Crunching the Numbers: Why Re-Building is Harder than Ever

[Frk It]

The Oilers mismanaged their high draft picks. They also got really lucky when it counted the most. Call it a combination of the two extremes at work. I'm glad the NHL is moving away from the welfare state that used to be the draft. It goes hand-in-hand with the salary cap they instituted and the parity league they wanted. If some teams scrape bottom for too long, it would point to an organizational problem, rather than a systemic one, but with such a small sample size it's hard to be certain one way or the other just yet.

Yes and no. Most of the people they took at #1 were the consensus #1 ranked guys. I'm pretty confident 90% of the other teams in the league would have taken RNH or Yakupov in the same position. Only exception I can think of was maybe taking Hall over Seguin, but even if we swap that out not sure how much things change.

There is more chance involved than you are willing to concede, not any organization can just "will" or "outsmart" everyone to overcome their circumstances. That's an idealistic way of looking at the situation but not a realistic one, in my opinion. The fact that there is such a strong correlation with the top 3 picks becoming high end players just further proves that teams aren't outsmarting each other like you might think they are. They're all having to resort to the same thing, whether intentional or not, but the only difference is that thing just became a hell of a lot harder to obtain.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

With this Defense they are about to "unleash" on the NHL,
it's a bottom 3 finish potential for sure.

Bottom three? I can't think of a single team with a worse blue line.

 

[StargateSG1]

Yes and no. Most of the people they took at #1 were the consensus #1 ranked guys. I'm pretty confident 90% of the other teams in the league would have taken RNH or Yakupov in the same position. Only exception I can think of was maybe taking Hall over Seguin, but even if we swap that out not sure how much things change.

There is more chance involved than you are willing to concede, not any organization can just "will" or "outsmart" everyone to overcome their circumstances. That's an idealistic way of looking at the situation but not a realistic one, in my opinion. The fact that there is such a strong correlation with the top 3 picks becoming high end players just further proves that teams aren't outsmarting each other like you might think they are. They're all having to resort to the same thing, whether intentional or not, but the only difference is that thing just became a hell of a lot harder to obtain.

In the Yakupov draft, they should definitely have drafted Defense.
They butchered a lot of these high picks, plain and simple.
Sometimes you need to draft for "need"

 

[StargateSG1]

Bottom three? I can't think of a single team with a worse blue line.

For sure.
And to add insult to injury, they the are most expensive combined cap hit for D in the league.
That alone, in my mind, should be enough reason to fire Kenny.

 

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

Yes and no. Most of the people they took at #1 were the consensus #1 ranked guys. I'm pretty confident 90% of the other teams in the league would have taken RNH or Yakupov in the same position. Only exception I can think of was maybe taking Hall over Seguin, but even if we swap that out not sure how much things change.

There is more chance involved than you are willing to concede, not any organization can just "will" or "outsmart" everyone to overcome their circumstances. That's an idealistic way of looking at the situation but not a realistic one, in my opinion. The fact that there is such a strong correlation with the top 3 picks becoming high end players just further proves that teams aren't outsmarting each other like you might think they are. They're all having to resort to the same thing, whether intentional or not, but the only difference is that thing just became a hell of a lot harder to obtain.

I wonder if RNH and Yakupov were weaker #1 candidates or were just thrust into an unforgiving circumstance and never reached their potential as a result.

 

[Red Stanley]

Which I think was a boogeyman invented by people who watched a team here and there do a hard rebuild, made to look even worse when Buffalo was tanking and their fans cheered for the other team to win.

What makes tanking less honorable than just being regular bad because you decided not to trade your good assets for picks?

No. It goes hand-in-hand with preventing teams from simply throwing money at their problems, aka the salary cap. It prevents teams from reaping 100% guaranteed benefits for strategically undermining the overall competitive level of the league. It makes even more sense now that division standings and inter-division games are much more important than ever before.

 

[Frk It]

In the Yakupov draft, they should definitely have drafted Defense.
They butchered a lot of these high picks, plain and simple.
Sometimes you need to draft for "need"

Ok, well you can think that.

But when Bob McKenzie polled 10 NHL scouts in 2012 for his final rankings, 8/10 had Yakupov #1.

So again.... pretty confident most teams would have done the same thing. You don't draft for need with a #1 pick. And you don't really see defenseman taken #1 in general, mostly because they are much harder to project.

 

[StargateSG1]

Ok, well you can think that.

But when Bob McKenzie polled 10 NHL scouts in 2012 for his final rankings, 8/10 had Yakupov #1.

So again.... pretty confident most teams would have done the same thing.

Oh well, you can ignore multiple experts saying they should finally draft D, and not the forward, regardless of what the rankings said.

 

[Frk It]

Oh well, you can ignore multiple experts saying they should finally draft D, and not the forward, regardless of what the rankings said.

I provided a source that included information from actual NHL scouts. Care to provide one that backs what you're saying?

 

[Red Stanley]

Yes and no. Most of the people they took at #1 were the consensus #1 ranked guys. I'm pretty confident 90% of the other teams in the league would have taken RNH or Yakupov in the same position. Only exception I can think of was maybe taking Hall over Seguin, but even if we swap that out not sure how much things change.

