Elliote Friedman has probably his best "30 thoughts" piece up today. The most interesting portion is the bit on scouting and why players may fall or rise during the event, specifically in relation to consensus rankings:
"(Central Scouting) focuses on physical ability - not mental ability, work ethic or character," says number three. "It's up to regional scouts to sort through rumours and innuendo. If something is said about a prospect, you need them to determine if this is real or a negative vendetta. That's why these regional guys are so valuable."
"They don't look at character, or what guys are like in the room or on the bench," adds number one. "They have a different set of criteria."
This observation fits well with that I gleaned from Joyce's Future Greats and Heartbreaks: teams spend a lot of time and energy (in my view, an inordinate amount) looking into players "intangibles" - there are large portions of the book dedicated to investigating individual guys backgrounds, their attitudes, their personal histories, their relationships with coaches and teammates, their demeanor, etc. In fact, aside from individual on-ice performances that stood out (for good or bad reasons), most of the book is filled with this type of material. I considered that this may be because 1.) Joyce is a journalist and a writer, not a scout and 2.) it was done to give the work a narrative backbone.
However, in light of Elliote's piece today, it seems that a lot of scouting in the NHL is indeed focused on sussing out "what kind of guy" a player is, rather than, you know...if he drives results on the ice.
Which is fair enough. Prospects represent a lot of time, effort and money and it would seem negligent for club's to focus entirely on on-ice performance and exclude potentially confounding factors. Hockey players are people, after all, and a team has a social dynamic which may effect performance. One wonders to what degree scouts are weighting these factors though and, more importantly, how much they actually predict future performance. Not only are some personal factors largely unimportant when it comes to hockey ability, but one has to keep in mind that 17 year old kids are hardly fully formed adults and projecting their future selves (and not just their future hockey performances) is a dicey proposition. Today's snot-nosed punk may become tomorrow's captain.
Another reason investigating personal factors may be a concern in scouting is human perception isn't great at filtering the signal from the noise. To put it another way - having a mountain of info is not necessarily a good thing. Not just because the relevant data may be merely lost amongst the flotsam like a needle in a haystack, but because potentially unrelated bits of info can actually influence evaluation. In psychological circles, this is called "the dilution effect" and it's defined as the tendency for neutral or irrelevant info to weaken a judgment.
Here's an example - Who is the better prospect?
John spends 30 hours a week practicing, both on and off the ice.
Ivan spends 30 hours a week practicing both on and off the ice. He has two brothers and one sister. He visits his girlfriend in another town at least once a week. He enjoys reality television and spends a lot of his free time watching "Survivor" and "The Bachelor".
This exercise is a variant of studies executed by Henry Zukier. The results typically show a majority of subjects conclude that "person A" (John) would be superior to "person B", even though the relevant, diagnostic info for both is the same.
To bring this back to Joyce, "Future Greats" was written during the draft seasons of guys like Akim Aliu, Patrick Kane, Sam Gagner and Phil Kessel. Reading much of the material with the benefit of hindsight, most of the player biographical stuff struck me as unimportant bits of trivia. Interesting in narrative form, but largely unimportant when it came to predicting future success in the show. Phil Kessel in particular seemed to struggle through stuff like the combine and interviews, but has turned out to be a pretty effective NHLer.
Showing posts with label draft research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label draft research. Show all posts
Friday, July 16, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
"Clutch", of course, being a totally meaningless term
Simply put, Skinner is a goal-scoring machine and is the best clutch goal scorer in this draft class. When a player scores 50 goals and 25 of them are first goals, insurance goals or game winners, that is the definition of clutch.
Via Sportsnets mock draft.
I'd say that a very high percentage of goals in any given game are "first goals, insurance goals or game winners". Wouldn't you?
Via Sportsnets mock draft.
I'd say that a very high percentage of goals in any given game are "first goals, insurance goals or game winners". Wouldn't you?
Monday, June 29, 2009
Draft Thoughts
- Not sure what to make of the Flames draft at this point. I was somewhat surprised with the Erixon pick and disappointed Calgary didn't grab Schroeder when he fell to them at 20. Bjorklund and Howse are intriguing mid rounders, especially the Swede who will playing in the SEL as a teen this coming season. I know absolutely nothing about the goalie and Gaelen Patterson was passed over in his draft year but put up decent enough numbers to be worth a late round gamble this time.
I was surprised Calgary took a d-man with their first pick, although Tod Button mentioned in a post-draft interview that the focus after that was to get scoring wingers (as I surmised previously). Thus the Howse, Bjorklund, Bennett picks later on.
Whether or not Bouwmeester signs with the Flames, I approve of Sutter's gambit to acquire his rights, if only because the price was so small. Leo wasn't coming back anyways and a 3rd rounder is about a 19% chance at a future NHLer.
- The Oilers draft looked like a mix of good and bad to me. They got a really nice player in the first round in Paajarvi-Svaslkahjsdlkasj*&! but then opted to use their 3rd round choice on a guy might have an Eric Godard-type ceiling. Now, as established, 3rd rounders aren't exactly worth a whole lot anyways, but pissing one away on a potential goon makes precisely zero sense to me. Goons don't have to be drafted or developed - there's plenty of them floating around for league minimum.
The Brodziak trade was pretty bizarre as well. He's never going to be a star but I got the feeling that at 25 he had established himself as an NHLer and still had a few years to grow...moving him for a 4th round pick is selling for pennies on the dollar. Unless he's roundly hated in the dressing room for some reason, doesn't make much sense to me.
- NYI moves at the draft were, appropriately enough, baffling. They moved a handful of picks to move up from 26-16...then did it again to move from 16-12...only to choose Calvin DeHaan, who very likely could have been available at 26 anyways. He was rated as the 25th skater in North America by Central Scouting and is said to have sizable holes in his game outside of the offensive zone. Erixon, Rundblad, Despres, Moore and Olsen were all still on the table at 12, BTW.
- Equally head scratching was the Nick Leddy choice by Minny at 16. He won the "Mr. Hockey" award in Minnesota for his work last season, but that's a fairly high draft choice to invest in a kid that hasn't played more than HS hockey.
- Scott Howson was quietly busy at the draft. He traded moved 16-77 for 26-37-62-92 and then dealt 26-37 to Ana for #21. He started with 16-77 and ended with 21-62-92. Decent work I'd say.
- My mock choice Landon Ferraro went to the Red Wings. Lucky bastard. And good on Detroit, Ferraro looks like decent value in the second round to me.
- Philly's trade for Pronger is either going to pay off in spades or completely blow up in their faces. He's 34 years old with a year left on his contract and the Flyers moved 3 first round picks and a somewhat useful roster player for him. That's a really high price to pay and one that may hobble the club in the future, especially if he starts to decline or doesn't sign to stay after this season.
All that said, a marriage of Captain Elbows and the broad street bully franchise seems like a match made in heaven.
- Im somewhat surprised LA kept the 5th overall choice. For two reasons:
1.) They're a club on the verge of breaking out of the basement I think. All they need is some true-blue veteran talent to prop up their bevy of skilled youngsters. A 5th for a signed star at either forward or defense really would have made sense.
2.) A huge portion of their roster is kids. Cheap kids for now, but once they all come up for renewal the Kings are going in for a world of hurt. Adding to that cohort may be a problem.
- It was terrible to see Vancouver scoop Schroeder at 21. He was the best value player at the time and apparently fell due to size and attitude concerns. I have a feeling he's going to be a quality NHL player though and I hope he doesn't make the Flames regret missing him at 20.
I was surprised Calgary took a d-man with their first pick, although Tod Button mentioned in a post-draft interview that the focus after that was to get scoring wingers (as I surmised previously). Thus the Howse, Bjorklund, Bennett picks later on.
Whether or not Bouwmeester signs with the Flames, I approve of Sutter's gambit to acquire his rights, if only because the price was so small. Leo wasn't coming back anyways and a 3rd rounder is about a 19% chance at a future NHLer.
- The Oilers draft looked like a mix of good and bad to me. They got a really nice player in the first round in Paajarvi-Svaslkahjsdlkasj*&! but then opted to use their 3rd round choice on a guy might have an Eric Godard-type ceiling. Now, as established, 3rd rounders aren't exactly worth a whole lot anyways, but pissing one away on a potential goon makes precisely zero sense to me. Goons don't have to be drafted or developed - there's plenty of them floating around for league minimum.
The Brodziak trade was pretty bizarre as well. He's never going to be a star but I got the feeling that at 25 he had established himself as an NHLer and still had a few years to grow...moving him for a 4th round pick is selling for pennies on the dollar. Unless he's roundly hated in the dressing room for some reason, doesn't make much sense to me.
- NYI moves at the draft were, appropriately enough, baffling. They moved a handful of picks to move up from 26-16...then did it again to move from 16-12...only to choose Calvin DeHaan, who very likely could have been available at 26 anyways. He was rated as the 25th skater in North America by Central Scouting and is said to have sizable holes in his game outside of the offensive zone. Erixon, Rundblad, Despres, Moore and Olsen were all still on the table at 12, BTW.
- Equally head scratching was the Nick Leddy choice by Minny at 16. He won the "Mr. Hockey" award in Minnesota for his work last season, but that's a fairly high draft choice to invest in a kid that hasn't played more than HS hockey.
- Scott Howson was quietly busy at the draft. He traded moved 16-77 for 26-37-62-92 and then dealt 26-37 to Ana for #21. He started with 16-77 and ended with 21-62-92. Decent work I'd say.
- My mock choice Landon Ferraro went to the Red Wings. Lucky bastard. And good on Detroit, Ferraro looks like decent value in the second round to me.
- Philly's trade for Pronger is either going to pay off in spades or completely blow up in their faces. He's 34 years old with a year left on his contract and the Flyers moved 3 first round picks and a somewhat useful roster player for him. That's a really high price to pay and one that may hobble the club in the future, especially if he starts to decline or doesn't sign to stay after this season.
All that said, a marriage of Captain Elbows and the broad street bully franchise seems like a match made in heaven.
