Prospect Info: Hurricanes Prospect Info and Discussion - Part VI

[MinJaBen]

I hope the new GM continues to pick 1 late round goalie a year. You almost have to fall into one that sticks at some point.

Well, Andersen. What is the frequency of falling into two that stick?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Well, Andersen. What is the frequency of falling into two that stick?

To me, our roster is young enough that it makes sense for these picks to be more like 3rd, 4th rounders rather than the usual 6th, 7th.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

To me, our roster is young enough that it makes sense for these picks to be more like 3rd, 4th rounders rather than the usual 6th, 7th.

That's what they Canes have been doing. Only 1 goalie (Olson) was drafted beyond the 5th round in the last 6 drafts and they've picked 5 goalies in the 2nd-4th round over that timeframe.

2012: Altshuller (3rd round), Olson (6th)
2013: None (only 4 picks that draft)
2014: Ned (2nd round),
2015: Booth (4th round),
2016: LaFontaine (3rd round), Helvig (5th round)
2017: Makiniemi (4th round)

 

[RodTheBawd]

Do we have a goalie scout?

 

[tarheelhockey]

That's what they Canes have been doing. Only 1 goalie (Olson) was drafted beyond the 5th round in the last 6 drafts and they've picked 5 goalies in the 2nd-4th round over that timeframe.

2012: Altshuller (3rd round), Olson (6th)
2013: None (only 4 picks that draft)
2014: Ned (2nd round),
2015: Booth (4th round),
2016: LaFontaine (3rd round), Helvig (5th round)
2017: Makiniemi (4th round)

That’s what makes me hopeful that sooner or late we SURELY have to find someone. This isn’t throwing out a 7th and stumbling across Andersen. A goalie drafted in the 2nd-4th should at least be a decent prospect.

 

[CandyCanes]

I wouldn't mind us trying to take one of the top 1 or 2 goalie prospects if available with our 2nd rounder. Seems like there's been a lot of hits lately from the top goalies taken in the draft.

Obviously some of these down below have stuff to still prove, but they look like they're well on their way to NHL careers. And for every hit in the top 2-3 there's been misses like Fucale & possibly Nedeljkovic.

Hart, Demko, Samsonov, Jarry, Vasilesky, Subban, Gibson

It's a risk I think we need to keep taking. I think our offensive depth is good enough that we can take a flyer on one of the top goalie prospects this year.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Here's a list of the top (SV%) goalies in the NHL with > 35 games played.

1: Raanta - Undrafted
2: Luongo -High 1st round
3: MAF - High 1st round
4: Rinne - 8th round
5: Gibson - 2nd round
6: Hellebuyck - 5th round
7: Grubauer - 4th round
8: Quick - 3rd round
9: Bobrovsky - Undrafted
10: Varlamov - Late 1st round
11: Vasilevskiy - Mid-late 1st round
12: Dubnyk - Mid 1st round
13: Andersen - 7th round / 3rd round
14: Rask - Mid/Late 1st round
15: Smith - 5th round
16: Bishop - 3rd round

So of the top 16 goalies this past season, a high % of them were 1st rounders:

1st round: 6
2nd round: 1
3rd round: 2 (3 with Andersen in re-draft)
4th round : 1
5th round: 2
6th round: 0
7th round: 1 (Andersen's first draft)
Other: 3

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Since the 2007 NHL draft, only three goalies taken in the first round have regular NHL roster spots (of which there are 62):

Andrei Vasilevsky
Malcolm Subban
Jack Campbell (only recently after the Kuemper trade)

I know part of this is a "small sample size" issue (only 6 goalies taken in first round from 2007-2014, and anyone taken 2015 or later probably wouldn't be in the league yet), but that's still a .5 conversion rate to even get an NHL player, let alone a starter (only a .17 conversion there).


In my opinion, drafting goalies is a crapshoot and unless there's something really really special about a guy, spending a high pick on one (rounds 1-3) isn't the best way to use the pick.

I am willing to bet that digging into the goalies drafted in the last 15 years shows more "spread" than any other position, both in conversion to NHL players, and conversion to NHL all-stars. For whatever reason, it seems that 18 years old is the wrong age to evaluate a goalie. Crosby was #1 overall. McDavid was #1 overall. Ovechkin was #1 overall. Stamkos was #1. Tavares was #1. Hall was #1. Seguin was #2. Doughty was #2. Countless others are later first round picks. Generational talent at every other position tends to show itself early (certainly with some exceptions, Benn, Pavelski, Subban, anyone drafted by Detroit in the 90s).

