What NHL teams have strong/weak drafting

[BinCookin]

Maybe i should re-analyze this with a different value chart (with less spread)

the chart i choose had the most extreme exponential at the start of the draft

 

[BinCookin]

Draft-#	Player	Redraft-#	Overall Score	Schuckers		New Score
17	Curtis Lazar	41	-547	395	206	-189
108	Ben Harpur	56	100	95	178	83
15	Cody Ceci	28	-450	433	283	-150
6	Mika Zibanejad	12	-690	702	507	-195
21	Stefan Noesen	45	-411	336	192	-144
24	Matt Puempel	70	-411	308	173	-135
96	Jean-Gabriel Pageau	27	364	114	291	177
204	Ryan Dzingel	33	283	54	237	183	total
178	Mark Stone	6	1646	68	702	634	264
20	Anthony Mantha	10	420	350	565	215
48	Zach Nastasiuk	78	-106	186	158	-28
58	Tyler Bertuzzi	27	282	176	291	115
79	Mattias Janmark-Nylen	29	303	156	275	119
110	Andreas Athanasiou	24	465	93	308	215
35	Tomas Jurco	49	-101	222	186	-36
205	Alexey Marchenko	62	102	54	176	122
21	Riley Sheahan	33	-305	336	237	-99
51	Calle Jarnkrok	32	151	185	246	61	total
141	Petr Mrazek	27	389	82	291	209	893

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Flowah]

My biggest issue with this line of thinking is not everyone taken in rounds 2-7 have equal chances at becoming an outlier to begin with. FAR from it. I think some guys realistically pretty much have no chance at ever becoming an outlier.

Pavel Datsyuk and Reilly Webb were both 6th rounders. One guy had a chance (even if it's small) at becoming an impact player, whereas Webb has no chance. So to say it's not in a team's control, or it's just all luck, I can't sign off on it regardless of what the numbers say.

"All luck" is pushing it. Overwhelmingly luck? Yes.

There's no good way to gauge who has what chance of becoming an impact player. A scout can say it. Other scouts can disagree. And the scout that says it has no % chance attached to his intuition about the likelihood he develops into an impact player. This is all hindsight. We say this about Pavel because obviously he turned into a star player. If he hadn't it'd be nothing but "just a throwaway 6th rounder."

Right. Obviously.

Of all the thousands of nobody hockey players in the world outside round 5, it OBVIOUSLY took some amount of skill (along with a lot of luck) to find Pavel Datsyuk.

My mind is a little bit blown that this was ever up for debate.

"Obviously."

It's not obvious at all.

You play enough lottery tickets and eventually you'll win. That says nothing about your skill in picking numbers.

You're seeing a result and then saying it must be skill or at least partially skill. That's bogus thinking.

I have a higher hit rate on identifying cancer in people than scouts do in identifying impact players. All I have to do is pick people aged 60+ and say they all have cancer. I'll be wrong most of the time of course, like scouts are wrong most of the time, but I'm going to hit on a lot of them. You need to factor in the wrongs and false positives. You need to see how actually effective I am. Do I have an actual methodology? Is it repeatable? Is it logically consistent?

I think the drafting numbers point to no. League-wide it's half a percent in finding a .75 PPG forward in rounds 2+. Hell it's only 11% in the first round with most of them being from the top 3 picks.

If you're wrong 99.5% of the time, how can you say the .5% of the time that you're right, it's because of your skill?

How about another experiment? What about forwards hitting just a measly .57 PPG? 2.5% leaguewide in rounds 2+. 28 total players out of 1103 picks. Importantly, 10 of them were found in rounds 5 and later. That means in rounds 2-4, team after team passed on these players in favor of lesser players. The vast majority of those teams never drafted a single forward who met that mark with their picks in those rounds.

Yes. I'm sure it's skill.

 

[njx9]

I think that makes more sense. At least now it's a discussion around whether Mrazek is really worth an AA, or if Marchenko is as valuable a pick as Bert, though I'm guessing the value chart is still generally more exponential than linear.

I'm not really sure how to address that, though, given that the first round pick *should* be exponentially more valuable than the 200th pick.

