Best Drafting Teams in the NHL

[majormajor]

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

Yeah Carlson isn't as valuable as McDavid, I feel comfortable with that one.

WAR is better than a points-based model, and it can just as easily be used to assess drafting. I don't follow that stuff closely but I'd be surprised if it hasn't been done.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Yeah Carlson isn't as valuable as McDavid, I feel comfortable with that one.

WAR is better than a points-based model, and it can just as easily be used to assess drafting. I don't follow that stuff closely but I'd be surprised if it hasn't been done.

I have to tinker with my formulas a bit more and Carlson wasn't as valuable as McDavid in the previous post. Are you saying the gap should be larger?

The other point here to note is McDavid was 1st OA and he's more than holding his value at that spot. Oilers are getting a lot of credit for that pick (easy pick to make) but they get credit. Where the Oilers get negative credit is they had 4 1st OA picks from 08-11 and they would get hit hard with Yakupov. Take that situation and apply it to the Habs... Habs get dinged with the Galchenyuk pick and maybe even more with the KK pick (both 3rd OA picks).

A guy like Carlson was 27thOA and the Caps would get a substantial credit in that case. A lot does depend on where you get the guy. In my system, teams that hit with late 1st, and later picks get more credit and they should!

The entire focus is Draft Power and how that turns into NHL results. If WAR is a better points based model to provide player values, I'm fine with that as long as Draft Power is tied to it.

 

[supsens]

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

That gap gets a lot bigger when the points add up. A 20x more per point is way too high.
Might I suggest you keep 1 OA completely ignored unless someone goes off the board everyone knows who is going first a year in advance and it's luck

 

[Habs Halifax]

That gap gets a lot bigger when the points add up. A 20x more per point is way too high.
Might I suggest you keep 1 OA completely ignored unless someone goes off the board everyone knows who is going first a year in advance and it's luck

I have a different idea for the 1st OA (McDavid vs Yakupov for example) but it will take me weeks/months to gather the data. I plan on putting value to each draft year to monitor how deep each one is. And this won't be before the draft year, it will be after it's set and done. The value here is more about the past after we can look at numbers. There are some trends I am noticing with teams that draft well end up having solid draft power. Exceptions to the rule but the exception is not the rule sort of speak.

My approach is about reducing or eliminating any subjective opinions... like those yearly prospect pool rankings that have a lot of bias and opinions and guess incorporated into them. I have a few more tinkering to do yet before I perfect my data and I welcome some of the critics but as long as it's constructive and not whining. However, some of the ideas put very difficult constrictions to manage into it and forces subjective opinions into it which I will avoid like I said. And I'm only a one man company and I do this for my own personal fun cause it's interesting. The final rankings I see don't look out of place but I do see some situations where the final formulas needs to be tinkered with. This latest data is version 2 and I will keep trying to improve it

The 20 pts spread is not that high IMO. Take it down to very simple. McDavid vs Carlson. 105 pts vs 44 pts end ups 3150 vs 2200. That don't look out of place to me and the reason why it's 30 and 50 is the final numbers are larger than decimals. Remember, I'm diluting the final points totals by the draft power score. If I went with smaller number, the final rating score ends up like 0.05 vs 0.07 for example.

Then I know the comments that are coming.. Carlson vs Hedman. 44 pts vs 45 pts and Hedman should have a higher rating cause he is better in his own zone? That would be fair but I'm struggling at trying to find defensive zone stats to add another layer into it. Going to have to do some brain storming on that before I find something I can fairly incorporate and track accurately

 

[supsens]

It's not deeply flawed if you know how to look at stats and track trends where you realize they will change as time moves forward and you get to see more of a sample size. Look at the Habs for example, we are doing well in the last 4 years but you also have to realize that it's early. I used 10 years and multiple 4 year spans cause it's the most recent and it's applied equally to all teams so there is more value to this than saying the Ducks are the best drafting teams with nothing to back it up other than looking at the Ducks only.

Look at the trends and what you thought previously before looking at my post... What teams near the top don't belong? I think my research confirms what we all thought to begin with

The draft position power is important and I REPEAT, IT'S APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL TEAMS and I have ran various different forms of formulas to find similar results where the typical teams that we think draft well are near the top.

