Harvard @ Cornell, 12/2/2022

[BearLover]

Dude, Harvard had 13 in 2003. We had 7. None of this is unprecedented.

The draft was 9 rounds back then. Also, this year we have 3 draft picks. The disparity is bigger than it's been in recent history.

[Scersk '97]

Dude, Harvard had 13 in 2003. We had 7. None of this is unprecedented.

The draft was 9 rounds back then. Also, this year we have 3 draft picks. The disparity is bigger than it's been in recent history.

Look, you're not going to get this, but it just doesn't matter as much as you think.

[Dafatone]

I don't have the numbers, but "Harvard had a lot of draft picks in the past" and "they had more than [nationally significant team] in [given year]" aren't claims that dispute whether Harvard, in 2022-23, has the most draft picks of any team.

I don't think draft picks are everything, and if they are a significant measure of talent, then we can all point and laugh at Harvard for underachieving, but Bearlover's point still stands. Either Harvard does or does not have the most draft picks this season. No sense arguing about facts.

[marty]

No sense arguing about facts.

What kind of nonsense is this?
;-)

[BearLover]

Dude, Harvard had 13 in 2003. We had 7. None of this is unprecedented.

The draft was 9 rounds back then. Also, this year we have 3 draft picks. The disparity is bigger than it's been in recent history.

Look, you're not going to get this, but it just doesn't matter as much as you think.

I'm not trying to relitigate how much draft picks matter. My point is merely that the disparity between Harvard's raw talent and that of the rest of the ECAC is in uncharted territory, and also the notion that Harvard underachieves relative to its talent hasn't really been true for awhile now.

[JohnF81]

Grady and Tim pointed out that Harvard was playing two lines in the second half of the game.  If all their raw talent is so great, why is it riding the bench?

[Iceberg]

Grady and Tim pointed out that Harvard was playing two lines in the second half of the game.  If all their raw talent is so great, why is it riding the bench?

Bingo. Their bottom two lines and most of their D are nothing to write home about. They've given up 15 goals in their past four games, after all. Cornell did play well in the 2nd and that wasn't a coincidence. I expect it to be competitive in Cambridge next month.

And I'd easily take Harvard's FF team a few years ago over the current one. They had a few guys who are having pretty good if not great NHL careers right now. And that team had fewer draft picks

[RichH]

I don't have the numbers, but "Harvard had a lot of draft picks in the past" and "they had more than [nationally significant team] in [given year]" aren't claims that dispute whether Harvard, in 2022-23, has the most draft picks of any team.

I don't think draft picks are everything, and if they are a significant measure of talent, then we can all point and laugh at Harvard for underachieving, but Bearlover's point still stands. Either Harvard does or does not have the most draft picks this season. No sense arguing about facts.

I agree with you, Dafatone. Well said.

But I am going to dispute the claim as a fact. I had a few minutes to click links and quickly found at least one team with more NHL draft picks on their roster than Harvard. It took me 3 tries checking the rosters on College Hockey News. Minnesota has 14. Harvard 13. "Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program" is a false, un-cited claim that we let float around here as "fact" for a week.

BU 12. UND & Michigan 11. Wisconsin has 10. Penn State has 2. "Most draft picks" does not equal "most raw talent." I leave it as an exercise of the reader to see where those teams currently stand. This is why after the early '00s, I stopped caring about the draftees on our or opposing rosters. Sure, it's a neat factoid. If anything, age and maturity (however you define it) mean as much at this level. Quinnipiac has 10 players over the age of 23 and 2 draft picks. There are many formulas for success here. You really have to have the right mix of recruiting, coaching, maturity, and chemistry.  (Oh, those intangibles I hate to mention!)

[Dunc]

Minnesota has 14. Harvard 13.

Harvard has 15: https://collegehockeyinc.com/nhl-draft-picks-playing-college-hockey.php

So they indeed do have the most draft picks in the league.

However I do agree this does not equate to raw talent. For many of the later picks in drafts you never truly know how their talent is. Now what I would say is the most draft picks is more correlated to highest potential, but I do not think Harvard is even close to top talent in the league at their current state despite the "high potential".

On the other hand, I know everyone hates 3v3, but it was the perfect showcase of Harvards talent because when you give their top guys room to work you're just done (and by top guys I'm referring to perhaps 6ish players - alot of the draft picks did not impress me watching them).

[Scersk '97]

On the other hand, I know everyone hates 3v3, but it was the perfect showcase of Harvards talent because when you give their top guys room to work you're just done (and by top guys I'm referring to perhaps 6ish players - alot of the draft picks did not impress me watching them).

