I just redid my spreadsheet. It's a little dated since I collected the data about a month ago. For example, Larkin has more points and a higher PPG now than when I gathered the data. Wish there was a way to continuously scrape and update from NHL.com. Oh well.
Here's a link.
Success Rate: Percentage of players drafted from this round that exceeded the round's average PPG while playing 41+ games
NHL Regular: Percentage of players taken in this round who have played in 41+ NHL games.
Well Drafted: Percentage of players drafted from this round that exceed the league average PPG for defensemen/forwards while playing in 41+ games
In FWD/DEF by team, you can fiddle with the numbers by playing with the green boxes. If you alter the green boxes next to MODIFY area you'll change the criteria for judging team picks by round. If you enter .3 for the PPG and 82 for the GP/P (games played per player) it'll show you what number of picks out of however many total picks achieved that result for each team. It'll return it as a ratio and a percentage. You'll have to download a copy to edit values though.
As an experiment I put the .41 PPG for forwards and .30 PPG for defense with at least 82 games played. (That's the league-wide PPG for both positions for players taken in the 2nd round) Anaheim is far and away the best at drafting defensemen, followed by Nashville. We are 3rd to last. Zero defensemen hit that criteria out of 23 attempts. Chicago and Vancouver were only worse because they had 0 hits on more draft picks. For forwards we're middle of the pack, 15/31 teams (Atlanta and Winnipeg are both in there).
Anaheim is indeed the best cumulative drafting team by that metric. 17.65% of their picks, 12/68, were league average PPG (for 2nd round and below) for their position and played 82+ games. The next closest team was the Rangers with 13.8%. So sizeable gap between the Ducks and the rest of the league. The Wings are 24th out of 31 teams with 8.5%, all from forwards.
Interestingly, out of 29 teams (excluding Winnipeg/Atlanta because they haven't been around as long) the Wings were tied with Arizona, Calgary, Minnesota for fewest defensemen drafted since 2005. But those other teams all hit on 2, 1, and 2 defensemen respectively so you could say that sure, when you hit on some d-men you don't need to pick as many. But when you're failing at it as hard as the Wings have, you should probably spend more picks on drafting d-men to try and hit on a couple.