Prospect Info: 95th overall (2017): Vancouver selects D Jack Rathbone | Will he sign?

[Hansen]

Probability of playing in the NHL:

100% - Hughes, Juolevi, Tryamkin (we are going to have a killer left side D)
80% - Woo
50% - Rathbone, Utunen, Brisebois, Brassard

Please provide some sources

 

[Frank Garrett]

He's on the all-medieval-name team with William Lockwood.

 

[Disappointed EP40]

Ok, fair enough. I’m just saying busts with high picks are becoming less likely. Look at a top 10 list from 20 years ago. I’m not actually going to look but I suspect there are more busts than NHL players
Edit. I looked. Ugly lol
1998 NHL Entry Draft Picks at hockeydb.com

This is all nonsense.

 

[ihaveyuidonttouchme]

What are the expectations for Rathbone this year in terms of production?

just looking at their roster, they have
0 Sr
2 3rd yr guy
3 new guy
and 1 1yr guy
so he can showcase himself for a spot in 2nd pp unit or something
5+15 would be a good start

 

[Kryten]

This is all nonsense.

Were you expecting anything else?

 

[iceburg]

Pet peeve of mine is that round drafted is used all the time to calculate the probability of playing in the NHL. The analysis is flawed in the large part because the "round" strategy groups things that aren't really the same. A 32 overall pick should not be the same as a 63 overall pick.
IMO other analyses based on a tighter draft position over multiple drafts are better but these too are flawed. For example, one TSN analysis (Scott Cullen, June 2017) showed that 29% of picks in the range of 31-35 play 100 games in the NHL whereas 41% of picks 41-45 play 100 games in the NHL. Huh??
Bottom line is that it's hard to get into debates about 10-20% differences in probability of success when the error bars are so large. There are many variables that are at play that aren't even being considered in the analyses, a couple of which include developmental league and hockey position (I suspect, for example, that draft position has less of a predictive value for goalies).
For what it's worth according to Cullen's analysis Rathbone has a 23.8% chance of playing 100 games in the NHL base on a tighter range of players drafted 91-100. According to the same analyses Juolevi has 100% chance (players drafted 5th overall).

 

[M2Beezy]

My year old cousin has a 50% chance to make the NHL, dude. Can't miss prospect.

What

 

[krutovsdonut]

Pet peeve of mine is that round drafted is used all the time to calculate the probability of playing in the NHL. The analysis is flawed in the large part because the "round" strategy groups things that aren't really the same. A 32 overall pick should not be the same as a 63 overall pick.
IMO other analyses based on a tighter draft position over multiple drafts are better but these too are flawed. For example, one TSN analysis (Scott Cullen, June 2017) showed that 29% of picks in the range of 31-35 play 100 games in the NHL whereas 41% of picks 41-45 play 100 games in the NHL. Huh??
Bottom line is that it's hard to get into debates about 10-20% differences in probability of success when the error bars are so large. There are many variables that are at play that aren't even being considered in the analyses, a couple of which include developmental league and hockey position (I suspect, for example, that draft position has less of a predictive value for goalies).
For what it's worth according to Cullen's analysis Rathbone has a 23.8% chance of playing 100 games in the NHL base on a tighter range of players drafted 91-100. According to the same analyses Juolevi has 100% chance (players drafted 5th overall).

one of the abiding problems with analytics in hockey is small sample sizes relative to highly variable outcomes. draft round does cover a large range but it does give you a relatively robust sample size. you could maybe divide it into groups of 15 draftees, but the sample size of individual draft position outcomes is too small and yields anomolous results (e.g., 5oa players have a 100% chance).

the cullen analysis is flawed in counting draftees playing 100 games as nhl players. the value of a draft pick is in the chance of yielding an nhl player above replacement level (e.g., better than a player who can readily be signed as a free agent). there is likely no value in drafting a 100 game career guy, or even a 200 game guy.

an important resulting consideration in drafting outcomes is that later round outcomes reflect high risk gambles focussed on the goal of getting above replacement level players. some players are drafted for a single elite skill or for elite skills with a significant red flag. some are drafted for being good at everything but elite at none. the former category are high risk/high reward picks, the latter are low ceiling picks. does it make sense to merge those two types of players when comparing draft round odds? would it be at all surprising to find that the latter category at any given point in the draft has a much higher chance of being at least a replacement player than the former?

