Shocking Tyler Wright stat

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Dylan Larkin is his only draft pick in Detroit to generate at least 1 point in the NHL. That's really sobering. Svechnikov may get an assist over the final 10 games, so we may get to two guys who have produced points at the NHl level.

It's yet another sign of how much needs to change once the season is officially over.

No it isn't. What it is... is using a small sample size of players who were drafted with the mindset of long term development (Saarijavi, Cholo, Hronek, etc.), a goalie a year (Von Pottelberghe, Petruzelli, etc.) and a guy or two who have had disappointing returns so far (Turgeon, Svechnikov)

In 14-15, the Wings had Larkin, Svech, Turgeon, and a goalie taken in the first three rounds of the draft. ***** about Holland trading away picks if you must, but to get a player with 100+ points out of 4 picks is damn good drafting, not any evidence of bad drafting.

And then 16 and 17 drafts? There is one player among them who could potentially have hit the ice. Rasmussen probably could have played, but they didn't hotrod him to the show. The rest are guys like Saarijavi, Cholo, Hronek who are smallish, developmental type picks who need time in the AHL to simply beef up enough to take the NHL pounding they'd get or guys who had notable flaws in their games like Givani Smith or were simply long shots as they were taken in the 4th and beyond.

I mean, would the drafting have been better if the Wings hotrodded Hronek, Rasmussen, Turgeon, and Cholowski to the show and they all tripped into an assist here or there? I mean, if they've got the talent you think they do, they'd luck into one and all of a sudden, you'd have five guys, six if Svechnikov did too, which according to the list posted earlier would put you at top of league in this ridiculous stat. If

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

While I understand what you're saying it is hard to have a honest discussion when the goal posts are constantly moved around.

Example

If you feel Holland's approach is right and you don' need to draft high to draft elite talent, don't turn around and say what do you expect drafting so low

You cant can't have it both ways

I think Holland's approach isn't necessarily wrong. Not that it's the only way to go or even that it is right at the end of the day... but it certainly isn't ZOMG Wrong either.

You might not like his moves but there is a thought process behind them. Yes, signing all of the mid-range guys he has is a mistake. You don't need all of them. Yes, not making a material addition to the top D pairing since landing Brian Rafalski in FA is a huge mistake.

But all of the interim moves where he didn't, I can see the sense of why he chose not to do it that way. It doesn't excuse that at some point he needed to make a move and didn't, but I can understand not trading Nike and Tatar to get Bouwmeester or Mantha and 1st for Myers or Larkin++ for Trouba.

I also do not think it is a sensible method to improve your team by trading everything that isn't nailed down to chase a lottery pick. I think you should try to keep the ship stable and play for the luck of winning rather than capsizing the boat on purpose to get slightly better odds. That fixing an unbalanced roster is not done by tossing everything away and rebuilding from scratch.

 

[lomekian]

I know, here's an idea...lets cherry pick a stat just before its likely the stat will become outdated and meaningless!

If Ras, Cholo or Hronek had got games this year, they would have got points. Its not our scout's fault that we have too many bottom 6 forward who are established NHL-ers, while other teams stuff their bottom 6 with ok-ish draft picks. With a different roster make-up, the number of Tyler Wright picks with points could be 4 or 5 without too much difficulty.

 

[HIFE]

Played games imo are the better indicator. If you count only points, it only favors forwards. If you count games, it takes defencemen and goalies more even on the comparison.

