TSN Ranks Riley Nash #33 for the upcoming draft

[ugarte]

[quote Robb][quote bothman]Not necessarily.  First off, the WCHA is a much better conference then the ECAC, so if I'm an NHL GM who wants my 1st rounder to improve, where would I want him to play?

Second, how many games does Cornell play in a season relative to the WCHA or WHL for that matter?  Again, as an NHL GM, where would you want your investment?

I'm not saying Cornell or any ECAC school can't send kids to the NHL.  I'm just saying that it does have some significant hurdles to overcome relative to other teams.
[/quote]
I don't think you're giving enough consideration to the level of talent coming in.  The WCHA gets the most talented players; therefore, they produce the most NHLers.  I don't think it has as much to do with the difference in actual player development between the leagues.  Good players will make it to the NHL regardless of whether they play in the ECAC or the WCHA.[/quote]

I don't buy that. Besides having a tautological conclusion (players good enough to make the NHL will make it), it is counterfactual. Because the difference between the top of the AHL and the bottom of NHL is so small, whether a player is stunted for a year or two in college may make a difference in getting to the NHL. If the WCHA has better competition, it is a better environment for development. If the WHL is more like the NHL, it is a better enviroment for development. If Cornell uses a style that doesn't play to Nash's natural strengths it may teach him new strengths ... but may also hinder his development.

I agree with Josh that DILLIGAF is being a smug prick about the whole thing but why all the contortions to deny the essential truth of what he is saying? I would bet that nobody in Edmonton wants Nash to come to Cornell. They also probably don't want to make a big stink about a smart kid attending an Ivy League school with his brother. So instead of straightforward requests to skip out on a commitment, you get two-faced PR-driven public statements that confirm that Cornell isn't the team's first choice but praise the choice anyway.

[nyc94]

[quote DILLIGAF]they will want him in the NHL in 2 years.  Your first round pick isn't a long term project.[/quote]

Edmonton has two other first round picks from this year to rush to the NHL. ;-)

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app/?service=page&page=NewsPage&articleid=322899

[Liz '05]

[quote DILLIGAF]From the blog by the Swift Current Broncos play by play announcer...

Sometimes NHL teams prefer their high end picks to get used to the NHL grind by playing in the Western Hockey League or the CHL in general. The question did come up in the scrum. Lowe says he's ok with the College route but would "pick him up himself and deliver him personally to the WHL if Nash ever considered it." He says you have to respect the players wishes and it's something they will look at in the near future.

Doesn't sound like edmonton is a huge fan of cornell hockey.[/quote]

However, it sounds like Riley Nash is.  Personally, I think that's more important.  

[edited DILLIGAF to emphasize what I think is important]

[Josh '99]

[quote ftyuv]It would be interesting to see a breakdown, by league (or even by ncaa vs. minors), of how long a similarly-drafted player spends in the AHL before making it up to the NHL.  Does the average 30th pick end up in the AHL longer if he ends up going to the ECAC than if he goes to the WHCA or WHA?
[/quote]It's an interesting concept, actually, but I think you'd probably run into issues of sample size.  Certainly there aren't enough 30th picks (let alone 30th picks choosing the college route) for the "average 30th pick" to have much statistical meaning, but maybe if you broke it down into "average player picked from 1-15", "average player picked from 15 to 30", "average player picked in the second round", something like that, you might have something worthwhile.

[The Rancor]

Its not the end of the world that this kid won't (likely) stay all 4 years. It was a major coup for him to commit to CU a few months ago- and we were all singing the praises of Prince Riley, heir to Nieuwendyk's crown.
So what no one respects the Cornell program. That is new?
So what if he can't stay for 4 years. Lets have him for two. great!
I'm glad Romano and Milo are gone. Bad eggs. They didn't exactly help our team to the best of seasons last year did they?
What kind of player is Nash? Smart 2-way player. Just what we need. And Edmonton, apparently. My guess is that they want to keep him smart, and Cornell a good place to start. He could also use about 20 lbs of mass. hmmm... Cornell has one of the best reputations for turning skinny lanky smart guys into hulking skating linebackers. Its going to be great. Don't worry Oilers fans, this kid is in good hands with El Schafer.