- Im somewhat surprised LA kept the 5th overall choice. For two reasons:
1.) They're a club on the verge of breaking out of the basement I think. All they need is some true-blue veteran talent to prop up their bevy of skilled youngsters. A 5th for a signed star at either forward or defense really would have made sense.
2.) A huge portion of their roster is kids. Cheap kids for now, but once they all come up for renewal the Kings are going in for a world of hurt. Adding to that cohort may be a problem.
- It was terrible to see Vancouver scoop Schroeder at 21. He was the best value player at the time and apparently fell due to size and attitude concerns. I have a feeling he's going to be a quality NHL player though and I hope he doesn't make the Flames regret missing him at 20.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Best Player Available myth
It's commonly held that a dichotomy exists in fundamental draft strategy in hockey: pick for need versus best player available. Sensibly, most hockey fans and pundits eschew the first strategy: outside of picking a generational Crosby-like talent in the first round, a vast majority of prospects won't contribute anything valuable at the NHL level for at least 5 years, at which time the needs of the big club may have drastically changed.
But outside, say, the first five choices in every entry draft, is picking the "best player available" actually possible? From my own investigations into the matter, chances of picking an actual NHL player drop from 95% in the top 5 to about a coin flip by the end of the first round. Chances fall precipitously after that, to about 25% in round 2, 19% in round 3 and so on. In fact, as the draft progresses, the talent tends to be scattered more liberally throughout each round, rather than clustered close to the top as it is in first.
What I'm getting at is: things turn into a crap shoot pretty quickly in the draft. That means there isn't a lot to choose from once you get beyond the few sure-fire NHLers that exist at the very pinnacle of the prospect pyramid. This issue occurred to me while doing up profiles for potential Flames targets in this year's up coming roll of the dice - Rundblad, Kreider, Budish, Holland, Ferraro, etc - pretending all of them are available when the Flames take the stage on the 26th, which amongst those named is the "best player available"?
The challenges for an NHL scout extend beyond projecting the potential future contributions of some teenager some five years hence, but also -
1.) Comparing relative values of players across positions is problematic and rife with subjectivity and
2.) Many of these kids play at different levels in different leagues against different competition.
For example, let's talk about David Rundblad, a Swedish prospect who played as a teen in the SEL last season versus Zach Budish, an American High School winger. Rundblad garnered 10 points as a defender in the top professional level in Sweden last year against grown men. Budish collected more than 60 points in 30 games against pimply-faced HS kids in Minnesota. How does one even go about comparing the two players? Not only do they play different positions, but they performed against vastly different levels of competition - even subjective viewership and analysis would be effected. For intance, I would look like a thoughtful tactician and sniper if you put me on the ice against 12 year olds, but would be completely lost if I squared off against, say, the UofC mens team. That's an extreme example, but the principle is the same. This may be why clubs develop what I call "fishing holes", by which I mean they concentrate their scouting in certain amateur/developmental leagues (for the Flames, it's the WHL/CHL) - they can become familiar with the relative degree and value of the competition and therefore can more capably gauge a prospects level of performance. But I digress.
As such, I think it would be foolhardy to ignore an organizations areas of weakness when drafting. By that I certainly don't mean the woeful Florida Panthers should show up on the 26th this year and look to pick as many scoring forwards as possible because the big club had issues putting pucks in the net last year. That would be silly. However, simply due to the variable and unpredictable nature of developing prospects, every org is going to have certain areas that are weaker than others heading into the draft every year.
Taking the Flames again as an example, the club is relatively healthy at center and defense, but thin in terms of scoring wingers. Dustin Boyd - Warren Peters - Mikael Backlund - Mitch Wahl - Brett Sutter - John Armstrong are the young, promising pivots in the system. Calgary also has Phaneuf - Giordano - Pardy - Palin - Pelech - Aulie - Negrin - Brodie as young 20 something's and below on the blueline. However, aside from Moss and Glencross on the big club (who have already passed the quarter century mark), the org boasts overager Kyle Greentree, Greg Nemisz and tweeners like David Van Der Gulik and Kris Chucko on the wings. And that's about it.
As such, I honestly think this issue should inform if not dictate the Flames draft strategy heading into next week. We know that the org needs some offensively capable talent at the winger position. Therefore, unless they have the chance to pick Victor Hedman or perhaps Ryan Ellis in the first round, doesn't preferring a winger to a defender make sense from a Flames perspective? Back to the Rundblad and Budish example - since there's little chance of definitely determining which is the better player (either now or in the future), I would prefer the Flames emphasize the latter (Budish) over the former (Rundblad), given the clubs organizational strengths and weaknesses. In fact, considering we're dice rolling, Calgary should have a goal of claiming more wingers than defensemen and centers over the course of the 7 rounds in order to increase the chances of scoring a "hit" in that area.
Obviously clubs develop draft lists based on who-is-better-than whom and taking a 60th ranked forward ahead of the 12th ranked defender simply because the org has a greater need up front would be nonsensical. If an opportunity to choose a player who is *apparently* head and shoulders above the rest of the list occurs, it has to be taken. My guess is this seems more likely in theory than what happens in practice, however, especially due to the scouting challenges described above and especially once the cream of the crop has been skimmed. Overall, outside a few rare or extreme circumstances, I've come to think of the "BPA" draft strategy as rather meaningless and the whole "team need versus best player" dichotomy as a false one.
But outside, say, the first five choices in every entry draft, is picking the "best player available" actually possible? From my own investigations into the matter, chances of picking an actual NHL player drop from 95% in the top 5 to about a coin flip by the end of the first round. Chances fall precipitously after that, to about 25% in round 2, 19% in round 3 and so on. In fact, as the draft progresses, the talent tends to be scattered more liberally throughout each round, rather than clustered close to the top as it is in first.
What I'm getting at is: things turn into a crap shoot pretty quickly in the draft. That means there isn't a lot to choose from once you get beyond the few sure-fire NHLers that exist at the very pinnacle of the prospect pyramid. This issue occurred to me while doing up profiles for potential Flames targets in this year's up coming roll of the dice - Rundblad, Kreider, Budish, Holland, Ferraro, etc - pretending all of them are available when the Flames take the stage on the 26th, which amongst those named is the "best player available"?
The challenges for an NHL scout extend beyond projecting the potential future contributions of some teenager some five years hence, but also -
1.) Comparing relative values of players across positions is problematic and rife with subjectivity and
2.) Many of these kids play at different levels in different leagues against different competition.
For example, let's talk about David Rundblad, a Swedish prospect who played as a teen in the SEL last season versus Zach Budish, an American High School winger. Rundblad garnered 10 points as a defender in the top professional level in Sweden last year against grown men. Budish collected more than 60 points in 30 games against pimply-faced HS kids in Minnesota. How does one even go about comparing the two players? Not only do they play different positions, but they performed against vastly different levels of competition - even subjective viewership and analysis would be effected. For intance, I would look like a thoughtful tactician and sniper if you put me on the ice against 12 year olds, but would be completely lost if I squared off against, say, the UofC mens team. That's an extreme example, but the principle is the same. This may be why clubs develop what I call "fishing holes", by which I mean they concentrate their scouting in certain amateur/developmental leagues (for the Flames, it's the WHL/CHL) - they can become familiar with the relative degree and value of the competition and therefore can more capably gauge a prospects level of performance. But I digress.
As such, I think it would be foolhardy to ignore an organizations areas of weakness when drafting. By that I certainly don't mean the woeful Florida Panthers should show up on the 26th this year and look to pick as many scoring forwards as possible because the big club had issues putting pucks in the net last year. That would be silly. However, simply due to the variable and unpredictable nature of developing prospects, every org is going to have certain areas that are weaker than others heading into the draft every year.
Taking the Flames again as an example, the club is relatively healthy at center and defense, but thin in terms of scoring wingers. Dustin Boyd - Warren Peters - Mikael Backlund - Mitch Wahl - Brett Sutter - John Armstrong are the young, promising pivots in the system. Calgary also has Phaneuf - Giordano - Pardy - Palin - Pelech - Aulie - Negrin - Brodie as young 20 something's and below on the blueline. However, aside from Moss and Glencross on the big club (who have already passed the quarter century mark), the org boasts overager Kyle Greentree, Greg Nemisz and tweeners like David Van Der Gulik and Kris Chucko on the wings. And that's about it.
As such, I honestly think this issue should inform if not dictate the Flames draft strategy heading into next week. We know that the org needs some offensively capable talent at the winger position. Therefore, unless they have the chance to pick Victor Hedman or perhaps Ryan Ellis in the first round, doesn't preferring a winger to a defender make sense from a Flames perspective? Back to the Rundblad and Budish example - since there's little chance of definitely determining which is the better player (either now or in the future), I would prefer the Flames emphasize the latter (Budish) over the former (Rundblad), given the clubs organizational strengths and weaknesses. In fact, considering we're dice rolling, Calgary should have a goal of claiming more wingers than defensemen and centers over the course of the 7 rounds in order to increase the chances of scoring a "hit" in that area.
Obviously clubs develop draft lists based on who-is-better-than whom and taking a 60th ranked forward ahead of the 12th ranked defender simply because the org has a greater need up front would be nonsensical. If an opportunity to choose a player who is *apparently* head and shoulders above the rest of the list occurs, it has to be taken. My guess is this seems more likely in theory than what happens in practice, however, especially due to the scouting challenges described above and especially once the cream of the crop has been skimmed. Overall, outside a few rare or extreme circumstances, I've come to think of the "BPA" draft strategy as rather meaningless and the whole "team need versus best player" dichotomy as a false one.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Evidence mounts
Last summer I wrote a little piece on the value of drafting goaltenders. I was less sure of my conclusions then, but I've become more confident of my position as time has passed. The support the analysis has received from a number of people I consider bright hasn't hurt either.
