Best Drafting Teams in the NHL

[Habs Halifax]

I think the "draft power" is too heavily weighted...and makes teams like Buffalo, Edmonton, NY Rangers, New Jersey appear too poorly and teams like Pittsburgh and Washington appear too strong.

Also, model favors offensive d-man.

If you have a 1st OA pick or a top 10 pick, it should be weighted high. And if you don't get a hit, you get penalized for it. I don't agree with you on that one. However, see below... repost what you feel is a better weight formula? Look at the Oilers when they had all those 1st and and top 10 picks. They deserve to be penalized for it. Same with the Habs with KK if he continues to be meh. You don't get to have a high pick and not get a negative for it.

Draft Power Formula: #1 OA(x100) + 2-5(x50) + 6-10(x25) + 11-31(x15) + 32-75(x5) + 76-125(x2) + 126-224(x1)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

As far as the offensive D-men, that is fair but what scoring category we going to use for defensive D-men? I don't hate +/- but I also don't think there is of any value to use that. So do you have any ideas? I won't be able to update quickly but I can try to factor in future reports.

 

[Habs Halifax]

New Data is in and I altered things a bit due to some of the ideas posted in previous threads. This includes Goalies and I will post again to show the same format but without goalies factored in.

Same format of reporting but this time goalie wins and saves are removed from the rating score formula. Just to show us how things move around in team rankings.

 

[Eggtimer]

I don’t think the Devils have EVER been seen as even having one good draft year let alone mentioned as the best drafting team in general. Post cap era until Fitz took over has been garbage and almost embarrassing. Bratt and Sharangovich were nice finds but that has been more recent. Lou and Conte were perhaps the worst in n the league for about a decade

 

[SlafCaufield]

Habs

 

[Kingfan1967]

Draft Power Formula: #1 OA(x100) + 2-5(x50) + 6-10(x25) + 11-31(x15) + 32-75(x5) + 76-125(x2) + 126-224(x1)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

As far as the offensive D-men, that is fair but what scoring category we going to use for defensive D-men? I don't hate +/- but I also don't think there is of any value to use that. So do you have any ideas? I won't be able to update quickly but I can try to factor in future reports.

Perhaps factor time on ice for D-men , penalty kill time , that might help
identify defensive d-men.

 

[Kingsfan1]

Tampa
Carolina
Anaheim
Otttawa
Kings (TBD)

in no order

 

[LeProspector]

I think the "draft power" is too heavily weighted...and makes teams like Buffalo, Edmonton, NY Rangers, New Jersey appear too poorly and teams like Pittsburgh and Washington appear too strong.

Also, model favors offensive d-man.

Agreed, draft power should only be applied to the first round

 

[Trojans86]

Tampa
Carolina
Anaheim
Otttawa
Kings (TBD)

in no order

Kings look good on paper buy really havent hit any home runs yet. Not saying they wont but i cant give them credit til some of these guys start panning out. This may be the year though.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Perhaps factor time on ice for D-men , penalty kill time , that might help
identify defensive d-men.

Those things were on my mind as well but that's a whole new layer of stat tracking and I'm a one man show. Anybody interested in doing this as a team? I'm pretty good at creating excel formulas and structure but I'd have to scratch my head for a while to incorporate those deeper stats. When I did goalies, I used saves vs save % cause save % has to be quantified (one example where I was pondering the right and quicker way to do it).

Do you think the defensive stats added would skew the rankings that much? I'm not too sure it would but it would be a shit load of time to gather the data to find out. Interested but limited with time. The other thing I want to do first is evaluate each draft year and see how the talent and production vary. Then we can factor that into a teams draft power. It's not really fair when you have the 1st OA pick and it's McDavid and then the Devils get Hischier who is good but not a star like McDavid. This area is something I'm more interested in

 

[Kingsfan1]

Kings look good on paper buy really havent hit any home runs yet. Not saying they wont but i cant give them credit til some of these guys start panning out. This may be the year though.