[Robb]

[quote ugarte][quote Robb][quote bothman]Not necessarily.  First off, the WCHA is a much better conference then the ECAC, so if I'm an NHL GM who wants my 1st rounder to improve, where would I want him to play?

Second, how many games does Cornell play in a season relative to the WCHA or WHL for that matter?  Again, as an NHL GM, where would you want your investment?

I'm not saying Cornell or any ECAC school can't send kids to the NHL.  I'm just saying that it does have some significant hurdles to overcome relative to other teams.
[/quote]
I don't think you're giving enough consideration to the level of talent coming in.  The WCHA gets the most talented players; therefore, they produce the most NHLers.  I don't think it has as much to do with the difference in actual player development between the leagues.  Good players will make it to the NHL regardless of whether they play in the ECAC or the WCHA.[/quote]

I don't buy that. Besides having a tautological conclusion (players good enough to make the NHL will make it), it is counterfactual. Because the difference between the top of the AHL and the bottom of NHL is so small, whether a player is stunted for a year or two in college may make a difference in getting to the NHL.[/quote]
I disagree that it's tautological - the original post seemed to focus on the sheer numbers of NHL players produced, and I think you need to "control for" the level of talent in the two leagues when talking about their player development.  I'm not sure what you think is counterfactual.  I don't think there are too many "facts" in this discussion - just lots of opinions!

Sidney Crosby could probably have sat on his couch eating doritoes for 2 years and still played in the NHL, but that doesn't mean that's a good method of player development.  Damian Rocke could have played in the WCHA for 10 years (can you imagine the PIMs???) and would never have sniffed the ECHL, much less the NHL.

To rate the leagues' ability to develop players, you'd have to do something like: ignore the 1st and 2nd round picks - those guys are probably going to make the dance regardless.  But of the guys drafted in the 3rd-6th (or however many they did) rounds, what % of the WCHA 3rd rounders make it to the NHL vs the ECAC?  4th? 5th? 6th?  Then you'd have some sort of measure of whether guys who were rated as similar prospects going into college had a significant difference in their development while they were at college.  

Sure, you can opine that playing against better competition in the WCHA would raise a mid-round draft pick's level of play, but I can just as easily opine that that same player would have developed more at an ECAC school because he'd get more ice time, PP time, PK time, and have to shoulder a leadership role.

[DILLIGAF]

Do you always have to be so negative...

[DeltaOne81]

[quote DILLIGAF]Do you always have to be so negative...[/quote]

Hahahaha. Thanks for the laugh

[Tom Lento]

[quote Robb]
To rate the leagues' ability to develop players, you'd have to do something like: ignore the 1st and 2nd round picks - those guys are probably going to make the dance regardless.  [/quote]

I think it was DILLIGAF who said that first round picks aren't long-term projects, which I thought was a stretch at best. This comment is along the same lines, and I don't buy it either, although I do agree with your basic premise that we should control for draft position.

Statistically speaking, only about 50-60% of first rounders from the 90s have made it to an NHL career (200 games or more). I'd guess that 80-90% get at least a cup of coffee at the highest level. So yes, first rounders are probably going to hit the NHL, but the number of guys who start their NHL career within 2 years is quite a lot smaller.

Second round - the probability drops rapidly, and I'd guess it's in the 25-30% range for guys with 200+ games. Less than 12% of players taken in the third round or later play 200+ games in the NHL.

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects/f/draft_success.htm

Therefore, it seems like a player's environment between draft day and his first NHL game should still be important for the early round picks. However, it's impossible to reliably compare major junior to college, since college has only recently started to attract a reasonable proportion of early round draft picks. When you start dividing it up into ECAC vs. WCHA, much less Cornell vs. North Dakota, you're in small sample size territory.