On that note, Richard Pollock published a piece at Puck Prospectus today that echoes my thoughts on the matter pretty closely:
Half the netminders who were considered their team’s starters in the NHL this season were drafted in rounds many consider to be a crapshoot. In fact, five goalies were drafted in the eighth and ninth rounds (rounds which do not even exist anymore). So, in effect, there are as many goalies starting in the NHL that were drafted in the first round, as there are goalies who (by today’s draft rules) wouldn’t have been drafted at all (a.k.a.—undrafted free agents).
Actually, three goalies who were not even drafted (Backstrom, Roloson and Hiller) had dramatic effects on their team’s play to close this past season. Backstrom was nominated for the Vezina Trophy, Dwayne Roloson played almost every game for the Oilers in the second half of the season and Jonas Hiller has continued his strong regular season play with tremendous playoff play.
...
Considering the cost, or lack thereof, of making such a selection, I wouldn’t be surprised to see teams look for diamonds in the rough more often than drafting a goaltender with a first round selection.
Next time your team is considering drafting a goaltender in the first round, maybe they should instead try to sign Swedish free agent netminder Jonas Gustavsson.
Sounds about right.
On that note, Richard Pollock published a piece at Puck Prospectus today that echoes my thoughts on the matter pretty closely:
Half the netminders who were considered their team’s starters in the NHL this season were drafted in rounds many consider to be a crapshoot. In fact, five goalies were drafted in the eighth and ninth rounds (rounds which do not even exist anymore). So, in effect, there are as many goalies starting in the NHL that were drafted in the first round, as there are goalies who (by today’s draft rules) wouldn’t have been drafted at all (a.k.a.—undrafted free agents).
Actually, three goalies who were not even drafted (Backstrom, Roloson and Hiller) had dramatic effects on their team’s play to close this past season. Backstrom was nominated for the Vezina Trophy, Dwayne Roloson played almost every game for the Oilers in the second half of the season and Jonas Hiller has continued his strong regular season play with tremendous playoff play.
...
Considering the cost, or lack thereof, of making such a selection, I wouldn’t be surprised to see teams look for diamonds in the rough more often than drafting a goaltender with a first round selection.
Next time your team is considering drafting a goaltender in the first round, maybe they should instead try to sign Swedish free agent netminder Jonas Gustavsson.
Sounds about right.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Rest of the draft
2nd round (48th): Mitch Wahl - C - Spokane Chiefs
07/08 - 67GP, 20G 53A 73PTS
Wahl placed second on his club in terms of points during the regular season. Only 4 of goals came on the PP and he was a very healthy +33. From his scouting report:
NHL Central Scouting's Blair MacDonald
"Mitch is a smaller, skilled player with a good skating and playmaking ability. He controls and dishes the puck well, but needs to show more desire to enter into traffic and to battle around the net. He has good puck awareness and is used effectively on the penalty kill."
Spokane Chiefs head coach Bill Peters
"Mitch is starting to round into a complete player. In his draft year, he is 20th in the WHL in scoring, but more impressive to me is he is seventh in the WHL in plus-minus. That means, as a 17-year-old centerman, he is playing against other team's number one lines night in, night out. He is a playmaking center who looks to get his wingers the puck and he has very good on-ice vision and creativity."
Sounds like a fairly well-rounded guy already.
3rd round (78th): Lance Bouma - C - Vancouver Giants
07/08 - 71GP, 12G 23A 35PTS
Another Alberta boy from WHL. And another center. Go figure. Bouma managed just 35 points, good for 8th on his team (two defenseman garnered more points than him). He looks more like a checking forward than anything. From his scouting report:
NHL Central Scouting's Blair MacDonald
"Lance has shown the ability to use his speed from the outside to drive to the net. He plays a strong positional game – up and down his wing and works well in the corners; he is at his best when he plays an aggressive style of game and is finishing his checks. He plays the type of game that can make him a good pro player – keeps it simple and works hard on the forecheck and backcheck. He needs to improve on his offensive game and consistency from game-to-game."
Sounds like a third-round Eric Nystrom. It'd be nice to know who he was playing against at even-strength.
4th Round (108th): Nick Larson - LW - Waterloo
07/08 - 57GP, 19G 19A 38PTS
Big, American winger will be heading to Notre Dame next year. Let's hope he develops into something because the organizations list of potential wingers is rather deplorable. from his scouting report:
"Nick plays an aggressive, physical game and he plays in all situations. He has excellent puck pursuit and he's hard to control in front of the net. He plays on Waterloo's top line and scored consistently down the stretch – he provided the physical game on his line. Overall, I see a lot of potential and upside in this kid."
4th Round (114th): TJ Brodie - D - Saginaw Spirit
07/08 - 68GP, 4G 26A 30PTS
Brodie is a 6', 170 pound defender from the OHL. He was the highest scoring defenseman for the Spirit during the regular season and added another 3 assists in 4 games during the play-offs. I couldn't track down a scouting report for him but judging from his numbers and size, he looks like one o' those "puck-moving" defenders.
5th round - Traded to Montreal in Tanguay deal.
6th round (168th): Ryley Grantham - C - Moose Jaw Warriors
07/08 - 66GP, 9G 10A 19PTS
Another center and, yes, another Western Canadian kid playing in the dub. Grantham looks like a throw-away pick by the Flames scouting staff. He's 2 years older than the majority of his draft cohort (born 1988), but only managed 19 points in the WHL last year. His only notable stat was his 163 PIM. Enforcer for the farm?
7th round (198th): Alexander Deilert - D - Djurgarden U20
The Flames lone international choice comes in the final round with Alex Deilert. The 5'11", 176 pound blueliner has played with Sweden's international U16-U19 teams. Reminds me of the Per Jonsson pick.
Seven choices in total. Mostly big forwards and mostly from the WHL. No surprises here, apart from the lack of wingers chosen.
07/08 - 67GP, 20G 53A 73PTS
Wahl placed second on his club in terms of points during the regular season. Only 4 of goals came on the PP and he was a very healthy +33. From his scouting report:
NHL Central Scouting's Blair MacDonald
"Mitch is a smaller, skilled player with a good skating and playmaking ability. He controls and dishes the puck well, but needs to show more desire to enter into traffic and to battle around the net. He has good puck awareness and is used effectively on the penalty kill."
Spokane Chiefs head coach Bill Peters
"Mitch is starting to round into a complete player. In his draft year, he is 20th in the WHL in scoring, but more impressive to me is he is seventh in the WHL in plus-minus. That means, as a 17-year-old centerman, he is playing against other team's number one lines night in, night out. He is a playmaking center who looks to get his wingers the puck and he has very good on-ice vision and creativity."
Sounds like a fairly well-rounded guy already.
3rd round (78th): Lance Bouma - C - Vancouver Giants
07/08 - 71GP, 12G 23A 35PTS
Another Alberta boy from WHL. And another center. Go figure. Bouma managed just 35 points, good for 8th on his team (two defenseman garnered more points than him). He looks more like a checking forward than anything. From his scouting report:
NHL Central Scouting's Blair MacDonald
"Lance has shown the ability to use his speed from the outside to drive to the net. He plays a strong positional game – up and down his wing and works well in the corners; he is at his best when he plays an aggressive style of game and is finishing his checks. He plays the type of game that can make him a good pro player – keeps it simple and works hard on the forecheck and backcheck. He needs to improve on his offensive game and consistency from game-to-game."
Sounds like a third-round Eric Nystrom. It'd be nice to know who he was playing against at even-strength.
4th Round (108th): Nick Larson - LW - Waterloo
07/08 - 57GP, 19G 19A 38PTS
Big, American winger will be heading to Notre Dame next year. Let's hope he develops into something because the organizations list of potential wingers is rather deplorable. from his scouting report:
"Nick plays an aggressive, physical game and he plays in all situations. He has excellent puck pursuit and he's hard to control in front of the net. He plays on Waterloo's top line and scored consistently down the stretch – he provided the physical game on his line. Overall, I see a lot of potential and upside in this kid."
4th Round (114th): TJ Brodie - D - Saginaw Spirit
07/08 - 68GP, 4G 26A 30PTS
Brodie is a 6', 170 pound defender from the OHL. He was the highest scoring defenseman for the Spirit during the regular season and added another 3 assists in 4 games during the play-offs. I couldn't track down a scouting report for him but judging from his numbers and size, he looks like one o' those "puck-moving" defenders.
5th round - Traded to Montreal in Tanguay deal.
6th round (168th): Ryley Grantham - C - Moose Jaw Warriors
07/08 - 66GP, 9G 10A 19PTS
Another center and, yes, another Western Canadian kid playing in the dub. Grantham looks like a throw-away pick by the Flames scouting staff. He's 2 years older than the majority of his draft cohort (born 1988), but only managed 19 points in the WHL last year. His only notable stat was his 163 PIM. Enforcer for the farm?
7th round (198th): Alexander Deilert - D - Djurgarden U20
The Flames lone international choice comes in the final round with Alex Deilert. The 5'11", 176 pound blueliner has played with Sweden's international U16-U19 teams. Reminds me of the Per Jonsson pick.
Seven choices in total. Mostly big forwards and mostly from the WHL. No surprises here, apart from the lack of wingers chosen.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The draft - a few final things
- ESPN's mock draft has Calgary picking the Regina Pats Jordan Eberle. The Regina native is a center that has put up 70 goals in his first two seasons in the dub, so it's not a bad choice. Here's a little blurb on him:
Jordan Eberle possesses hockey sense and skill that cannot be taught. Both intelligent and creative, he stands head and shoulders above most of the Pats’ forwards and won numerous accolades for his play as a 17-year old. Can make plays out of almost nothing and sees the ice as well as anyone in the WHL.
I skipped over Eberle in my own musings because the Flames have pivots coming out the ass (Langkow, Lomabrdi, Boyd, Backlund) and are in desperate need of skill on the wings at both the NHL and AHL levels. However, if Eberle is still around at 17 and seems like "the best player available", it's not ridiculous to think the Flames will grab him, logjam be damned.