I wonder if there's a way to set up a value system relative to each pick on its own merits, rather than comparing it to where a guy could've/should've gone. Like, value each pick as the average(total number of points * TOI) (or whatever, I'm not thinking through this too hard) for all players taken at that pick over time. So, the first overall pick would, likely, be extremely high, while the last pick would be basically nil. Then, compare each player's points*TOI, and the difference would be their draft score. You might even negate the high and low scores from each slot, to eliminate outliers (Ericsson shouldn't count against every future last pick)?

 

[Henkka]

Maybe i should re-analyze this with a different value chart (with less spread)

the chart i choose had the most extreme exponential at the start of the draft

Imo, it has to be exponential. It will be more and more exponential year after year because everybody is drafting better all the time with sharper analysis.

 

[TheOtherOne]

"All luck" is pushing it. Overwhelmingly luck? Yes.

There's no good way to gauge who has what chance of becoming an impact player. A scout can say it. Other scouts can disagree. And the scout that says it has no % chance attached to his intuition about the likelihood he develops into an impact player. This is all hindsight. We say this about Pavel because obviously he turned into a star player. If he hadn't it'd be nothing but "just a throwaway 6th rounder."



"Obviously."

It's not obvious at all.

You play enough lottery tickets and eventually you'll win. That says nothing about your skill in picking numbers.

You're seeing a result and then saying it must be skill or at least partially skill. That's bogus thinking.

I have a higher hit rate on identifying cancer in people than scouts do in identifying impact players. All I have to do is pick people aged 60+ and say they all have cancer. I'll be wrong most of the time of course, like scouts are wrong most of the time, but I'm going to hit on a lot of them. You need to factor in the wrongs and false positives. You need to see how actually effective I am. Do I have an actual methodology? Is it repeatable? Is it logically consistent?

I think the drafting numbers point to no. League-wide it's half a percent in finding a .75 PPG forward in rounds 2+. Hell it's only 11% in the first round with most of them being from the top 3 picks.

If you're wrong 99.5% of the time, how can you say the .5% of the time that you're right, it's because of your skill?

How about another experiment? What about forwards hitting just a measly .57 PPG? 2.5% leaguewide in rounds 2+. 28 total players out of 1103 picks. Importantly, 10 of them were found in rounds 5 and later. That means in rounds 2-4, team after team passed on these players in favor of lesser players. The vast majority of those teams never drafted a single forward who met that mark with their picks in those rounds.

Yes. I'm sure it's skill.

Damn, man, you really are on a mission from God to disprove common sense.

Ask yourself this: If Hakan Andersson had put every single eligible hockey player in the world into a hat at the time of the pick, and fished one out at random, what are the chances he would be holding Pavel Datsyuk in his hand?

Is it .5%? Is it 10%? Is it .001%?

I don't know the answer, but this is the context you're looking for. Because this number provides a baseline. Without it, your ".5%" is utterly meaningless.

If TRUE randomness gives you a .1% chance, then it takes some amount of skill to increase that to .5%. And then you're only talking about the combined skill of all the scouts in the league. Do some scouts have more skill than others? What is Andersson's %, specifically? Well, even if you calculate it, your number is going to be garbage due to small sample size.

So my hypothetical questions here cannot be answered definitively. In the long run, you may be right in that the skill involved may be negligible. I am being that charitable (from the start), which makes it even weirder that you're so dead-set against my point.

There is absolutely SOME non-zero amount of skill that goes into selecting Pavel Datsyuk out of all the eligible hockey players in the sixth round. As a scientist, I generally go out of my way never to claim something is 100% definitively true. But what the f*** ever- this is 100% definitively true.

EDIT: I mean... honestly... all I need to say is that .5% is 1 in 200. That's actually a pretty damn good chance. "1.64 million people in the world play organized hockey" -sbnation. So yea, OBVIOUSLY, random chance isn't going to get you anywhere near 1 in 200.

 

[Red Stanley]

"All luck" is pushing it. Overwhelmingly luck? Yes.

There's no good way to gauge who has what chance of becoming an impact player. A scout can say it. Other scouts can disagree. And the scout that says it has no % chance attached to his intuition about the likelihood he develops into an impact player. This is all hindsight. We say this about Pavel because obviously he turned into a star player. If he hadn't it'd be nothing but "just a throwaway 6th rounder."



"Obviously."

It's not obvious at all.