Besides, depending on the player and the program you never really know which route will be better. I don't buy the argument that major junior is fundamentally better - it may be, but the reasons I've seen are all tied in to the fact that major junior was *the* feeder system for the pros for many years. I do realize that most NHL GMs believe Major Junior is better, and 20 years ago they were right, but now it's not so clear.

[Robb]

[quote Tom Lento][quote Robb]
To rate the leagues' ability to develop players, you'd have to do something like: ignore the 1st and 2nd round picks - those guys are probably going to make the dance regardless.  [/quote]

I think it was DILLIGAF who said that first round picks aren't long-term projects, which I thought was a stretch at best. This comment is along the same lines, and I don't buy it either, although I do agree with your basic premise that we should control for draft position.

Statistically speaking, only about 50-60% of first rounders from the 90s have made it to an NHL career (200 games or more). I'd guess that 80-90% get at least a cup of coffee at the highest level. So yes, first rounders are probably going to hit the NHL, but the number of guys who start their NHL career within 2 years is quite a lot smaller.

Second round - the probability drops rapidly, and I'd guess it's in the 25-30% range for guys with 200+ games. Less than 12% of players taken in the third round or later play 200+ games in the NHL.
[/quote]
Wow.  I don't follow the NHL nearly enough to realize that the percentages were that low.  I stand corrected - even first and second rounders need a good development environment to "make it."  I gues there are really only a handful of "can't miss" prospects each year, not two rounds' worth.

[evilnaturedrobot]

especially not in this draft, which might end up being the weakest since the diasaster of 1999.

[bothman]

All of these stats are great, but let's put down our calculators and engineering degrees for a second and take a step back.  As a GM, I want my guy playing as many games as possible against the best competition possible (both in games and at practice).  I think we probably all agree on that.

Given that premise, it's hard to argue the ECAC as the best spot for a high draft pick.

[Robb]

[quote bothman]All of these stats are great, but let's put down our calculators and engineering degrees for a second and take a step back.  As a GM, I want my guy playing as many games as possible against the best competition possible (both in games and at practice).  I think we probably all agree on that.[/quote]
Nope, we don't all agree on that.  If I'm a GM, I want my guys to take whichever route has been proven to (you know, based on actual evidence) do the best job of developing players.  If that turns out to be a league with more games, so be it - but I'd keep an open mind unless/until I had enough evidence to convince me one way or the other.

[redice]

[quote Robb][quote bothman]All of these stats are great, but let's put down our calculators and engineering degrees for a second and take a step back.  As a GM, I want my guy playing as many games as possible against the best competition possible (both in games and at practice).  I think we probably all agree on that.[/quote]
Nope, we don't all agree on that.  If I'm a GM, I want my guys to take whichever route has been proven to (you know, based on actual evidence) do the best job of developing players.  If that turns out to be a league with more games, so be it - but I'd keep an open mind unless/until I had enough evidence to convince me one way or the other.[/quote]

Bothman, when I first read your comment, I thought "that makes a lot of sense."  
But, upon further reflection I have to add:   what about player development in areas that don't involve games/practices?    I'm referring to the infamous weight room.   Can anyone argue that a player will have more time in the weight room at Cornell than he would have while keeping a heavier game/practice schedule in some other league?   Any of us who remember Joe N. (adding weight each of his three years at CU to go from a highly-skilled player to a dynamic player) can attest to the value of the weight room.

Doesn't Riley Nash fit into the category of being a player who needs to bulk up to become dynamic?

[KeithK]

[quote redice]Can anyone argue that a player will have more time in the weight room at Cornell than he would have while keeping a heavier game/practice schedule in some other league?[/quote]
Yeah, actually I can.  Sure, playing fewer games might mean more time for weights but attending classes and doing homework makes takes away training time.  A kid in major juniors who has nothing to do besides practice and work out should have more time to work out than someone who has to do schoolwork.

Likewise, I'm sure Cornell means a lot more school time than at least several of the WCHA schools.  Even if you're an Hotelie. :-P