I can agree . I wanted to specify similar statement when i made the post but didnt . I like some of the picks in the later rounds . We will see in few years but the other teams definitely have been great. Im surprised by how good the Sens and Ducks really are at drafting if you look into it

 

[golgoXIII]

Trevor Timmins Nightmare never ending ....

 

[acrobaticgoalie]

Habs

Lol wrong.
2008-present they haven't had too many hits.
Montreal Canadiens Draft History at hockeydb.com

 

[Blacephalon]

Habs

This thread is for the best drafting teams, not the worst

 

[Djp]

System is flawed and biased.

you score a pick based on how the players career has been.top line, middles 6, 4th line, top D 2-3, 4-5, 6-7.

Thrn you factor in where they are drafted and expectation

top 5
6-12
13-22
23-50
51-75
75-100
100-150
151+

Games

under 100
Under 200
202-499
500+


If a player was a low pick and is solid top 6/top 4 that us a big success and a team gets bonus points beyond the fact they made 100 nhl games

top 23 picks are penalized if not a top 6/top 4/ strong 3rd line def center.

 

[Habs Halifax]

System is flawed and biased.

you score a pick based on how the players career has been.top line, middles 6, 4th line, top D 2-3, 4-5, 6-7.

Thrn you factor in where they are drafted and expectation

top 5
6-12
13-22
23-50
51-75
75-100
100-150
151+

Games

under 100
Under 200
202-499
500+


If a player was a low pick and is solid top 6/top 4 that us a big success and a team gets bonus points beyond the fact they made 100 nhl games

top 23 picks are penalized if not a top 6/top 4/ strong 3rd line def center.

1) It's the same rules applied equally to each team so not so flawed.

2) The top 6, top 4D part was taken out of the latest release. Post 143 and 152. Even in the 1st release, the top teams we thought were good at drafting ended up at the top.

If the Habs ended up the best drafting team, you might have a case it is flawed. But when you look at the rankings in each span of years, it falls in line with what most fans believe so not so flawed after all . I honestly don't think you understand it and you didn't spend enough time reviewing the data. It's probably too complicated for you

 

[Djp]

1) It's the same rules applied equally to each team so not so flawed.

2) The top 6, top 4D part was taken out of the latest release. Post 143 and 152. Even in the 1st release, the top teams we thought were good at drafting ended up at the top.

If the Habs ended up the best drafting team, you might have a case it is flawed. But when you look at the rankings in each span of years, it falls in line with what most fans believe so not so flawed after all . I honestly don't think you understand it and you didn't spend enough time reviewing the data. It's probably too complicated for you

point production skews the model.

off defensemen are heavily favored over stronger def D

pointproduction is tied to system played. Off course it’s just like the board in rating point production to grade the p,Ayers value.


If a team picked a high pick early in the time span skews the results.

 

[Habs Halifax]

point production skews the model.

off defensemen are heavily favored over stronger def D

pointproduction is tied to system played. Off course it’s just like the board in rating point production to grade the p,Ayers value.


If a team picked a high pick early in the time span skews the results.

1) It's difficult to evaluate defensive defenseman yes. However, I don't think it skews the overall rankings that much in the end. Those guys still get points and I have a higher weight factor on points for defenseman. Even a guy like Chiarot gets 20 pts but that turns into a higher mark due to weight factor. You are over thinking it and not realizing that the overall end result is miniscule factors. At the end of the day, offensive D men are worth more than defensive ones and both get points for games played. There are not many guys like Gostisbehere who has put up points but sucks on D. Most guys that put up points are average (worse case) on the D end.

2) Point production and games played are factors yes. Not sure what your point is on that? If you draft a guy who makes the NHL but is a 4th liner, you should get more points than a bust who don't play any NHL games. You need to clarify your comment on that one

3) If you have a high draft power and you don't hit (Oilers with all those 1st over picks for example), you will get penalized. It's designed that way on purpose.