You play enough lottery tickets and eventually you'll win. That says nothing about your skill in picking numbers.

You're seeing a result and then saying it must be skill or at least partially skill. That's bogus thinking.

I have a higher hit rate on identifying cancer in people than scouts do in identifying impact players. All I have to do is pick people aged 60+ and say they all have cancer. I'll be wrong most of the time of course, like scouts are wrong most of the time, but I'm going to hit on a lot of them. You need to factor in the wrongs and false positives. You need to see how actually effective I am. Do I have an actual methodology? Is it repeatable? Is it logically consistent?

I think the drafting numbers point to no. League-wide it's half a percent in finding a .75 PPG forward in rounds 2+. Hell it's only 11% in the first round with most of them being from the top 3 picks.

If you're wrong 99.5% of the time, how can you say the .5% of the time that you're right, it's because of your skill?

How about another experiment? What about forwards hitting just a measly .57 PPG? 2.5% leaguewide in rounds 2+. 28 total players out of 1103 picks. Importantly, 10 of them were found in rounds 5 and later. That means in rounds 2-4, team after team passed on these players in favor of lesser players. The vast majority of those teams never drafted a single forward who met that mark with their picks in those rounds.

Yes. I'm sure it's skill.

Could also have to do with the amount of work individual scouting departments and individual scouts put into the later rounds. Some of these numbers might be representative of cutting corners due to being understaffed.

 

[BinCookin]

"I don't think you should lose roughly as many points for overdrafting a redraft 2nd rounder by 10 spots as you gain from drafting a late first rounder in the late second (Bert) or a 2nd rounder (Dzingel) in the 6th."

If you could expand on this thought NJX. Because I was having having trouble wondering exactly what you meant.


I would also like to add one point.

When doing Draft vs ReDraft analysis, there is a factor that is not measured.

A team with many good draft picks is expected to draft many good players
vs
A team with many bad draft picks is expected to draft poorly.

Doing Detroit vs Anyone is a weird result, as we are decidedly the 1/30 teams that has the worst draft picks of any team (until recently, which we are not analyzing).

Ottawa has an underwhelming draft record with semi hitting their #6 OA pick, and 1 late round Superpick in Stone.
Detroit has crappy picks, but generally a very production of NHL talent from that rather bad position.

the score represents: Score vs Expectation. (not who ended up with better players)

If your expectation is high, and you do "medium" (score will be negative)
If your expectation is low, and you perform "medium" (score will be positive)

 

[Flowah]

"1.64 million people in the world play organized hockey" -sbnation. So yea, OBVIOUSLY, random chance isn't going to get you anywhere near 1 in 200.

How many are worth looking at? Not every league is scouted because history has shown some leagues produce better players than others.

If I could send some random f***ing HFBoards poster to scout a KHL team or a Swedish league team what are the chances that out of 200 picks they produce a single elite player? I'd say it's pretty high. And if they get a single one out of 200 picks, they've just done as well as the professional scouts.

Ask yourself this: If Hakan Andersson had put every single eligible hockey player in the world into a hat at the time of the pick, and fished one out at random, what are the chances he would be holding Pavel Datsyuk in his hand?

"Common sense" says that this is the dumbest way of looking at it.

No scout is going to push for a player he hasn't actually watched in person.
No scout can see every single player. They probably can't even watch a thousand players.
Asking about "every single eligible hockey player in the world" is dumb. The 18 year old who signed up for his rec league after going to college is eligible. No one is considering him. There's just a few leagues worldwide that the vast majority of players come from and that's where scouts go. That's your actual "drafting universe."

I say if you put a list of the 200 best PPG players from the best leagues that one of them would turn out to be elite. No watching required. No scouting required. No "skill" required.

 

[Redder Winger]

If Edmonton drafted in rounds 2-7 like Detroit did (say from 1998-2013) , they'd be a cup contender right now.