- Sutter has almost never made a major trade at the trade deadline. He has, however, been very active during draft day, twice dealing for major players (Tanguay, Aucoin) and almost always making other minor swaps for futures. With the Flames desperately needing to unload some salary and lacking a 2nd rounder, expect Sutter to try to deal an established NHLer for a pick or two. My guess is, at least one of Eriksson, Primeau or Nilsson will be someone else's property come Sunday. Potential partners include:
- LA: 15 (!) picks means they have futures to spare.
- WAS: The caps are flush with second rounders and could prove amenable to parting with one of them.
- CAR: The Hurricanes have cap room and need NHL defensemen in the worst way - even defensemen as crappy as Eriksson.
- How great is it that the Edmonton Oilers only have 5 picks in this deep draft?? Thank you Kevin Lowe (and Dustin Penner).
Jordan Eberle possesses hockey sense and skill that cannot be taught. Both intelligent and creative, he stands head and shoulders above most of the Pats’ forwards and won numerous accolades for his play as a 17-year old. Can make plays out of almost nothing and sees the ice as well as anyone in the WHL.
I skipped over Eberle in my own musings because the Flames have pivots coming out the ass (Langkow, Lomabrdi, Boyd, Backlund) and are in desperate need of skill on the wings at both the NHL and AHL levels. However, if Eberle is still around at 17 and seems like "the best player available", it's not ridiculous to think the Flames will grab him, logjam be damned.
- Sutter has almost never made a major trade at the trade deadline. He has, however, been very active during draft day, twice dealing for major players (Tanguay, Aucoin) and almost always making other minor swaps for futures. With the Flames desperately needing to unload some salary and lacking a 2nd rounder, expect Sutter to try to deal an established NHLer for a pick or two. My guess is, at least one of Eriksson, Primeau or Nilsson will be someone else's property come Sunday. Potential partners include:
- LA: 15 (!) picks means they have futures to spare.
- WAS: The caps are flush with second rounders and could prove amenable to parting with one of them.
- CAR: The Hurricanes have cap room and need NHL defensemen in the worst way - even defensemen as crappy as Eriksson.
- How great is it that the Edmonton Oilers only have 5 picks in this deep draft?? Thank you Kevin Lowe (and Dustin Penner).
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Flames Draft Preview
"It's an old line but we want a top six forward. We want a guy who can put up offensive numbers ... We want to take the best player available. We want to take an offensive forward."
So says Flames head Scout Tod Button. In an earlier interview this year, Sutter was explicit in his intentions to pursue forwards in the draft before defensemen or goalies ("we don't need any more goalies"). Ironically, the current draft class seems heavy with defenders: Of the 20 top ranked North American and international skaters (10 NA, 10 IN), almost half are blueliners. So the the Flames are going fishing for forwards in defensemen rich waters...
We can further narrow down the field by looking at the organizations previous habits. As mentioned in the retrospective below, the Flames have made 40 picks with Sutter at the Helm. Here's a Lowetide-like break-down of where those picks have come from:
WHL - 16
OHL - 9
QMJHL - 3
NCAA - 1
BCHL/USHL/USHS/Minn/OPJHL - 6
Swe - 3
Swiss - 1
Fin - 1
Clearly, the CHL dominates the Flames choices (70%), with the WHL unsurprisingly being the clear favorite (40%). Calgary has only made 5 picks outside of North America in 5 years (12.5%), with three of those coming out of Sweden (and none out of Russia).
Flames 2008 draft order:
* 1st Round - 17th Pick
* 2nd Round - None (dealt to LA for Conroy)
* 3rd Round - 78th pick
* 3rd Round - 108th pick
* 4th Round - 114th pick (from Washington, acquired in the Stuart trade)
* 5th Round - 138th pick
* 6th round - 168th pick
* 7th round - 198th pick
Flames have 7 choices this year, so Sutter may be less keen on trading down in the first round to acquire more picks later on. Further, he's been vocal in the media lately about how "picking in the 20's" makes drafting more difficult. Chances are, Sutter hangs onto #17 (unless a very good deal comes along).
So, assuming:
- Sutter keeps his first rounder
- Picks according to habit (Canada, WHL, OHL, QMJHL, SWE)
- Pursues a forward and,
- Pursues a winger over a centerman (the organization is really thin on the wings)
This is who we can reasonably expect the organization to target...
Mikkel Boedeker - LW - OHL
07/08 - 62 GP, 29G 44A 73PTS
From NHL Central Scouting: Although he is 5'11", he plays low to the ice and as a result is a real solid player. This Team Denmark product is a versatile player for the Kitchener Rangers and that is what he is going to be for his NHL team. He quarterbacks the power-play as a forward from the point for the Rangers and does an effective job.
A consensus top 10 pick. It's doubtful he'll fall into Calgary's range.
Tyler Ennis - LW - WHL
07/08 - 70 GP, 43G 48A 91PTS
From NHL Central Scouting: Tyler is a quick, water-bug-type player. He scoots up and down the ice and can turn on a dime. He can drive wide on a defenceman who is unaware or a little slow. Tyler may be one of the best pure offensive players in the entire draft.
Ennis put up big numbers last year, but is rather small (5'8", 170 pounds) which drops his ranking around the late 20's and early 30's. He'll probably be available at 17.
Mattias Tedenby - LW - HV71 (SWE)
07/08 - 23GP, 3G 3A 6PTS
From NHL Central Scouting: Mattias is excellent on every shift. He has outstanding speed, stick work and work ethic. He is small but fearless - he takes hits and always comes back. He creates scoring chances with his outstanding skating and is very difficult to stop when he is at full speed. He has excellent balance and quick, smooth hands, but needs to improve on his defensive awareness.
Again, another small, fast player (5'9", 165 pounds) with offensive upside who might be around when the Flames take the stage. I like phrases such as "fearless", "outstanding skating" and "difficult to stop".
Joe Colborne - LW - AJHL
07/08 - 55GP, 33G 57A 90PTS
From NHL Central Scouting: Very rangy with his stick; he dishes the puck well and has really good on-ice awareness. If he can get his skating a little more energetic, he'll be a big strong player down the middle. When he is at his best he is a strategic player.
Colborne is a huge Western Canadian kid (6'5", 190 pounds) and might just be the odds-on favorite to be a Flames pick. Personally, I dont like him. Kris Chucko has really soured me on picking raw talents who put up nice numbers in second rate leagues. I've also heard things like "soft", "mediocre skating" and "project" associated with this guy. To me, it looks like those nice counting numbers and "projectable frame" are turning him into a draft day jeans model.
Matthew Calvert - LW - WHL
07/08 - 72GP, 24G 40A 64PTS
Calvert is another in a long line of diminutive, offensive LWers in this draft. He scored at nearly a point per game pace as a rookie for Brandon last year. He's generally ranked in the high 20's amongst NA skaters, again partially due to his size (5' 9", 175 pounds). He's more of a 2nd or 3rd round pick, but could be on the Flames radar in the first round if some of their other choices are gone (and since they don't own a 2nd rounder currently).
Jared Staal - RW - OHL
07/08 - 60GP, 21G 28A 49PTS
From NHL Central Scouting: With the great Staal family reputation and the high expectations brought on by his brothers, Jared is coming into his own -- he's just growing into his 'big Staal body', which is very similar to that of his brothers. He comes off the wing with the desire to go to the net.
The reports about the youngest Staal are mixed at best. He put up mediocre numbers in the OHL and tested poorly at the NHL combine recently. It's said he has top-notch skill, but lacks motivation to succeed. As of now, most scouts put him in the 2nd or 3rd round.
I can see Sutter being tempted by Staal's pedigree, however. The Flames might just take a chance on the baby Staal if some of their other targets fall through.
WILD CARD:
Kyle Beach - C - WHL
07/08 - 60 GP, 27G 33A 60PTS
From NHL Central Scouting: One of the top forwards in this year's draft and is probably the most competitive – from the blue line in there is no one that competes like him. He has good scoring skills and a very accurate shot, and from the blue line in, once he gets the puck, he almost owns it.
Beach may fall to the Flames due to injury concerns (concussion problems last year) and rumors of attitude problems. He's ranked all over the board, with some considering him a top 10 choice while others have him in the 20s (or worse). Although he's a center, he hits a lot of Sutters sweet-spots: big (6'3", 203 pounds), mean, highly competitive, born in Western Canada and plays in the WHL. Not to mention "potentially undervalued due to injury", which is a well the club has gone to twice before in the first round (Backlund, Pelech). If Beach is still on the board at 17, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the Flames call his name.
EDIT - Jean Lefebvre has a nice draft article in the Herald today. Some highlights:
- Sutter told the media mob Monday morning at the Saddledome, "but we won't be in that market. We think on defence, with the guys that we have (including long-term signees Dion Phaneuf and Robyn Regehr) and the kids that we've drafted (most notably Matt Pelech and John Negrin) . . . if it was a saw-off between a defenceman and a forward, we wouldn't take the defenceman. The chances are, if we stayed at 17, we'd take a forward there."
"Just looking back," he said, "the highest we picked was 24th other than my first year (2003) with Dion (Phaneuf). That in itself is significant. Seven spots up and with this being, I think, probably the best draft since Phaneuf's year in terms of the depth of it all. I like that pick. It's really hard to tell who falls there because there are so many good defencemen who'll be in the top 10, and probably three or four centremen, too. It's hard to see how that next group is going to shake out."
The funny thing about Sutter's lamentations on this issue is the fact that he has traded down in the first round more than once: 2007 (Backlund), 2005 (Pelech) and 2004 (Chucko).
- On the team's June work since Sutter became general manager in 2003: "We got Dion at nine (in '03), but I would have liked that draft to be stronger for us." Only three players chosen five years ago -- Tim Ramholt, Cam Cunning and Ryan Donally -- are still with the organization, and none is considered a significant prospect. "After that, I'm quite happy."
- On whether Mikael Backlund, Calgary's top choice a year ago, will play in the NHL this coming season: "Based on skill, he could, But he's 19 years and he'd have to play in our top group. He'll either play in the NHL or he'll play in Sweden.