Look at the final rankings in any of the range of years. Does it look off to you in terms of what teams we felt were the better drafting teams? I think it looks legit so this system is just numbers to support it. So I don't agree with your nit picking.

The one area I value is draft power and if teams over accomplish vs under accomplish based on their draft power. It's a different approach than what we have seen but it's a fair system. Same rules applied equally to all teams

 

[Djp]

1) It's difficult to evaluate defensive defenseman yes. However, I don't think it skews the overall rankings that much in the end. Those guys still get points and I have a higher weight factor on points for defenseman. Even a guy like Chiarot gets 20 pts but that turns into a higher mark due to weight factor. You are over thinking it and not realizing that the overall end result is miniscule factors. At the end of the day, offensive D men are worth more than defensive ones and both get points for games played. There are not many guys like Gostisbehere who has put up points but sucks on D. Most guys that put up points are average (worse case) on the D end.

2) Point production and games played are factors yes. Not sure what your point is on that? If you draft a guy who makes the NHL but is a 4th liner, you should get more points than a bust who don't play any NHL games. You need to clarify your comment on that one

3) If you have a high draft power and you don't hit (Oilers with all those 1st over picks for example), you will get penalized. It's designed that way on purpose.

Look at the final rankings in any of the range of years. Does it look off to you in terms of what teams we felt were the better drafting teams? I think it looks legit so this system is just numbers to support it. So I don't agree with your nit picking.

The one area I value is draft power and if teams over accomplish vs under accomplish based on their draft power. It's a different approach than what we have seen but it's a fair system. Same rules applied equally to all teams

Ypointis I’m a professional data scientist who has developed performance measures.

in hockey points scored over time creates bias relative to the start point of this. For example pittsburgh and Washington and Chicago had multiple top 5 picks who were top 20 in points and ppg. Those high picks skew results giving credit to team scouting when it was f***ing dumb luck they got the high picks when they did.

A strong defensive minded player who might be under 0.5 ppg rate but shuts down opposing top center is just as important.

on the defensive side. A strong shut down Dman us just as important as a o e dimensional off dman. It’s rare you have ones that are both.

which is why I score players based on expectation of what you get when you picked them. Picking top 5 did you get a top line player. Thus us not a redraft of p,Ayers as if they were the best because other factors play out like system fit, injuries, team depth and roles.

with a team with two strong off Dman one likely loses out on PP time where only one on top PP unit which will affect point production. But both are viewed as equally good players but in points by D of which 50% or more come from PP will result in one to clearly have the points edge.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Ypointis I’m a professional data scientist who has developed performance measures.

in hockey points scored over time creates bias relative to the start point of this. For example pittsburgh and Washington and Chicago had multiple top 5 picks who were top 20 in points and ppg. Those high picks skew results giving credit to team scouting when it was f***ing dumb luck they got the high picks when they did.

A strong defensive minded player who might be under 0.5 ppg rate but shuts down opposing top center is just as important.

on the defensive side. A strong shut down Dman us just as important as a o e dimensional off dman. It’s rare you have ones that are both.

which is why I score players based on expectation of what you get when you picked them. Picking top 5 did you get a top line player. Thus us not a redraft of p,Ayers as if they were the best because other factors play out like system fit, injuries, team depth and roles.

with a team with two strong off Dman one likely loses out on PP time where only one on top PP unit which will affect point production. But both are viewed as equally good players but in points by D of which 50% or more come from PP will result in one to clearly have the points edge.

At the end of the day, the final rankings support what most have though on who draft well. You are just nit picking the small details and ignoring how the results support what we pretty much though. I don't believe the results are skewed to the degree you are presenting.

Your Caps and Blackhawks narrative makes no sense. A top 5 pick should get you top 20 in points and PPG. You are just complaining that they should have not had those high picks but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. They got that pick and hit. End of story. How they got the pick has nothing to do with drafting.