I wonder what our later round draft will be like under Wright?
Wright's 2nd and beyond draft picks so far have been underwhelming.
Turgeon - Looks like a depth player at best.
Holmstrom - Hard to write him off, because he seemed to have some potential despite his skating. But the injuries have hurt the skating even more.
Ehn - Has a contract, so that's something. But he's 22 and still hasn't played an AHL game in a young man's era.
Saarijarvi - Still so young, but spent a lot of time in the pressbox in GR.
Pearson - Has potential, but he's a project.
Holway - Ditto
Smith - Has a contract, but he's been underwhelming with very little progress since draft day.
Hronek - The one later round pick who's really showed something.
Sambrook - Didn't really take that next step this year after good progress in D+1. But his team wasn't a juggernaut either. Kid's still playing a lot of D in the post-season though. Strange he hasn't been given a contract. Still, he's far from a sure thing.
Larsson - Great year in the USHL. But a long way from being considered a really good prospect.
10 picks last year - And none of them have taken that "wow, there's a potential steal" step. And that's kind of strange.

It's way to early to say Wright is a good or bad drafter.
But so far, there aren't any indications that he's any good outside the top 15.

 

[Dotter]

If Edmonton drafted in rounds 2-7 like Detroit did (say from 1998-2013) , they'd be a cup contender right now.

I wonder what our later round draft will be like under Wright?
Wright's 2nd and beyond draft picks so far have been underwhelming.
Turgeon - Looks like a depth player at best.
Holmstrom - Hard to write him off, because he seemed to have some potential despite his skating. But the injuries have hurt the skating even more.
Ehn - Has a contract, so that's something. But he's 22 and still hasn't played an AHL game in a young man's era.
Saarijarvi - Still so young, but spent a lot of time in the pressbox in GR.
Pearson - Has potential, but he's a project.
Holway - Ditto
Smith - Has a contract, but he's been underwhelming with very little progress since draft day.
Hronek - The one later round pick who's really showed something.
Sambrook - Didn't really take that next step this year after good progress in D+1. But his team wasn't a juggernaut either. Kid's still playing a lot of D in the post-season though. Strange he hasn't been given a contract. Still, he's far from a sure thing.
Larsson - Great year in the USHL. But a long way from being considered a really good prospect.
10 picks last year - And none of them have taken that "wow, there's a potential steal" step. And that's kind of strange.

It's way to early to say Wright is a good or bad drafter.
But so far, there aren't any indications that he's any good outside the top 15.

This is in just a few short years tho-

Go back to 2010 - 2013 under Jim Nill. That's the true definition of underwhelming. One single pick (Larkin) already out-produces what the previous scouts did in that 3 year span. And I read Svech and RAM might be on the team next season. Back in the Jim Nill era they didn't start players in the NHL until they were 24. Then again, this is the first time DRWs had a top 10 pick in like 30 years or whatever.

We can go back and thank the heavenley Stars Jim Nill is gone, but it's wayyyy too early to judge Wright just yet. So far, I like his track record based on the Larkin pick alone. He bought his graces with me on just that pick alone. In 10 years from now, we can go back and analyze Tyler Wright. It's unfair to (W)right now. )

 

[Redder Winger]

This is in just a few short years tho-

Go back to 2010 - 2013 under Jim Nill. That's the true definition of underwhelming. One single pick (Larkin) already out-produces what the previous scouts did in that 3 year span. And I read Svech and RAM might be on the team next season. Back in the Jim Nill era they didn't start players in the NHL until they were 24. Then again, this is the first time DRWs had a top 10 pick in like 30 years or whatever.

We can go back and thank the heavenley Stars Jim Nill is gone, but it's wayyyy too early to judge Wright just yet. So far, I like his track record based on the Larkin pick alone. He bought his graces with me on just that pick alone. In 10 years from now, we can go back and analyze Tyler Wright. It's unfair to (W)right now. )

2010 to 13 wasn't bad.
2010
Sheahan -Decent pick at 21
Jarnkrok - Great pick at 51.
Pulkkinen - good puck at 114
Mrazek - Great pick at 141.

2011
Jurco - Not bad at 34
XO - Good at 48
Sproul - OK at 55
Quine - never signed, but decent pick at 85
Marchenko - Great pick at 205

2012
Frk - Decent pick at 49
AA - Great pick at 110

2013
Mantha - Good at 20
Bertuzzi - Looks real good at 58
Janmark- Very good at 79

If you think this is awful, you're going to be disappointed in Wright.

