Castagna and Walsh - The Worry Zone

[BearLover]

... Once a team has the rights to a player, it really doesn't matter in what round that player was taken. Jonathan Castagna is the exact same player whether he was taken in the third or the sixth round. ...

I don't think this is true at all. The higher draft pick is a higher investment. They are looking at more than just college production. The physical attributes that made a guy a higher pick probably also make him a higher signing priority. Not saying production doesn't matter or anything that extreme but I do think it's naive to think that the pros are indifferent to draft position once they hold the rights. They want a 7th rounder to impress them with production in college; they want the raw materials of the high pick to mold in their system. This remains true unless the high pick really shits the bed, gets hurt or doesn't fill out the way you expect the teenager to.

Sounds like sunk cost fallacy. NHL teams are smart enough reevaluate and update their beliefs based on how guys perform, without leaning much at all on draft round. If we were discussing first rounders I'd agree with you, but once you're into the middle rounds that all goes out the window. Btw, Castagna WAS a raw materials pick. Drafted straight out of high school, had great size and a fantastic combine.

[The Rancor]

100% agree on the balance of that '03 team, and the GRIT they had.
From my own observation and vibes, I really thought that the passing speed and accuracy was so much better this season, and last, than in previous Schafer years. I used to scratch my head (and scream) about how lousy our passing always seemed compared to other elite teams we'd play against. Probably just my own POV/Bias.

I agree with your observation except, sadly, the last 2 games our passing largely went off the rails for whatever reason.

Yes, the wheels came off the last two games, for sure.

[Pghas]

Which is to say, is it any more likely now that a given draft pick goes pro sooner now than before? I doubt it. Nobody has put forth any causal mechanism for why that would be. The CBA hasn't changed, NHL contracts haven't changed.

I see no reason why we should expect our draft picks to go pro more quickly. The personal calculus of a Castagna or a Stanley hasn't changed.

What's happening at Penn State is not informative. There probably isn't a hockey school in the entire country more different from Cornell than PSU. Let's look at Harvard as a better analog. Harvard had three drafted seniors on their team this year. Last year, they had four. One of whom, Ian Moore, has played nearly this entire season in the NHL with Anaheim, the team that drafted him.

If you want to know why these discussions get irritating and go off the rails - look no further than ^

You just brought up the Harvard thing again. I specifically responded to that when you said about it the first time. Look at the individual cases of those players and why that was the case, compared to someone like Castagna and Stanley. You are cherry-picking there. I pointed that out before. I don't feel like doing it again right this second.

Stienberg had significant injury issues. As did some of those Harvard players.

But if you'd rather not cope about those players leaving, and get upset about it now, and forever in the future - then have a blast. Just don't expect anyone else to do so.

And you say there's no causal mechanism why things have changed. It depends on your time frame. You have thrown out data that goes back to 1999. What time period are you talking about? Because things have changed pretty significantly in that span, first with CBA changes, and then more recently with transfer portal, money, etc....

The empirical evidence is clear about drafted players leaving earlier, on the whole, than before. The reasons - you can call them "educatedly-speculative" if you want - I've put out there before in earlier messages. Judging from eyes and ears of what's been happening.

Stienburg was healthy and had a pro contract on the table at the end of his junior year. But you're right that this is cherry picking - and so is what you're doing. Citing Stienburg is cherry picking, Ian Moore is cherry picking, four guys on PSU leaving is cherry picking, BC stars leaving is cherry picking. I've yet to see an empirical analysis that shows draft picks leaving sooner.

And to be clear, I'm speaking only of guys jumping to the pros - for which NIL and the portal should not be a factor (actually, these things should, if anything, lead to more guys remaining in school).

Back to Cornell for a second, since you asked about timeframes: excluding the pandemic, between 2014 and 2025 Cornell had only ONE player leave early - Angello. You can throw Barron in there too if you'd like, though that's not conclusive.

