Jump to content

2022 NHL Entry Draft


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

Overall though we may come out of this draft with the forward cupboards being filled more than defence and goalies.

 

That may be OK since we supposedly have a pretty good roster of blueline prospects now. It's G that worries me...the Habs have a long and bizarrely consistent history of pulling stellar goalies out of a hat. But right now it's hard to squint ahead into the post-Price era and have any idea of who his successor will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

That may be OK since we supposedly have a pretty good roster of blueline prospects now. It's G that worries me...the Habs have a long and bizarrely consistent history of pulling stellar goalies out of a hat. But right now it's hard to squint ahead into the post-Price era and have any idea of who his successor will be.

 

Even if we had draft an 18 year old goalie it will be at least 3-4 years before they are ready.  By then 1 of the other prospects may have emerged as a replacement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

It's G that worries me...the Habs have a long and bizarrely consistent history of pulling stellar goalies out of a hat. But right now it's hard to squint ahead into the post-Price era and have any idea of who his successor will be.

Right now we have one older prospect (Primeau) who should hopefully be at least an NHL #2; another one who might not make it to a regular #2 (Montembeault); one who is not looking so promising any more (Dichow); and two who look good but it's really very early to tell (Dobes and Vrbetic).

 

With goalies, you can usually tell something once they are in the AHL, but you really can't do the final separation of the wheat from the chaff until you drop them into an NHL game. No good algorithm for predicting NHL success that anyone has been able to come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

Even if we had draft an 18 year old goalie it will be at least 3-4 years before they are ready.  By then 1 of the other prospects may have emerged as a replacement. 

And that assumes they pan out ... someone said earlier there may not even be any goalies rated higher than 4th round or later (i.e., outside the top 100) ... no need to waste a higher pick on a goalie just for the sake of adding another goalie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tomh009 said:

There are few high-ranked goalies in this draft -- Wheeler didn't rank a single one in this top 100 -- so picking one at 33 would likely be a big reach. And goalies are voodoo anyway.

 

We also have Primeau, Dobes, Vrbetic and Dichow, who might (or might not) make it to NHL starter. And there are basically only four goalie spots to be had between Laval and TR.

 

I looked and looked at the different lists, and Gs are ranked so differently form one to the other. In my potato-head GM-mind, I have Brennan as high as 65.

 

Here is my wish list for the first three rounds:

 

Prob%NHLer    Bold, preferred pick in that slot

95%                  Wright(RC)                                                                   1st-1
50% 1st-CGY   Luneau(RD).Casey(RD),Chesley(RD)                         1st-26
30% 2nd-MTL Gaucher(RC), Lorenz(LC)                                            2nd-33
15%  2nd-EDM Nelson(RD),Kyrou (RD),Rinzel(RD)                             2nd-62
10% 3rd-MTL  Brennan (G)                                                                                3rd-65
10% 3rd-ANA  Dumais(RW,Moldenhauer(RW),Seminoff (RW)            3rd-74
<5% 3rd-CAR  Spacek(RD),Jugnauth (RD)                                         3rd-94

 

**edit** TO Commandant's point (who knows way more than me on this), Habs will probably pick best player available and that will probably be a forward.

I would load up on RDs in the top 100 because given the probability of them becoming NHLers, I much rather have 5 kids with one chance in ten of making it than one kid with a 50-50 chance (odds are the same, but reliability says different)

Edited by alfredoh2009
added comment on why so many RDs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pronman's bit on the draft and comments from NHL folks he ha collected:

 

https://theathletic.com/3363092/2022/06/14/nhl-draft-2022-scouts-analysis/?source=user_shared_article

...

Scout 4: “I would take Slafkovsky. He’s a difference maker, you saw it at the Hlinka, the Olympics, the Worlds. I’m not sure Wright is a difference maker type of player. There were a lot of games I wondered where the effort and drive to take over the game was from him.”

NHL Executive 1: “Ten months ago it was Wright with a bullet. Now it’s still Wright but you’re not feeling confident about it. He didn’t play like a No. 1 this year, but there’s still a ton to like about the player: You love his body of work. You know you’re getting a well-rounded NHL center at the minimum who can score and there is some star upside at the top.”

...

 

 

39g 109pts in the Q...but 5'9" 165lb.