 

[Redder Winger]

Detroit vs Edmonton, from 1998 to 2013,
Drafted at 50 and beyond

Detroit ------ vs Edmonton
Datsyuk ------ Horcoff
Zetterberg -- Comrie
Hudler ------- Lombardi
Filppula ------ Markkanen
Fleischmann - Brodziak
Ericsson ----- JF Jacques
Howard ------ Stortini
Quincey ----- Reddox
Franzen ----- Vandeveld
Helm -------- Peckham
Andersson -- B Davidson
Nyquist ----- T Rieder
Tatar -------- Slepyshev
Nestrasil
Jensen
Jarnkrok
Mrazek
Marchenko
Athanasiou
Bertuzzi
Janmark

 

[Flowah]

Back in the Jim Nill era they didn't start players in the NHL until they were 24.

That's because it was the "overripe" era. The "tie goes to the veteran" era. The "we actually made the playoffs" era.

 

[BinCookin]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...8w0CYc2m-QAgM5Y4CXfAlr1r2BekyzeOdyB1i/pubhtml

updated

 

[TheOtherOne]

Alright man i give up, you are smarter than all the scouts and all the people who hire scouts and all the advisors who keep this system running.

 

[Flowah]

Alright man i give up, you are smarter than all the scouts and all the people who hire scouts and all the advisors who keep this system running.

The last gasp of a man who knows he's wrong but can't admit it and can only make a snarky response in reply.

Again, people hire financial advisors for thousands of dollars in fees when study after study shows that the vast majority of them can't outperform an index fund. Supposedly savvy people with lots of money, throwing it away on nonsense. You're deluding yourself if you think just because someone pays someone money to do something it's money well spent on a venture that works. Your entire argument is distilled as "surely all the scouts can't be wrong!" But you haven't shown that some scouts actually do repeatedly better than others for reasons related to their methodology.

 

[TheOtherOne]

The last gasp of a man who took too long to figure out he's trying to argue with a brick wall.

 

[njx9]

"I don't think you should lose roughly as many points for overdrafting a redraft 2nd rounder by 10 spots as you gain from drafting a late first rounder in the late second (Bert) or a 2nd rounder (Dzingel) in the 6th."

If you could expand on this thought NJX. Because I was having having trouble wondering exactly what you meant.

Basically, in one case, you pick a guy ten spots too high and it costs you 100 points (just an example). In this case, it wasn't even #1 OVR to #10, it was like, #21 to #33 or so. In the next, you draft a guy who should've gone #27 at #58 (gaining you about 100 points), or you draft a guy who should've gone #35 at #200 and gain like, 101 points.

The first case shouldn't negate either of the second. Especially at that point in the 1st, missing by 10 spots means you're still likely getting an NHL player but that you weren't expecting to get or expected to get an elite player.

If your expectation is high, and you do "medium" (score will be negative)
If your expectation is low, and you perform "medium" (score will be positive)

Snipped for brevity, but I think that this makes sense in round 1. If I'm drafting in the top 10 consistently, I should be expected to 'draft well' and get a lot of players for those picks. But once you leave the 1st, it's sort of irrelevant. If a guy is drafted at #210 or #230 is, honestly, pretty irrelevant, if he should've gone at #5. It was a fantastic pick, either way. Taking the #12 guy at #6 should cost more than taking the #20 guy at #15, but not to the point that it negates similar late round drafting.

 

[BinCookin]

The last gasp of a man who took too long to figure out he's trying to argue with a brick wall.

You guys are arguing a point... And I am pretty sure that my results would provide evidence to argue with.

Basically, in one case, you pick a guy ten spots too high and it costs you 100 points (just an example). In this case, it wasn't even #1 OVR to #10, it was like, #21 to #33 or so. In the next, you draft a guy who should've gone #27 at #58 (gaining you about 100 points), or you draft a guy who should've gone #35 at #200 and gain like, 101 points.

The first case shouldn't negate either of the second. Especially at that point in the 1st, missing by 10 spots means you're still likely getting an NHL player but that you weren't expecting to get or expected to get an elite player.



Snipped for brevity, but I think that this makes sense in round 1. If I'm drafting in the top 10 consistently, I should be expected to 'draft well' and get a lot of players for those picks. But once you leave the 1st, it's sort of irrelevant. If a guy is drafted at #210 or #230 is, honestly, pretty irrelevant, if he should've gone at #5. It was a fantastic pick, either way. Taking the #12 guy at #6 should cost more than taking the #20 guy at #15, but not to the point that it negates similar late round drafting.