 

[iceburg]

one of the abiding problems with analytics in hockey is small sample sizes relative to highly variable outcomes. draft round does cover a large range but it does give you a relatively robust sample size. you could maybe divide it into groups of 15 draftees, but the sample size of individual draft position outcomes is too small and yields anomolous results (e.g., 5oa players have a 100% chance).

the cullen analysis is flawed in counting draftees playing 100 games as nhl players. the value of a draft pick is in the chance of yielding an nhl player above replacement level (e.g., better than a player who can readily be signed as a free agent). there is likely no value in drafting a 100 game career guy, or even a 200 game guy.

an important resulting consideration in drafting outcomes is that later round outcomes reflect high risk gambles focussed on the goal of getting above replacement level players. some players are drafted for a single elite skill or for elite skills with a significant red flag. some are drafted for being good at everything but elite at none. the former category are high risk/high reward picks, the latter are low ceiling picks. does it make sense to merge those two types of players when comparing draft round odds? would it be at all surprising to find that the latter category at any given point in the draft has a much higher chance of being at least a replacement player than the former?

Good post. I agree generally. Cullen's analysis looked at exact draft position in the first round, expanded to an average of 1-5 picks in the middle rounds and 1-10 in the later rounds. Kinda what you were suggesting.
As part of the analysis he also looked at the likelihood of players who "make it" being 4th liners or worse. It rises higher in the later rounds to the mid 90s for the last picks. So, if a player in the 7th round makes it, he has a 95% chance he will be a fringe player - which makes perfect sense. Your emphasis on the differences between players is also a good one, which is why I think Rathbone has a higher chance of making it than his draft position would suggest.

Obviously, in a very general sense, the higher the pick the more likelihood of success. First rounders clearly have a greater chance of making the NHL and sustaining a career. Another factor influencing the percentage is that teams are invested in doing everything they can to have their first rounds picks succeed. I think this factor is reflected, at least in part, in the higher percentages of the last few picks in the first round vs the first few picks in the second round. Once you get to the 27, 28th, 29th picks there are typically 10-20 players who could arguably be picked in those slots - every teams draft list is very different at that stage. Yet the first few picks in the second round have roughly 10-15% less of a chance to make - again, recognizing the limitations of these "statistics".

 

[VanJack]

My original point is that d-men 'can', and often 'do' , come out of nowhere. Subban, Weber, Chara, Josi or even Edler and Tanev weren't first round picks. Even some of the d-men like Gudbranson and Erik Johnson drafted near the top of the first round, aren't impact d-men. It just seems harder to project 18-year old d-men, which is why some teams avoid them in the top-five altogether.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Good post. I agree generally. Cullen's analysis looked at exact draft position in the first round, expanded to an average of 1-5 picks in the middle rounds and 1-10 in the later rounds. Kinda what you were suggesting.
As part of the analysis he also looked at the likelihood of players who "make it" being 4th liners or worse. It rises higher in the later rounds to the mid 90s for the last picks. So, if a player in the 7th round makes it, he has a 95% chance he will be a fringe player - which makes perfect sense. Your emphasis on the differences between players is also a good one, which is why I think Rathbone has a higher chance of making it than his draft position would suggest.

Obviously, in a very general sense, the higher the pick the more likelihood of success. First rounders clearly have a greater chance of making the NHL and sustaining a career. Another factor influencing the percentage is that teams are invested in doing everything they can to have their first rounds picks succeed. I think this factor is reflected, at least in part, in the higher percentages of the last few picks in the first round vs the first few picks in the second round. Once you get to the 27, 28th, 29th picks there are typically 10-20 players who could arguably be picked in those slots - every teams draft list is very different at that stage. Yet the first few picks in the second round have roughly 10-15% less of a chance to make - again, recognizing the limitations of these "statistics".

the difference may also be post-draft environment. late 1st round picks are generally very good organizations with limited prospects and perhaps better able to be patient and develop players. early second rounders typically go to teams deep in a rebuild with lots of prospects, lacking a strong team structure and in a hurry. this could affect outcomes and explain a divergance.

that raises the excellent question of what the success rate for draft picks is relative to the record of the drafting club on the date they are picked, or for three years after they are picked.

 

[iceburg]

the difference may also be post-draft environment. late 1st round picks are generally very good organizations with limited prospects and perhaps better able to be patient and develop players. early second rounders typically go to teams deep in a rebuild with lots of prospects, lacking a strong team structure and in a hurry. this could affect outcomes and explain a divergance.

that raises the excellent question of what the success rate for draft picks is relative to the record of the drafting club on the date they are picked, or for three years after they are picked.

Great point. There must be a way to analyse that but it's not trivial, mainly because the better teams who have more time to develop players also are picking lower - how do you normalize for draft position in order to compare two development paths head-to-head. Not sure.

One way to do it might be to take all picks 20 to 30. Arguably the differences between the players in that range are relatively small and there is generally not a huge consensus on exact position. In that set, one could look at the development path that gives the greatest chance of success, two factors would be time and league. But, again, the sample set would be small.