I don't have much appetite to continue this argument, but I think it's pretty clear Cornell has traditionally retained players four years, including in recent history, until now. Losing Castagna was to be expected, but there is nothing that changed in the world of college hockey that should lead us to expect to lose a player like Stanley (and probably soon Fegaras). No offense to him, but I don't see any NHL career in his future. We all expected him back, so it's pretty funny that suddenly everyone is on the "this is to be expected, draft picks stay 2-3 years now" bandwagon.

I dont think it's a "draft picks will leave" thing. I think it's an analysis to be made:  by the time you are 18, you have a pretty good sense of whether or not you have a shot to play in the NHL, be an impact player in there NHL, or if you're probably looking at college hockey and thats it.  of course nothing is final.  Of course Castagna left.  Makes all the sense in the world, and there are going to be guys like Stanley and Bancroft (though not a draftee) who leave and you're like why?  Those are the guys you actually need to convince to stay because for them the AHL is probably NOT a better option.  By the same token, given the pathway now, let's say you have an opportunity to sign a kid who is now 17 but projected to be the #1 pick in 2027 to come play at Cornell next year.  You have a sense that he will come here and light it up if not in year 1, the in year 2, after which point he will leave.  That said, he will be one of the best 18-19 year olds on the planet at that point.  Does Cornell find a way to get that kid, and is that worth doing?  No matter how you feel about Quinnipiac and about Ethan Wyttenbach's overall game, he is a HUGE reason that team did anything this year.  Calgary is not gonna sign him so he'll be back, but he would bail if he could.  (he is different because he was drafted in a later round and this was not expected).  But the small group of the most skilled 18 and `19 year olds who can dominate at this level on their way to the NHL (and Castagna is outside that group, but not far) are the ones who push the team over the top.  Yes, they've made the tournament 4 years running and that is awesome, and they've pulled off some great early upsets, but for our team to win, they have to go on a run with a hot goaltender and everyone firing on all cylinders.

[BearLover]

Which is to say, is it any more likely now that a given draft pick goes pro sooner now than before? I doubt it. Nobody has put forth any causal mechanism for why that would be. The CBA hasn't changed, NHL contracts haven't changed.

I see no reason why we should expect our draft picks to go pro more quickly. The personal calculus of a Castagna or a Stanley hasn't changed.

What's happening at Penn State is not informative. There probably isn't a hockey school in the entire country more different from Cornell than PSU. Let's look at Harvard as a better analog. Harvard had three drafted seniors on their team this year. Last year, they had four. One of whom, Ian Moore, has played nearly this entire season in the NHL with Anaheim, the team that drafted him.

If you want to know why these discussions get irritating and go off the rails - look no further than ^

You just brought up the Harvard thing again. I specifically responded to that when you said about it the first time. Look at the individual cases of those players and why that was the case, compared to someone like Castagna and Stanley. You are cherry-picking there. I pointed that out before. I don't feel like doing it again right this second.

Stienberg had significant injury issues. As did some of those Harvard players.

But if you'd rather not cope about those players leaving, and get upset about it now, and forever in the future - then have a blast. Just don't expect anyone else to do so.

And you say there's no causal mechanism why things have changed. It depends on your time frame. You have thrown out data that goes back to 1999. What time period are you talking about? Because things have changed pretty significantly in that span, first with CBA changes, and then more recently with transfer portal, money, etc....

The empirical evidence is clear about drafted players leaving earlier, on the whole, than before. The reasons - you can call them "educatedly-speculative" if you want - I've put out there before in earlier messages. Judging from eyes and ears of what's been happening.

Stienburg was healthy and had a pro contract on the table at the end of his junior year. But you're right that this is cherry picking - and so is what you're doing. Citing Stienburg is cherry picking, Ian Moore is cherry picking, four guys on PSU leaving is cherry picking, BC stars leaving is cherry picking. I've yet to see an empirical analysis that shows draft picks leaving sooner.

And to be clear, I'm speaking only of guys jumping to the pros - for which NIL and the portal should not be a factor (actually, these things should, if anything, lead to more guys remaining in school).

