Todd Button....

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If you want to try and quantify draft success via games played per pick, the picks have to be factored by what round they occurred in. You can't compare a top 5 pick (expectation of what 500 - 1000 games?) vs a 4th rounder (expectation of 200 games X 10% chance of hitting = 20 games).

You need a scale for the draft spot, to pro-rate the expectation for that pick, then calculate games per pro-rated picks

(You could use the chart that compares the value of picks, for instance)

Case in point, Yakupov had 350 NHL games which would be pretty successful for a later round pick, but a failure for a 1st rounder. Same thing with Puljuarvi. Jankowski is another one. When all is said and done, he will have had a decent career as a role player, but no one would call that a great pick overall.

And sometimes bad teams have to play the players they drafted even if they wouldn't make most NHL rosters. Being the best of a bad bunch, doesn't make them good picks, then try to make an objective comparison.

I don't think there is a simple way to model draft success. I think the best you can do is compile samples where there are clear hits and clear failures.

[Bingo]

People can dislike Tod Button, that's their individual choice.

But I don't see how anyone can differentiate between eras without knowing what direction scouts were getting from the GM, who controlled the final decision in a) the first round and b) all rounds.

Lots of talk in the Treliving era about sticking to the list, and then championing picks through the ranks.

That's when they started drafting more effectively.

When Sutter was the GM it was size and Western Canada as a directive for example.

Just too much noise in the history to just sort by games played and draft picks and call it a day.

And I don't think recency bias should be eliminated in all cases. I think it's the most important data in draft record as it speaks to the evolution of the process and the scouting staff.

Can't look back 21 years to assess anything.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by Bingo

People can dislike Tod Button, that's their individual choice.

But I don't see how anyone can differentiate between eras without knowing what direction scouts were getting from the GM, who controlled the final decision in a) the first round and b) all rounds.

Lots of talk in the Treliving era about sticking to the list, and then championing picks through the ranks.

That's when they started drafting more effectively.

When Sutter was the GM it was size and Western Canada as a directive for example.

Just too much noise in the history to just sort by games played and draft picks and call it a day.

And I don't think recency bias should be eliminated in all cases. I think it's the most important data in draft record as it speaks to the evolution of the process and the scouting staff.

Can't look back 21 years to assess anything.

For all the guff Jay Feaster gets from the fanbase - and rightfully so in many cases - he was quite good at trying to get the scouts to simplify and define what they were looking for and how those scouting inputs would translate into their draft list.


And Treliving was smart in that he found a system that worked decently well and then tried to add to it.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Jankowski is another one. When all is said and done, he will have had a decent career as a role player, but no one would call that a great pick overall.

Jankowski is actually pretty decent for a later 1st round pick. The issue was the fanfare around the pick.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

versus

Calgary (29/153 - .189 batting average)

Top players: Dion Phaneuf (1048), TJ Brodie (908), Johnny Gaudreau (763), Sean Monahan (764), Rasmus Andersson (455), Matthew Tkachuk (590), Adam Fox (357)

Role players: Chuck Kobasew (601), David Moss (501), Curtis McElhinney (249), Eric Nystrom (593), Matthew Lombardi (536), Brandon Prust (486), Dustin Boyd (220), Adam Pardy (342), Adam Cracknell (210), Lance Bouma (357), Michael Ferland (355), Sven Baertschi (292), Markus Granlund (335), Laurent Brossoit (140), Mark Jankowski (354), Brett Kulak (498), Sam Bennett (615), Oliver Kylington (201), Andrew Mangiapane (417), Dillon Dube (325), Adam Ruzicka (117) Juuso Valimaki (228)

.

I know its not going to blow up the dial in the Flames favour, but poor Backlund

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Freeway

Tod (one D) was named Director of Scouting in 2000-01, but really only focused on amateur after the trade deadline, and he and Mike Sands both worked on the drafting process. He became a full-time amateur scout in 2005-06 and became the full overseer of the draft in 2010 after Sands left the organization.


There's a book out right now that has an entire chapter dedicated to Button's impact on the organization.

Interesting, do you know who wrote it?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

I am curious why Todd Button has been head of scouting for so long. He was head under Sutter, Feaster, Burke, Tre and now Conroy. He's had some great picks.

There are so many ways to gauge effectiveness of scouts. To do a quick and dirty analysis, I went back, picked a few middle of the road teams (in my opinion) and looked at drafting from 2017 to now. I could have picked any year, but wanted recency. I don't care about late blooming utility guys drafted 10 years ago. I think scouts need to identify talent that can get up the curve quickly and have an impact early in their careers before earning huge contracts.

My metric: TOTAL GAMES PLAYED BY ALL PICKS / NUMBER OF DRAFT PICKS = GAMES PLAYED PER PICK

I excluded top 5 picks because they should be no brainers. Obviously there should be some weighting for higher picks vs lower picks, but i don't have time.

