2021 NHL Draft

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Nelson

I understand why people are saying don’t overthink it. Just take the best player available. I agree in most cases. I think the Flames should only trade down if someone offers them a huge haul, they have a number of players they feel equally confident in selecting, or they have intel that suggests their guy will still be there at the spot to which they’re trading down. If, for example, Sillinger, Chaz, Lysell or McTavish is their guy, and that player is available at 12, then don’t trade down to 16 unless you know the player will be available at 16 because you know other teams want other players.

I don’t know. I’m not sure it’s a good idea to only have one approach. Last year, I’d say trading down was brilliant. That doesn’t mean it’ll be a good idea this year or even very often.

The team is doing that. They have developed their own draft list and determined who they think has the best potential to develop into a player. They pick off of that list, and that is the only list that matters. All the others are irrelevant. As some of the other posters have said, they may have a number of players they feel will be equitable when development is complete and then may have some options. If there are a few players they are happy with, then they may choose to trade down. Just like last year. But they made that call off of their list, which is going to be very different from each of the other 31 teams in the league. There is no master list to determine BPA.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

The team is doing that. They have developed their own draft list and determined who they think has the best potential to develop into a player. They pick off of that list, and that is the only list that matters. All the others are irrelevant. As some of the other posters have said, they may have a number of players they feel will be equitable when development is complete and then may have some options. If there are a few players they are happy with, then they may choose to trade down. Just like last year. But they made that call off of their list, which is going to be very different from each of the other 31 teams in the league. There is no master list to determine BPA.

Yes. I’m confused. Do you think I disagree with this?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Poe969

So McKenzie's list isn't his because he uses other people's lists for info. Either way, the list is fairly accurate. I'm not saying to really use it as a bible but ya, use it as a guideline.

Accurate in what sense? In terms of who gets drafted - sure. In terms of who ends up being the best player? One would have to do that analysis.
But it isn't a guideline for NHL teams because they have scouts, analytic platforms and processes all designed to do this. One can debate if they have been effective or not - but no team is going to use Bob's list as any sort of basis.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Edit. Never mind, misread.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Sandman

LW Ryan St.Louis,5'10"168lbs (USNTDP Juniors): 25gp/7g/7a/14pts, along with 0pts in 5 U18 games. The son of Martin St. Louis has his father's drive and passion for hockey-he's a hard-worker with a high motor, and high-compete. He's a fantastic passer, with top-end playmaking skills. He sees the ice well and makes crafty passes. RSL can be explosive and shifty in possession, with good puck-control to deke around or through defenders. He's willing to take the puck to hard areas, and exhibits great puck support. Smooth skater, with good agility that he applies in his relentless forechecking. Uses his stick well in 50/50 battles, and to take away passing lanes. His footwork and gaining inside body position wins him most of his physical confrontations-he's not physical, but doesn't shy away from contact. He consistently puts himself in good positions to be a quality pass option for teammates, and he can create his own space. His shot might be his best asset, and he uses it often-he's a threat to score at any time. Doesn't need a lot of space to get it off, and he's patient in waiting for the best option to shoot. His shot is hard, and heavy.

RSL is not much of a factor defensively, and there's a lack of effort in his game when he doesn't have the puck. He doesn't take away much time or space in the D zone, and doesn't apply enough pressure on opponents-he makes it too easy. He still gets knocked off the puck, so he needs to get much stronger. His decision-making, and vision leave a lot to be desired sometimes, particularly in the neutral and defensive zones. If he gets selected, it will be in the later rounds, but to me-he sure doesn't put up a lot of offense, for an offensive player. He still has some potential as a middle-6 player in the NHL, but he needs plenty of development time, which he'll get at Northeastern University, starting next year.

need pictures of his legs

[1qqaaz]

In terms of the trades down, I don't actually think the two moves were equal.

1. The trade from #19 to #22. The Flames got a 3rd (#72 OA) and picked up Jeremie Poirier. Great move. Poirier is a great prospect. I don't really think the Flames missed out on Schneider, Mukhamadullin, and Chinakhov (the latter two were kind of off the board).