Back to Cornell for a second, since you asked about timeframes: excluding the pandemic, between 2014 and 2025 Cornell had only ONE player leave early - Angello. You can throw Barron in there too if you'd like, though that's not conclusive.

I don't have much appetite to continue this argument, but I think it's pretty clear Cornell has traditionally retained players four years, including in recent history, until now. Losing Castagna was to be expected, but there is nothing that changed in the world of college hockey that should lead us to expect to lose a player like Stanley (and probably soon Fegaras). No offense to him, but I don't see any NHL career in his future. We all expected him back, so it's pretty funny that suddenly everyone is on the "this is to be expected, draft picks stay 2-3 years now" bandwagon.

I dont think it's a "draft picks will leave" thing. I think it's an analysis to be made:  by the time you are 18, you have a pretty good sense of whether or not you have a shot to play in the NHL, be an impact player in there NHL, or if you're probably looking at college hockey and thats it.  of course nothing is final.  Of course Castagna left.  Makes all the sense in the world, and there are going to be guys like Stanley and Bancroft (though not a draftee) who leave and you're like why?  Those are the guys you actually need to convince to stay because for them the AHL is probably NOT a better option.  By the same token, given the pathway now, let's say you have an opportunity to sign a kid who is now 17 but projected to be the #1 pick in 2027 to come play at Cornell next year.  You have a sense that he will come here and light it up if not in year 1, the in year 2, after which point he will leave.  That said, he will be one of the best 18-19 year olds on the planet at that point.  Does Cornell find a way to get that kid, and is that worth doing?  No matter how you feel about Quinnipiac and about Ethan Wyttenbach's overall game, he is a HUGE reason that team did anything this year.  Calgary is not gonna sign him so he'll be back, but he would bail if he could.  (he is different because he was drafted in a later round and this was not expected).  But the small group of the most skilled 18 and `19 year olds who can dominate at this level on their way to the NHL (and Castagna is outside that group, but not far) are the ones who push the team over the top.  Yes, they've made the tournament 4 years running and that is awesome, and they've pulled off some great early upsets, but for our team to win, they have to go on a run with a hot goaltender and everyone firing on all cylinders.

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

As to the hypothetical about the #1 pick - Cornell (also Quinnipiac) is totally noncompetitive for such a player and does not even attempt to recruit him.

[Beeeej]

This was the ad hominem: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" Pretty textbook ad hom—-direct insult, does not engage with the argument whatsoever.

Criticism of your analytical skills and your ability to take multiple, potentially contradictory factors into account when addressing other people's points, especially factors that seem obviously at odds with your expressed opinions, is absolutely not ad hominem. Saying that you're stupid and you fart a lot while addressing other people's points so your arguments are automatically invalid would be ad hominem.

[BearLover]

This was the ad hominem: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" Pretty textbook ad hom—-direct insult, does not engage with the argument whatsoever.

Criticism of your analytical skills and your ability to take multiple, potentially contradictory factors into account when addressing other people's points, especially factors that seem obviously at odds with your expressed opinions, is absolutely not ad hominem. Saying that you're stupid and you fart a lot while addressing other people's points so your arguments are automatically invalid would be ad hominem.

No lol, both are very clearly ad hominem.

"An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where a person ignores an argument and instead attacks the character, motive, or attributes of the person making it."

It's literally the textbook definition. If the analysis is flawed, then show why. Don't insult the analytical skills of the arguer. This is grade school-level stuff.

[ugarte]

the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing nerds ad hom was a fallacy

[Beeeej]

This was the ad hominem: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" Pretty textbook ad hom—-direct insult, does not engage with the argument whatsoever.

Criticism of your analytical skills and your ability to take multiple, potentially contradictory factors into account when addressing other people's points, especially factors that seem obviously at odds with your expressed opinions, is absolutely not ad hominem. Saying that you're stupid and you fart a lot while addressing other people's points so your arguments are automatically invalid would be ad hominem.

No lol, both are very clearly ad hominem.

"An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where a person ignores an argument and instead attacks the character, motive, or attributes of the person making it."