Lundqvist was 205th overall. Bobrovsky was undrafted. Quick was 72nd. Holtby was 93rd. Price was 5th. That's a relatively non-offensive proposal for the top 5 goaltenders of the last 5 years, and only one was "touted", in a sense. Then consider how often the latest, greatest goalies simply fall off the map.(Remember how great Bernier was going to be? Jack Campbell being the next great goalie?)


I think you can make the argument to disapprove of a lot about Francis's tenure as GM, but taking a dart at a goalie or two in the late rounds every year is a fantastic strategy. To me, you essentially luck into drafting a franchise goalie. Francis kept taking very low-value picks and converting them to ping pong balls. Right now we've got Ned, Booth, Helvig all as "live" goalies (and maybe LaFontaine as well). Any one of them could flame out next year, or shoot to the top of the NHL's "next great goalie" list. It is disappointing that we did already hit on a "franchise" goalie, and he decided to leave and re-enter the draft. But that doesn't make the strategy wrong, that makes it a bad break. If anything, it highlights that this strategy can work.

Whether or not we have the right scouts in place to pick the "better" lottery ticket is above my visibility level and pay grade. But I am sitting at the front of the train when it comes to this strategy. If the distribution of NHL talent at forward or defense as a long tail to the right, and the distribution of goaltending talent is far more normalized, it's simply a matter of maximizing value in a given round of a draft. I'm ok with using one of our 5-7th round picks to take a goaltender every year from now until the Canes fold as a franchise, no matter the goaltending situation, no matter the need.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Yeah, I wasn't advocating drafting a goalie in the 1st round. As you stated, your comment about only 3 is a bit misleading, simply because of small sample sizes. Still, unless they are a sure thing, which they rarely, if ever, are, it's too much of a crap shoot in the 1st round.

I like what the Canes have been doing. Using 3rd/4th round picks, particularly when they have extra picks and hope you hit on one. Whether or not they have the right scouting / coaching in place to make that work is a different question.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Here's a list of the top (SV%) goalies in the NHL with > 35 games played.

1: Raanta - Undrafted
2: Luongo -High 1st round
3: MAF - High 1st round
4: Rinne - 8th round
5: Gibson - 2nd round
6: Hellebuyck - 5th round
7: Grubauer - 4th round
8: Quick - 3rd round
9: Bobrovsky - Undrafted
10: Varlamov - Late 1st round
11: Vasilevskiy - Mid-late 1st round
12: Dubnyk - Mid 1st round
13: Andersen - 7th round / 3rd round
14: Rask - Mid/Late 1st round
15: Smith - 5th round
16: Bishop - 3rd round

So of the top 16 goalies this past season, a high % of them were 1st rounders:

1st round: 6
2nd round: 1
3rd round: 2 (3 with Andersen in re-draft)
4th round : 1
5th round: 2
6th round: 0
7th round: 1 (Andersen's first draft)
Other: 3

I love the breakdown, but totally disagree with the conclusion. That's not a "high" percentage. By my informal count just now, 16 of the top 20 scorers in the NHL this year were 1st rounders, including 7 former 1st overall picks.

1st round: 16
2nd round: 1 (Kucherov)
3rd round: 1 (Marchand)
4th round : 1 (Gaudreau)
5th round: 0
6th round: 0
7th round: 0
Undrafted: 1 (Panarin)

The goalie distribution, by comparison, is vastly different. Defensemen may be a little more skewed to the later rounds, but I'd be willing to bet it looks a lot more like the forward one than the goalie one (using forwards because overall points is convenient, and there's not as good a single stat for defensemen to sort by for a back of napkin analysis like this). I think in comparison to the other positions in hockey, characterizing the above goalie distribution as a "high" percentage of them being in the first round misses how different the goaltending position is from the rest of the positions in the league.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I love the breakdown, but totally disagree with the conclusion. That's not a "high" percentage. By my informal count just now, 16 of the top 20 scorers in the NHL this year were 1st rounders, including 7 former 1st overall picks.

1st round: 16
2nd round: 1 (Kucherov)
3rd round: 1 (Marchand)
4th round : 1 (Gaudreau)
5th round: 0
6th round: 0
7th round: 0
Undrafted: 1 (Panarin)

The distribution is VASTLY different than other positions. Defensemen may be a little more skewed to the later rounds, but still drastically different. I think in comparison to the other positions in hockey, characterizing the above goalie distribution as a "high" percentage of them being in the first round misses how different the goaltending position is from the rest of the positions in the league.