- If you're into reading between the lines, you may want to consider this Sutter statement: "I think there's a few kids that are in Western Canada who fall to where we are (in the first-round order). Not necessarily in the Western league, but who are from out here that I'm comfortable with."
The prime prospects who best fit that description are Joe Colborne and David Toews.
- On potential changes to the Flames' scouting operations: "We look at it every year. If there's one impact that the (expiry of the) European agreement has is where your scouts are over there. Scandinavia is probably where the base of your staff should be overseas." (translation: more focus in Sweden).
So says Flames head Scout Tod Button. In an earlier interview this year, Sutter was explicit in his intentions to pursue forwards in the draft before defensemen or goalies ("we don't need any more goalies"). Ironically, the current draft class seems heavy with defenders: Of the 20 top ranked North American and international skaters (10 NA, 10 IN), almost half are blueliners. So the the Flames are going fishing for forwards in defensemen rich waters...
We can further narrow down the field by looking at the organizations previous habits. As mentioned in the retrospective below, the Flames have made 40 picks with Sutter at the Helm. Here's a Lowetide-like break-down of where those picks have come from:
WHL - 16
OHL - 9
QMJHL - 3
NCAA - 1
BCHL/USHL/USHS/Minn/OPJHL - 6
Swe - 3
Swiss - 1
Fin - 1
Clearly, the CHL dominates the Flames choices (70%), with the WHL unsurprisingly being the clear favorite (40%). Calgary has only made 5 picks outside of North America in 5 years (12.5%), with three of those coming out of Sweden (and none out of Russia).
Flames 2008 draft order:
* 1st Round - 17th Pick
* 2nd Round - None (dealt to LA for Conroy)
* 3rd Round - 78th pick
* 3rd Round - 108th pick
* 4th Round - 114th pick (from Washington, acquired in the Stuart trade)
* 5th Round - 138th pick
* 6th round - 168th pick
* 7th round - 198th pick
Flames have 7 choices this year, so Sutter may be less keen on trading down in the first round to acquire more picks later on. Further, he's been vocal in the media lately about how "picking in the 20's" makes drafting more difficult. Chances are, Sutter hangs onto #17 (unless a very good deal comes along).
So, assuming:
- Sutter keeps his first rounder
- Picks according to habit (Canada, WHL, OHL, QMJHL, SWE)
- Pursues a forward and,
- Pursues a winger over a centerman (the organization is really thin on the wings)
This is who we can reasonably expect the organization to target...
Mikkel Boedeker - LW - OHL
07/08 - 62 GP, 29G 44A 73PTS
From NHL Central Scouting: Although he is 5'11", he plays low to the ice and as a result is a real solid player. This Team Denmark product is a versatile player for the Kitchener Rangers and that is what he is going to be for his NHL team. He quarterbacks the power-play as a forward from the point for the Rangers and does an effective job.
A consensus top 10 pick. It's doubtful he'll fall into Calgary's range.
Tyler Ennis - LW - WHL
07/08 - 70 GP, 43G 48A 91PTS
From NHL Central Scouting: Tyler is a quick, water-bug-type player. He scoots up and down the ice and can turn on a dime. He can drive wide on a defenceman who is unaware or a little slow. Tyler may be one of the best pure offensive players in the entire draft.
Ennis put up big numbers last year, but is rather small (5'8", 170 pounds) which drops his ranking around the late 20's and early 30's. He'll probably be available at 17.
Mattias Tedenby - LW - HV71 (SWE)
07/08 - 23GP, 3G 3A 6PTS
From NHL Central Scouting: Mattias is excellent on every shift. He has outstanding speed, stick work and work ethic. He is small but fearless - he takes hits and always comes back. He creates scoring chances with his outstanding skating and is very difficult to stop when he is at full speed. He has excellent balance and quick, smooth hands, but needs to improve on his defensive awareness.
Again, another small, fast player (5'9", 165 pounds) with offensive upside who might be around when the Flames take the stage. I like phrases such as "fearless", "outstanding skating" and "difficult to stop".
Joe Colborne - LW - AJHL
07/08 - 55GP, 33G 57A 90PTS
From NHL Central Scouting: Very rangy with his stick; he dishes the puck well and has really good on-ice awareness. If he can get his skating a little more energetic, he'll be a big strong player down the middle. When he is at his best he is a strategic player.
Colborne is a huge Western Canadian kid (6'5", 190 pounds) and might just be the odds-on favorite to be a Flames pick. Personally, I dont like him. Kris Chucko has really soured me on picking raw talents who put up nice numbers in second rate leagues. I've also heard things like "soft", "mediocre skating" and "project" associated with this guy. To me, it looks like those nice counting numbers and "projectable frame" are turning him into a draft day jeans model.
Matthew Calvert - LW - WHL
07/08 - 72GP, 24G 40A 64PTS
Calvert is another in a long line of diminutive, offensive LWers in this draft. He scored at nearly a point per game pace as a rookie for Brandon last year. He's generally ranked in the high 20's amongst NA skaters, again partially due to his size (5' 9", 175 pounds). He's more of a 2nd or 3rd round pick, but could be on the Flames radar in the first round if some of their other choices are gone (and since they don't own a 2nd rounder currently).
Jared Staal - RW - OHL
07/08 - 60GP, 21G 28A 49PTS
From NHL Central Scouting: With the great Staal family reputation and the high expectations brought on by his brothers, Jared is coming into his own -- he's just growing into his 'big Staal body', which is very similar to that of his brothers. He comes off the wing with the desire to go to the net.
The reports about the youngest Staal are mixed at best. He put up mediocre numbers in the OHL and tested poorly at the NHL combine recently. It's said he has top-notch skill, but lacks motivation to succeed. As of now, most scouts put him in the 2nd or 3rd round.
I can see Sutter being tempted by Staal's pedigree, however. The Flames might just take a chance on the baby Staal if some of their other targets fall through.
WILD CARD:
Kyle Beach - C - WHL
07/08 - 60 GP, 27G 33A 60PTS
From NHL Central Scouting: One of the top forwards in this year's draft and is probably the most competitive – from the blue line in there is no one that competes like him. He has good scoring skills and a very accurate shot, and from the blue line in, once he gets the puck, he almost owns it.
Beach may fall to the Flames due to injury concerns (concussion problems last year) and rumors of attitude problems. He's ranked all over the board, with some considering him a top 10 choice while others have him in the 20s (or worse). Although he's a center, he hits a lot of Sutters sweet-spots: big (6'3", 203 pounds), mean, highly competitive, born in Western Canada and plays in the WHL. Not to mention "potentially undervalued due to injury", which is a well the club has gone to twice before in the first round (Backlund, Pelech). If Beach is still on the board at 17, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the Flames call his name.
EDIT - Jean Lefebvre has a nice draft article in the Herald today. Some highlights:
- Sutter told the media mob Monday morning at the Saddledome, "but we won't be in that market. We think on defence, with the guys that we have (including long-term signees Dion Phaneuf and Robyn Regehr) and the kids that we've drafted (most notably Matt Pelech and John Negrin) . . . if it was a saw-off between a defenceman and a forward, we wouldn't take the defenceman. The chances are, if we stayed at 17, we'd take a forward there."
"Just looking back," he said, "the highest we picked was 24th other than my first year (2003) with Dion (Phaneuf). That in itself is significant. Seven spots up and with this being, I think, probably the best draft since Phaneuf's year in terms of the depth of it all. I like that pick. It's really hard to tell who falls there because there are so many good defencemen who'll be in the top 10, and probably three or four centremen, too. It's hard to see how that next group is going to shake out."
The funny thing about Sutter's lamentations on this issue is the fact that he has traded down in the first round more than once: 2007 (Backlund), 2005 (Pelech) and 2004 (Chucko).
- On the team's June work since Sutter became general manager in 2003: "We got Dion at nine (in '03), but I would have liked that draft to be stronger for us." Only three players chosen five years ago -- Tim Ramholt, Cam Cunning and Ryan Donally -- are still with the organization, and none is considered a significant prospect. "After that, I'm quite happy."
- On whether Mikael Backlund, Calgary's top choice a year ago, will play in the NHL this coming season: "Based on skill, he could, But he's 19 years and he'd have to play in our top group. He'll either play in the NHL or he'll play in Sweden.
- If you're into reading between the lines, you may want to consider this Sutter statement: "I think there's a few kids that are in Western Canada who fall to where we are (in the first-round order). Not necessarily in the Western league, but who are from out here that I'm comfortable with."
The prime prospects who best fit that description are Joe Colborne and David Toews.
- On potential changes to the Flames' scouting operations: "We look at it every year. If there's one impact that the (expiry of the) European agreement has is where your scouts are over there. Scandinavia is probably where the base of your staff should be overseas." (translation: more focus in Sweden).
Monday, June 16, 2008
The Draft, the Flames and Sutter
There's been some decent stories in the local media recently relating to the upcoming (and previous) entry drafts. Here's my own humble contribution in that same vein...
The Calgary Franchise is now 5 years removed from the onset of the Darryl Sutter regime. Given that it takes about 5 years to evaluate draft performance, I figure it's a good time to look over the Flames drafting record since Sutter took office.
2003:
9th pick - Dion Phaneuf - 243GP
39th pick - Tim Ramholt - 1 GP
97th pick - Ryan Donally
112th pick - Jamie Tardif
143rd pick - Greg Moore
173rd pick - Tyler Johnson
206th pick - Thomas Bellamere
240th pick - Cam Cunning
270th pick - Kevin Harvey
The inclusion of Dion Phaneuf makes palatable what would otherwise be a disastrous year at the table. Of the 9 players chosen, only two have played in the big league, and that's generously counting Tim Ramholt's single shift. Only Phaneuf, Ramholt, Donnally and Cunning are still Flames property, with Cunning and Ramholt making some contributions at the AHL level for Omaha recently (Donally played for the Las Vegas Wranglers in the ECHL last season). Chances are, none of them will regularly skate for the Flames (or anyone else in the NHL for that matter).