It's literally the textbook definition. If the analysis is flawed, then show why. Don't insult the analytical skills of the arguer. This is grade school-level stuff.

Incorrect. By "attribute" they mean things like your obesity or your snoring; ad hominem attacks are generally personal insults. The "attribute" being attacked here is literally the capacity to back up your arguments while not ignoring others' points, not a personal insult. Pointing out holes in your argument, however snarkily it was done, is the very antithesis of ad hominem.

[Pghas]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

As to the hypothetical about the #1 pick - Cornell (also Quinnipiac) is totally noncompetitive for such a player and does not even attempt to recruit him.

Exactly.  And so the question becomes, does going down that path over the next few years make sense and if so, should they?  OR should they take advantage of the transfer portal, where someone who is both talented but disgruntled (perhaps about being displaced by said hypothetical #1 pick) would welcome the opportunity (and be duly loyal) to come to Cornell and be a part of building something, and would that something be able to finish the job?

[BearLover]

This was the ad hominem: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" Pretty textbook ad hom—-direct insult, does not engage with the argument whatsoever.

Criticism of your analytical skills and your ability to take multiple, potentially contradictory factors into account when addressing other people's points, especially factors that seem obviously at odds with your expressed opinions, is absolutely not ad hominem. Saying that you're stupid and you fart a lot while addressing other people's points so your arguments are automatically invalid would be ad hominem.

No lol, both are very clearly ad hominem.

"An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where a person ignores an argument and instead attacks the character, motive, or attributes of the person making it."

It's literally the textbook definition. If the analysis is flawed, then show why. Don't insult the analytical skills of the arguer. This is grade school-level stuff.

Incorrect. By "attribute" they mean things like your obesity or your snoring; ad hominem attacks are generally personal insults. The "attribute" being attacked here is literally the capacity to back up your arguments while not ignoring others' points, not a personal insult. Pointing out holes in your argument, however snarkily it was done, is the very antithesis of ad hominem.

No. It is true that "pointing our holes in your argument" is not ad hominem. However, that's not what adamw did. He said: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" This does not engage with the current argument at all and certainly does not point out any holes in it. The "attribute" here is my capacity for "humble, sober analysis" (sarcasm) that I've purportedly shown in past arguments. This is very clearly an insult not at all tied to pointing out the holes in my current argument.

Moreover, even if his post did engage with my argument, that would not eliminate the capacity for ad hominem. For example, if I told you: "you are extremely stupid and a flawed debater because your argument fails for reasons X, Y, and Z," what I said would still be ad hominem even if it also contains elements that are not ad hominem.

[stereax]

hey anyone want some half finished poetry i wrote in my head caught in a thunderstorm in cortland waiting for the bus, or are we just gonna talk in circles about debate 101 all day?

[marty]

hey anyone want some half finished poetry i wrote in my head caught in a thunderstorm in cortland waiting for the bus, or are we just gonna talk in circles about debate 101 all day?

I vote for the poem.

[adamw]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

You want sober empirical analysis? Go for it. When it comes, however, don't expect me not to point out the numerous holes in your theoretically "fully objective" analysis. My "analysis" never does satisfy your desire for some Empirical God to come down from the sky with all the numbers, flow charts and receipts enough to satisfy your thirst for information.  I suspect, however, that nothing would ever satisfy you.

So I'm comfortable with my analysis, based on what I know, which seems fairly apparently to me, given that I watch what's going on with every team, every year, for 30 years. And you can rely upon your analysis, and be worried and upset.  And I'll continue to point out what I know.  And you can point out your analysis.  And we can argue forever.

Beeej is the lawyer - and editor - so I let him decide what ad hominem is. I only know Ralph Kramden "homina, homina, homina"

[BearLover]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or later to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

[fastforward]

hey anyone want some half finished poetry i wrote in my head caught in a thunderstorm in cortland waiting for the bus, or are we just gonna talk in circles about debate 101 all day?

OMG I was just about to post something to deflect-as usual you beat me to it