From 2014+2015+2016+2017 drafts:

1. Boston, 620 games (7 players)
2. Edmonton, 555 games (5 players)
3. Arizona, 552 games (9 players)
4. Vancouver, 514 games (5 players)
5. Toronto, 500 games (5 players)
6. Winnipeg, 496 games (6 players)
7. Florida, 492 games (5 players)
8. Carolina, 461 games (7 players)
9. Buffalo, 460 games (5 players)
10. Philadelphia, 410 games (5 players)
11. Nashville, 407 games (5 players)
12. Columbus, 406 games (5 players)
13. Anaheim, 398 games (5 players)
14. Calgary, 388 games (5 players)
15. Colorado, 305 games (5 players)
16. St. Louis, 303 games (5 players)
17. New Jersey, 287 games (5 players)
18. San Jose, 278 games (3 players)
19. NY Islanders, 267 games (5 players)
20. Detroit, 243 games (3 players)
21. Tampa Bay, 217 games (3 players)
22. Chicago, 201 games (2 players)
23. Minnesota, 172 games (3 players)
24. Montreal, 167 games (5 players)
25. Los Angeles, 129 games (3 players)
26. Pittsburgh, 108 games (3 players)
27. Washington, 94 games (2 players)
28. Ottawa, 92 games (7 players)
29. Dallas, 53 games (3 players)
30. NY Rangers, 3 games (2 players)
Vegas, 0 games (0 players) only 1 draft.

But this is still a stupid comparison, because almost all NCAA players from 2014-2017 drafts are still at NCAA. Or some potential Europeans are at Europe. If you got late-boomer hits from there, it doesn't show at all. That's why I wouldn't be judging Tyler Wright yet. We need more time to see his abilities. bigger drafts with more picks and higher top picks coming. He hasn't had an edge on the draft position until 2018.

Next season brings more youth in and we can add those in the comparison.

Also, if I have time, I try to do a comparison, where is an expected rating for the picks the teams had in use. Then the results vs. expected results. There was those draft table articles, and I try to build some "poor-man's" formula based on those.

Judging by only g/p does show Wright isn't hitting it out of the park. We're pretty far down that list and need to be climbing quickly if we want to consider our drafting a success.

I agree there should be concern. This is a crucial point in Red Wings history and Holland entrusted the position of Director of Scouting to a guy that was a development specialist and only co-directed their scouting in Columbus for two seasons with Paul Castron. Reading from the BJ board at the time, no one there would have believed he would be offered a head position in the NHL-
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/tyler-wright-leaves-cbj-organization.1459029/

I think the concern for the Cholowski pick is fair after seeing how Svechnikov has developed. Smith as a 2nd rounder isn't encouraging. I've read too many inaccurate prospect rankings from our own fans (XO and Sproul, Pulkkinen, Ferraro, Russo, Svechnikov, etc.) to get my hopes too high over Hronek.

Looking back at the traded away 2nd round picks and trading up in 2016, you get the sense it took bombing out last season for Holland to wake up and finally get serious about drafting. And then, by some critic's evaluations, the picks are plain weird . Were the other drafts including Saarijarvi, Turgeon, Ehn, Malmstrom, Pottelbergh, etc. just throwaways? I'm hoping the higher we pick the harder it will be to botch the choices offered.

 

[Claypool]

Judging by only g/p does show Wright isn't hitting it out of the park. We're pretty far down that list and need to be climbing quickly if we want to consider our drafting a success.

Yeah the Red Wings need to get to the top of this "list" so they can be in the same conversation as Arizona, Edmonton and Vancouver. OH WAIT those teams are still garbage.

 

[HIFE]

Yeah the Red Wings need to get to the top of this "list" so they can be in the same conversation as Arizona, Edmonton and Vancouver. OH WAIT those teams are still garbage.

...Boston, Winnipeg, Nashville, Philadelphia, etc. I agree with Henkka we need more time to make a definite judgement but so far Wright isn't killing it.

 

[Claypool]

...Boston, Winnipeg, Nashville, Philadelphia, etc. I agree with Henkka we need more time to make a definite judgement but so far Wright isn't killing it.

Seven of those top 10 teams are garbage. That is not a list anyone should be envious about. Toronto and Winnipeg are only that high because they have two of the best young superstars in the game from winning the lottery.

