Prospect Info: [2023 - 101st] Florian Xhekaj (OHL - Brantford Bulldogs)

[montreal]

It is still a round where it is rare to even get a player that makes the NHL.

This paper that was published on the success rates of draft picks between 1988 to 1997, it shows that you really need to be in the top 21 and it even breaks down by which round and which positions had players play over 200 NHL games.

If you were picking a forward in the 4th round, it would have the 2nd worst success rate after the 7th round (not sure why the 5th and 6th round are slightly higher success rates)

https://myslu.stlawu.edu/%7Emsch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

 

[1909]

It’s as late as late gets without being ‘late’

So why bother having drafts with so many rounds ? Let’s cut that to three rounds and pick the very best. The rest of the available players would be ufa.

 

[Treb]

This paper that was published on the success rates of draft picks between 1988 to 1997, it shows that you really need to be in the top 21 and it even breaks down by which round and which positions had players play over 200 NHL games.

If you were picking a forward in the 4th round, it would have the 2nd worst success rate after the 7th round (not sure why the 5th and 6th round are slightly higher success rates)

https://myslu.stlawu.edu/%7Emsch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

My naive guess is that some teams still pick "safe" depth players while it's more boom or bust afterwards.

 

[montreal]

My naive guess is that some teams still pick "safe" depth players while it's more boom or bust afterwards.

that's kind of what I was thinking though I wonder what the stats would look like over say the last 30 years to see if that is still the case as it does seem a bit odd.

 

[ChesterNimitz]

So why bother having drafts with so many rounds ? Let’s cut that to three rounds and pick the very best. The rest of the available players would be ufa.

That draft system would hurt Canadian teams due to the higher tax environment they operate in.

 

[Runner77]

This paper that was published on the success rates of draft picks between 1988 to 1997, it shows that you really need to be in the top 21 and it even breaks down by which round and which positions had players play over 200 NHL games.

If you were picking a forward in the 4th round, it would have the 2nd worst success rate after the 7th round (not sure why the 5th and 6th round are slightly higher success rates)

https://myslu.stlawu.edu/%7Emsch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

Is there anything focusing on more recent draft years?

I'm going on the premise that those draft results are also based on scouting and evaluative criteria that has evolved since that time. Even if there are anomalies, I subscribe to the notion that drafting has become a pretty efficient exercise -- of course, some teams do it better than others.

 

[japhi]

S

4th round is not " late"

So why bother having drafts with so many rounds ? Let’s cut that to three rounds and pick the very best. The rest of the available players would be ufa.

You really appear ready to die on this hill.

If it makes you feel better I can update my post to say middle-late? Or how about early-late? Any suggestions on how best to describe a pick that doesn't pan out 95% of the time?