...three dimensional plot of points of drafting team, vs success rate of player, vs time to 1st NHL game...hahaha

 

[DonnyNucker]

This is all nonsense.

What a useless post. If you dont agree let’s hear why.

 

[Siludin]

What type of performance are we projecting out of Rathbone at Harvard next year? I have a hard time projecting his play in high school into college, especially because he has played the extra year. Seems like the biggest wildcard the Canucks have in the organization right now.

 

[Melvin]

What a useless post. If you dont agree let’s hear why.

Because it takes time for players to bust and that is the single exact thing that people around here don't seem to understand when they perpetually declare the most recent draft as the best draft ever.

 

[DonnyNucker]

Because it takes time for players to bust and that is the single exact thing that people around here don't seem to understand when they perpetually declare the most recent draft as the best draft ever.

Is Cat boy your alt? My point was that draft picks are more valuable now for two reasons. The salary cap and greater accuracy in picks due to more organizational resources being allocated to scouting and player development. Do you disagree with my points? I have not expressed an opinion on the Canucks most recent draft

 

[bossram]

Pet peeve of mine is that round drafted is used all the time to calculate the probability of playing in the NHL. The analysis is flawed in the large part because the "round" strategy groups things that aren't really the same. A 32 overall pick should not be the same as a 63 overall pick.
IMO other analyses based on a tighter draft position over multiple drafts are better but these too are flawed. For example, one TSN analysis (Scott Cullen, June 2017) showed that 29% of picks in the range of 31-35 play 100 games in the NHL whereas 41% of picks 41-45 play 100 games in the NHL. Huh??
Bottom line is that it's hard to get into debates about 10-20% differences in probability of success when the error bars are so large. There are many variables that are at play that aren't even being considered in the analyses, a couple of which include developmental league and hockey position (I suspect, for example, that draft position has less of a predictive value for goalies).
For what it's worth according to Cullen's analysis Rathbone has a 23.8% chance of playing 100 games in the NHL base on a tighter range of players drafted 91-100. According to the same analyses Juolevi has 100% chance (players drafted 5th overall).

That type of analysis is rightly dumb. Don't look at it.

Something like pGPS or SEAL-adjusted scoring are far more sophisticated for looking at comparables who made the NHL. CanucksArmy uses these tools.

 

[Breakers]

The ECAC should remain a pretty weak conference next year.
Big 10
Hockey East
NCHC
are all better conferences for next year.

Fox is going to remain the PP QB on the first unit, Rathbone should probably get it on the 2nd. Unless they stack the deck.

Jack Drury is a really solid friend for him to be coming on the team with.

 

[Icebreakers]

I'd expect ~ 0.5 ppg because he's a 19 year old with development experience from an NHL team.




Edit: I just checked Harvard's team and it seems like they are pretty good on D with Reilly Walsh who was a third rounder and John Marino who was a 6th rounder . Them and fox produced at ~0.5 ppg and higher. Id expect Walsh to take on more responsibilities as a sophomore cause he had a good freshman year. I wonder how Rathbone will fit in. He is the only left handed shot of the 4 though.

 

[Melvin]

Is Cat boy your alt? My point was that draft picks are more valuable now for two reasons. The salary cap and greater accuracy in picks due to more organizational resources being allocated to scouting and player development. Do you disagree with my points? I have not expressed an opinion on the Canucks most recent draft

The f*** are you talking about?

You said. Quote:

"I’m just saying busts with high picks are becoming less likely. Look at a top 10 list from 20 years ago."

Like if you are looking at a list from 20 years ago then all of the players who were going to bust will have busted by now. Compared to recent drafts where some future busts will not look like busts yet.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

That does it.

I'm opening a casino and inviting everyone from hfCanucks on opening night.

If I have to put up with people who have no idea how statistics or probability work, at least I can get rich doing it.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Google it, i found the stats on TSN. I say 50+ games because that’s what TSN uses as a gauge.

I’ll dig into this tomorrow. But at first glance I find 50 NHL games as a strange gauge of whether or not a first round pick is a bust. 200 games is the normal benchmark. What article or data are you specifically referring to?

 

[Grub]

Please provide some sources

Let the man dream. He’ll know soon enough once he follows prospects for a longer period.

 

[strattonius]

The **** are you talking about?

You said. Quote:

"I’m just saying busts with high picks are becoming less likely. Look at a top 10 list from 20 years ago."

Like if you are looking at a list from 20 years ago then all of the players who were going to bust will have busted by now. Compared to recent drafts where some future busts will not look like busts yet.

Of course that's true but I think he meant that scouting accuracy has improved over the last 20 years.
Sounds about right to me.

 

[Melvin]

Of course that's true but I think he meant that scouting accuracy has improved over the last 20 years.
Sounds about right to me.

Based on what?