2015 NHL Draft Discussion Part III
- Thread starter YWGinYYZ
- Start date
- Status
Hammer Slammer
Registered User
Romang67
BitterSwede
Well, in certain words (kyl for example) K is pronounced like Sh.
It's like your idiotic Gem vs Gum.
drumzan
#NHLJets
- Jul 9, 2011
- 3,392
- 1,346
Before a soft vowel (y is a vowel in Swedish) it's often pronounced 'ch' like in check. You might be hearing 'sh' but is pronounced more like ch.
Mathmew Purrrr Oh
#meowmeowmeowmeow
Hammer Slammer
Registered User
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,414
- 29,268
We usually tend to think of it by round. 1st round picks = x% chance, 2nd = y% chance, etc. But I suspect that if data was plotted over an extended period there would be a pretty regular drop-off by each draft position. Garrett has posted some data supporting the idea that trading up doesn't pay. That might also support your suggestion but it would depend on the exact particulars. It would also depend on the criteria you use to judge the result. If you use something simplistic like the odds of getting a player who manages 200 NHL games it might pay to trade down. If you look at total impact I don't think so. How many bottom 6 forwards does it take to = a high impact 1st liner? Of course an assessment of the depth of the draft would play a role. If someone made an offer for 1 of our picks I would listen. The thing is though that we don't really need quantity of prospects. We need quality.
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
The one thing with drafting though is that probability of successful NHLer and upside are highly correlated.
i did a rudimentary study on this years ago focused on the first round only. It was on the analytics board here and on AIH but i'm having trouble finding it.
There was a significant drop at pick 3, then at 6. Picks 7-15 were about equal in value. There a was another small dip until 20.
From 25-30 you usually only have about 20% chance of landing a top 6 player. on average a first round pick yielded i believe a 46% chance.
top 3 you were practically garaunteed. dropped to around 60% from 4-7, then i believe it dropped down to about 40% chance for the next block.
i'm going off memory here so this might not be totally accurate.
The main take away i found was that trading up was not good value and there was a significant overrating of "top 10" when over a ten year span the cutoff was much more clear at 6.
Romang67
BitterSwede
You're welcome.
In other news, I've reached the conclusion that Schmitsch is an impossibly stupid name. His real name is Schemitsch, which is... slightly better, I guess? I'm pretty sure both names are just a very drunk person trying to say Smith.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,414
- 29,268
If using 200 games as successful and 1st line as upside how does that work? There are plenty of bottom 6 Fs that get 200+ games.
Interesting. I think it would require quite a bit more than 10 years data to smooth out. Each draft tends to be quite different so I really don't think those step changes would hold. Just my intuition though, no data.
But, back to where we started. The analyses that show trading up to be a poor strategy would then seem to support trading down. That would have to depend on specifics though. I don't know if it was stated or not but I assume the studies of trading up was based on actual cases. So there are specifics. In this hypothetical how far down are we trading? Are we giving up our 2 firsts for 3 lower firsts or for 3 seconds? Or are we giving up our 25th OA for 2 seconds? Where are the seconds ranked? It would require some study to come up with estimates of how far down to trade and what return to get. Is the 17th worth the 27th & 28th? Or the 28th & 42nd? More? Less? The scenario is different if you respond to some other team pitching a swap where they move up and we down than it is if we are soliciting a move down. If someone approached us that way because they want a player who is still available. I would consider it and possibly try to negotiate a better deal. It would then depend on who was still available and who I thought might still be available for those later picks but in general I would prefer quality over quantity at draft time.
Last edited:
sorry Mort, in my study i used 45+ points in 2 seasons or more as the benchmark for top 6
For dmen i believe i did it off TOI but I can't remember
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
You're missing the connection.
The probability a player will play 200 games and the higher a players ceiling sits is related.
What you find when looking at statistical cohorts is the players PCS% (probability of cohort success) is linked to their cohorts pts/GP in the NHL. A prospect with a 40% probability of draft success also will likely be the better player than a 20% player.
In other words, high risk/high reward and low risk/low reward are exceptions that rarely exist.