There is more chance involved than you are willing to concede, not any organization can just "will" or "outsmart" everyone to overcome their circumstances. That's an idealistic way of looking at the situation but not a realistic one, in my opinion. The fact that there is such a strong correlation with the top 3 picks becoming high end players just further proves that teams aren't outsmarting each other like you might think they are. They're all having to resort to the same thing, whether intentional or not, but the only difference is that thing just became a hell of a lot harder to obtain.

I meant more in the way of handling them after being drafted.

To your second point, I feel no pity for teams that can't translate multiple top 10 picks into a solid core. That's either extremely bad luck or just really bad scouting/development. Either way, the law of averages should make those two extremes just that.

 

[StargateSG1]

I provided a source that included information from actual NHL scouts. Care to provide one that backs what you're saying?

You didn't provide anything, you just said scouts ranked Yakupov first.
That's not at dispute here.
And I am not going to spend time googling to find the statements that suggested to draft D. It's not worth my time.

 

[Red Stanley]

That's being generous.

If anything we're a slam dunk to miss.

With this Defense they are about to "unleash" on the NHL,
it's a bottom 3 finish potential for sure.

Bottom three? I can't think of a single team with a worse blue line.

For sure.
And to add insult to injury, they the are most expensive combined cap hit for D in the league.
That alone, in my mind, should be enough reason to fire Kenny.

So, why do you guys keep freaking out over what Holland said about trying to make the playoffs? And why do you keep going back to the old "can't get elite talent with mid to late first round picks"? Sounds like you firmly believe we'll be drafting even higher next year.

 

[Winger98]

Talking more about the Hronek/Saarijarvi type kids and Lindstrom/Kotkansalo/etc going forward. Hicketts to some extent. Not sure who you are talking about.

I think you're looking at the wrong D if you're looking for someone to be around to be a stable vet for that group. In the two to three years before they come up to be regulars - and not just cup of coffee, ten game roster fillers - Daley is likely to be what Ericsson/Kronwall are now. Unreliable guys who are breaking down and who we look at and hope for 55 games or so.

Looking for stable vets for that group of players you're listing? Don't sign Daley at all, overpay if necessary to keep Green, and hope Dekeyser pulls his career up and is a decent player again. And look to sign a quality D on the open market and not more stop gaps outside of one year rentals.

But it's improbable to the point where you can't really rely on it. Lists like these are always deceiving. Yes, if you look at the entire league and using picks that encompass 180 picks on a yearly basis, you are going to see that it yields good players.

But your odds of doing that on an individual basis are terrible. Probably something like 1-3% if you want to talk about ACTUAL elite talent, and not players like Justin Braun and Boone Jenner...

Pretty much. I mean, if there was any indication that last year won't be an abberation and Holland will start looking to make harder decisions with the roster, re-signing fewer borderline players and dealing them for picks instead, etc., I could see at least entertaining the idea that we can still grab some key pieces with later picks. But it took the wings falling off the plane and then the plane skidding across the tarmac while on fire for Holland to make such a decision last season. Yeah, we might be lousy enough to convince Holland on a similar move this year, but if we're at all close does anyone see him selling at all? I don't.

 

[Henkka]

But it's improbable to the point where you can't really rely on it. Lists like these are always deceiving. Yes, if you look at the entire league and using picks that encompass 180 picks on a yearly basis, you are going to see that it yields good players.

But your odds of doing that on an individual basis are terrible. Probably something like 1-3% if you want to talk about ACTUAL elite talent, and not players like Justin Braun and Boone Jenner...

I didn't take picks at 16-30 range account at all. That's the range where playoff teams will draft. And that's good range for drafting, why getting on the playoffs is not a bad target.

When you compliment that range with all lower round picks, you have combined 50% chance to find elite talent as you have 50% chance to find it with TOP15 picks.

Nothing guarantees that you will find it with TOP15 pick or outside-TOP15 picks, but proababilities are still same, ~50/50.

Just draft good.

 

[Winger98]

I wonder if RNH and Yakupov were weaker #1 candidates or were just thrust into an unforgiving circumstance and never reached their potential as a result.

weaker #1s. RNH, though, hasn't had a bad career. Looking at numbers of other guys taken in the first ten picks of that draft, it's not like he stands out as being any sort of bust.

 

[jkutswings]

I feel like teams have a better chance at snagging a Duncan Keith or Shea Weber type talent in the 2nd round than getting the #1 pick if you're bottom 5 in the league.

Then what's Detroit's excuse?

Within this very thread, Henkka estimates that a given team has a 1 in 4 chance at a lottery pick, for being a perennial cellar dweller.

Here are the great players taken in the top 3 since the lockout:

2005: 1 (Sidney Crosby)
2006: 2 (Erik Johnson, Johnathan Toews)
2007: 1 (Patrick Kane)
2008: 2 (Steven Stamkos, Drew Doughty)
2009: 2 (John Tavares, Victor Hedman)
2010: 1 (Tyler Seguin)

From there, the NHL has a handful of younger stars, and a ton of really good young players from more recent drafts, but I don't know how fair it is to put any of their fates in stone yet.

