I’m gonna move past the CHL F drafting issue, I promise. Last post on this topic before I move on to the D (and I’ve got a pretty cool one lined up about lines in the sand, I think).
From Lowetide’s comments:
Woodguy: The age thing imo (and the subject of my research), hinges on not only physical maturity, but mental maturity, and much less on games played.
That’s why I’m more inclined to give late birthdays a slide.
Bruce McCurdy: You and I are on the same page w.r.t. that last comment, WG.
“While Pitlick, Hamilton and Martindale are all struggling to score in their 19->20 year-old seasons, let’s just say this Oiler fan is prepared to give them a little more latitude than I would a rookie pro two years out from his draft day.”
As many of you will be aware, the rules of the draft are such that that, for example, the 2012 draft will include players born September 16, 1994 to September 15, 1995. The argument that Bruce and Woodguy (and other, less credible types) are making are that it’s a bit unfair to treat Pitlick, Hamilton and Martindale as true 20 year olds because they’re amongst the youngest 20 year olds in the league. Gladwell wrote something once about Canadian hockey that everyone seems to mix into this too.
What do you think? Will the data support any of this? Of the population of 66 CHL F who were drafted between 1993 and 2004 and went on to become 200+ NHL GP guys, scoring more than 0.5PPG, 13 of them were born after September 15 and before December 31. Five of those were full-time NHLers by 20. Six of them averaged 0.75 PPG or better in the AHL at age 20, the line that emerged from the group of CHL F who went on to become 200+ NHL GP guys, scoring more than 0.5PPG as a whole. One (1) scored less than 0.75 PPG in the AHL at age twenty – Jason Pominville. One (1) wasn’t in the AHL or NHL – Ryane Clowe.
So 11 of the 13 guys who were born between September 16 and December 31 and went on to be come 200+/0.5+ guys cleared my 0.75 PPG AHL baseline for age 20. 46/53 guys born between January 1 and September 15 have. The data does not lend the slightest bit of support to this theory that guys born post-September 15 are somehow not captured by this rule of thumb. Nice theory. Contradicted by data. If you’re a believer that Stu’s been anything more than average with CHL F, you’d better be praying that the Oilers are running such an historically unique development operation that pretty clear lines in the sand are no longer applicable.
Also from Lowetide commenter VOR – I’m just gonna Fisk this one, as it’s sort of long.
However, in Tyler’s response in the comment section he says he has ignored draft pedigree as a variable in his analysis because if you are scoring at .5 ppg you aren’t in the NHL on draft pedigree. Which seems to me flawed thinking.
Clearly, draft pedigree had some effect on your opportunities to be in the NHL period and also on your chances of scoring at .5 ppg or better. The higher the draft position the sooner you get to the NHL, the better the line mates you play with, the more mistakes are tolerated and I could go on and on. (Tyler – I could send you some references on the draft pedigree effect if you are interested.)
I’m interested in seeing the data on draft pedigree effect. I don’t really buy that it affects your opportunity to make the NHL in the long run. Ultimately, if you can play, you find a spot. In the short term, sure – but then we know that NHL teams do pretty well with guys who they stick in the NHL as teenagers or at age 20.
Ignoring all else the best players (generally speaking) get drafted earlier in the NHL draft. Thus Stu can’t be judged against all CHL forwards picked in the draft. Only those picked at the same point in the draft.
I think the entire process is flawed.
Tyler starts out comparing his pool which has only a handful of 1st OV forwards from the CHL in it against Stu’s 1st OV CHL forward picks so Stu wins. The rest of Stu’s CHL forwards aren’t first rounders and can’t be judged by a data pool in which 1st rounders make up such a large sub-set. So Stu loses. Neither Stu’s wins or loses have anything to do with Stu, they are artifacts of Tyler’s choices.
I think this is a complete misunderstanding of what I’m doing. I’m saying a) a large segment of Oilerdom is saying Stu is a wizard, b) with the picks he’s spent on CHL F he should have produced about x 200+/0.50+ players, y 200+/0.50- players and z busts and c) he looks like’s going to come out somewhere around the average for CHL F. My point is that Stu looks pretty average with CHL F, not that he’s a failure for not finding multiple RNHs. Not sure that I can make this much clearer. If Stu’s a genius, he needs to find star types outside of the first round while still hitting on his first round picks.
Research has also shown that the birth date hypothesis as has some validity so you would have to allow for that which Tyler hasn’t. If the Oilers really have changed their approach to player development in the AHL and it is radically reducing ice time for prospects that can make it hard to tell anything from the numbers.
See above and see yesterday’s post. We’re down to the Oilers doing something completely unheard of in the development of players between 1993 and 2007. Call me a cynic but I just don’t think these boys are that original or creative?
Plus, how long do you have to play in the CHL to be a CHL forward. That isn’t where Pitlick was playing when Stu picked him. Shouldn’t he be being compared to players who were in college when picked? Stu had no way of knowing he was going to move to the CHL. This is comparing apples to oranges. Jumping from college to the CHL is a huge change in a number of ways and it happens so rarely it is a bit hard to know what you’d expect. Turning right around and going to the AHL the next year is even more bizarre. I think it would be hard to find any comparable never mind a meaningful data set.
I don’t buy this. Explain to me how it’s a huge change. Moreover, explain how it’s a change that’s affecting him a year and a half later. All pro prospects have to make the jump from the CHL to the AHL. From the way VOR talks about it, you’d think they asked him to start shooting the other way and play a different position or something. I’m fine treating Pitlick as a CHLer because he’s basically gone the CHL route post-draft. IF he was putting in time in the NCAA I wouldn’t; I’d expect things to be different if he stayed in school for four years.
At technical level, given Tyler picked a standard .5 ppg then there should probably be an ANOVA. That would at least show us that the obeserved outcomes matched the predictions of his hypothesis. There aren’t enough “test conditions” in this analysis plain and simple. Like what happens if we take all the CHL forwards chosen between 1st OV and 20th OV, 21st OV and 40th OV, etc. Tylers’ hypothesis demands that those subsets look like his overall set. Also, how about centers, left wings, right wings as subsets, is the same pattern still evident. How about players who played different positions. How about age whent hey reached the CHL? Without some sort of statistical test of the hypothesis the data is irrelevant.
Yeah, not sure what this has to do with anything. I’m using the entire population, observing how they developed and then reporting on it. What the hell does a hypothesis have to do with anything here? I suppose you can ask a question here as to whether guys drafted after the thirtieth pick have a materially different development curve than guys drafted before that pick but once we get to this point, you’re accepting that the basic observation is correct and then looking for exceptions. Of course, as I wrote in Cult of Stu II, there’s basically nothing to this because so few guys who go on to become 200+/0.50+ guys from the CHL don’t hit at least 0.75 PPG in the AHL at age 20 – it’s all in yesterday’s post.
I always like running down these things and enjoy putting this stuff out there for discussion – that’s how you find the holes. In all the time I’ve been writing about hockey stats type stuff though, I’ve rarely seen such a brightline rule as this: on data from guys drafted 1993-2004, if a guy has legitimate potential to be a 200+/0.50+ guy, he’s almost always going to be able to put up 0.75 PPG in the AHL at age 20.
Unless he’s Jason Pominviille.