Your conclusion is statistically flawed for a couple of reasons:
1) You picked only the top 20 in scoring though which is vastly different sample than the top 16 goalies. There is 1 goalie / team, so only 31 starting goalies so when I list 16 of them, I'm listing ~50% of the starting players. There are 12 forwards / 6 defensemen per team, so by only picking the top 20, you are taking a very, very small portion of players (3.5% of all skaters or 5.3% of all forwards) vs. what I looked at for goalies. It's not remotely apples to apples from a distribution standpoint. I bet if you listed the top 50% of scorers in the NHL, the distribution might not be that much different.
2) The fact that there have only been 6? (going off your comment above) goalies drafted in the 1st round in the last 10 years is going to ensure that a fewer % of the best are from the 1st round, vs. almost 300 skaters over that same timeframe. That probably makes the fact that 6 of the top 16 right now is pretty significant.

Anyhow, I don't disagree though that projecting the success of a forward when drafting is immensely easier than that of a goalie and that goalies are more of a crapshoot. No argument there.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

I like what the Canes have been doing. Using 3rd/4th round picks, particularly when they have extra picks and hope you hit on one. Whether or not they have the right scouting / coaching in place to make that work is a different question.

I don’t mind anything after the 2nd round, but I’d be willing to bet there’s a statistical argument to be made that the later the better (as in, the pick value is still high enough to justify grabbing a skater in the 3rd or 4th rounds, while the goalie “randomness” doesn’t reduce the value that much of taking a goalie later).

We picked Ned 37th overall, highest goalie we’ve taken since Ward to my knowledge, and so far he is pretty much just as valuable a ping pong ball as the other guys. He was one of 5 goalies taken in that second round, and of those 5 he’s probably 2nd today only to Demko (who himself hasn’t done a ton for his stock since being a highly touted pick). Admittedly this is just a random draft I’ve highlighted, but I’m willing to bet in-depth statistical work done to this will show a far flatter distribution for goalies.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I don’t mind anything after the 2nd round, but I’d be willing to bet there’s a statistical argument to be made that the later the better (as in, the pick value is still high enough to justify grabbing a skater in the 3rd or 4th rounds, while the goalie “randomness” doesn’t reduce the value that much of taking a goalie later).

We picked Ned 37th overall, highest goalie we’ve taken since Ward to my knowledge, and so far he is pretty much just as valuable a ping pong ball as the other guys. He was one of 5 goalies taken in that second round, and of those 5 he’s probably 2nd today only to Demko (who himself hasn’t done a ton for his stock since being a highly touted pick). Admittedly this is just a random draft I’ve highlighted, but I’m willing to bet in-depth statistical work done to this will show a far flatter distribution for goalies.

You may be right. We've had enough picks in the past few drafts where it doesn't matter a whole lot IMO. While a goalie might be less likely to make it than a skater in those rounds, the impact if he does will be far greater (unless you get lucky with a Slavin type player, which isn't common).

Like you, I'm fine with the Canes still taking a goalie every draft sometime after the 2nd round. I'd leave it up to the scouts to determine if the right player exists in the 3rd, 5th or even 7th round to decide where.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Your conclusion is statistically flawed for a couple of reasons:
1) You picked only the top 20 in scoring though which is vastly different sample than the top 16 goalies. There is 1 goalie / team, so only 31 starting goalies so when I list 16 of them, I'm listing ~50% of the starting players. There are 12 forwards / 6 defensemen per team, so by only picking the top 20, you are taking a very, very small portion of players (3.5% of all skaters or 5.3% of all forwards) vs. what I looked at for goalies. It's not remotely apples to apples from a distribution standpoint. I bet if you listed the top 50% of scorers in the NHL, the distribution might not be that much different.
2) The fact that there have only been 6? (going off your comment above) goalies drafted in the 1st round in the last 10 years is going to ensure that a fewer % of the best are from the 1st round, vs. almost 300 skaters over that same timeframe. That probably makes the fact that 6 of the top 16 right now is pretty significant.

Anyhow, I don't disagree though that projecting the success of a forward when drafting is immensely easier than that of a goalie and that goalies are more of a crapshoot. No argument there.

That’s fair, but for this discussion I think it’s still relevant. In picking a goalie to be an eventual starter, you’re hoping to pick one of the top 20 in the world (hopefully better than that).