It doesn't look great. Flames average 14 games played per draft pick we made since 2017. Dallas 23. LA 30. Wild second worst in this list at 17.



I know the analysis isn't perfect, but directionally am I wrong?

I would include 2016 as your random arbitrary start , then the Flames are probably first.

The Flames add on another 1,306 games based on your criteria if started in 2016 LA adds 275 games. Dallas adds 103 games.

Then the Flames have 1878 GP with 49 picks - 38.3 Games played per pick
Dallas as 1,140 GP with 51 picks - 22.3 GP per pick
L.A. has 1,657 GP with 50 picks - 33.4 GP per pick.

Change it to 2016 and the Flames are the best and blow everyone else out of the water.

[ComixZone]

I decided to compare Dallas Vs. Calgary in recent years as Dallas has been cited as a "model" to follow, and in doing so I think it focuses that yeah...Todd Button, as a head scout, is clearly a good degree worse than Dallas' head of amateur scouting (McDonnell).

2023: Probably too early to judge, and Dallas didn't have a 1st
2022: Probably too early to judge, and Calgary had nearly no picks

2021:

DAL 1st Round Pick (23rd): Wyatt Johnston
CGY 1st Round Pick (13th): Matt Coronato

DAL 2nd Round Pick (47th): Logan Stankoven
DAL 2nd Round Pick (48th): Artem Grushnikov
CGY 2nd Round Pick (45th): William Stromgren

McDonnell absolutely destroys Button in 2021.

2020:

DAL 1st Round Pick (30th): Mavrik Bourque
CGY 1st Round Pick (24th): Connor Zary

Dallas had no 2nd round pick, and I'd say that given Bourque is 4 months younger, and his dominance at the AHL level compared to Zary's AHL performance that Bourque at 30 is better than Zary at 24. Calgary's use of 50th overall on Yan Kuznetsov is not very impressive.

McDonnell wins 2020.

2019:

DAL 1st Round Pick (19th): Thomas Harley
CGY 1st Round Pick (26th): Jakob Pelletier

McDonnell pulled the better player here, but he should as he's drafting 7 spots earlier.

2018: Flames had pretty much no picks

2017:

DAL 1st Round Pick (3rd): Miro Heiskanen
DAL 1st Round Pick (26th): Jake Oettinger
CGY 1st Round Pick (16th): Juuso Valimaki

DAL 2nd Round Pick (39th): Jason Robertson
CGY did not have a 2nd Round Pick

McDonnell destroys Button.

On high value picks, McDonnell simply does not miss in recent years (which is hopefully a good sign for the Flames when it comes to Grushnikov). Button does.

McDonnell > Button, and McDonnell being as good as he seems to be at his job is why Dallas has done as well as they have. So if that's the 'model', then...well...Button needs to be better than McDonnell, and he's not.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Jankowski is actually pretty decent for a later 1st round pick. The issue was the fanfare around the pick.

Agreed. In a 2012 re-draft, I'd bet Jankowski goes ~40th.

[Enoch Root]

It also needs to factor in the quality of the draft year.

Going back to Jankowski - a fine late 1st round pick in a crappy year. But he would be a bad pick in 2003. So some sort of relative performance factor.

In other words, this is pretty much impossible to quantify

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Agreed. In a 2012 re-draft, I'd bet Jankowski goes ~40th.

Fair enough. Right around where he seemed to be ranked by scouting agencies at the time.

Looking back at that 2012 draft, it was kind of a weird one. There were a few big misses in the 1st round, but quite a few gems later in the draft. It was a pretty unpredictable one, so going "off the board" was probably an acceptable risk at the time.

[dammage79]

Ugh 2012. Not even hindsight required, we traded down and could have had Hertl or Teravainen. I was hard on the Teravainen train until the trade down occured.

I like Janko though, he took all the steps to get to the NHL and showed some promise during the rebuild phase. Didn't pan out but I rooted for him.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I decided to compare Dallas Vs. Calgary in recent years as Dallas has been cited as a "model" to follow, and in doing so I think it focuses that yeah...Todd Button, as a head scout, is clearly a good degree worse than Dallas' head of amateur scouting (McDonnell).

Great analysis

It’s difficult to judge if a team’s drafting and head scout are objectively good or poor since there are many factors, but it’s no argument that Dallas’ are excellent.

If there’s anything I’ve learned being a Flames fan and CP member is that the more explanations that are required to explain away mediocre team/player/GM/scouting/drafting results the more likely it is that the team/player/GM/scouting/drafting is truly mediocre.

[schteve_d]

Two things.

If I liked your post it doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with you but I can see that you put a lot of time and effort into your post and I appreciate that.

I know there's great stories of guys coming out of later rounds. Our own Gaudreau and maybe, hopefully, Wolf. Zetterberg, Pavel Bure, Lundqvist, Alfredsson. The list could go on and on. I don't know squat about the job of scouts but does a lot of work go into rounds, say 5-7? When I see a fifth or seventh round pick thrown into a trade my immediate thought is: "Who cares"?