Boston has done well, but they also traded Hamilton and Lucic. Imagine the amount of people around here calling for Holland to be fired for trading a young defenseman like Hamilton for draft picks. Boston also botched their three first round picks. Could have had Barzal, Boeser and Chabot. But continue to tell me what an awesome job Boston is doing.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Yeah the Red Wings need to get to the top of this "list" so they can be in the same conversation as Arizona, Edmonton and Vancouver. OH WAIT those teams are still garbage.

So what's the reason we're 20th?

Draft position? Did we need to draft higher?

 

[kliq]

Boston has done well, but they also traded Hamilton and Lucic. Imagine the amount of people around here calling for Holland to be fired for trading a young defenseman like Hamilton for draft picks. Boston also botched their three first round picks. Could have had Barzal, Boeser and Chabot. But continue to tell me what an awesome job Boston is doing.

Ya, and what really helps Boston is Pastrnak, they struck gold with him at 25th overall. Kids 21 years old and already has almost 200 points.

Plus Boston was able to recover quickly since they still did have a borderline elite goalie, elite center, elite winger, and a solid blueline.
I'm not sure how much those picks/trades had to do with it. If anything, they are a perfect example of re-building on the fly in 2018.

 

[Lampedampe]

The only draft I truly dislike thus far is the 15' draft, and unless Svech takes a big stride and becomes a solid nhler the draft it looks like a complete bust.

14' we got Larkin, can't complain. We also didn't have a second rounder, and I still think Ehn can become a good nhl 4th liner.

The jury is still out on 16' and 17', but I like both Hronek and cholowski so I'm optimistic.

 

[njx9]

Imagine the amount of people around here calling for Holland to be fired for trading a young defenseman like Hamilton for draft picks.

Imagine how happy people would be with Holland if he was remotely capable of putting together the third best team in the NHL in *spite* of trading Hamilton for, essentially, peanuts.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

So what's the reason we're 20th?

Draft position? Did we need to draft higher?

The reason, if we are going from 2014 on is....

1) We traded away seconds in 14 and in 15. That's two players who you would expect to contribute to a games played statistic. We took a goalie with a 3rd one of the years and took Dominic Turgeon who is just now starting to get even miniscule looks

2) The high picks in 16 we took with 19-20 in mind, not 17-18.

The reason we are not higher is we spent picks to bring in Zidlicky, Cole, and Legwand.

Basically, there are two picks that are very questionable. Dominic Turgeon and Evgeny Svechnikov. The rest are either really really good (Larkin), it's far too early to draw any conclusion on (Cholo, Hronek, Saarijavi, etc.), or are 4th round and later and for all intents and purposes are complete crapshoots.

Harping on points scored or games played from guys who we were well aware of their development plan at the time of the draft is ludicrous. Hey, guess what, Pavel Datsyuk didn't score a single NHL point or play an NHL game for two whole seasons after he was drafted. It was 3 whole seasons until Henrik Zetterberg potted his first point or skated his first game. I guess the guy that drafted them should get hung out to dry also.

Over 3 drafts (95-97), the Wings got 47 total NHL points. I guess we should go back in time and flambe whoever was the GM back then for punting the draft so badly.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

delete - duplicate message.

 

[Redder Winger]

I think you should try to keep the ship stable and play for the luck of winning rather than capsizing the boat on purpose to get slightly better odds. That fixing an unbalanced roster is not done by tossing everything away and rebuilding from scratch.

What you and others fail to understand is that the losses were coming either way.
By failing to recognize it, and failing to act proactively, you seriously inflate the risk that your time in the bottom will last much longer.

 

[Redder Winger]

The reason, if we are going from 2014 on is....

1) We traded away seconds in 14 and in 15. That's two players who you would expect to contribute to a games played statistic. We took a goalie with a 3rd one of the years and took Dominic Turgeon who is just now starting to get even miniscule looks

2) The high picks in 16 we took with 19-20 in mind, not 17-18.

The reason we are not higher is we spent picks to bring in Zidlicky, Cole, and Legwand.

