e
.... Others excluded them, because their identity was proably size and strength. NHL was different at 1999.
That's why I wouldn't look much before the salary cap. Then most of teams started drafting skill , because new rules for obstruction came etc. There has been a lot more parity after that, and I'm interested more of those results.
Detroit looks superior in everything what includes Datsyuk and Zetterberg. More interested about years after those. We can already re-draft everything until 2015. Just find a way to separate players.
Ya I started my sheet in 2001. So D and Z are not in my analysis, but clearly they would be massive factors pushing us to having the best result. Also You are right, I am not sure what value is to be had in going back too far in time, other than to just have a historical record of who drafted better. (Of course that is basically what I am doing
)
Let's suppose that holds - isn't the obvious methodological flaw that the results of those drafts have been average to far below average in the 8 years since? I feel like this is an obvious sign that your model is badly undervaluing top end talent, and highly overvaluing late round JAGs.
I am not sure what JAG actually stands for but i know you mean late round Gem. If you only looked at the image i posted, yes there is just a single value for Detroit. If you look at my sheet I have a year by year break down. But Ideally I can expand the sheet to use various blocks of time: Example:
2001-2010
2005-2015
2000-2005
2005-2010
2010-2015
I havent set up as many break downs, but you can see the total sum of each year, OR look directly at the players.
I am not sure the model undervalues top end talent. As has been pointed out before, if you pick #7/8 (+1500 to ~16oo pts) and it turns out that player is redrafted to #1... that is a huge gain in points. Infact, its a much bigger gain than drafting Ericsson (630 pts). If you look closely at the scale and individual scores. the main reason detroit did so well overall, is an insane score for 2002. We picked 4 players that would be drafted in the top 20. Boston did really well because they took 2 even much better players that turned into top 5 picks. (Marchand/Bergeron)
Hm, I did say I would drop it with the luck conversation, but turns out I have some more to say after mulling it over.
Of course a lot of luck is involved all around. But think about what luck gets you and what skill gets you.
......
Now the same player is a zero or even a big negative. But it's not because of the draft, it's because of other factors.
Ericsson gave us a huge plus, right? Well what if Edmonton picked him in the second round and he just rotted in the minors for a few years and swam back to Sweden because nobody succeeds in Edmonton? Huge negative for the same pick. Obviously I'm being a little hyperbolic but yea.
Just thoughts.
Ericsson gave us 630 pts. to be clear if you get the 3rd OA pick, and take the player that would later turn out to be redrafted #1OA (move up only 2 spots), you would get + 750 pts. Or if we picked 13th and got a player to be redrafted somewhere around 7th. So As much as Ericsson was a nice pick. He really is not the driving factor of our score.
Here are the main reasons we scored so well in 2001-2010:
listed chronologically
(2001)
No hits / No Busts
(2002)-Huge year (check out my redraft and tell me if i screwed it up)
Ericsson +630
Filpulla +1013
Fleischmann +769
Hudler +882
(2003)
Howard +572
(2004)
Franzen +834
(2005)
Kindl -430 (our biggest miss drafted 19th, redrafted 37th)
Abdelkader +353
Helm +365
(2006)
No hits / No Busts
(2007)
Smith -115
Anderson +153
(Smith sucked for us, but we picked him 27th, i have him redrafted #33)
(2008)
McCollum -278 (again a miss, but 30th pick redrafted 76th is still not a horrible drop on the scale)
Nyquist +730 (redrafted 17th)
(2009)
Ferraro -236
tatar +440 (redrafted 22, taken at 60)
(2010)
Sheahan -305 (Another miss, but not so bad, taken 21, redrafted 33) (Realize this would be a severe miss if we had drafted him top 10 or something)
Jarnkrok +151
Mrazek +389
A big factor for us is since we have never drafted highly, we don't risk huge misses. there are few (no?) teams with an average draft position as low as us.
Also there are a significant # of late round hits for our team. We hit almost 1 a year. So we have a pretty solid track record of finding NHL players in round 2-4.
Mix that with near no misses. And amazing scores in 2002-2004, and that basically explains our score.
I have never said making a pick is all skill. I clearly stated there is BOTH skill and luck involved in every single pick outside the 1OA.
Are you claiming there was zero skill involved in the Datsyuk pick? If that's true, then there is zero skill in the entire draft whatsoever. Then why are we even having this discussion? Everything is a crapshoot.
Everything IS a crapshoot. There is an immense amount of luck involved in seeing a Datsyuk drop to your pick. I have never said anything to contradict that.
But if there is ANY drafting skill involved in the process whatsoever, it's in identifying that player once you get to that point.
And at the same time, if there is NO skill involved, then why does anyone pay Hakan Andersson? Just leave the whole damn thing up to a computer.
I mean I am kinda doing a historical take of how we have drafted.
this result does not necessarily take into account how much is luck vs skill (i dont think that can be measured)
I can say we consistently have found players in later rounds almost every year.
I think our next 4-5 years of drafting are much more significantly important to all of us. And also open the door to (statistically) big misses on my score sheet.
I have a feeling our 2011-2015 record is much worse than 2005-2010, but that will take me a little time to redo the redrafts.
If you guys want to doubl check my redrafts, that will also help in accuracy (as much as possible)