2. The trade down from #22 to #24. The Flames got another 3rd (#80 OA) and picked up Jake Boltmann. Probably the worst Flames pick in the last 5 years. It's annoying, because guys like Carter Savoie, Justin Sourdif and Jack Thompson were still on the board.
Washington ended up picking Hendrix Lapierre, who is a darn good prospect. Foerster (#23) had a great AHL season for his age.

Trading down is worth it if you can pick up a good prospect. It's not worth it if you practically pick up nothing. My point is, the trade isn't the only thing to evaluate. At the end of the day, the picks have to be good.

[shutout]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

IMO the "smartest guy in the room" thing goes both ways. Thinking you are the smartest guy in the room led to trading down to pick Jankowski at 21 when players like Wilson, Teravainen, and Hertl were right there for the taking at 14.

Except in this example the Flames would have just taken Jankowski at 14.
They had him at the top of their list.
So putting aside the fact that they were stupid in their player evaluation that year, what would you rather have?

Jankowski at #14
or
Jankowski at #21 and a second round pick

Deciding that they should have picked somebody else is also like saying that they could have picked Tanner Pearson at 21 and Shayne Gostisbehere in the second round.
Doing that would have made them look like geniuses.

Revisionist history does not work.

[Drunk Uncle]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

Does that take into account the fact that many players are defensemen and goalies?

Because it honestly doesn't seem right to me. Just looking at the 2010, 2011, 2014, even the 2017 draft, it looks like almost all the forwards in that range became top 6, if not 1st line forwards.
Maybe it's because 48 points is quite a bit to average over a career. Many players spend 4 years on the 2nd line, and then 4 years on the third line, thus lowering their average point per game.
Even a Hall of Famer like Patrick Marleau only averages 55 points per 82 games. So he barely makes the cut I guess.

I'll answer: yes it accounts for D and G. There was a second post behind the one that was quoted in the Draft Percentages thread I think better represents the percentages.

The major limitation with the model is that currently the data I have is not granular enough to analyze players Draft + range (say players in their D+5 to D+7 years). IMO that is a severe limitation because you can't compare players apples-to-apples over a number of draft years without it and something I'm working to update.

What was done to compensate was the career ppg was lowered. There are 194 top 6 players identified in the top 6 bucket in the percentages below.

My guess is that when the stats are updated, the percentages will go up slightly and the distribution will look very similar. What I think drags the percentages down more than anything is the players that haven't reached their peak (ie. the 2015 to 2020 draft classes) career averages are included. With better data this will be easier to sort out.

I would also have liked to pull players D0 and D-1 data but I couldn't find that in tabular form anywhere so if anyone has something on this please let me know.

Here are the numbers with the lowered percentages:

For >0.69 (Top line guys) the percentages are (78 guys in this bucket now. Who wants the 12 top line bottom feeders anyway… they are in the 2nd line bucket now):
Top 3 pick: 54%
4-6 pick: 22%
7-15 pick: 10%
15-32 pick: 6%
2nd RD: 2.4%
3rd RD: 0.8%
4th RD: 0.3%
5th RD: 0.8%
6th RD: 0.3%
7th RD: 0.4%

Here are to odds of drafting a top 6 forward >0.54 PT/GP (I think there were 194 F in the bucket)
Top 3 pick: 81%
4-6 pick: 54%
7-15 pick: 31%
15-32 pick: 16%
2nd RD: 6%
3rd RD: 3%
4th RD: 2%
5th RD: 0.8%
6th RD: 0.3%
7th RD: 0.4%

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

In terms of the trades down, I don't actually think the two moves were equal.

1. The trade from #19 to #22. The Flames got a 3rd (#72 OA) and picked up Jeremie Poirier. Great move. Poirier is a great prospect. I don't really think the Flames missed out on Schneider, Mukhamadullin, and Chinakhov (the latter two were kind of off the board).

2. The trade down from #22 to #24. The Flames got another 3rd (#80 OA) and picked up Jake Boltmann. Probably the worst Flames pick in the last 5 years. It's annoying, because guys like Carter Savoie, Justin Sourdif and Jack Thompson were still on the board.
Washington ended up picking Hendrix Lapierre, who is a darn good prospect. Foerster (#23) had a great AHL season for his age.

Trading down is worth it if you can pick up a good prospect. It's not worth it if you practically pick up nothing. My point is, the trade isn't the only thing to evaluate. At the end of the day, the picks have to be good.