Basically, there are two picks that are very questionable. Dominic Turgeon and Evgeny Svechnikov. The rest are either really really good (Larkin), it's far too early to draw any conclusion on (Cholo, Hronek, Saarijavi, etc.), or are 4th round and later and for all intents and purposes are complete crapshoots.

Harping on points scored or games played from guys who we were well aware of their development plan at the time of the draft is ludicrous. Hey, guess what, Pavel Datsyuk didn't score a single NHL point or play an NHL game for two whole seasons after he was drafted. It was 3 whole seasons until Henrik Zetterberg potted his first point or skated his first game. I guess the guy that drafted them should get hung out to dry also.

Over 3 drafts (95-97), the Wings got 47 total NHL points. I guess we should go back in time and flambe whoever was the GM back then for punting the draft so badly.

I think 3 years is too quick to judge a draft.
But I think Wright's drafting is a mixed bag.

Good as the Larkin pick was - Svechnikov is beginning to look like a bust.

We don't have a single good forward prospect in the organization except Rasmussen - a polarizing pick in his own right.
On defense? Maybe Cholowski and Hronek are players. Maybe Lindstrom and Kotkansalo turn into something one day (doubtful, based on what I saw).

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

The reason, if we are going from 2014 on is....

1) We traded away seconds in 14 and in 15. That's two players who you would expect to contribute to a games played statistic. We took a goalie with a 3rd one of the years and took Dominic Turgeon who is just now starting to get even miniscule looks

2) The high picks in 16 we took with 19-20 in mind, not 17-18.

The reason we are not higher is we spent picks to bring in Zidlicky, Cole, and Legwand.

Basically, there are two picks that are very questionable. Dominic Turgeon and Evgeny Svechnikov. The rest are either really really good (Larkin), it's far too early to draw any conclusion on (Cholo, Hronek, Saarijavi, etc.), or are 4th round and later and for all intents and purposes are complete crapshoots.

Harping on points scored or games played from guys who we were well aware of their development plan at the time of the draft is ludicrous. Hey, guess what, Pavel Datsyuk didn't score a single NHL point or play an NHL game for two whole seasons after he was drafted. It was 3 whole seasons until Henrik Zetterberg potted his first point or skated his first game. I guess the guy that drafted them should get hung out to dry also.

Over 3 drafts (95-97), the Wings got 47 total NHL points. I guess we should go back in time and flambe whoever was the GM back then for punting the draft so badly.

so where does Wrights/Hollands responsability lie exactly?

if intentionally choosing to trade down in the draft or trade away picks or choose on purpose to draft a goalie in the third dont lie at their feet, what does?

when and where does the deflection end and the ownership of choices begin?

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

so where does Wrights/Hollands responsability lie exactly?

if intentionally choosing to trade down in the draft or trade away picks or choose on purpose to draft a goalie in the third dont lie at their feet, what does?

when and where does the deflection end and the ownership of choices begin?

I don't understand this. I'm telling you why the Wings aren't high in this completely worthless statistic. Wright and Holland have a responsibility to bring in the best players for the future of the Detroit Red Wings. Not to have the quickest return on investment. That's what this stat is measuring. How quickly the players they drafted hit the NHL. That's a moronic hill to fight and die on, particularly when the Wings FOR DECADES have been overdoing it with seasoning them in the minors. Particularly when their biggest draft picks in the last couple years have been of the "will help us in about 4-5 years" mold.

The trading down is Holland's decision. Wright can't choose players with picks he doesn't have. So, it is stupid to whine about Wright's performance on those missed picks or hold that fact against him.

And maybe the Wings would have been better off skipping Von Pottelberghe and Petruzelli... I was saying more that it's ludicrous to use a "only this many players have points" hammer to bash them when they picked a goalie who quite rarely scores points. And for the last couple years, they had Howard and Mrazek making 1A and 1B money. There was a negative percent chance that a Joren Von Pottelberghe or Keith Petruzelli would get tossed into any games as a goalie when you've basically got a logjam at the NHL level.