I see what you are saying. But I think the scale is a good control for this.

If you have the #2 overall pick, and you take (10 yrs later consensus) the 7th best player in that draft. You didn't do very well. But it also means you probably missed out on a superstar. this may seem like a small mistake, but is actually a big one. (Example JVR was a #2 OA pick. He is an OK player, But that team missed out on Benn, Subban, Voracek, McDonagh, Couture, Pacioretty, Simmonds, turris and Shattenkirk.) According to the chart this is a -1600 pt mistake.

Jamie Benn i have redrafted #2 but originally picked #129, for a positive score of 2600-15.6 (+2584.4)

PK Subban in the 2nd round (43) redrafted #3 was a 2250-191 (+2061) move.

Basically If i team picked (#2)JVR and (#43)Subban in one year. JVR would be a miss and Subban would be a hit. But overall the team would have been very happy with the result (Subban effectively picked with a high pick) and a solid 1st round selection with the 2nd pick. And this is how the core works out +400.

Also realize that if a team like Pittsburgh takes Malkin and Crosby 2 drafts in a row with #1 and #2 picks... thy get a score of roughly 0... as they were expected to draft that well.

So this really is a measure of how well you are drafting VS expected results.

If you score highly, its not just about the players, its about you finding players when you should be busting.
And if you score lower, it means you are not doing as well as you should.

Here are the Last 5 years (2011-2015 results)

Anaheim // tb // wpg // Bos are all great teams, drafting good players well above where they should be drafted.
this result shows why these 4 teams are really good, while none of them have been getting a lot of super low picks in those years.

While Dal / Buf / Edm / NYI have been drafting poorly. Meaning they are getting much less talent than they should be considering their drafting position.


Note a team like toronto does not score highly, because they are drafting well WHILE also picking really highly. I.e. they are matching their expectations.

this is not a scale of who has the best players at the end of the draft.
It is a scale of who has done better than they should have!

Score 2011-2015
ANA	5240
TB	3891
WPG	3776
BOS	2648
NSH	1823
STL	1740
PIT	1408
LAK	1403
DET	1245
WSH	1220
CHI	1075
NYR	811
PHI	438
TOR	421
VGK	0
NJ	-26
SJ	-46
VAN	-489
CAL	-516
CAR	-595
COL	-724
FLA	-824
CLB	-1185
MIN	-1223
OTT	-1752
ARI	-2132
MTL	-2193
DAL	-3284
BUF	-3586
EDM	-3867
NYI	-3887

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[njx9]

I think that makes sense at the top of the draft. But again, getting #33 at #21 isn't a big or painful miss. But getting #27 at #200 or whatever is a HUGE hit. They shouldn't have been roughly equivalent.

To the second, I get it, I really do. But I think getting an elite player super late and just missing on your high pick is still more effective drafting, relative to your position, than taking a bunch of mediocre players who barely outperform their draft position. I dunno - getting positive points for Marchenko is fine - he outperformed expectations for his draft spot, after all. But he's out of the NHL at this point, so getting more points for him than for Bert, for instance, seems off. Ultimately, he wasn't really a very good draft pick, at all.

 

[BinCookin]

Well for your specific examples here was my score:

Marchenko 205th --> 62nd spot (+101 pts)
Bertuzzi 58th--> 27th (+282 pts)

So Bert was nearly 3 Fold better than Marchenko as a pick. (I.e. Marchenko is not scored higher than Bert on my scoring system, not even close).

Sheahan is the 21st --> 33rd (-305) Is maybe what you wanted to compare to Bertuzzi.

In this case Picking Sheahan at #21, and in retrospect realizing he is an early 2nd rounder
is about equal with taking Bertuzzi late in the 2nd round, and turning out to be a late 1st round pick.

If we went with players at #21 in other years. this would translate to (redrafted):

2015 - Dermott
2014 - Perlini
2013 - Pulock
2012 - Matheson
2011 - Boone Jenner
2010 - Brock Nelson(21) Spooner(22) Gudbransson(23) (Sheahans year)
2009 - Kyle Palmieri

I would say the score gets more and more important as you move up the list.
So ya Missing on Sheahan is a decent size (small miss)
at least equal to Bertuzzi hitting (small hit).