Moore, Tardif and Johnson all plied their trade in the AHL for other franchises last year while guys like Bellamere and Harvey no longer play hockey competitively. Basically, the Flames hit a homerun with the first swing of the bat in 2003 and then proceeded to ground out the rest of the way. What's perhaps most disappointing about their lack of success is the relatively good draft position, with 2003 marking the best position (9th) the organization has enjoyed during Sutter's tenure.
2004:
24th pick - Kris Chucko
70th pick - Brandon Prust - 10 GP
98th pick - Dustin Boyd - 61 GP
118th pick - Aki Seitsonen
121st pick - Kris Hogg
173rd pick - Adam Pardy
182nd pick - Fred Wikner
200th pick - Matt Schneider
213th pick - Jimmy Spratt
279th pick - Adam Cracknell
This was a quantity rather than quality draft. Calgary had 10 picks but only one of them was inside the top 69 choices - and the club wasted it on Kris Chucko. Like the previous draft, most of the guys are AHL (or worse) fodder. The only possible exceptions are Dustin Boyd, who likely has the biggest upside of the bunch (20 goal, 2nd line center sound about right?), and Adam Pardy, who was recently mentioned by some of the muck-e-mucks as a youngster knocking on the door. Prust has also played at the NHL level, but a lot of the reports and stats from the farm indicate his development has basically stalled at "injury call-up". If he ever makes the Flames full-time (large "if"), it's unlikely he'll progress much past 4th line duties. As things stand currently, it looks like the Flames garnered just one NHL player out of 10 choices from this batch.
2005:
26th pick - Matt Pelech
69th pick - Gord Baldwin
74th pick - Dan Ryder
111th pick - JD Watt
128th pick - Kevin Lalande
158th pick - Matt Keetley - 1 GP
179th pick - Brett Sutter
221st pick - Myles Rumsey
At 3 years out, a draft becomes harder to grade simply because all of the guys in question are still young and trying to establish themselves as professional players. None of them have played in the NHL yet (excusing Matt Keetley's cup of coffee). Based on what I've seen and heard, Matt Pelech and the aforementioned Keetley may be the only guys with a shot at cracking the bigs, particularly since Daniel Ryder decided to take his ball and go home last summer. Watt is a shit-disturber in the Downie/Carcillo mold, although he has considerably less actual hockey-skill than those guys. He scored more than 30 goals a couple years ago for Vancouver in the WHL but has done little since, even as an overager on the Rebels/Pats last season. I haven't seen him play much, but his numbers are hardly encouraging. He is, however, one of the kids Sutter signed to a big-league contract, so maybe there's something there.
Brett Sutter, Darryl's son, made the AHL club last year and struggled to keep his head above water. I have no idea if he has NHL potential, although his stats suggest a 4th line/grinder type ceiling should he ever make the leap.
Again, it's hard to say, but there doesn't seem to be much here. I think what I find most surprising about this draft, though, is the org's decision to use 2 of the 8 picks on goalies.
Were I forced to grade this draft right now, I'd have to go with "poor", again. Pelech was an off-the-board pick at the time, a guy who had fallen during his draft year due to injuries. While I applaud Sutter and co. for seeking out undervalued guys at the bottom end of the rotation, the truth of the matter is they didn't do a very good job of it. Currently, there are more than 30 players that were chosen after Pelech that have played in the NHL: some of them have gotten a cup of coffee while others are already making contributions (Matt Niskanen, ME Vlasic, Paul Statsny, Kris Letang, Kris Russel, Jared Boll, Sergei Kostitsyn, Kyle Cumiskey). There's still a lot of time left for Pelech to step up, however.
2006:
26th pick - Leland Irving
87th pick - John Armstrong
89th pick - Aaron Marvin
118th pick - Hugo Carpentier
149th pick - Jusso Puustinen
179th pick - Jordan Fulton
187th pick - Devin DiDiomete
209th pick - Per Johnsson
Two years out and we're basically reading tea leaves at this point. Most of these guys are still kids and are at the tail-end of their junior/college careers. Irving enjoyed a large portion of success at the WHL level and is a lock to make the Omaha squad this upcoming season. His numbers and pedigree suggest NHL upside, but who the hell knows with goalies sometimes.
The rest of the 2006 cohort is a total grab-bag. None are guarantees to make the bigs or even challenge for a job. Jusso Puustinen led his WHL club in scoring this past season, but has since fled back to Finland. The Flames declined to offer him a contract and have lost his rights as a result. DiDiomete, Fulton, Carpentier and Armstrong are all middling talents who will need some combination of a tireless work ethic, favorable circumstances and a big step forward to become NHL players in the distant future. Aaron Marvin is said to have some offensive upside, but if or whether that translates beyond anything more than the HS level remains to be seen.
Grading this draft is obviously difficult, but, as it stands now, it doesn't look like Calgary managed anything more than a single or double with this go-round (depending on how Irving does) - if that. Probably the best Flames fans can hope for from any of these skaters is a "David Moss" type player..and that's 3 to 5 years down the road.
2007:
24th pick - Mikael Backlund
70th pick - John Negrin
116th pick - Keith Aulie
143rd pick - Mickey Renaud
186th pick - CJ Severyn
Like Pelech, Backlund was another player that fell during his draft year due to injury. Sutter originally had the 17th pick, but chose to deal down in exchange for more picks later. He grabbed Backlund with the 24th choice and the early returns on that gamble are, happily, encouraging. Speaking of under-valued, John Negrin was another injury-felled player snagged by the Flames, and he had a whale of year for the Kootney Ice last season. Ironically, the Flames may have hit a couple of doubles in this draft, despite the relatively small number of picks (although it's way too early to say so definitively).
As his tenure as the Flames GM has matured, Sutter has made a habit of:
1.) trading away later picks (2nd, 3rd rounders, etc) for established players (Tanguay, Conroy, Lundmark, Hale) and
2.) Trading down in the first round to re-coup those picks.
The results have been...mixed to date. Of the 40 choices the organization has made under Sutter's direction, only 2 (!) have played more than 60 NHL games (Phaneuf and Boyd), with only perhaps 5 more with a good chance to crack the bigs and contribute at some point in the future (by my own subjective perceptions, at least): Pardy, Pelech, Backlund, Irving and Negrin. The Sutter-helmed Flames knocked one out of the park with their very first pick, but have failed to acquire anything near that quality of player since. In fact, there seems to be a dearth of NHL-caliber players period, let alone any of the star variety.
While the prior regimes (rightly) get some flack for the Flames lack of home-grown talent, the current administration is equally to blame for the clubs dearth of cheap, entry-level players. Of the youngins that skated for the Flames last season (Moss, Boyd, Nystrom, Phaneuf), only two were Sutter picks/under the age of 25, with one of those (Phaneuf) playing the final year of his entry-level deal.
Of impending relevance is the fact that there are precious few youngsters looking to step in and fill some of the (gaping) roster holes this coming September, with only Van Der Gulik (also not a Sutter-era pick), Pardy and maybe Pelech or Prust pressing to be replacement level skaters at the bottom-end of the roster.
Im no expert on prospects and haven't seen most of these guys play, so none of this gospel. In addition, we're still several years away from really learning the true success rates for any of the 2005 drafts or later. However, from where I stand currently and with all the information available to me -- it's probably fair to say Im not bullish on the Flames draft record under Sutter thus far.
The Calgary Franchise is now 5 years removed from the onset of the Darryl Sutter regime. Given that it takes about 5 years to evaluate draft performance, I figure it's a good time to look over the Flames drafting record since Sutter took office.
2003:
9th pick - Dion Phaneuf - 243GP
39th pick - Tim Ramholt - 1 GP
97th pick - Ryan Donally
112th pick - Jamie Tardif
143rd pick - Greg Moore
173rd pick - Tyler Johnson
206th pick - Thomas Bellamere
240th pick - Cam Cunning
270th pick - Kevin Harvey
The inclusion of Dion Phaneuf makes palatable what would otherwise be a disastrous year at the table. Of the 9 players chosen, only two have played in the big league, and that's generously counting Tim Ramholt's single shift. Only Phaneuf, Ramholt, Donnally and Cunning are still Flames property, with Cunning and Ramholt making some contributions at the AHL level for Omaha recently (Donally played for the Las Vegas Wranglers in the ECHL last season). Chances are, none of them will regularly skate for the Flames (or anyone else in the NHL for that matter).
Moore, Tardif and Johnson all plied their trade in the AHL for other franchises last year while guys like Bellamere and Harvey no longer play hockey competitively. Basically, the Flames hit a homerun with the first swing of the bat in 2003 and then proceeded to ground out the rest of the way. What's perhaps most disappointing about their lack of success is the relatively good draft position, with 2003 marking the best position (9th) the organization has enjoyed during Sutter's tenure.
2004:
24th pick - Kris Chucko
70th pick - Brandon Prust - 10 GP
98th pick - Dustin Boyd - 61 GP
118th pick - Aki Seitsonen
121st pick - Kris Hogg
173rd pick - Adam Pardy
182nd pick - Fred Wikner
200th pick - Matt Schneider
213th pick - Jimmy Spratt
279th pick - Adam Cracknell
This was a quantity rather than quality draft. Calgary had 10 picks but only one of them was inside the top 69 choices - and the club wasted it on Kris Chucko. Like the previous draft, most of the guys are AHL (or worse) fodder. The only possible exceptions are Dustin Boyd, who likely has the biggest upside of the bunch (20 goal, 2nd line center sound about right?), and Adam Pardy, who was recently mentioned by some of the muck-e-mucks as a youngster knocking on the door. Prust has also played at the NHL level, but a lot of the reports and stats from the farm indicate his development has basically stalled at "injury call-up". If he ever makes the Flames full-time (large "if"), it's unlikely he'll progress much past 4th line duties. As things stand currently, it looks like the Flames garnered just one NHL player out of 10 choices from this batch.