I'm not defending the choice of picking goalies in consecutive drafts or trading away the picks. Just saying that there are some pretty obvious mechanical reasons why the Red Wings are low in this metric that has very little bearing on the success/failure of a team.

If the Wings had multiple top ten picks who were ready to go right away, they have more prospects that rapidly ascend and more young players get points. If the Wings had more picks (like they had in 17 and will have again in 18 and 19, they'd have more prospects with a chance to rapidly ascend.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

I don't understand this. I'm telling you why the Wings aren't high in this completely worthless statistic. Wright and Holland have a responsibility to bring in the best players for the future of the Detroit Red Wings. Not to have the quickest return on investment. That's what this stat is measuring. How quickly the players they drafted hit the NHL. That's a moronic hill to fight and die on, particularly when the Wings FOR DECADES have been overdoing it with seasoning them in the minors. Particularly when their biggest draft picks in the last couple years have been of the "will help us in about 4-5 years" mold.

The trading down is Holland's decision. Wright can't choose players with picks he doesn't have. So, it is stupid to whine about Wright's performance on those missed picks or hold that fact against him.

And maybe the Wings would have been better off skipping Von Pottelberghe and Petruzelli... I was saying more that it's ludicrous to use a "only this many players have points" hammer to bash them when they picked a goalie who quite rarely scores points. And for the last couple years, they had Howard and Mrazek making 1A and 1B money. There was a negative percent chance that a Joren Von Pottelberghe or Keith Petruzelli would get tossed into any games as a goalie when you've basically got a logjam at the NHL level.

I'm not defending the choice of picking goalies in consecutive drafts or trading away the picks. Just saying that there are some pretty obvious mechanical reasons why the Red Wings are low in this metric that has very little bearing on the success/failure of a team.

If the Wings had multiple top ten picks who were ready to go right away, they have more prospects that rapidly ascend and more young players get points. If the Wings had more picks (like they had in 17 and will have again in 18 and 19, they'd have more prospects with a chance to rapidly ascend.

I am not endorsing he stat(s) either in this case lets make that clear

it was simply brought up by someone else as a way to measure Wrights success since 2014

the decisions he has made during that time are his to bare

if not these pretty useless stats, then which ones?

when exactly will it be okay to be critical of hs drafts?

I am looking simply to figure that out without excusing away decisions

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I am not endorsing he stat(s) either in this case lets make that clear

it was simply brought up by someone else as a way to measure Wrights success since 2014

the decisions he has made during that time are his to bare

if not these pretty useless stats, then which ones?

when exactly will it be okay to be critical of hs drafts?

I am looking simply to figure that out without excusing away decisions

You can be critical of 15. That one is not very good. Svechnikov was taken first round and he looks disappointing. They decided to trade the 2nd and pick another disappointing player in the third.

If you want to bash a draft for picks in the 4th-7th round, be my guest, but they are such crapshoots at that point that you're far more likely to fire a man who did a good job because he didn't hit the mega millions. If you get a guy who plays 100 NHL games in the 4th-7th rounds, you've done incredibly well for that pick.

Be critical of Holland's moves all you want, but for Wright? The 14 draft was fantastic because Larkin looks really good. The 15 draft was disappointing because Svech is disappointing and he didn't get a lifeboat of a late pick to make it look better. 16 and 17 are WAY WAY too early to ***** about a guy's drafting. Particularly when Cholowski seems to be doing well, Hronek seems to be doing well and Rasmussen seems to be doing well.

As for a time frame? Minimum time would be Cholo hitting the NHL ice. They took guys in the 16 draft knowing that they weren't going to hit the NHL ice till 2019 at the earliest. Or, if it looks like Cholowski, Hronek, Rasmussen, etc. all plateau at the AHL level next year and don't seem to be developing any better, you readjust. But to simply say "he sucks because the not NHL ready players he took in the draft aren't NHL ready yet" isn't at all fair.

