Where the macro observations help is that they even out all the variations in the stuff that happens after the draft, where the actual measurable results occur. Just because there is an average result doesn't mean a management team shouldn't try to be on the leading edge of that bell curve wherever possible.
At the risk of saying too much and getting those additional comments picked apart ( 
), the macro analysis of the draft is an attempt at the 'advanced stats' of drafting. What elements are under control? Where are the variables outside of that control?
I think we broadly agree, I just have a different take on it. I think the macro-analysis we're talking about is helpful but in a sort of abstract sense. Basically, I think it's useful for when you're talking about picks as picks and not so useful when you're talking about specific prospects.
So if, say, before the draft I had the #27 pick and someone came along and offered me the #35 and #49 for it I think having the data on the average value of those picks would be helpful in telling me whether or not that was a smart trade similar to the "points" system that some NFL teams use.
Where I think it's less useful is when you start talking about actual prospects a scouting staff will have opinions on. If there's a certain player who's available at 27 but wouldn't be at 35 then I think the aggregated data is less relevant to decisions hockey teams actually have to make.