 

[TheOtherOne]

You guys are arguing a point... And I am pretty sure that my results would provide evidence to argue with.

Not sure what you mean, but the only way to realistically "prove" i am right would be to provide a reasonable estimate of the total number of realistic potential picks at a given draft position. If that number is higher than 200, i win definitively. If it's lower than 200 it's still up in the air because that's all professional scouts as a whole. An individual scout would have to make hundreds of late round picks for that statistic to be meaningful.

 

[Redder Winger]

Well for your specific examples here was my score:

Marchenko 205th --> 62nd spot (+101 pts)
Bertuzzi 58th--> 27th (+282 pts)

So Bert was nearly 3 Fold better than Marchenko as a pick. (I.e. Marchenko is not scored higher than Bert on my scoring system, not even close).

Sheahan is the 21st --> 33rd (-305) Is maybe what you wanted to compare to Bertuzzi.

In this case Picking Sheahan at #21, and in retrospect realizing he is an early 2nd rounder
is about equal with taking Bertuzzi late in the 2nd round, and turning out to be a late 1st round pick.

If we went with players at #21 in other years. this would translate to (redrafted):

2015 - Dermott
2014 - Perlini
2013 - Pulock
2012 - Matheson
2011 - Boone Jenner
2010 - Brock Nelson(21) Spooner(22) Gudbransson(23) (Sheahans year)
2009 - Kyle Palmieri

I would say the score gets more and more important as you move up the list.
So ya Missing on Sheahan is a decent size (small miss)
at least equal to Bertuzzi hitting (small hit).

Looking at the Sheahan draft I struggle to call him a "miss."
Yeah, I wanted Kuznetsov -- before they drafted Sheahan and after they drafted him.

But here are 10 guys drafted behind Sheahan.
Tinordi, Pysyk, K Hayes, Howden, Kuznetsov, Visentin, Coyle, Etem, Nelson, Putlik.

How many of those guys are flat out better than Sheahan?
Kuznetsov.
Nelson.
Hayes.
Pitlick.
Coyle.

So about half.

even the six guys before him. Only Tarasenko and Bjugstad are clearly better.

 

[njx9]

Well for your specific examples here was my score:

Marchenko 205th --> 62nd spot (+101 pts)
Bertuzzi 58th--> 27th (+282 pts)

So Bert was nearly 3 Fold better than Marchenko as a pick. (I.e. Marchenko is not scored higher than Bert on my scoring system, not even close).

Sorry, I'm getting my comparisons all mixed up. I should've just looked back at your value chart.

In the original, Bert and Dzingel are essentially the same value, in spite of the fact that Dzingel was a much better steal from ~200 to 33.

I think I'm also looking at the 'new' score column in some cases, and then mixing it with comments about other players, which is probably leading to a lack of clarity. In this case, I'd say:

I think the old scoring is really off-balance. The new scoring is closer, but I think overly punitive at the top end (Zibanejad), and not giving enough at the bottom (Dzingel/Stone). If we want to leave Wings comparisons out entirely, the Pageau/Dzingel scores reflect my complaint, I think.

If this is still unclear, let me know and I'll start fresh. I'm starting to feel like I'm confusing myself.

In this case Picking Sheahan at #21, and in retrospect realizing he is an early 2nd rounder
is about equal with taking Bertuzzi late in the 2nd round, and turning out to be a late 1st round pick.

If we went with players at #21 in other years. this would translate to (redrafted):

2015 - Dermott
2014 - Perlini
2013 - Pulock
2012 - Matheson
2011 - Boone Jenner
2010 - Brock Nelson(21) Spooner(22) Gudbransson(23) (Sheahans year)
2009 - Kyle Palmieri

I would say the score gets more and more important as you move up the list.
So ya Missing on Sheahan is a decent size (small miss)
at least equal to Bertuzzi hitting (small hit).

I think Flowah posted ppg/draft pick valuations at some point, that reflect the vastly lowered chance of getting an NHL player the further down the draft you go. As such, I think that only missing your value by 10 at the bottom 1/3 of the first is not as big a deal as making up an entire round's worth of picks at the end of the 2nd. However, I have no idea how to value that in a replicable way.