[CP Story] NHL Draft Success: Crowning The Draft Champs

[Bingo]

comments welcome again ...

hopefully this hasn't been too much content, nearing 5500 words I think!

This one looks at the value of a draft pick, the value of total picks in a draft, and team habits in who acquires the most in terms of value and who tends to toss them away.

And finally ... bang for buck. Teams with the most games played given the value investment of their draft.

Interesting stuff, to me at least.

http://www.calgarypuck.com/2015/06/n...ck-draft-year/

[JiriHrdina]

Very cool - and a sensible framework to monitor this going forward.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Very cool - and a sensible framework to monitor this going forward.

Agreed ...

both in watching games played accumulate in the same ten years, and eventually adding say 2014 to the study.

[SuperMatt18]

Like it.

Would love a view with first rounders excluded as well.

Round 2-4 is where the really good drafting teams tend to shine.

[Street Pharmacist]

Amazing stuff Bingo. Very interesting.

First comment is about using draft value charts. If you use it as an historical measurement piece, it paints a great picture. Individual drafts though are small sample, and that method may be fool hardy. If you've scouted these players, it's not the 3rd pick that's 0.85 of the 1st pick anymore. Now it's Hanifin vs McDavid which is a different story.

Also, games played is the best surrogate for value we have, but doesn't really tell the whole story. If disagree that 500 games from Jonathan Toews isn't less valuable than 600 games from Bryan Little. I'm not sure there's much we can do there, but with the consideration when evaluating how much fidelity you want to place in the model with regards to your overall draft strategy

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Amazing stuff Bingo. Very interesting.

First comment is about using draft value charts. If you use it as an historical measurement piece, it paints a great picture. Individual drafts though are small sample, and that method may be fool hardy. If you've scouted these players, it's not the 3rd pick that's 0.85 of the 1st pick anymore. Now it's Hanifin vs McDavid which is a different story.

Also, games played is the best surrogate for value we have, but doesn't really tell the whole story. If disagree that 500 games from Jonathan Toews isn't less valuable than 600 games from Bryan Little. I'm not sure there's much we can do there, but with the consideration when evaluating how much fidelity you want to place in the model with regards to your overall draft strategy

Don't disagree on either point, but if you step hard into subjective analysis the whole thing is worthless.

If you use hard line objective math then you have an analysis with an understanding that it's flawed.

I'd rather be in the second camp as a starting point.

Your .85 to 1.00 example is a very good one, but at least that goes away as you go deeper into the draft.

We all know that Hanifin will be there at 3 so moving up to 3 and targeting that player is a guarantee, or at least close to one compared to say valuing the 9th pick right now versus the 15h and not knowing how the dominos will fall.

Better to have a historic view of the value of 9 vs 15 in your back pocket when evaluating the differential.

I think if I was at the table I'd run the average of 8-10 vs 14-16 to be less specific. In that case you have .54 vs .36 and a difference of .18 which is a very high 2nd round pick.

And once again despite that differential it would take more than that to do it.

[Brewmaster]

This is a really in depth analysis... impressive!

Using games played is a good metric in determining whether your picks turn into NHL players, but I'm not sure it's the best measure for determining how much impact a draft had on team success. For example, if we look at the 1st round in 2003 and look at games played, here is a list of players that have >600 GP:

E. Staal
N. Horton
T. Vanek
M. Michalek
R. Suter
B. Coburn
D. Phaneuf
J. Carter
D. Brown
B. Seabrook
S. Bernier
Z. Parise
R. Getzlaf
B. Burns
R. Kesler
M. Richards
C. Perry

It's a great list of players who have had good NHL careers, but there is a considerable difference in the fate of San Jose who drafted Michalek & Bernier and Anaheim who drafted Getzlaf & Perry. Maybe there are other metrics that could be applied that better reflect the success of a teams draft pick. Points comes to mind, but doesn't work for comparing forwards and defence. Career earnings would be an interesting stat, as the highest impact players tend to earn the most money.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Don't disagree on either point, but if you step hard into subjective analysis the whole thing is worthless.

If you use hard line objective math then you have an analysis with an understanding that it's flawed.

I'd rather be in the second camp as a starting point.

Your .85 to 1.00 example is a very good one, but at least that goes away as you go deeper into the draft.

We all know that Hanifin will be there at 3 so moving up to 3 and targeting that player is a guarantee, or at least close to one compared to say valuing the 9th pick right now versus the 15h and not knowing how the dominos will fall.

Better to have a historic view of the value of 9 vs 15 in your back pocket when evaluating the differential.

I think if I was at the table I'd run the average of 8-10 vs 14-16 to be less specific. In that case you have .54 vs .36 and a difference of .18 which is a very high 2nd round pick.

And once again despite that differential it would take more than that to do it.

There's a lamppost for a drunk analogy around here somewhere. It's very useful information and I'm sure trans must use some form of it. It's also very eye opening.

The biggest thing I learned from your analysis is that quality doesn't trump quantity, for the most part. Things are complex and Chicago has drafted relatively well, but it's the quantity of picks that has likely produced their prospect depth.

San Jose did remarkably well with what poor picks they had, but their lack of success with so few picks in the lady few drafts is the reason they've got no one to overtake their veteran leaders.

All in all, trans seen to live and die by the draft

[Bingo]

As expected it doesn't really lay out one specific strategy as best, but it does show how teams using all three strategies

1) acquire picks / move up
2) shed picks / move down
3) stand pat and pick

have had wins and losses based on portions of luck and drafting skill

seemed pretty obvious though that moving up costs to much, and moving down is a better way of acquiring that draft pick wealth

of course you have to pick players after moving down or the acquired gains will seem like a loss