Only part of the formula but I need to show you examples cause you are overlooking a lot of factors with your knee jerk nit picking
* A strong shut down Dman will still put up 20 pts (+/-). My factor is (x50) so they get 1000 pts from that in my scoring system
* A strong shut down center will still put up 35 pts (+/-). My factor is (x30) so they get 1050 pts from that in my scoring system.

Basically you are complaining about the difference between 1000 vs 1050 and you don't even realize it cause this data is too complicated for you to understand... unless you take the time to understand it

It would only be skewed if the final rankings showed teams up near the top that should not be there. Keep trying

 

[Habs Halifax]

Ypointis I’m a professional data scientist who has developed performance measures.

in hockey points scored over time creates bias relative to the start point of this. For example pittsburgh and Washington and Chicago had multiple top 5 picks who were top 20 in points and ppg. Those high picks skew results giving credit to team scouting when it was f***ing dumb luck they got the high picks when they did.

A strong defensive minded player who might be under 0.5 ppg rate but shuts down opposing top center is just as important.

on the defensive side. A strong shut down Dman us just as important as a o e dimensional off dman. It’s rare you have ones that are both.

which is why I score players based on expectation of what you get when you picked them. Picking top 5 did you get a top line player. Thus us not a redraft of p,Ayers as if they were the best because other factors play out like system fit, injuries, team depth and roles.

with a team with two strong off Dman one likely loses out on PP time where only one on top PP unit which will affect point production. But both are viewed as equally good players but in points by D of which 50% or more come from PP will result in one to clearly have the points edge.

Lets look at Danault, Brodin, McDavid, Carlson, Bergeron, Hedman, Price, Vasilevskiy: The point you are trying to make here is the weighted factors should be tinkered with (like 30 for forwards and 50 for D for example). But what you fail to realize is these don't skew the final team rankings as much as you think they do. Trust me, I played with it for a bit to see how the results would vary and a few teams move up and down but nothing substantial. The better drafting teams we orginally thought always rise to the top of the rankings. This new system pretty much verifies the subjective expert opinions on who the better drafting teams are. What it does not factor in is GM management (Trades and UFA signings).

However, if you want to provide different weighted factors in the formula below, let me know and I'll adjust them. Then I'll repost the new rankings to show you how things move around. Take the two formulas below and show me your weighted factors you would like to see? And what range of years you want to look at. The goalie weights appear to be low after posting this.

Draft Power Formula: #1 OA(x100) + 2-5(x50) + 6-10(x25) + 11-31(x15) + 32-75(x5) + 76-125(x2) + 126-224(x1)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Rating Score Formula: Games(x1) + Goalie Wins(x25) + Goalie Saves(x0.25) + Forward Pts(x30) + Defense Pts(x50) / Draft Power

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Danault (Last 3 seasons):
* 205 games played. 205 x 1 = 205 pts
* 124 pts. 124 x 30 = 3720 pts
* Total value = 3925

Brodin (Last 3 seasons):
* 204 games played. 205 x 1 = 204 pts
* 69 pts. 69 x 50 = 3450 pts
* Total value = 3654

McDavid (Last 3 seasons):
* 198 games played. 205 x 1 = 198 pts
* 318 pts. 318 x 30 = 9540 pts
* Total value = 9738

Carlson (Last 3 seasons):
* 201 games played. 201 x 1 = 201 pts
* 189 pts. 189 x 50 = 9450 pts
* Total value = 9651

Bergeron (Last 3 seasons):
* 180 games played. 180 x 1 = 180 pts
* 183 pts. 183 x 30 = 5490 pts
* Total value = 5670

Hedman (Last 3 seasons):
* 190 games played. 190 x 1 = 190 pts
* 154 pts. 154 x 50 = 7700 pts
* Total value = 7890

*** Looks like the goalie stats weights are a bit low but we have to remember, it's equally applied to all goalies on all teams. Vasi is ahead of Price by a fair amount and that's how it should be

Price (Last 3 seasons):
* 149 games played. 149 x 1 = 149 pts
* 74 wins. 74 x 25 = 1850 pts
* 3980 saves. 3980 x 0.25 = 995 pts
* Total value = 2994

Vasilevskiy (Last 3 seasons):
* 147 games played. 1497x 1 = 147 pts
* 105 wins. 105 x 25 = 2625 pts
* 4201 saves. 4201 x 0.25 = 1050 pts
* Total value = 3822

 

[Djp]

At the end of the day, the final rankings support what most have though on who draft well. You are just nit picking the small details and ignoring how the results support what we pretty much though. I don't believe the results are skewed to the degree you are presenting.