So trading back just a bit may increase your overall probability of landing players significantly but not losing much in terms of most likely upside. Of course, this is different in the very early part of the draft, around picks one through 3-6 ish where here is a premium.
Last edited:
I want your PCS equation/criteria so badly
in other news: that's what my study found as well, that at 6 was where the significant drop off was ( i believe it fell from 80% success to 46?)
also: it's kind of hard to determine if you should make the study larget then 10 years. The look of the league/junior leagues/scouting in general changes so much it's hard to know if your still comparing apples to apples. That's the downside with trying to plot/track something that happens only once a year.
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
figured as much. It sounds deadly accurate and something worth a lot of money.
Either way, kudos to you guys and good luck! Once we've added in the filtering stuff we've got planned I'm hoping to figure out how to come up with it/a similar one myself
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,414
- 29,268
Yes, the bold I get. That's not what I understood you to say.
If trading back is limited to 'just a bit' and you are increasing the number of possible hits, yes. I think that is what I have been saying. I don't see much possibility of that but if we could trade 17 for 20 + 35 as an example that could be good but it would depend on the specific players still in play. It is more likely that we would be offered something like 35 and 48 for 17 and I doubt that would be a good move.
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
The reason why trading back from the 4-6ish up to the 40th range is considered a good move is because the ceiling of potential players doesn't change much. What I meant is one of the ways you can see this is by the average probability of success change being minimal in that range.
Especially if you are a team that targets high upside kids and knows how to target market inefficiencies.
Especially if you are a team that targets high upside kids and knows how to target market inefficiencies.
- Mar 10, 2010
- 34,904
- 31,382
One small sample size annoying pattern I am noticing looking at Dallas's drafts is they are hitting on late round euro defenders that are developing over in Europe (the Enstrom syndrome)
Esa Lindell late 3rd round 2012 looked great at the worlds and looks like he will make the team
Jyrki Jokipakka picked 7th round in 2011 played 51 games for the stars last season
John Klingberg was taken with their last pick in the 2010 draft and after a slow cook in Sweden he was basically their #1 D man as a rookie last season????
I wonder if some organizations under scout Europe or if those scouts have enough of a voice in the war room? If I worked for another org I would want to know if one scout for Dallas discovered all three of those picks above and I might want to target that guy to poach him if I was less honorable
Last edited:
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,414
- 29,268
Are you suggesting that there is little difference between #4-6 and #40? No, I'm sure you are not but that is what it sounds like at first read. I'm guessing that you mean trading back some few spots within that range, like from 6 > 10 or 10 > 15. That I can see, depending on what else is included. It would still have to be something pretty nice. If we offered Colorado our 17 & 25 for their 10 should they take the offer? From their POV they would have to assess their own needs, quality vs quantity and the relative quality of probable 10 vs probable 17. Without looking too closely at their needs I would say they need a quantity of D vs quality young F so they should take the deal. I'm not inclined to think we should make that offer in the first place though unless someone we rate higher than 10 has fallen to that spot and we want to grab him.
One small sample size annoying pattern I am noticing looking at Dallas's drafts is they are hitting on late round euro defenders that are developing over in Europe (the Enstrom syndrome)
Esa Lindell late 3rd round 2012 looked great at the worlds and looks like he will make the team
Jyrki Jokipakka picked 7th round in 2011 played 51 games for the stars last season
John Klingberg was taken with their last pick in the 2010 draft and after a slow cook in Sweden he was basically their #1 D man as a rookie last season????
I wonder if some organizations under scout Europe or if those scouts have enough of a voice in the war room? If I worked for another org I would want to know if one scout for Dallas discovered all three of those picks above and I might want to target that guy to poach him if I was less honorable
Less honourable than what?
- Mar 10, 2010
- 34,904
- 31,382
WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
Huffer
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2010
- 16,720
- 6,417
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,414
- 29,268
WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
Conducting a mock draft and the Jets GM hasn't responded so I'm forced to auto pick for them. In this scenario the Jets actually have picks #18 and 19. In the rules I'm supposed to pick the top ranked player by CSB but Zboril and Chabot are fairly close so I thought I would get some opinons. With the other pick there is a forward who is by far the top player left by the rankings.
- Status