But that's 9 great players out of 18 picks, so a 50% chance, multiplied by a 25% chance, or a 12.5% overall chance of landing a great player by being a routinely awful team.

Now compare that to the Wings, who haven't drafted a player of that caliber with ANY pick, 1st rounder included, since at least Kronwall in 2000. Now if you want to say the least 3-4 years are TBD, fine. But that's still over a decade of ZERO PERCENT SUCCESS, compared to 12.5 percent success.

So no, I'll take my chances at tanking, at least with this franchise's scouting record.

 

[Frk It]

You didn't provide anything, you just said scouts ranked Yakupov first.
That's not at dispute here.
And I am not going to spend time googling to find the statements that suggested to draft D. It's not worth my time.

Not sure how saying 8/10 NHL scouts had Yakupov ranked #1 doesn't prove anything in a discussion on who should have been taken #1 that year.

But more importantly, there have been 2 defenseman taken #1 in the last 20 years. Forwards are easier to project and typically can contribute sooner.

 

[StargateSG1]

Not sure how saying 8/10 NHL scouts had Yakupov ranked #1 doesn't prove anything in a discussion on who should have been taken #1 that year.

But more importantly, there have been 2 defenseman taken #1 in the last 20 years. Forwards are easier to project and typically can contribute sooner.

And now he is off to his 3rd team, and they had to trade Taylor Hall to get any competent D.
That's not a very good way of running the team by Kevin Lowe.
At least Chiarelli recognized that you can't win without defense.
The old front office butchered everything they could butcher.

 

[Ezekial]

Woah captain hindsight, a redraft doesn't tell the story of the times.

 

[njx9]

So no, I'll take my chances at tanking, at least with this franchise's scouting record.

Back to Frk It's original post, isn't part of the problem that the team hasn't seemed to prioritize boom/bust players? I feel like maybe the scouting is fine, but the decision making is overly conservative (moreso given that that would fit in with other decision making on the team).

 

[Henkka]

Back to Frk It's original post, isn't part of the problem that the team hasn't seemed to prioritize boom/bust players? I feel like maybe the scouting is fine, but the decision making is overly conservative (moreso given that that would fit in with other decision making on the team).

Hmm, what I've learned about Holland/Wright comments, they said that this 2017 was a draft year off from the norm. Usually they go after the best possible talents, but this time they wanted to solve this character-issue. They have been talking in every interview, that 2018 they are gonna go after best possible talents. And also Håkan Andersson said, that year or two before they went after skill and creativity. Mentioned Hronek, Cholowski and Saarijärvi about it.

So, imo, they are pretty much on the right map, and this character-factor seems to be important for the prospect community. How the people will work together. They have said multiple times that high-character players push the group of people, as being always competitive. So some skill player, who wouldn't be that competitive naturally, becomes also competitive. These character guys on the mix will push the full potential out of our most potential players. Which would not possibly happen in "easier" environment.

That's what I've learned so far, and I have had my own experiments at my work group about same kind of things. I feel it really matters. I can connect that ideology on things I've felt on last years at my work.

Those are smart men, they know what they are talking about.

Who cares about one 2017 "character" draft, if next then 10 drafts they go after just pure talent? That how they have talked about future plans. Don't you guys listen or read any articles? The message is there all the time everywhere.

 

[BinCookin]

Back to Frk It's original post, isn't part of the problem that the team hasn't seemed to prioritize boom/bust players? I feel like maybe the scouting is fine, but the decision making is overly conservative (moreso given that that would fit in with other decision making on the team).

People keep mentioning boom/bust players to pick as if that is a legit plan.

First off... Boom busts more often than not are busts and Busts are worse than safe picks.

Also who the hell really knows who is a "boom" player? vs a safe player?

Is Chychrun a boom/bust or safe?

 

[Henkka]

People keep mentioning boom/bust players to pick as if that is a legit plan.

First off... Boom busts more often than not or busts and Busts are worse than safe picks.

Also who the hell really knows who is a "boom" player? vs a safe player?

Is Chychrun a boom/bust or safe?

Chychrun is safe. 15 teams did pass him, because they know that he has almost reached his full potential. TOP4 defenceman, but only 2nd pairing.

Dion Phaneuf -esque.

 

[Ezekial]

People keep mentioning boom/bust players to pick as if that is a legit plan.

First off... Boom busts more often than not or busts and Busts are worse than safe picks.

Also who the hell really knows who is a "boom" player? vs a safe player?

Is Chychrun a boom/bust or safe?

Cholowski is a pure boom/bust pick and plenty of people hate him, the pick, and his development.

The key is, Holland isn't drafting the boom/bust picks hfboards members want.

 

[StargateSG1]

So, why do you guys keep freaking out over what Holland said about trying to make the playoffs? And why do you keep going back to the old "can't get elite talent with mid to late first round picks"? Sounds like you firmly believe we'll be drafting even higher next year.

Don't you think it's odd to be spending 80 million dollars on the bottom 3 potential team?
Thought so.