Taking
@Melvin's great work over to this thread for the purposes of continuing this discussion:
I believe I have posted this before. It is a graph illustrating the % of players taken at a given position who have reached 250 NHL games. This is since the beginning of the NHL Draft in the 60's.
Granted, 250 Games is an arbitrary bench mark, but I've done the same sort of analysis with many different values for N games or N points and it makes little difference. Suggest a different one to me if you wish.
With this, we can fit the data (looks like a logarithmic curve) and estimate a true probability for every selection, allowing us to calculate the expected value (EV -
Expected value - Wikipedia) for Benning's drafts by summing the probabilities of getting a player at his picks.
Take for example the 2014 draft:
6th overall pick - 65%
24th - 42%
36 - 36%
66 - 25%
126 - 15%
156 - 11%
186 - 8%
Total Expected Value of the 2014 draft = 2.03
In other words, if drafting players were "random" events, with success probability based on historical averages, we would expect to get around 2 players from this draft who play 250 NHL games.
This is simply the baseline average. Benning's "skill" therefore can be inferred based upon how much better he does than "chance." If he does not get at least 2 players from this draft he has seen below-average results.
So, how about for all of his drafts then, 2014-2018?
I won't break them all down, but he has made 34 selections with a total expected value of 8.27. So this is his baseline. Based on nothing more than where he has been selecting in the draft, we should expect Benning to get around 8 players from the 2014-2018 drafts.
Will he get there? That's up for debate. Virtanen, McCann, Boeser and Pettersson are near-locks, so that gets him halfway there. If Hughes, Juolevi, Forsling and Gaudette make it then he hits that eight. If he gets any more than he has done better than expected, but it's hard to see it being by any sort of significance. Say he gets 10 players, and has thus done better than expected by 1.73. Is that significant enough to be considered a drafting guru and worthy of being the de facto President of an NHL team? You can decide. But these are the facts.
If you are wondering who has had the best expected value from these drafts, Arizona is at 10.25 (41 picks) and Buffalo at 10.21 (37) followed by Philadelphia (10.06/42,) Carolina (10.02/39,) and Toronto (9.75/42) Vancouver is in 8th mostly on the strength of the picks themselves, their actual number of selections (34) is lower than all teams ahead of them. At the low end of the scale you have Nashville (6.33/32,) Minnesota (5.82/33,) Washington (5.45/28,) and Pittsburgh, who is expected to get 4.33 players from their 25 selections.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best and worst drafts in team history, based on my methodology outlined above, with the caveat that many players are still playing:
Top-10:
Year | GM | EV | Result | +/- |
2004 | David Nonis | 0.99 | 4 | 3.01 |
1974 | Phil Maloney | 1.90 | 4 | 2.10 |
1994 | Pat Quinn | 2.10 | 4 | 1.90 |