Hope he was invited for Habs Quebec combine. I would think he would be?

https://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2022/6/14/23157112/jordan-dumais-2022-nhl-draft-prospect-profile-scouting-report-rankings-highlights-halifax-mooseheads

Elite Prospects: #71
FCHockey: #95
McKeen’s: #72
NHL Central Scouting: #73 (North-American skaters)
Corey Pronman (The Athletic) #90
Scott Wheeler (The Athletic): #38

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wheeler takes Wright, Pronman takes the Czech...flip a coin for some folks it seems.

Risk/reward vs solid safer proven pick.

 

https://theathletic.com/3353364/2022/06/13/mock-draft-nhl-first-round/

1. Montreal Canadiens: Shane Wright, C, Kingston Frontenacs
My rank: No. 1

26. Montreal Canadiens (from Calgary): Nathan Gaucher, C, Quebec Remparts

 

Best player available on Day 2: Lane Hutson, LHD, U.S. NTDP
My rank: No. 19

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m banking on the Habs taking Wright. I was in Kingston last week (I live near Chicago) and bought a Wright Frontenac’s jersey for my son who was born in Kingston and loves the Habs like me. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sure seems that if it's a coin flip for some folks, positionally, you go with the C and not the winger.

 

Are people that AREN'T selecting Wright just doing it to be contrarian?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DON said:

Wheeler takes Wright, Pronman takes the Czech...flip a coin for some folks it seems.

Risk/reward vs solid safer proven pick.

Given how frequently we have the first overall pick (NOT) or even a top-five pick, I would be very hesitant to risk it, even if there is the potential of a slightly higher upside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, huzer said:

It sure seems that if it's a coin flip for some folks, positionally, you go with the C and not the winger.

 

Are people that AREN'T selecting Wright just doing it to be contrarian?

Agree and many wondering the same.

18 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

Given how frequently we have the first overall pick (NOT) or even a top-five pick, I would be very hesitant to risk it, even if there is the potential of a slightly higher upside.

Still seems safe bet they choose Wright in 3 weeks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

 

 

 

**edit** TO Commandant's point (who knows way more than me on this), Habs will probably pick best player available and that will probably be a forward.

I would load up on RDs in the top 100 because given the probability of them becoming NHLers, I much rather have 5 kids with one chance in ten of making it than one kid with a 50-50 chance (odds are the same, but reliability says different)

 Not quite sure you mean this.  Having 5 guys each with a 10% chance of making it, means 59% of the time all 5 of them bust.  Maybe you are happier because the 5 long shots gives you an 8.5% chance that at least 2 make the NHL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peter Puck said:

 Not quite sure you mean this.  Having 5 guys each with a 10% chance of making it, means 59% of the time all 5 of them bust.  Maybe you are happier because the 5 long shots gives you an 8.5% chance that at least 2 make the NHL?

We are both off:

 

https://www.statology.org/probability-of-at-least-one-calculator/

 

For 5 guys with 10% chance of success:

probability one succeeds = P(at least one succeeds) = 1 - (0.90)^5 = 40.95%

 

For 2 guys with 50% chance of success

probability one succeeds = P(at least one succeeds) = 1 - (0.50)^5 = 75%

                                                       (s,f) (s,s)

                                                       (f,f)  (f,s)

 

The one caveat is that these have to be weighed (multiplied) by the probability of the scouts in being right.

Edited by alfredoh2009
added link to on-line calculator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Habsfan89 said:

Man why is this draft day taking soooooo long to come. :wall:

 

[A] global warning

[B] aliens

[C] government conspiracy

[D] COVID

[E]  lack of diversity

[F]  Gary Betman

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

 

[A] global warning

[B] aliens

[C] government conspiracy

[D] COVID

[E]  lack of diversity

[F]  Gary Betman

:ph34r:ya forgot Putin ^_^

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Meller93 said:

#thanksobama

You mean trump🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

We are both off:

 

https://www.statology.org/probability-of-at-least-one-calculator/

 

For 5 guys with 10% chance of success:

probability one succeeds = P(at least one succeeds) = 1 - (0.90)^5 = 40.95%

 

For 2 guys with 50% chance of success

probability one succeeds = P(at least one succeeds) = 1 - (0.50)^5 = 75%

                                                       (s,f) (s,s)

                                                       (f,f)  (f,s)

 

The one caveat is that these have to be weighed (multiplied) by the probability of the scouts in being right.

