Myths That Won't Die Part II
by WCHBlog on Nov 24, 2009 11:35 AM PST
13 comments
The New York Times' hockey blog Slap Shot isn't exactly the most respected hockey source, but Jesus, it's still the New York freakin' Times. You'd think they would be better than this:
In last June’s N.H.L. entry draft, N.C.A.A. players comprised only 3.3 percent of all players selected, as opposed to 21.3 percent from the Ontario Hockey League alone. Ten years earlier, N.C.A.A. players made up 13.2 percent of the league’s draftees.
Bolded even! The truth is, 62 players who have played, or will play NCAA hockey were taken in last year's NHL Draft which comprised 29.3 percent of all players selected.
Ten years earlier, the rules regarding age for the draft were vastly different than they are today. Under the current rules, a player basically has to be a year ahead of his normal age group in school in order to be playing NCAA hockey during his first year eligible for the draft. There are a total of four players in the NCAA this year that haven't already been eligible for the NHL Draft, while there are dozens who have already been drafted. To imply there has been a drop for any other reason than not counting players already drafted prior to playing in the NCAA is absurd, especially when the number of former college players in the NHL--nearly 300 played at least a game in the NHL last, almost a third of all NHL players--has increased over that period of time.
0 recs |
13 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
keep fightin the good fight
I respect that
by ohcanada on Nov 24, 2009 11:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Its all creative accounting. Statistics are always manipulated in order to prove whatever it is the author is writing.
by jacksoul on Nov 24, 2009 11:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Actually, it’s just laziness/poor citation. He stole that incorrect stat from this Toronto Star article a couple weeks ago: http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/juniorhockey/article/715512—ohl-churning-out-nhl-players#
by WCHBlog on Nov 24, 2009 1:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
But the root goes back to the manipulation of statistics.
by jacksoul on Nov 24, 2009 1:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Keep calling these nitwits on this stuff....
this is how absolute fabricated junk becomes “fact”.
by belfoured on Nov 24, 2009 2:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Quick Question...
Does the number the Slap Shot blog quote mean current NCAA players, and not players who were committed to play hockey in colleges?
Jeff Klein responded with this in the comments:
“But the 3.3 percent figure comes from Page 218 of the 2009-10 N.H.L. Official Guide and Record Book. Perhaps you’re referring to U.S. high school players, who comprised 9 percent of all players drafted — but how many of them will go to the N.C.A.A. is unclear. The same is true of the players drafted from the U.S.H.L.”
by Forsch31 on Nov 25, 2009 8:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yes, he’s only counting players who played in the NCAA last year and then got drafted, which as I pointed out, only includes players who graduated high school a year early, or kids selected their second or third time in the draft, both of which are extremely rare.
I’m not sure how unclear it is. I was able to figure it out with about 5 minutes of research. It’s ignorance combined with laziness.
by WCHBlog on Nov 25, 2009 9:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Klein’s response:
Kevin, Ryan, your points are well taken. But you and the WCHA blog you cite seem to be looking past an undeniable issue that has emerged in college hockey. One of Paul Kelly’s main tasks is to develop recruitment strategies aimed at amateur players and their families, which may even include a marketing campaign. In other words, the college league commissioners recognize recruitment as an area that needs shoring up.
Further on that, you can certainly argue with the validity of the 3.3 percent figure — NCAA draftees in 2009 — when compared with the 13.2 percent of a decade earlier. The draft-age rules were different, as you point out. (FYI, ahead of the 2004 entry draft the NHL changed its draft eligibility requirements to include players who turn 18 on or before Sept. 15.)
But consider this: even since those rules came into being, the percentage of NHL draftees from the NCAA has declined steadily. Here are the percentages:
2009: 3.3%
2008: 4.2%
2007: 3.8%
2006: 8.4%
2005: 5.6%
2004: 9.6%
Again, the points you and the WCHA blog raise are vaild — there are many college players who make the NHL, and their numbers are not fully represented by the NHL’s official draft figures. Nevertheless, the college commissioners themselves perceive a problem with losing players to the Canadian junior ranks, and one of Kelly’s tasks is to reverse that trend.
— Jeff Z. Klein
by Forsch31 on Nov 25, 2009 10:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
On a sidenote…I find one writer calling another “lazy” and “ignorant” to be extremely unprofessional, especially when that writer does not take the time to clarify the issue.
by Forsch31 on Nov 25, 2009 10:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually...
…I would say that the improved educational packages that the Canadian juniors are offering are a defense against players opting for the NCAA route. I guess it all depends on your point of view. Klein is biased, and should state as such… like WCH does.
by The Exiled One on Nov 30, 2009 10:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The 2004 Draft still includes players not that didn’t opt-in to the previous year’s draft. Under the current draft rules, NCAA players like Darin Olver, David Booth, Kevin Porter, Chad Kolarik, Robbie Earl, Casey Borer, Mike Lundin, etc. that were listed as NCAA players would have been drafted the previous year, under the banner of their previous team, and then it would have been TOTALLY UNCLEAR where they were going to play. Take out those guys and the difference in numbers year-by-year is statistically insignificant.
I’m not saying that guy came to a bad conclusion. Like I mentioned earlier this week, I gave James Mirtle a list of reasons why something like that would be a good idea. I’m just saying the reasoning the guy used to come to that conclusion is extremely misleading.
by WCHBlog on Nov 25, 2009 11:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Come on....
You can’t call a guy a college player if he got drafted before playing college hockey. How ridiculous! You skew the numbers when you start using crap like that. The guy gets drafted from a league, THAT LEAGUE OR LEVEL should get credit. Get over it, true college players don’t get drafted by NHL teams, it’s nothing to be ashamed about having less guys picked than Major Junior in Canada. If you feel inferior because of it that’s ok. But by glossing up your college numbers by using incoming guys is down right stupid. This is as dumb as having 94’s and 95’s commit to colleges at 14 and 15 years old.
by Lewvan on Nov 27, 2009 8:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Drafting College players...
The only reason the number of College and High School players used to be higher was that with the old NHL draft rules, teams kept those players right for a full 4 years, or whenever their class graduated. This was unfair because Major Junior guys had to be signed after 2 years. NHL teams used to take the wimpy route and draft college guys so that they could wait till they were 22 years old and then make decisions on them. This way their nuts were not on the line to have to sign the Major Junior guy by 19. They had no balls. Now that the college guys have to be signed earlier, the playing field is more level for Major Junior and now you see the tables have changes. Then you College guys want to count incoming recruits in your numbers to make them look less pitiful. Get over it….. Major Junior did and bettered their educational programs and have taken over. You guys have to find a new way to skin the cat. Instead of fudging numbers!!!!!!!! Out.
by Lewvan on Nov 27, 2009 8:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Western College Hockey Blog
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