Even the second trade doesn’t hurt them because they got their guy anyway. If The extra pick pans out that’s just an extra.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

In terms of the trades down, I don't actually think the two moves were equal.

1. The trade from #19 to #22. The Flames got a 3rd (#72 OA) and picked up Jeremie Poirier. Great move. Poirier is a great prospect. I don't really think the Flames missed out on Schneider, Mukhamadullin, and Chinakhov (the latter two were kind of off the board).

2. The trade down from #22 to #24. The Flames got another 3rd (#80 OA) and picked up Jake Boltmann. Probably the worst Flames pick in the last 5 years. It's annoying, because guys like Carter Savoie, Justin Sourdif and Jack Thompson were still on the board.
Washington ended up picking Hendrix Lapierre, who is a darn good prospect. Foerster (#23) had a great AHL season for his age.

Trading down is worth it if you can pick up a good prospect. It's not worth it if you practically pick up nothing. My point is, the trade isn't the only thing to evaluate. At the end of the day, the picks have to be good.

You have to evaluate them as distinct decisions
- Was the decision to trade down sound
- Was the player selected a good pick

I think it's too early to evaluate Boltmann though the early returns suggest it was a puzzling one.

But if Boltmann doesn't work out it doesn't mean that trading down wasn't a sound call.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Even the second grade doesn’t hurt them because they got their guy anyway. If The extra pick pans out that’s just an extra.

We don't have full hindsight yet. But if Lapierre and Foerster end up being better than Zary, it could be a bad trade. It doesn't really matter if the Flames "got their guy".

If Zary ends up being better than those two, which he very well could be, I'll take back my reservations. Same as if Boltmann actually turns out. Lets say you love Zary as a prospect. Boltmann was not worth the risk in losing the chance to draft Zary as you moved down from #22 to #24 (even though I just said Lapierre and Foerster are good prospects).

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

But if Boltmann doesn't work out it doesn't mean that trading down wasn't a sound call.

Really? I think it does.

Part of what makes the Iginla and Bouwmeester trades bad is the fact that Klimchuk and Poirier didn't work out. Even those the actual picks had nothing to do with the value returned in the trade.

Or when the Flames traded down to pick up Jankowski. They got Sieloff, a bust, and gave up the chance to draft Teuvo and Vasilevsky. The pick not working out does indeed make it a bad trade.

I also disagree that it's too early to judge the Boltmann pick. Most of us hated the pick at the time, and continue to hate it now. But if it's too early to judge him, then I guess there's no point in commenting on the quality of and D+1 pick under any circumstances. Not only is it fair to rate draft picks a year after they were drafted, but it's fair to judge them at the time of being drafted, or even before the pick was made.
For an example, if the Flames were to pick Raty at #12, I think that would be a bad pick. Yes, I am judging a move that hasn't even happened.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

IMO the "smartest guy in the room" thing goes both ways. Thinking you are the smartest guy in the room led to trading down to pick Jankowski at 21 when players like Wilson, Teravainen, and Hertl were right there for the taking at 14.

That’s a bad example though. Jankowski was ranked anywhere from 45 to 70 so moving down to pick him is just bad evaluation. Moving down to pick Zary, who was ranked higher than where they picked him is different.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Nelson

Yes. I’m confused. Do you think I disagree with this?

I kind of got the impression you believed there was some master list that determined BPA. Glad you don't, although that is a belief that seems to be pretty common, so just wanted to try and snuff that out. The player each team picks in the one they believe is the BPA because that is who is on the list their scouts have assembled. All the handwringing that goes on during the draft when a player is not picked by McKenzie's or someone else's list is somewhat humorous, but also annoying at the same time.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I kind of got the impression you believed there was some master list that determined BPA. Glad you don't, although that is a belief that seems to be pretty common, so just wanted to try and snuff that out. The player each team picks in the one they believe is the BPA because that is who is on the list their scouts have assembled. All the handwringing that goes on during the draft when a player is not picked by McKenzie's or someone else's list is somewhat humorous, but also annoying at the same time.