2005:
26th pick - Matt Pelech
69th pick - Gord Baldwin
74th pick - Dan Ryder
111th pick - JD Watt
128th pick - Kevin Lalande
158th pick - Matt Keetley - 1 GP
179th pick - Brett Sutter
221st pick - Myles Rumsey
At 3 years out, a draft becomes harder to grade simply because all of the guys in question are still young and trying to establish themselves as professional players. None of them have played in the NHL yet (excusing Matt Keetley's cup of coffee). Based on what I've seen and heard, Matt Pelech and the aforementioned Keetley may be the only guys with a shot at cracking the bigs, particularly since Daniel Ryder decided to take his ball and go home last summer. Watt is a shit-disturber in the Downie/Carcillo mold, although he has considerably less actual hockey-skill than those guys. He scored more than 30 goals a couple years ago for Vancouver in the WHL but has done little since, even as an overager on the Rebels/Pats last season. I haven't seen him play much, but his numbers are hardly encouraging. He is, however, one of the kids Sutter signed to a big-league contract, so maybe there's something there.
Brett Sutter, Darryl's son, made the AHL club last year and struggled to keep his head above water. I have no idea if he has NHL potential, although his stats suggest a 4th line/grinder type ceiling should he ever make the leap.
Again, it's hard to say, but there doesn't seem to be much here. I think what I find most surprising about this draft, though, is the org's decision to use 2 of the 8 picks on goalies.
Were I forced to grade this draft right now, I'd have to go with "poor", again. Pelech was an off-the-board pick at the time, a guy who had fallen during his draft year due to injuries. While I applaud Sutter and co. for seeking out undervalued guys at the bottom end of the rotation, the truth of the matter is they didn't do a very good job of it. Currently, there are more than 30 players that were chosen after Pelech that have played in the NHL: some of them have gotten a cup of coffee while others are already making contributions (Matt Niskanen, ME Vlasic, Paul Statsny, Kris Letang, Kris Russel, Jared Boll, Sergei Kostitsyn, Kyle Cumiskey). There's still a lot of time left for Pelech to step up, however.
2006:
26th pick - Leland Irving
87th pick - John Armstrong
89th pick - Aaron Marvin
118th pick - Hugo Carpentier
149th pick - Jusso Puustinen
179th pick - Jordan Fulton
187th pick - Devin DiDiomete
209th pick - Per Johnsson
Two years out and we're basically reading tea leaves at this point. Most of these guys are still kids and are at the tail-end of their junior/college careers. Irving enjoyed a large portion of success at the WHL level and is a lock to make the Omaha squad this upcoming season. His numbers and pedigree suggest NHL upside, but who the hell knows with goalies sometimes.
The rest of the 2006 cohort is a total grab-bag. None are guarantees to make the bigs or even challenge for a job. Jusso Puustinen led his WHL club in scoring this past season, but has since fled back to Finland. The Flames declined to offer him a contract and have lost his rights as a result. DiDiomete, Fulton, Carpentier and Armstrong are all middling talents who will need some combination of a tireless work ethic, favorable circumstances and a big step forward to become NHL players in the distant future. Aaron Marvin is said to have some offensive upside, but if or whether that translates beyond anything more than the HS level remains to be seen.
Grading this draft is obviously difficult, but, as it stands now, it doesn't look like Calgary managed anything more than a single or double with this go-round (depending on how Irving does) - if that. Probably the best Flames fans can hope for from any of these skaters is a "David Moss" type player..and that's 3 to 5 years down the road.
2007:
24th pick - Mikael Backlund
70th pick - John Negrin
116th pick - Keith Aulie
143rd pick - Mickey Renaud
186th pick - CJ Severyn
Like Pelech, Backlund was another player that fell during his draft year due to injury. Sutter originally had the 17th pick, but chose to deal down in exchange for more picks later. He grabbed Backlund with the 24th choice and the early returns on that gamble are, happily, encouraging. Speaking of under-valued, John Negrin was another injury-felled player snagged by the Flames, and he had a whale of year for the Kootney Ice last season. Ironically, the Flames may have hit a couple of doubles in this draft, despite the relatively small number of picks (although it's way too early to say so definitively).
As his tenure as the Flames GM has matured, Sutter has made a habit of:
1.) trading away later picks (2nd, 3rd rounders, etc) for established players (Tanguay, Conroy, Lundmark, Hale) and
2.) Trading down in the first round to re-coup those picks.
The results have been...mixed to date. Of the 40 choices the organization has made under Sutter's direction, only 2 (!) have played more than 60 NHL games (Phaneuf and Boyd), with only perhaps 5 more with a good chance to crack the bigs and contribute at some point in the future (by my own subjective perceptions, at least): Pardy, Pelech, Backlund, Irving and Negrin. The Sutter-helmed Flames knocked one out of the park with their very first pick, but have failed to acquire anything near that quality of player since. In fact, there seems to be a dearth of NHL-caliber players period, let alone any of the star variety.
While the prior regimes (rightly) get some flack for the Flames lack of home-grown talent, the current administration is equally to blame for the clubs dearth of cheap, entry-level players. Of the youngins that skated for the Flames last season (Moss, Boyd, Nystrom, Phaneuf), only two were Sutter picks/under the age of 25, with one of those (Phaneuf) playing the final year of his entry-level deal.
Of impending relevance is the fact that there are precious few youngsters looking to step in and fill some of the (gaping) roster holes this coming September, with only Van Der Gulik (also not a Sutter-era pick), Pardy and maybe Pelech or Prust pressing to be replacement level skaters at the bottom-end of the roster.
Im no expert on prospects and haven't seen most of these guys play, so none of this gospel. In addition, we're still several years away from really learning the true success rates for any of the 2005 drafts or later. However, from where I stand currently and with all the information available to me -- it's probably fair to say Im not bullish on the Flames draft record under Sutter thus far.
Friday, August 10, 2007
On Draft Picks
Newly formed fears of the offer-sheet specter have given rise to questions regarding the true value of draft picks. What's a 1st round pick really worth anyways? What are the chances a team is going to actually get a future NHLer?
Here's how I decided to tackle the question...
First, I collected the data from the first 3 rounds from each entry draft starting in 1990 and ending in 2000. I figured that would be a generous sample size and it would yield players that are basically set on their career paths. Some guys from 2001 and upwards are still establishing themselves in the league and it would likely skew the results if I were to include those years.
I wanted to look at things from a pure, basic probabilistic model: like randomly choosing cards from a deck. I defined a "desired result" a little differently for every position...
For defencemen, I considered a "hit" to be a player that managed to play 160 games or more at the NHL level. That's it. I thought of including further parameters, such as production stats, but ran the risk of needlessly excluding useful players since the value of defencemen isn't tpyically captured in counting numbers like goals and assists.
For forwards, I used the same 160 GP line in the sand and added a minimum 0.30 career PPG pace parameter. Basically, I wanted to cull the Rico Fata-type players that manage to stick around long enough as journeymen (Fata played 230 games), but never really make any kind of impact to the unfortunate teams that get stuck with them.
For goalies, I dropped the "games played" requirement down to 100 and stuck with that. This seemed to seperate the actual players from the busts well enough .
Granted, the boundaries are somewhat arbitrary: I could have chosen 100 GP and a career pace of 0.50 PPG for forwards and gotten different results. However, I think the 160 GP is a fair minimum - it's about 2 seasons of work for a skater. If a guy couldn't stick around for at least 2 years of work in the league, it's fair to say he wasn't much of a player. Also, the 0.30 PPG rate managed to capture most of the effective forwards over the decade, even so-called "defensive specialists", while excluding the Rico Fata's and Tyler Wright's of the world. I think it's intuitive and reasonable to expect a forward to have some sort of offensive impact over a career. Fair to say, your Franchise hasn't gained much if it drafts Shawn Antoski (183GP, 3G, 5A, 8P).
Goaltending is a different matter altogether. Stats are very team dependent (and even "era" dependent) meaning I couldn't well rely on any kind of GAA or SV% line in the sand to cull the wheat from the chaffe. Since it's so singular and important a position, I figured any goalie that could play at least 100 games in the league could likely be considered an NHL caliber player.
I also added a subjective measure to the analysis by counting the number of players I personally recognized as "significant contributors" (ie stars and superstars). Sure there's probably an element of bias, but it gives at least some idea of the chances of hitting a "home-run".
The results:
(click to enlarge)
Round 1 -
From 1990 to 2000, there were 282 players chosen in the first round: 89 defencemen, 170 forwards and 22 goalies. Of the 282 players, 163 proved to be "contributors" at the NHL as defined by the criterion above. Sixty-four were defenders, 88 were forwards and 11 were goalies.
163/282 = 59% gross success rate across 11 first rounds. That's not too shabby.
Of the 163 contributors, 63 were "stars" by my personal estimation. That's a 22% success rate in terms of the total players chosen and a 39% chance you get a big-time difference maker as opposed to just Joe-Schmo NHLer.
Round 2 -
There were 302 players selected in the 2nd round during the decade in question. 104 , 175 and 24 of defencemen, forwards and goalies, respectively. As would be expected, the success rate declined significantly as compared to round 1: 74 players went on to become NHL players (only 25 of them stars).
74/302 = 24.5% chance of garnering a useful player from the second round. The probability of grabbing a star is a mere 8%.
Round 3 -
The difference between the second and third rounds wasn't as drastic. From 1990 to 2000, 288 players were chosen in round 3, 85 of which were defenders, 176 forwards and another 27 goaltenders. Eighteen blueliners went on to be players, as well as 32 forwards and just 5 goalies, for a total of 55 contributors.
55/288 = 19% chance of drafting an NHLer in the 3rd round. Twenty-four of the 55 were big time contributors by my count, making it an 8.3% chance of getting a front-liner (or top two defender, etc) when choosing in the 50's and 60's.
Admittedly, not the best of odds.
All Picks Aren't Created Equal
Of course, having the first choice overall isn't the same as having the 25th choice overall. Clearly, as the draft progresses the talent is whittled down. To generate more specific probabilities, I parsed the data into Top 5 picks, top 10 picks and top 15 picks.