Your Caps and Blackhawks narrative makes no sense. A top 5 pick should get you top 20 in points and PPG. You are just complaining that they should have not had those high picks but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. They got that pick and hit. End of story. How they got the pick has nothing to do with drafting.

Only part of the formula but I need to show you examples cause you are overlooking a lot of factors with your knee jerk nit picking
* A strong shut down Dman will still put up 20 pts (+/-). My factor is (x50) so they get 1000 pts from that in my scoring system
* A strong shut down center will still put up 35 pts (+/-). My factor is (x30) so they get 1050 pts from that in my scoring system.

Basically you are complaining about the difference between 1000 vs 1050 and you don't even realize it cause this data is too complicated for you to understand... unless you take the time to understand it

It would only be skewed if the final rankings showed teams up near the top that should not be there. Keep trying

your weighting system is highly skewed in favor of more games played and higher point producers on very good teams since 2008.

look at team total wins in the same period and your rankings. They are going to be highly correlated

when on avg do players retire? If you happen to have drafted a very good player who career lasted 15+ years you are getting skewed scoring. This gives advantage to washington and Pittsburgh


Basically two goalie careers. They are equally good but one played most of career on a good team. Good team has nothing to do with evaluating players.

you also aren’t factoring in injury shortened careers. For example,e Buffalo drafted a player who had a bad knee injury that ended his career before it even started.

 

[majormajor]

McDavid (Last 3 seasons):
* 198 games played. 205 x 1 = 198 pts
* 318 pts. 318 x 30 = 9540 pts
* Total value = 9738

Carlson (Last 3 seasons):
* 201 games played. 201 x 1 = 201 pts
* 189 pts. 189 x 50 = 9450 pts
* Total value = 9651

Bergeron (Last 3 seasons):
* 180 games played. 180 x 1 = 180 pts
* 183 pts. 183 x 30 = 5490 pts
* Total value = 5670

Hedman (Last 3 seasons):
* 190 games played. 190 x 1 = 190 pts
* 154 pts. 154 x 50 = 7700 pts
* Total value = 7890

This just seems intuitively wrong.

John Carlson should be the 4th most valuable player on this list, not pushing McDavid for #1.

You obviously need some kind of adjustment for defensemen but giving their points extra weight is not the way to do it. Points should be points (same for D & F) and defensive quality (for both D & F) should get extra weight.

It seems to me that there are already many models out there that do a great job at comparing the value of players. If we want to assess drafting, we should just use those.

 

[Habs Halifax]

This just seems intuitively wrong.

John Carlson should be the 4th most valuable player on this list, not pushing McDavid for #1.

You obviously need some kind of adjustment for defensemen but giving their points extra weight is not the way to do it. Points should be points (same for D & F) and defensive quality (for both D & F) should get extra weight.

It seems to me that there are already many models out there that do a great job at comparing the value of players. If we want to assess drafting, we should just use those.

Subjective opinions. And I think you miss the point cause this was only a snap shot of a small portion of the overall formula. You say there are other player values and yes there are but there is no master data that ties draft power to actual NHL results. It's a new concept that some really value and others like you are nit picking.

You say D and F should be the same but others said the opposite last time the data was release. I actually agree them them and not you. I feel this adds another layer. Last time I also didn't have goalies and that was a comment by others as well. I added it in as well but provided two posts (one with goalies and one without). I don't believe it skewed the rankings grosely but in some cases teams moved up and down.