I always think that when you find an example from above, say Zetterberg, the scouts did kind of a crummy job. Passed him up many times and just lucked out when they got to the late pick and he's still there, late bloomer thing notwithstanding.

Just seems to me like there is an awful lot more luck than due diligence in those later rounds.

[delayedreflex]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

Two things.

If I liked your post it doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with you but I can see that you put a lot of time and effort into your post and I appreciate that.

I know there's great stories of guys coming out of later rounds. Our own Gaudreau and maybe, hopefully, Wolf. Zetterberg, Pavel Bure, Lundqvist, Alfredsson. The list could go on and on. I don't know squat about the job of scouts but does a lot of work go into rounds, say 5-7? When I see a fifth or seventh round pick thrown into a trade my immediate thought is: "Who cares"?

I always think that when you find an example from above, say Zetterberg, the scouts did kind of a crummy job. Passed him up many times and just lucked out when they got to the late pick and he's still there, late bloomer thing notwithstanding.

Just seems to me like there is an awful lot more luck than due diligence in those later rounds.

Yeah, it might be mainly luck, but I feel like that's why it might make sense to try to collect as many of them as you can. Might as well try to squeeze an extra 6th or 7th round pick out of every trade you make so that you have those extra lottery tickets. With first round picks, the value of the pick varies pretty drastically depending on where the other team finishes - but these late round picks, it's pretty much just as good to get them from a Stanley cup finalist team as a bottom of the barrel team, and it seems like the top teams would be more willing to part with a bunch of late picks since they're unlikely to make an impact during their contention window.

[Steve Bozek]

2 woulda/coulda misses that really stand out for me are Kucherov and Point. Especially Point - a player from our own back yard.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I decided to compare Dallas Vs. Calgary in recent years as Dallas has been cited as a "model" to follow, and in doing so I think it focuses that yeah...Todd Button, as a head scout, is clearly a good degree worse than Dallas' head of amateur scouting (McDonnell).

2023: Probably too early to judge, and Dallas didn't have a 1st
2022: Probably too early to judge, and Calgary had nearly no picks

2021:

DAL 1st Round Pick (23rd): Wyatt Johnston
CGY 1st Round Pick (13th): Matt Coronato

DAL 2nd Round Pick (47th): Logan Stankoven
DAL 2nd Round Pick (48th): Artem Grushnikov
CGY 2nd Round Pick (45th): William Stromgren

McDonnell absolutely destroys Button in 2021.

2020:

DAL 1st Round Pick (30th): Mavrik Bourque
CGY 1st Round Pick (24th): Connor Zary

Dallas had no 2nd round pick, and I'd say that given Bourque is 4 months younger, and his dominance at the AHL level compared to Zary's AHL performance that Bourque at 30 is better than Zary at 24. Calgary's use of 50th overall on Yan Kuznetsov is not very impressive.

McDonnell wins 2020.

2019:

DAL 1st Round Pick (19th): Thomas Harley
CGY 1st Round Pick (26th): Jakob Pelletier

McDonnell pulled the better player here, but he should as he's drafting 7 spots earlier.

2018: Flames had pretty much no picks

2017:

DAL 1st Round Pick (3rd): Miro Heiskanen
DAL 1st Round Pick (26th): Jake Oettinger
CGY 1st Round Pick (16th): Juuso Valimaki

DAL 2nd Round Pick (39th): Jason Robertson
CGY did not have a 2nd Round Pick

McDonnell destroys Button.

On high value picks, McDonnell simply does not miss in recent years (which is hopefully a good sign for the Flames when it comes to Grushnikov). Button does.

McDonnell > Button, and McDonnell being as good as he seems to be at his job is why Dallas has done as well as they have. So if that's the 'model', then...well...Button needs to be better than McDonnell, and he's not.

Button “destroys” McDonnell in 2016, 2015, and 2014, though, and you’re citing years where the Flames has 6 picks in the top two rounds compared to Dallas’ 10.

Dallas has absolutely done great in the draft, but you’re just telling the story you want to tell.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Button “destroys” McDonnell in 2016, 2015, and 2014, though, and you’re citing years where the Flames has 6 picks in the top two rounds compared to Dallas’ 10.

Dallas has absolutely done great in the draft, but you’re just telling the story you want to tell.

Yep, anyone can cherry pick what year to start at to support their argument. Recent years haven't been great so far for Button, but it is early.

[FanIn80]

I like Button. I didn't even realize not liking him was a thing.

[PepsiFree]

I also think calling Bourque better than Zary is a bit absurd. Zary significantly outpaced him in the AHL this year and last year, and Zary spent most of this year in the NHL while Bourque was still developing in the AHL, where his NHLe was lower than Zary’s output pace in the NHL.

He’s literally shown nothing that suggests he’s the better player over Zary.