a staff fully comfortable in understanding the value of each,  and thoroughly incorporating both in their scouting.

 

Edited by dudacek
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thorny said:

Gotta be by age

Analytics says you don't trade up - founding principle of analytical draft strategy. Combined with the Quinn selection this is why I am personally doubting their speak to incorporating analytics better. Yes, I know, they could be using different numbers. I don't see that as much of an argument - that could support either side's argument equally as it's an Unknown. 

Using analytics to evaluate hockey players has nothing to do with whether it’s statistically “worth it” to trade up in a draft.  One is part of a player evaluation method, the other is a philosophical decision on pick value.

They could be using analytics to rank players, but still think trading up is a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Curt said:

Using analytics to evaluate hockey players has nothing to do with whether it’s statistically “worth it” to trade up in a draft.  One is part of a player evaluation method, the other is a philosophical decision on pick value.

They could be using analytics to rank players, but still think trading up is a good idea.

The idea is that it's not worth spending assets to move up on a hunch, in what generally amounts to hubris because, as most often proven - generally no one knows what's going to happen to these guys, especially as you go futher down the draft. It's an analytical principle that weighs the likelihood of the move making a positive difference vs the value of the asset. 

It's based on statistical likelihoods - it's mathematically based and not philosophical at all. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Jokeman said:

Good in depth write up about him at https://www.allaboutthejersey.com/2020/4/10/21216310/john-jason-peterka-2020-nhl-draft-prospect-profile-speedy-winger-germany-high-ceiling-question-marks if he is another Michael Grabner as the article suggests it be a good get. 

Interesting description:

Quote

He is a hare on the smaller side at 5’-11” but not necessarily slight as he’s listed at 192 lbs. 

Now the writer does state he is known for his speed, so it could be a descriptive as opposed to an error of homonym proportions. 😎

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The idea is that it's not worth spending assets to move up on a hunch, in what generally amounts to hubris because, as most often proven - generally no one knows what's going to happen to these guys, especially as you go futher down the draft. It's an analytical principle that weighs the likelihood of the move making a positive difference vs the value of the asset. 

It's based on statistical likelihoods - it's mathematically based and not philosophical at all. 

Ok, sure, it’s based on statistical likelihood’s, but it has nothing to do with evaluating hockey players.

They could have used analytics to determine that JJP is a great prospect, then decided to trade up for him.  They still used analytics, even if trading up is statistically ill advised.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Curt said:

Ok, sure, it’s based on statistical likelihood’s, but it has nothing to do with evaluating hockey players.

They could have used analytics to determine that JJP is a great prospect, then decided to trade up for him.  They still used analytics, even if trading up is statistically ill advised.

In a sense it does. It's the age old true measure of intelligence - knowing what you don't know. Refusing to trade up is a hard-stance acknowledgment of that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

In a sense it does. It's the age old true measure of intelligence - knowing what you don't know. Refusing to trade up is a hard-stance acknowledgment of that. 

In a much larger, more literal sense, it doesn’t.  😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Curt said:

In a much larger, more literal sense, it doesn’t.  😉

Lol - no, not really. Is deciding not to trust your analysis not analysis in itself?

Anyways, semantics now. The point is - it's an analytical principle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Lol - no, not really. Is deciding not to trust your analysis not analysis in itself?

Anyways, semantics now. The point is - it's an analytical principle. 

I’m not disagreeing with your beliefs about trading up.  They could use analytics to evaluate players but not to determine whether or not to trade up.  That’s entirely possible.

With that being said, based on this draft, I have doubts that analytics are at the forefront of these selections.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, inkman said:

Pick withstanding, how do you draft for need when these players are 2-5 years away from helping?

Maybe Adams knows what this team is going to need in about 2 years. Said another way, maybe he has a plan of stacking our need positions with 2-year stopgaps who are older but still fairly serviceable. Staal would be exhibit #1. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say this, Adams seems to be more familiar with the players they drafted in terms of actually having watched them then Botterill ever did. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding on, Botterill always sounded like he was reading back a scouting report. "Well he is a good skater and we think that helps him move up and down the ice and transition the puck" It just always came off as a regurgitated thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I will say this, Adams seems to be more familiar with the players they drafted in terms of actually having watched them then Botterill ever did. 

Burying the lead here. 

In reference to drafting Quinn two of his three listed factors were position and current roster 

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Burying the lead here. 

In reference to drafting Quinn two of his three listed factors were position and current roster 

So, I wonder with COVID-19 salary constraints and everything else that happening today that maybe giving him a little extra rope might be in order? Maybe he’s making decisions today that might  have different metrics next year or the year after?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SDS said:

So, I wonder with COVID-19 salary constraints and everything else that happening today that maybe giving him a little extra rope might be in order? Maybe he’s making decisions today that might  have different metrics next year or the year after?

It's plausible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SDS said:

So, I wonder with COVID-19 salary constraints and everything else that happening today that maybe giving him a little extra rope might be in order? Maybe he’s making decisions today that might  have different metrics next year or the year after?

This feels like grandma peeing on her sweet apple pie 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone can draft a theoretical breakdown for why drafting with more focus on the current roster and position would lead to better relative results than BPA in the post-covid hockey world. 

I cannot, but I'm not that smart. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thorny said:

Perhaps someone can draft a theoretical breakdown for why drafting with more focus on the current roster and position would lead to better relative results in the post-covid hockey world. 

I cannot, but I'm not that smart. 

Why can’t it be that in order to lay out cash for our better players that we need more current players on the roster under entry-level contracts starting today?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SDS said:

Why can’t it be that in order to lay out cash for our better players that we need more current players on the roster under entry-level contracts starting today?

Well, I didn't say feasible, I said better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...