Carlson as the 4th most valuable? Not too sure about that one.

What we have seen in the past was fans say this team is the best at drafting and other fans say that team. Well, this data kind of puts it to rest and it's basically what the general consensus thinks overall. It's just collected data that reinforces it more. Checks out and I think you and the other due are missing the point cause you got zoomed in googles on nit picking minor details around the edges.

DRAFT POWER TIED TO NHL PRODUCTION

 

[Habs Halifax]

your weighting system is highly skewed in favor of more games played and higher point producers on very good teams since 2008.

look at team total wins in the same period and your rankings. They are going to be highly correlated

when on avg do players retire? If you happen to have drafted a very good player who career lasted 15+ years you are getting skewed scoring. This gives advantage to washington and Pittsburgh


Basically two goalie careers. They are equally good but one played most of career on a good team. Good team has nothing to do with evaluating players.

you also aren’t factoring in injury shortened careers. For example,e Buffalo drafted a player who had a bad knee injury that ended his career before it even started.

No disrespect but I don't think you understand it entirely so you should take a bit more time. Take a step back and think of the main point... it's draft power tied to NHL results with zero or very little subjective opinions.

* NHL games played gets credit over busts who don't play any NHL games. The area you are overlooking is the depth guys who don't put up a lot of points. You appear to think that this should have zero value. 1 pt for games played is not skewing the system grossly.

* Point produces is a thing in the NHL. Playing on good teams? Yeah, that is a factor but not sure how you weigh that out without using subjective opinions. In case you didn't noticed, I'm trying to eliminate subjective opinions in this data. You seen to want to incorporate more of it. Sorry, I'm steering clear of that

* This is not some star or top of the line-up type approach only. It rewards those guys but it also gives little points to other guys who are bottom of the line-up. It all adds up and you have to consider the span of years. I only was able to do it from 08-21 so far.

* With the goalies, I posted two results. One with goalies and one without. So you can see the difference in rankings. Looks like you missed that

* Injury shortened careers? FFS, how do you quantify that into data without subjective opinions? You can't.

I WILL ASK YOU TWO QUESTIONS AGAIN CAUSE YOU ARE AVOIDING IT AND I'M NOT AVOIDING YOUR POINTS (I'M REPLYING TO THEM). SO IF YOU WANT A GENUINE CONVERSATION, LETS MAKE IT A TWO WAY STREET, NOT A ONE WAY.

1) Look at the final rankings. You are throwing tons of little nit picks but I've asked you several times. Does the final rankings look out of place to you? Doesn't that give you some sort of indication that this system verifies what the general consensus believes? I think you are overlooking this cause you got nit picking googles on. Look at the 08-21 or 08-16 final rankings... I don't think anything looks out of place there.

2) If you don't like the weighted factors, show me what you would like to see and I will repost the data with your weighted factors. Why you ignoring that part? I feel that is disingenuous

 

[Habs Halifax]

I can agree . I wanted to specify similar statement when i made the post but didnt . I like some of the picks in the later rounds . We will see in few years but the other teams definitely have been great. Im surprised by how good the Sens and Ducks really are at drafting if you look into it

Agreed. I kept hearing each team pump up their own but turns out the Sens and Ducks are legit and over a long span of years too. The one area that is interesting to me is what each teams +/- rating is when you compare draft power to NHL results. Look at the Habs for example. It's interesting to see if your team is overachieving or underachieving based on your draft power. Others can nit pick the details around the edges but at the end of the day, the data kind of verifies what the general consensus was with fans as a whole.

Habs (08-11):
* 27th Draft Power
* 28th in Final Rating Score
* (-1)

Habs (12-16):
* 14th Draft Power
* 27th in Final Rating Score
* (-13)

I also have been looking at it more and more and I need a few more tweaks. Looking at the Islanders from 08-11... They deserve a better ranking so I have to tinker with the formula a bit more.