It showcases a particular kind of talent, which, in my opinion, diminishes in importance as the season goes on for a number of different reasons, e.g., overtimes stop being stupid and, given how whistles disappear, skill guys have a lot less room in which to work.

[Scersk '97]

Minnesota has 14. Harvard 13.

Harvard has 15: https://collegehockeyinc.com/nhl-draft-picks-playing-college-hockey.php

PS Don't know what's up with Farinacci. He's a captain but hasn't played yet this season. So 14, effectively.

[Trotsky]

Farinacci left Harvard to return to the USHL, then left the USHL to return to Harvard.  IIRC he will return in the Spring.  So, (1) he's good and (2) fuck him.

[BearLover]

I don't have the numbers, but "Harvard had a lot of draft picks in the past" and "they had more than [nationally significant team] in [given year]" aren't claims that dispute whether Harvard, in 2022-23, has the most draft picks of any team.

I don't think draft picks are everything, and if they are a significant measure of talent, then we can all point and laugh at Harvard for underachieving, but Bearlover's point still stands. Either Harvard does or does not have the most draft picks this season. No sense arguing about facts.

But I am going to dispute the claim as a fact. I had a few minutes to click links and quickly found at least one team with more NHL draft picks on their roster than Harvard. It took me 3 tries checking the rosters on College Hockey News. Minnesota has 14. Harvard 13. "Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program" is a false, un-cited claim that we let float around here as "fact" for a week.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/11/03/sports/with-15-nhl-draft-picks-roster-expectations-are-high-harvard-mens-hockey/

[BearLover]

Grady and Tim pointed out that Harvard was playing two lines in the second half of the game.  If all their raw talent is so great, why is it riding the bench?

Harvard's first two lines:
Farrel (4th round pick, Olympian); Coronato (1st round pick, Olympian); Miller (6th round pick)

Gaffney; Karpa (6th round pick); Lafferiere (3rd round pick)

Harvard's defense (6 of 7 players drafted) and goalie (drafted), were presumably also on the ice.

So, assuming Harvard only played its top two lines and played their D and goalie, of those 13 players, 11 were draft picks. 2 were Olympians.

Basically the only guys not playing were the ones who weren't drafted.

Farinacci (3rd round pick) has been injured, otherwise he would have slotted into one of the top two lines.

All that is to say, this is not a good argument against Harvard's talent.

[abmarks]

I don't have the numbers, but "Harvard had a lot of draft picks in the past" and "they had more than [nationally significant team] in [given year]" aren't claims that dispute whether Harvard, in 2022-23, has the most draft picks of any team.

I don't think draft picks are everything, and if they are a significant measure of talent, then we can all point and laugh at Harvard for underachieving, but Bearlover's point still stands. Either Harvard does or does not have the most draft picks this season. No sense arguing about facts.

I agree with you, Dafatone. Well said.

But I am going to dispute the claim as a fact. I had a few minutes to click links and quickly found at least one team with more NHL draft picks on their roster than Harvard. It took me 3 tries checking the rosters on College Hockey News. Minnesota has 14. Harvard 13. "Harvard currently has more draft picks than any other program" is a false, un-cited claim that we let float around here as "fact" for a week.

BU 12. UND & Michigan 11. Wisconsin has 10. Penn State has 2. "Most draft picks" does not equal "most raw talent." I leave it as an exercise of the reader to see where those teams currently stand. This is why after the early '00s, I stopped caring about the draftees on our or opposing rosters. Sure, it's a neat factoid. If anything, age and maturity (however you define it) mean as much at this level. Quinnipiac has 10 players over the age of 23 and 2 draft picks. There are many formulas for success here. You really have to have the right mix of recruiting, coaching, maturity, and chemistry.  (Oh, those intangibles I hate to mention!)

Rhetorical fail here when you say "Most draft picks" does not equal "most raw talent."

If you had said that most picks <> team with best record on the year, or similar, I'd concur.

I actually agree with bearlover on this one.  # of draft picks is a decent proxy for "raw talent". Absent a metric that factors the actual draft positions this has got to be the best we've got.  It has to be - there's a reason pro teams spend so much money on scouting and drafting, right?

A  better indicator would probably be something like adding up the actual draft positions in some fashion and doing some data massage or normalization, but I've not figured out a simple algorithm at the moment.

For example, With so many first rounders, and a bunch of them top 5 or 10 picks, Michigan probably has  more total raw talent than anyone; and 3 top 10 picks or whatever ought to constitute more aggregate raw talent than having 6 3rd rounders.

Let's not confuse raw talent, which is a measure of potential, with measures of actual success.