[CP Story] Draft History Analysis - The "Hossa Rule"

[flamestar16]

Originally Posted by Red

2004 Sutter traded down when Zajac was still on the board. Took Chucko instead ugh....

Trading down did not work out other years either, I believe Pelech was also a result of one.

So bad! Especially since they were on the same Junior team in Salmon Arm. Zajac outscored Chucko that year. Big miss by Sutter and scouts.

[vicarious]

How much of this is effective player development vs picking the right player?

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I think luck plays a bigger part in drafting than most people care to admit.

One thing to keep in mind about Chicago is that they have had loads and loads of picks over the years. They had 17 selections in 2004. In 2010 they had 4 second rounders and they all busted.

It's easy to overlook stuff like that when the NHL team is stacked with talent though.

I agree that luck plays a much bigger role than most will admit.

I think it's kind of like poker. You can play poker with an extremely high level of skill, but over a few hands that means nothing. Over thousands of hands, the skill level shows through, but over 10 hands? Results will be heavily influenced by luck.

The problem with drafting is that you never get thousands of chances, you only get a small handful. Complicating it even further, you need to wait 5+ years to actually see what the real results were.

[OutOfTheCube]

So you're telling me... Buffalo is the best at drafting.

[ah123]

Originally Posted by CSharp

God, why was Sutter ever the Flames GM in the first place and lasted that long in that position really puzzles me. After his dismissal, everything started to look good! Still can't believe he drafted a guy named Chucko! He must've had a great chucko over that!

IIRC, Sutter commented that had he known that the league was serious about opening up the game, he would have not picked Chucko. Chucko would probably have been an OK pick if the games was being played like in the dead-puck (hook, hold, grab) era of the NHL.

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I agree that luck plays a much bigger role than most will admit.

I think it's kind of like poker. You can play poker with an extremely high level of skill, but over a few hands that means nothing. Over thousands of hands, the skill level shows through, but over 10 hands? Results will be heavily influenced by luck.

The problem with drafting is that you never get thousands of chances, you only get a small handful. Complicating it even further, you need to wait 5+ years to actually see what the real results were.

Add another 3 years of development time on top of that. After 8+ years, most teams will have replaced the people in top management positions. It's tough to evaluate drafting on a large scale.

[lazypucker]

I think a better/funner way to gauge a team's drafting acumen is to compare later rounds productivity. Say maybe compare the number of NHL games being played by picks 4th round and beyond of each team...

[GirlySports]

I knew the drafting in the 00s was awful the chart just proves.

At the time I was in the Samsonov camp but the Flames were drafting big Canadian guys in those days.

[Roof-Daddy]

Every team's fans can go back and cry about players they just missed out on and what not, but man....we just missed having a LOADED draft in 2008.

25th OA - Nemisz, two picks later...John Carlson
48th OA - Wahl, three picks later...Derek Stepan

Imagine coming out of that draft with Brodie, Bouma Carlson and Stepan?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Red Menace

I started doing something similar to this where i tried to compare each pick to the next 9 selections to see how the pick ranked among those 10 picks...but it got to be so time consuming I gave it up.
I would say that this type of analysis weighs heavily towards the earlier years of the date range (as they obviously have more games available), so the Flames poor records in 2003-2008 are sure to overshadow any good results we've had over the past 5 years.... perhaps that is obvious.

Definitely.

And a simple way to correct for that is to have rolling 5-year numbers instead of one catch-all, 10-year assessment.

That way, you also see developing trends.

[Roof-Daddy]

Anyways, can't remember who it was that said the LA Kings when Bingo asked that question in the draft thread, but he was right IMO.

2005 - Kopitar (683), Quick (407)
2006 - Bernier (175), Lewis (349)
2007 - Hickey (202), Simmonds (524), Martinez (259), King (238)
2008 - Doughty (524), Voynov (190) (Delauriers and Vey are NHLers now as well)
2009 - Schenn (274), Clifford (356), Nolan (194)
2010 - Toffoli (148)
2011 - Shore is coming along
2012 - Pearson is coming along

That is some solid, solid drafting right there.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Every team's fans can go back and cry about players they just missed out on and what not, but man....we just missed having a LOADED draft in 2008.