When analyzing the top 20 forwards, the recipe for how to do that is very clear - use a high draft pick.

When analyzing the top 20 goalies, the recipe becomes not so clear.


The overarching point that I’m using (admittedly back of napkin) stats to try to back is that 18 is the wrong age to evaluate goalies with any confidence (a point you agree with). Because of that, from an overall draft pick value, going for volume later, rather than picking “your guy” sooner, is a better strategy.

To state it a different way, if given a choice between the group of goalies taken in rounds 1 and 2, versus the goalies taken in rounds 3-7 and undrafted, I think a very strong argument could be made that you’d take the group that came out of the latter (lower percentage, higher volume).

Meanwhile, given the same choice for forwards, or for defensemen, you’d have to be high to take the latter group. (And find the right place to draw that line, wherever you care to.)


The overarching point is the distribution of talent. High-end forward talent is found primarily in the first round, with very few “gems” to be found later. High-end defensemen talent has a little more distribution, but is primarily still reserved for the first few rounds. High-end goaltending has a far flatter distribution, and can be found throughout the draft.

Then, consider the opportunity cost of making the pick. When you spend a 2nd or 3rd round pick on a goalie, you don’t spend it on a forward or defenseman, which tends to still be a place you can find those quality guys. Conversely, because the distributions are so different, you may not miss out on a decent forward or defenseman when you pick a goalie late (6th or 7th), and his “chances” of panning out may be very similar to a guy you would’ve picked in the 4th.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I wonder how much of it is due to lack of coaching, training and scouting vs. just generally being a more difficult position to gauge? In youth hockey, goalies almost "fend for themselves" when it comes to coaching. Even watching Canes practices, I sometimes see a goalie coach working with the goalies, but it's a small percentage of the ice time. Yet, skaters are getting coached every drill and the goalie is in net stopping shots during those drills.

Same goes for scouting (Rod's question). I wonder how much dedicated time a team spends on goalie scouting. After the Lack and Darling debacles, it would seem to me the Canes are lacking in that department. Maybe other teams aren't much better, just some of them get lucky?

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

I wonder how much of it is due to lack of coaching, training and scouting. In youth hockey, goalies almost "fend for themselves" when it comes to coaching. Even watching Canes practices, I sometimes see a goalie coach working with the goalies, but it's a small percentage of the ice time. Yet, skaters are getting coached every drill and the goalie is in net stopping shots during those drills.

Same goes for scouting (Rod's question). I wonder how much dedicated time a team spends on goalie scouting. After the Lack and Darling debacles, it would seem to me the Canes are lacking in that department. Maybe other teams aren't much better, just some of them get lucky?

This is a league in which half the teams didn’t have a goalie coach 15 years ago. Head coaches view them as a black box, make the saves and we don’t care how, and you can’t really blame them, it’s a completely different position than the rest of the team. I think the whole league is behind on it.

Then consider that it’s a more mental position in which the different between success and failure is 2 percentage points. Out of 30 shifts for a forward, if he score on one of them he’s done well for the game (he’s actually the best goal scorer in the league). Out of the 30 shots on a goalie, if he saves just 27 of them he’s one of the worst goalies in the league.

Consider that if Darling saved 1 more puck out of 25 he’d be the best goalie in the league. Something like that, you’d think, could be affected by having a new kid, having a weird crick in your back, or just waking up on the wrong side of the bed. It requires such perfection with such consistency mentally that deciding whether an 18-year-old kid has that is just so difficult.

 

[DaveG]

Not even joking about this but it honestly seems like you almost need a background in psychology to properly evaluate a goalie. It honestly feels like the position is as much based on psychological makeup as it is the players talent and physical attributes combined... if not more so. I mean just look at what happened to Cloutier after that Lidstrom mid-ice laugher, or Darling after the one against the Rangers.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

^ and ^^

I get all that, but there are certain things at are observable that seemed to be missed. That article that was posted a year or two ago that showed why Lack was a terrible choice for the style Carolina played for example. The fact that Darling, although a big guy, makes himself small by not coming out and challenging, or that once he's out of position, he has terrible ability to recover, etc.

