Quote:
Originally Posted by thymebalm
That's a 17% success rate (100+ GP) and I'm reading league average is ~18%. (200+ GP).
In those non playoff years we were not drafting in the top 10. We were still a bubble club.
Again. No home run, but not a complete void in comparison to the averages.
|
If you want to compare it to the league average, let's count how many of those 59 picks have played 200+ games, as is used in the league average of 18%. By that measure, the success rate is 7/59, or ~12%. One of those 7 successes was taken in the first round after a non playoff season.
Let's look at the three years prior to and immediately after Sutter's reign. From 2000-2002, the success rate (again, using 200+ games as the benchmark) was 7/32, or ~22%. 2 of those successes over three years were taken in the first round after a non playoff season.
From 2011-2013, the success rate was 1/20, or 5%. That looks to change very quickly to 4/20, or 20%, as the prospects age to the point were pro experience is expected - 2 of those 20 have yet to turn pro. So the argument could be made that the rates should be 1/18 and 4/18, or 5.5%/22.2%, respectively. 2 of the successes over these three years were taken in the first round after a non playoff season.
So the non playoff drafts had more slam dunk picks than Sutter did while the team was making the playoffs, for sure. If you take out the slam dunks, you get the following:
Code:
Sutter Rate 6/58 ~10%
League Average ~18% (no adjustment for high 1st round picks)
3 Years Pre-Sutter 5/30 ~17%
3 Years Post-Sutter 2/16 ~13%
The drafting prior to Sutter was more successful. The drafting post sutter has been marginally more successful, but is poised to trend upward as the prospects drafted in that time come of age. Even if you account for the "can't miss" high picks in drafts following non playoff seasons.