Gotcha. Good idea. No, no. I definitely understand that the Flames have their own list. When I said that the Flames may have intel about who other teams might pick, I mean like through conversations with 3rd party teams or however teams get information on what other teams are gonna do. I just remember the all-telling Craig Conroy mentioning last year that they thought Zary would still be there when they traded down last year, so I figured the Flames must have some way of determining who other teams might pick.

Maybe they have spies (just kidding)...

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That’s a bad example though. Jankowski was ranked anywhere from 45 to 70 so moving down to pick him is just bad evaluation. Moving down to pick Zary, who was ranked higher than where they picked him is different.

Yes it was bad evaluation made by men that thought they were the smartest in the room. I think the Flames moves last year to trade down and still nab Zary were astute and never said otherwise.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I get the Jankowski pick - he was a big, skilled centreman who was a strong skater. And the early signs were perhaps he would be a part of a strong group up the middle for the team. It didn't work out. But if you assess the pick on the basis of what was known at the time - and the possible development path the player could have gone on - I don't think it was terrible. And I bet other teams would have grabbed him too.

There was a time when it looked like he was going to be a significant part of this team.

[Jiri Hrdina]

To add: the Sieloff pick was the one that I think can be challenged. Dmen with his poor offensive production at that age just don't make the NHL. Plus he was slightly under-sized. Appears he was selected based on the dreaded intangibles and not projectable skills.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by 1qqaaz

We don't have full hindsight yet. But if Lapierre and Foerster end up being better than Zary, it could be a bad trade. It doesn't really matter if the Flames "got their guy".

If Zary ends up being better than those two, which he very well could be, I'll take back my reservations. Same as if Boltmann actually turns out. Lets say you love Zary as a prospect. Boltmann was not worth the risk in losing the chance to draft Zary as you moved down from #22 to #24 (even though I just said Lapierre and Foerster are good prospects).



Really? I think it does.

Part of what makes the Iginla and Bouwmeester trades bad is the fact that Klimchuk and Poirier didn't work out. Even those the actual picks had nothing to do with the value returned in the trade.

Or when the Flames traded down to pick up Jankowski. They got Sieloff, a bust, and gave up the chance to draft Teuvo and Vasilevsky. The pick not working out does indeed make it a bad trade.

I also disagree that it's too early to judge the Boltmann pick. Most of us hated the pick at the time, and continue to hate it now. But if it's too early to judge him, then I guess there's no point in commenting on the quality of and D+1 pick under any circumstances. Not only is it fair to rate draft picks a year after they were drafted, but it's fair to judge them at the time of being drafted, or even before the pick was made.
For an example, if the Flames were to pick Raty at #12, I think that would be a bad pick. Yes, I am judging a move that hasn't even happened.

First off not saying there are any right or wrong answers on things like this ... to each their own.

But to me the only thing that matters is the scouting group (team's) view on draft day.

If they felt Zary and three others players were a cut above others on draft day, and could still take one of those players and get an additional asset they made the right call.

There are two things at play here.

1) Asset management based on the team's list
2) The value of the team's list

I think you're going after #2 which is a different conversation.

[1qqaaz]

Anyways, I won't derail the thread and further.

I loved the Zary pick anyways, so it's a moot point. I would have been happy getting him at 18, and I think he's better than any of the players drafted 18 to 23.

Originally Posted by Drunk Uncle

I'll answer: yes it accounts for D and G. There was a second post behind the one that was quoted in the Draft Percentages thread I think better represents the percentages.

The major limitation with the model is that currently the data I have is not granular enough to analyze players Draft + range (say players in their D+5 to D+7 years). IMO that is a severe limitation because you can't compare players apples-to-apples over a number of draft years without it and something I'm working to update.

Yes this is difficult to work around without having a much larger sample size to draw from.
I would suggest that you just take the 5 best years, regardless of the date relative to the draft year.
But then anything before 2011 would likely be too early to evaluate.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I get the Jankowski pick - he was a big, skilled centreman who was a strong skater. And the early signs were perhaps he would be a part of a strong group up the middle for the team. It didn't work out. But if you assess the pick on the basis of what was known at the time - and the possible development path the player could have gone on - I don't think it was terrible. And I bet other teams would have grabbed him too.

There was a time when it looked like he was going to be a significant part of this team.

Impossible to know of course, but what makes you think that, when no draft rankings had him anywhere near the first round?