For the old drafts (before 2010), I only give F to a player who played less than 5 games. Kaspar played more than 5 games, so he gets D-.
Fair, I base grades on the picks after that teams picks. For instance if there was nothing of much value after their pick, even 16 games might be a C because of what was there, while a guy with 400 games and 100 goals might get an F if all 3 guys after him were all star impact players!
Fair, I base grades on the picks after that teams picks. For instance if there was nothing of much value after their pick, even 16 games might be a C because of what was there, while a guy with 400 games and 100 goals might get an F if all 3 guys after him were all star impact players!
Well thats a silly system, a player with 400 gp and 100 goals is actually a mid player. Not justifiable by an F at all, i get the guys behind him may be superstars but if thats the case then in Drai's draft ekblad is an F?
Well thats a silly system, a player with 400 gp and 100 goals is actually a mid player. Not justifiable by an F at all, i get the guys behind him may be superstars but if thats the case then in Drai's draft ekblad is an F?
Lol ok C-. I’m just saying it’s not just what the guy produced you have to take in to account who was picked after and if nothing great was after their value goes up but if multiple better options were picked after the value goes down.
Lol ok C-. I’m just saying it’s not just what the guy produced you have to take in to account who was picked after and if nothing great was after their value goes up but if multiple better options were picked after the value goes down.
Yeah of course, but im also not going to rate blake wheeler the same as malkin when malkin is clearly the far better player either
Yeah of course, but im also not going to rate blake wheeler the same as malkin when malkin is clearly the far better player either
Rating a draft isn’t who is better it’s did you get the best bang for your buck. If you drafted a guy who gets you 300-400 points in his career and everyone below him got 200 or less you got the best player available and that deserves at least a B+/A-. Where if you draft a guy who gets you 800 points but the next 5 players all were 1200 + (this is purely hypothetical of course) then even though that’s a far better player than the 1st one mentioned, your draft grade is far less (likely a B-/C+)
Rating a draft isn’t who is better it’s did you get the best bang for your buck. If you drafted a guy who gets you 300-400 points in his career and everyone below him got 200 or less you got the best player available and that deserves at least a B+/A-. Where if you draft a guy who gets you 800 points but the next 5 players all were 1200 + (this is purely hypothetical of course) then even though that’s a far better player than the 1st one mentioned, your draft grade is far less (likely a B-/C+)
Yeah maybe in a few cases, but Ekblad certainly isnt anything under a B when he is healthy and playing either. I get for sure what youre saying its like the reason mike green is an A+ because if you look at what he produced and where he was taken it was pretty insane
Yeah maybe in a few cases, but Ekblad certainly isnt anything under a B when he is healthy and playing either. I get for sure what youre saying its like the reason mike green is an A+ because if you look at what he produced and where he was taken it was pretty insane
It’s also why I feel any impact player taken after the 2nd round should automatically be given an A+.