Not surprisingly, Choosing in the top 5 meant a 98% chance of yielding an NHL player . Of the 55 players picked, only 3 failed to become NHL regulars (Alex Volchkov, Pavel Brendl and Jason Bosignore). Twenty-eight of the 52 went on to become stars (51%).
A top 10 choice was only slightly worse. 82 of the 110 players became contributors (75%) and 35 of them became stars (31%). The probability of getting an NHLer within the top 15 dropped down to 68% (112 of 165) with a 27% chance of grabbing a star (45/112).
Course, sample size becomes an issue here, but the general trend is hard to ignore: A top 5 pick seems to all but ensure a future NHL player.
The benefits of choosing near the top of the rotation dissipate beyond the first round, however. I gathered together the first 5 picks from the various 2nd rounds and discovered that only 17 of the 55 players in question became contributors (31%) and 5 became stars (9%), which pretty closely mirrors the general 2nd round probabilities. That suggests to me that future quality players are more or less randomly distributed amongst the turds after round 1, and organizational factors (quality of scouting, developmental system) are probably more important than draft position.
Issues
- Clearly this investigation is neither air-tight, nor exhaustive. I don't have the will or the mathematical chops to put this data through a more rigorous (and valid) analysis.
- Keep in mind that draft position changed as the league expanded. A 2nd round pick in 1991 was a first round pick in 1999.
- As mentioned, the "minimum requirements" for a player to be considered an NHLer, and therefore of future value (a "contributor") were pretty arbitrary. There's probably a more valid method of determining cut-off points within the data set itself, but I think the qualitatively intuitive parameters I chose work well enough for an initial inquiry like this one.
- In the future, a larger representative sample size, including equal round lengths (1-30, 31-61, etc) might smooth out some wrinkles.
- Treating the draft as a purely probabilistic event isn't very accurate. GM's don't just choose names out of hat (although the Flames Franchise probably would have done BETTER during the 90's had they done that). Quality of an organization's scouting staff and development system no doubt have an effect on a given team's success rate.
- Draft quality varies by year. Some summers yield numerous high quality NHLers (1997), while others are less fecund (1996). The depth of a given draft will no doubt effect success rates.
Conclusions
Assuming the limitations of my investigation don't render it completely worthless, there did seem to be some interesting observable trends. A first rounder looks to be slightly better than a coin flip overall, with a top 5 choice representing an almost sure-fire future player. The reduction in "talent density" in the 2nd and 3rd rounds as compared to the first is considerable, with the basic 3rd rounder representing roughly a 19% chance of choosing a contributor at any position.
Based on this info, the best strategy would seem to be gathering as many draft picks as possible in order to increase your chances of a "hit", or alternatively, banishing single picks beyond the first round for established NHLers. I think the percentages suggest that a lone 3rd (or even 2nd) rounder on it's own doesn't seem to have a great deal of utility.
EDIT - For anyone who wants to play with this stuff themselves, I've published the raw data at google spreadsheets here.
Here's how I decided to tackle the question...
First, I collected the data from the first 3 rounds from each entry draft starting in 1990 and ending in 2000. I figured that would be a generous sample size and it would yield players that are basically set on their career paths. Some guys from 2001 and upwards are still establishing themselves in the league and it would likely skew the results if I were to include those years.
I wanted to look at things from a pure, basic probabilistic model: like randomly choosing cards from a deck. I defined a "desired result" a little differently for every position...
For defencemen, I considered a "hit" to be a player that managed to play 160 games or more at the NHL level. That's it. I thought of including further parameters, such as production stats, but ran the risk of needlessly excluding useful players since the value of defencemen isn't tpyically captured in counting numbers like goals and assists.
For forwards, I used the same 160 GP line in the sand and added a minimum 0.30 career PPG pace parameter. Basically, I wanted to cull the Rico Fata-type players that manage to stick around long enough as journeymen (Fata played 230 games), but never really make any kind of impact to the unfortunate teams that get stuck with them.
For goalies, I dropped the "games played" requirement down to 100 and stuck with that. This seemed to seperate the actual players from the busts well enough .
Granted, the boundaries are somewhat arbitrary: I could have chosen 100 GP and a career pace of 0.50 PPG for forwards and gotten different results. However, I think the 160 GP is a fair minimum - it's about 2 seasons of work for a skater. If a guy couldn't stick around for at least 2 years of work in the league, it's fair to say he wasn't much of a player. Also, the 0.30 PPG rate managed to capture most of the effective forwards over the decade, even so-called "defensive specialists", while excluding the Rico Fata's and Tyler Wright's of the world. I think it's intuitive and reasonable to expect a forward to have some sort of offensive impact over a career. Fair to say, your Franchise hasn't gained much if it drafts Shawn Antoski (183GP, 3G, 5A, 8P).
Goaltending is a different matter altogether. Stats are very team dependent (and even "era" dependent) meaning I couldn't well rely on any kind of GAA or SV% line in the sand to cull the wheat from the chaffe. Since it's so singular and important a position, I figured any goalie that could play at least 100 games in the league could likely be considered an NHL caliber player.
I also added a subjective measure to the analysis by counting the number of players I personally recognized as "significant contributors" (ie stars and superstars). Sure there's probably an element of bias, but it gives at least some idea of the chances of hitting a "home-run".
The results:
(click to enlarge)From 1990 to 2000, there were 282 players chosen in the first round: 89 defencemen, 170 forwards and 22 goalies. Of the 282 players, 163 proved to be "contributors" at the NHL as defined by the criterion above. Sixty-four were defenders, 88 were forwards and 11 were goalies.
163/282 = 59% gross success rate across 11 first rounds. That's not too shabby.
Of the 163 contributors, 63 were "stars" by my personal estimation. That's a 22% success rate in terms of the total players chosen and a 39% chance you get a big-time difference maker as opposed to just Joe-Schmo NHLer.
Round 2 -
There were 302 players selected in the 2nd round during the decade in question. 104 , 175 and 24 of defencemen, forwards and goalies, respectively. As would be expected, the success rate declined significantly as compared to round 1: 74 players went on to become NHL players (only 25 of them stars).
74/302 = 24.5% chance of garnering a useful player from the second round. The probability of grabbing a star is a mere 8%.
Round 3 -
The difference between the second and third rounds wasn't as drastic. From 1990 to 2000, 288 players were chosen in round 3, 85 of which were defenders, 176 forwards and another 27 goaltenders. Eighteen blueliners went on to be players, as well as 32 forwards and just 5 goalies, for a total of 55 contributors.
55/288 = 19% chance of drafting an NHLer in the 3rd round. Twenty-four of the 55 were big time contributors by my count, making it an 8.3% chance of getting a front-liner (or top two defender, etc) when choosing in the 50's and 60's.
Admittedly, not the best of odds.
All Picks Aren't Created Equal
Of course, having the first choice overall isn't the same as having the 25th choice overall. Clearly, as the draft progresses the talent is whittled down. To generate more specific probabilities, I parsed the data into Top 5 picks, top 10 picks and top 15 picks.
Not surprisingly, Choosing in the top 5 meant a 98% chance of yielding an NHL player . Of the 55 players picked, only 3 failed to become NHL regulars (Alex Volchkov, Pavel Brendl and Jason Bosignore). Twenty-eight of the 52 went on to become stars (51%).
A top 10 choice was only slightly worse. 82 of the 110 players became contributors (75%) and 35 of them became stars (31%). The probability of getting an NHLer within the top 15 dropped down to 68% (112 of 165) with a 27% chance of grabbing a star (45/112).
Course, sample size becomes an issue here, but the general trend is hard to ignore: A top 5 pick seems to all but ensure a future NHL player.
The benefits of choosing near the top of the rotation dissipate beyond the first round, however. I gathered together the first 5 picks from the various 2nd rounds and discovered that only 17 of the 55 players in question became contributors (31%) and 5 became stars (9%), which pretty closely mirrors the general 2nd round probabilities. That suggests to me that future quality players are more or less randomly distributed amongst the turds after round 1, and organizational factors (quality of scouting, developmental system) are probably more important than draft position.
Issues
- Clearly this investigation is neither air-tight, nor exhaustive. I don't have the will or the mathematical chops to put this data through a more rigorous (and valid) analysis.
- Keep in mind that draft position changed as the league expanded. A 2nd round pick in 1991 was a first round pick in 1999.
- As mentioned, the "minimum requirements" for a player to be considered an NHLer, and therefore of future value (a "contributor") were pretty arbitrary. There's probably a more valid method of determining cut-off points within the data set itself, but I think the qualitatively intuitive parameters I chose work well enough for an initial inquiry like this one.
- In the future, a larger representative sample size, including equal round lengths (1-30, 31-61, etc) might smooth out some wrinkles.
- Treating the draft as a purely probabilistic event isn't very accurate. GM's don't just choose names out of hat (although the Flames Franchise probably would have done BETTER during the 90's had they done that). Quality of an organization's scouting staff and development system no doubt have an effect on a given team's success rate.
- Draft quality varies by year. Some summers yield numerous high quality NHLers (1997), while others are less fecund (1996). The depth of a given draft will no doubt effect success rates.
Conclusions
Assuming the limitations of my investigation don't render it completely worthless, there did seem to be some interesting observable trends. A first rounder looks to be slightly better than a coin flip overall, with a top 5 choice representing an almost sure-fire future player. The reduction in "talent density" in the 2nd and 3rd rounds as compared to the first is considerable, with the basic 3rd rounder representing roughly a 19% chance of choosing a contributor at any position.
Based on this info, the best strategy would seem to be gathering as many draft picks as possible in order to increase your chances of a "hit", or alternatively, banishing single picks beyond the first round for established NHLers. I think the percentages suggest that a lone 3rd (or even 2nd) rounder on it's own doesn't seem to have a great deal of utility.
EDIT - For anyone who wants to play with this stuff themselves, I've published the raw data at google spreadsheets here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)