This would be like buying Ford stock at $2 in 2009 and complaining about it because it was only at $4 by 2010 when the full economic recovery wasn't set to hit till 2012.

 

[odin1981]

Isn't it a little early to say that?

Probably need to see him play around 80-120 games of him with a acceptable linemates before anyone can say ya or nay on him. However with him being stuck on the 4th line with shit I'm not sure he could get it. He at least needs 3rd line players with him to see if his offensive skills translate to the NHL.

 

[Frk It]

nvm- said this earlier already

 

[SirloinUB]

What i said us 100% correct

Those who tend to support Holland have constantly flip flopped on their immediate opinions to suit Holland's narrative just as I chronicled

In the end they look silly

I think other people combining the opinions of several individuals to cultivate a single narrative happens more than the supposed "flip flopping"

 

[Frk It]

I think other people combining the opinions of several individuals to cultivate a single narrative happens more than the supposed "flip flopping"

Yeah, the whole “you believe A...so therefore you must also believe B, C, and D” stuff is the worst.

 

[Pavels Dog]

when exactly will it be okay to be critical of hs drafts?

Two years after the draft, Henrik Lundqvist was a sub-.900 goalie in the SHL. 8 years after the draft, Nick Jensen established himself as a decent NHLer. 7 years after the draft, after many bad/mediocre years, William Karlsson is closing in on 40 goals this season. Brad Marchand regressed in his d+2 season and was a 40-50 point player in the NHL until about 10 years after the draft when he started to break out into one of the league's best wingers.

Are you starting to get the point?

I'm not saying you need to wait 10 years to start assessing a draft.. but thinking that we know what we have with the 2014-2017 drafts at this point is pretty foolish. We can see some trends in some players, there are some that we can maybe write off.. but there are many guys that have potential and could still very much turn into legit players. Svechnikov, Saarijarvi, Pearson and Holway from '15 all have potential imo. Cholowski, Hronek, Smith and Sambrook from '16 definitely still are up in the air. I wouldn't say much about '17 at this point at all.

2014 is the only Tyler Wright draft that I think it makes a little bit of sense to start judging now. And Larkin was a fantastic pick. Turgeon will be an NHLer. Holmstrom was a really good pick that haven't quite progressed like we hoped but still could see NHL action. Looking at Ehn I see a lot to like, but the offense still hasn't developed much. All in all I'd say that was a good draft.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Two years after the draft, Henrik Lundqvist was a sub-.900 goalie in the SHL. 8 years after the draft, Nick Jensen established himself as a decent NHLer. 7 years after the draft, after many bad/mediocre years, William Karlsson is closing in on 40 goals this season. Brad Marchand regressed in his d+2 season and was a 40-50 point player in the NHL until about 10 years after the draft when he started to break out into one of the league's best wingers.

Are you starting to get the point?

I'm not saying you need to wait 10 years to start assessing a draft.. but thinking that we know what we have with the 2014-2017 drafts at this point is pretty foolish. We can see some trends in some players, there are some that we can maybe write off.. but there are many guys that have potential and could still very much turn into legit players. Svechnikov, Saarijarvi, Pearson and Holway from '15 all have potential imo. Cholowski, Hronek, Smith and Sambrook from '16 definitely still are up in the air. I wouldn't say much about '17 at this point at all.

2014 is the only Tyler Wright draft that I think it makes a little bit of sense to start judging now. And Larkin was a fantastic pick. Turgeon will be an NHLer. Holmstrom was a really good pick that haven't quite progressed like we hoped but still could see NHL action. Looking at Ehn I see a lot to like, but the offense still hasn't developed much. All in all I'd say that was a good draft.

So it depends?

It can take a decade?

Are their any bad GMs or directors of amateur scouting that you feel aren' good in the NHL?