No doubt there are mental things that affect goalies and there is not much margin for error, but it seems to me there are a lot of observable traits (quickness, recovery, lateral movement, glove hand, how they track the puck, puck handling, etc...) that ARE observable and yet, seem to be missed by many teams.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Anyhow, back on topic. Given all that, it's why I think it makes sense to keep throwing darts at the draft board after the 2nd round in hopes of finding a gem. Whether the team has the right scouting and coaching to improve the odds of that isn't clear.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

^ and ^^

I get all that, but there are certain things at are observable that seemed to be missed. That article that was posted a year or two ago that showed why Lack was a terrible choice for the style Carolina played for example. The fact that Darling, although a big guy, makes himself small by not coming out and challenging, or that once he's out of position, he has terrible ability to recover, etc.

No doubt there are mental things that affect goalies and there is not much margin for error, but it seems to me there are a lot of observable traits (quickness, recovery, lateral movement, glove hand, how they track the puck, puck handling, etc...) that ARE observable and yet, seem to be missed by many teams.

I agree, and I think the history mentioned above has to do with that. Until more recently than the NHL cares to admit these guys were just plopped back there, no special coaching, just make the save and moved on. If they make the save they're good, if not they're bad. And that type of history carries over to now, where we can't quite even agree on how we quantify a goaltender's stats. We're still using the goals against of the team while the goaltender is on the ice as one of the two primary measurable stats, is that not even more theoretically unreliable than +/- for a skater? But no one knows. The analytics community admits it really has no idea. Heat maps and shot quality are starting to be a thing but even the people who make them admit the conclusions drawn from them are tentative.

The only thing people understand is that when you have a good-to-great goalie, you know it. That's why I'm so passionate about the "pick every late round goalie" strategy. It basically boils down to "we admit we've got no idea how to evaluate goalies, but until we figure out to, we will just find our guy through sheer attrition."

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Not even joking about this but it honestly seems like you almost need a background in psychology to properly evaluate a goalie. It honestly feels like the position is as much based on psychological makeup as it is the players talent and physical attributes combined... if not more so. I mean just look at what happened to Cloutier after that Lidstrom mid-ice laugher, or Darling after the one against the Rangers.

If you're interested in podcasts, Custance is doing one called "The Full 60" now with The Athletic (doesn't require a subscription). He had a very good interview with John Chayka in which they discussed the different types of data that they want to start using to inform decisions.

He basically said that when it comes to the whole "fancy stats vs. eye test" debate, he doesn't actually see a debate to be had, because it's all just data. Whether it's data that can be quantified in counting stats, or more qualitative from expert opinions (scouts), or any other type of data (he specifically mentioned a rise in biometric stuff), that it's all good as long as it is given the appropriate weight in making a decision. I imagine he would have a very positive view of the notion of incorporating psychological data into the draft process.

As an aside, I think we now have an owner that'd view Chayka's philosophy pretty favorably, based on what he's said publicly. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up on the forefront of some of these things, especially since we have Tulsky, who's generally considered one of the most purely intelligent men in hockey, in the fold.

 

[MinJaBen]

As an aside, I think we now have an owner that'd view Chayka's philosophy pretty favorably, based on what he's said publicly. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up on the forefront of some of these things, especially since we have Tulsky, who's generally considered one of the most purely intelligent men in hockey, in the fold.

I think Chayka is the exact type of GM Dundon is looking to hire. Some young, up-and-comer who is willing to work in a non-standard situation to try his new ideas. If Chayka had been fired, I bet Dundon would have grabbed him in a heartbeat.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Remember when Chayka was the star of the off season, and McPhee was a bumbling idiot?

 

[Chrispy]

Not even joking about this but it honestly seems like you almost need a background in psychology to properly evaluate a goalie. It honestly feels like the position is as much based on psychological makeup as it is the players talent and physical attributes combined... if not more so. I mean just look at what happened to Cloutier after that Lidstrom mid-ice laugher, or Darling after the one against the Rangers.

It goes back a lot further than that. Mike Richter had a major slump the year before the Rangers won the cup and was sent to Binghamton on a conditioning assignment.

I feel like baseball was ahead of the rest of the sports in the sports psychology department; hockey probably needs it more for the goaltending than anything. I wonder if soccer has dealt with similar issues already.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Remember when Chayka was the star of the off season, and McPhee was a bumbling idiot?

I think Chayka is an intelligent guy with a lot of very innovative ideas that may struggle with followthrough due to his inexperience. Like MinJaBen said, I think he and Dundon would get along, I just don’t know if Chayka has the experience.

Picture your company hiring a 26-year-old kid with an MBA as its CEO. He may have some awesome ideas and be wicked smart, doesn’t mean there won’t be MANY bumps in the road in running the business if he’s not surrounded with the right people.