IMO, there is way more value to this than ranking prospect pools where we are all taking guesses on how good or bad certain prospects will be. This is actual results and factual info where there is no opinions. Rules are applied to each team equally

It may be flawed, if I draft the better player there is no formula that should output you being a better drafter if you picked a good player later.
I have not seen how much your final numbers are effected by position but if my guys better my guy is better. You also have the problem of 30 other GM's stealing the guys you want so a boatload of the draft is luck anyway.

 

[Habs Halifax]

It may be flawed, if I draft the better player there is no formula that should output you being a better drafter if you picked a good player later.
I have not seen how much your final numbers are effected by position but if my guys better my guy is better. You also have the problem of 30 other GM's stealing the guys you want so a boatload of the draft is luck anyway.

It's funny though. Before I did all of this, the Caps, Preds, Ducks, Lightning, Sens, Islanders would be considered some of the best drafting teams in the NHL. And then what do you know... after I finished my research, it ends up the same results from what the general consensus were saying all along. Sorry, I think you are nit picking and not understanding the overall value cause you are caught in the weeds. I do expect most of the posters to not comprehend this data well so ask yourself this question, are you one of them or not? It has little wrinkles to iron out yes but the final rating scores don't look out of place so it's closer to being of value vs being flawed grossly.

If you hit with a top 10 pick, you should have hit anyways. If you hit with a 2nd and 3 round pick (Kucherov and Point for example), you should get extra credit for it. I agree with you that there is some luck but you can't calculate that part. So let it go and focus on the trends you can see. The trends I see is teams with high draft power over a span of years, end up doing well. The teams with low draft power and end up doing well are the ones that stand out big time and they deserve credit. You don't get that lucky over a span of 10 or 14 years bud.

One last question? What team do you cheer for? I'm curious

 

[supsens]

It's funny though. Before I did all of this, the Caps, Preds, Ducks, Lightning, Sens, Islanders would be considered some of the best drafting teams in the NHL. And then what do you know... after I finished my research, it ends up the same results from what the general consensus were saying all along. Sorry, I think you are nit picking and not understanding the overall value cause you are caught in the weeds. I do expect most of the posters to not comprehend this data well so ask yourself this question, are you one of them or not? It has little wrinkles to iron out yes but the final rating scores don't look out of place so it's closer to being of value vs being flawed grossly.

If you hit with a top 10 pick, you should have hit anyways. If you hit with a 2nd and 3 round pick (Kucherov and Point for example), you should get extra credit for it. I agree with you that there is some luck but you can't calculate that part. So let it go and focus on the trends you can see. The trends I see is teams with high draft power over a span of years, end up doing well. The teams with low draft power and end up doing well are the ones that stand out big time and they deserve credit. You don't get that lucky over a span of 10 or 14 years bud.

One last question? What team do you cheer for? I'm curious

Im just saying if we have 1 draft pick each and I draft the better player your formula is flawed if it comes out any other way.
And it is also flawed to say I am better if I draft first because I already took the best player and he is no longer available for you to take.
You can talk down to me and insult whoever you want but those are my thoughts on the subject.
You seem to be missing the massive amount of luck involved and yes 2 or 3 lucky years out of 10 would absolutely up your drafting skills and make you look good.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Im just saying if we have 1 draft pick each and I draft the better player your formula is flawed if it comes out any other way.
And it is also flawed to say I am better if I draft first because I already took the best player and he is no longer available for you to take.
You can talk down to me and insult whoever you want but those are my thoughts on the subject.
You seem to be missing the massive amount of luck involved and yes 2 or 3 lucky years out of 10 would absolutely up your drafting skills and make you look good.

This is not just one pick. It's many picks over a span of years. You don't get that lucky over 10-14 years which is the timeline I have data for. You need to let the luck card go cause it's there but not as much as you think. Especially over a long period of time where the same formula rules are applied equally to all teams.

If you have 10 darts and I have 5 and I hit more than you. I'm better at drafting than you no matter where you or I picked.

 

[supsens]

This is not just one pick. It's many picks over a span of years. You don't get that lucky over 10-14 years which is the timeline I have data for. You need to let the luck card go cause it's there but not as much as you think. Especially over a long period of time where the same formula rules are applied equally to all teams.

If you have 10 darts and I have 5 and I hit more than you. I'm better at drafting than you no matter where you or I picked.

Thats not true. Crap teams will give guys 2 or 3 years that can't play on top teams and top teams throw away first rounders.
I also think the scouts and GM's come and go over a 14 year span so you can't just act like your numbers are proof
You are not seeing the luck in draft position or the absolute fluke in later round star players.
Its not some luck its tons