1995 | Pat Quinn | 1.57 | 3 | 1.43 |
1978 | Jake Milford | 2.83 | 4 | 1.17 |
1981 | Jake Milford | 1.85 | 3 | 1.15 |
1980 | Jake Milford | 1.97 | 3 | 1.03 |
1979 | Jake Milford | 2.03 | 3 | 0.97 |
2001 | Brian Burke | 1.13 | 2 | 0.87 |
1998 | Brian Burke | 2.43 | 3 | 0.57 |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Bottom-10, Benning drafts excluded:
Year | GM | EV | Result | +/- |
1984 | Harold Neale | 2.91 | 1 | -1.91 |
1972 | Bud Poile | 2.85 | 1 | -1.85 |
2002 | Brian Burke | 1.52 | 0 | -1.52 |
1996 | Pat Quinn | 1.46 | 0 | -1.46 |
2011 | Michael Gillis | 1.46 | 0 | -1.46 |
1975 | Phil Maloney | 2.45 | 1 | -1.45 |
2007 | David Nonis | 1.19 | 0 | -1.19 |
2000 | Brian Burke | 1.12 | 0 | -1.12 |
1986 | Jack Gordon | 2.07 | 1 | -1.07 |
1987 | Pat Quinn | 1.97 | 1 | -0.97 |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is 2008 -2013, because Gillis:
Team | Picks | xSuccess | Success | Delta | Z |
OTT | 44 | 9.48 | 13 | 3.52 | 2.69 |
ANA | 45 | 11.05 | 12 | 0.95 | 1.50 |
WSH | 40 | 8.09 | 9 | 0.91 | 1.48 |
TBL | 43 | 10.64 | 11 | 0.36 | 1.23 |
BUF | 48 | 11.23 | 11 | -0.23 | 0.96 |
MIN | 38 | 8.51 | 8 | -0.51 | 0.83 |
SJS | 39 | 6.68 | 6 | -0.68 | 0.75 |
NYR | 35 | 7.70 | 7 | -0.70 | 0.74 |
CAR | 38 | 8.92 | 8 | -0.92 | 0.64 |
WPG | 23 | 5.28 | 4 | -1.28 | 0.47 |
LAK | 43 | 9.39 | 8 | -1.39 | 0.42 |
CBJ | 43 | 10.55 | 9 | -1.55 | 0.35 |
ATL | 25 | 5.77 | 4 | -1.77 | 0.25 |
NYI | 48 | 13.09 | 11 | -2.09 | 0.10 |
STL | 43 | 10.27 | 8 | -2.27 | 0.02 |
NSH | 49 | 10.43 | 8 | -2.43 | -0.06 |
CHI | 52 | 10.60 | 8 | -2.60 | -0.14 |
CGY | 39 | 8.75 | 6 | -2.75 | -0.21 |
NJD | 39 | 7.90 | 5 | -2.90 | -0.27 |
PHI | 36 | 6.97 | 4 | -2.97 | -0.31 |
DET | 43 | 8.29 | 5 | -3.29 | -0.45 |
VAN | 37 | 7.30 | 4 | -3.30 | -0.46 |
FLA | 48 | 12.48 | 9 | -3.48 | -0.54 |
BOS | 37 | 7.93 | 4 | -3.93 | -0.75 |
PHX | 41 | 10.14 | 6 | -4.14 | -0.85 |
COL | 40 | 9.93 | 5 | -4.93 | -1.21 |
TOR | 42 | 9.09 | 4 | -5.09 | -1.28 |
EDM | 49 | 13.17 | 8 | -5.17 | -1.32 |
PIT | 37 | 7.40 | 2 | -5.40 | -1.43 |
DAL | 39 | 9.53 | 4 | -5.53 | -1.48 |
MTL | 40 | 8.93 | 3 | -5.93 | -1.67 |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
I kept Atlanta and Winnipeg separate, because I felt like it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, one more data table, as requested, all Canuck years by GM, with average and standard deviation
GM | EV | Hits | +/- | Z |
Jake Milford | 11.34 | 16.00 | 4.66 | 2.36 |
David Nonis | 4.52 | 6.00 | 1.48 | 0.88 |
Pat Quinn | 22.61 | 23.00 | 0.39 | 0.37 |
Phil Maloney | 6.07 | 6.00 | -0.07 | 0.16 |
Hal Laycoe, | 3.56 | 3.00 | -0.56 | -0.07 |
Jack Gordon | 4.70 | 4.00 | -0.70 | -0.13 |
Brian Burke | 9.79 | 8.00 | -1.79 | -0.64 |
Bud Poile | 8.09 | 6.00 | -2.09 | -0.78 |
Harold Neale | 7.11 | 5.00 | -2.11 | -0.79 |
Michael Gillis | 7.30 | 4.00 | -3.30 | -1.35 |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Average: -0.41
St.Dev: 2.14
Obviously, Benning is currently at the bottom as none of his players have reached 250 games yet. Gillis also suffers from some disadvantage here. Hutton is at 236 games and even Gaunce could potentially get there eventually.