25th OA - Nemisz, two picks later...John Carlson
48th OA - Wahl, three picks later...Derek Stepan

Imagine coming out of that draft with Brodie, Bouma Carlson and Stepan?

the glass half full approach is that those misses set us up where we are now. For every successful pick back then would probably diminish the chances of getting some of the players we have now (Monahan and Bennett in particular). I think Stepan and Carlson might have been good enough for an extra few points over the course of a year.

[SebC]

When you add up "games missed" as a flat total, you end up arbitrarily weighting 2004 highest in your gross stats.

[Jay Random]

Actually, I wouldn't consider that arbitrary. The most recent draft years yield the least useful information. A player drafted two years ago may have zero NHL games played because he's still in junior, or still in college, or because he's an AHL rookie just learning the pro game. Many NHL regulars didn't break into the league for several years after they were drafted.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I think luck plays a bigger part in drafting than most people care to admit.

One thing to keep in mind about Chicago is that they have had loads and loads of picks over the years. They had 17 selections in 2004. In 2010 they had 4 second rounders and they all busted.

It's easy to overlook stuff like that when the NHL team is stacked with talent though.

True and unforeseen injuries can play a role in the results.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Actually, I wouldn't consider that arbitrary. The most recent draft years yield the least useful information. A player drafted two years ago may have zero NHL games played because he's still in junior, or still in college, or because he's an AHL rookie just learning the pro game. Many NHL regulars didn't break into the league for several years after they were drafted.

Exactly

What you choose for data is half the battle. I said in the article that on that table the impact goes from huge to less as you move to right and there is no way around that.

But if you go back too far I think you get into a very different scouting era where information technology left the comparisons difficult and the number of swing and misses in the top of the draft much more prevalent.

But no matter what you choose you'll always come under attack.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

So you're telling me... Buffalo is the best at drafting.

EDM and BUF, but they make dumb trades and therefore stink.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

EDM and BUF, but they make dumb trades and therefore stink.

Another problem that comes up when evaluating drafts by games played is that teams like Edmonton that have been so terrible artificially inflate the games played of their drafted picks.

A guy like Stortini for example doesn't get 200+ games played for almost any other organization. Same thing with a lot of guys that got cups of coffee seemingly just for the hell of it.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Every team's fans can go back and cry about players they just missed out on and what not, but man....we just missed having a LOADED draft in 2008.

25th OA - Nemisz, two picks later...John Carlson
48th OA - Wahl, three picks later...Derek Stepan

Imagine coming out of that draft with Brodie, Bouma Carlson and Stepan?

Ramholt over Carle or Weber in 2003 is still the worst ever!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Interesting article and I really appreciate people finding new ways to look at things like this.

That said... something doesn't feel right about how this turned out. I think there must be too much luck or variance even with the fairly large sample size. I say this because cup winners LA and Chicago are right down at the bottom and horrid teams like Buffalo and Edmonton are right at the top.

Later round picks probably really screw this up. One guy who plays 800 games who came from the 6th round for example hammers down 2 teams score, but really all 30 teams missed this guy for multiple rounds but don't 'suffer' in the rankings for it. Anything after the 3rd round is such a crap shoot I don't know if it's fair to use that data.

Looking forward to the rest of the analysis though!

Luck just not in drafting, but also in development/opportunities.

I think part of the reason why some really bad teams appear to draft well is because they have no option but to extend opportunities to their drafted players. This is why I hate "NHL games played" as a main characteristic for what qualifies as a good draft pick. For a lot of players, there is a fine line between being brushed aside in the minors and being propelled into the NHL line-up. Things like injuries and the progress of their peers play a huge role.