 

this is what I was hinting at:

   http://reliabilityanalytics.com/blog/2011/09/02/reliability-modeling-combination-of-series-and-parallel/

 

Reliability of draft pick making it to the NHL from a reliability perspective:

 

For 5 guys with 10% chance of success:

P(one succeeds)*P(4 other fail)   = 10% * ((0.90)^4) = 6.5%

P(2 succeeds)*P(3 other fail)       = ((0.10)^2 * (0.90)^3) = 0.73%

P(3 succeeds)*P(2 other fail)       = ((0.10)^3 * (0.90)^2) = 0.0081%

P(4 succeeds)*P(1 other fail)        = ((0.10)^4 * (0.90)) = 0.0009%

P(all succeeds)                               = (0.10)^5) = .00001%

 

For 2 guys with 50% chance of success

P(only one succeeds) = 50%

P(no one succeeds) = 25%

P(both succeed) = 25%

 

Which can be translated to: regardless of how many low-quality picks you have, chances of one of them panning out are slim

 

I stand corrected, having a reduced number of high quality picks is better. The reliability thing I kind of remembered was to manage the risk of nothing working at a reasonable price (engineering) = not applicable here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

We are both off:

 

https://www.statology.org/probability-of-at-least-one-calculator/

 

For 5 guys with 10% chance of success:

probability one succeeds = P(at least one succeeds) = 1 - (0.90)^5 = 40.95%

 

For 2 guys with 50% chance of success

probability one succeeds = P(at least one succeeds) = 1 - (0.50)^5 = 75%

                                                       (s,f) (s,s)

                                                       (f,f)  (f,s)

 

The one caveat is that these have to be weighed (multiplied) by the probability of the scouts in being right.

Okay, I'm going to have to object to the "both" in we are both off.

I said the probability all 5 bust was 59% and you say the probability that at least one succeeds is 40.95%.  These are essentially (to within 0.0005) the same fact.

 

  Regarding your second paragraph, the number of 50-50 prospects went from 1 to 2 between your 2 posts. 

 

  Anyhow, after the top 15 picks, I'd rather just go for the homerun and pick someone with a high ceiling.  Lots of people say this but then complain when the player busts (say Mccarron or Fisher).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Peter Puck said:

Okay, I'm going to have to object to the "both" in we are both off.

I said the probability all 5 bust was 59% and you say the probability that at least one succeeds is 40.95%.  These are essentially (to within 0.0005) the same fact.

 

  Regarding your second paragraph, the number of 50-50 prospects went from 1 to 2 between your 2 posts. 

 

  Anyhow, after the top 15 picks, I'd rather just go for the homerun and pick someone with a high ceiling.  Lots of people say this but then complain when the player busts (say Mccarron or Fisher).

 

 

sorry for the confusion, yes it was originally one player at 50% over five players at 10%

 

it was late yesterday (really early this morning) when I posted... (lame excuse)

 

I also prefer going for a home run in later draft picks than one 50-50 guy who may become McCarron or Poehling

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Peter Puck said:

Okay, I'm going to have to object to the "both" in we are both off.

I said the probability all 5 bust was 59% and you say the probability that at least one succeeds is 40.95%.  These are essentially (to within 0.0005) the same fact.

 

  Regarding your second paragraph, the number of 50-50 prospects went from 1 to 2 between your 2 posts. 

 

  Anyhow, after the top 15 picks, I'd rather just go for the homerun and pick someone with a high ceiling.  Lots of people say this but then complain when the player busts (say Mccarron or Fisher).

 

McCarron was a lousy pick. If you are going to go for a home run, go for a highly skilled player, that may have dropped. I hate when we have reached on guys that have below average skill and cant skate, but have size - like a McCarron or Tinordi.

 

I didn’t like the Fischer pick because where he was ranked overall prior to the draft, but at least he was SUPPOSED to be skilled. It sucked seeing him picked so high - especially with legit stars that were drafted after him. But but at least it wasn’t a size fetish like the other two. 

 

 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...