Does Draft Position Matter?

[MIGs Dog]

This is an expansion of the debate started on the 4/24 GDT. Thought I'd move it over to a more appropriate locale.

My basic argument is that one or two draft spots were not significant enough to try and intentionally move down the standings, and thus up in draft position. I was basically talking out my backside, with no data to support my theory. Just for fun, and since I was bored at work, I decided to do a little analysis.

First thing I would say about data analysis is to echo Mark Twain: "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Statistics are EASY to manipulate, and my level of analysis was very shallow and basic, but revealing none-the-less.

I took the 2003 draft class. why 2003? 10 years ago is a nice even number. The players of that class are in their prime, have had time to finish college, juniors, minor league time, and anything else needed to fully develop their potential. I did not cherry pick the draft class; this is the only one I looked at.

I then took the first 10 forwards drafted and averaged their pts for the 2012/13 season. I then took the next 10 forwards drafted and did the same. If the guy is no longer playing in the NHL that hurt that groups numbers, but those are the breaks. It's one of the possibilities of where your draft pick will end up.

here are the results:

2003 Draft Class
1st 10 forwards selected and their 2012/13 point total as of 4/24/2013
Eric Staal 50
Nathan Horton 22
Nikolay Zherdev KHL
Thomas Vanek 40
Milan Michalek 13
Andrei Kostitsyn KHL
Jeff Carter 33
Hugh Jessiman AHL
Dustin Brown 29
Robert Nilsson KHL

Average pts 18.7

Next 10 forwards selected and their 2012/13 pt total.
Steve Bernier 15
Zach Parise 37
Eric Fehr 16
Ryan Getzlaf 47
Brent Burns 17
Marc-Antoine Pouliot EHC
Ryan Kesler 12
Michael Richards 32
Anthony Stewart AHL
Brian Boyle 5

Average pts 18.1

There's a lot that can be nit-picked about my method. For example: Did you take injuries into account? no. What about quality of line-mates? no. What about the fact that points don't tell the whole story...I agree.

Take this little study for what it's worth. I'll revert back to my original statement. Moving up one or two draft spots isn't that big of a deal...unless of course the next Gretzky is out there

Click to read more...

 

[zz]

Those numbers are so easy to manipulate they're meaningless. Re-do the math based on players who actually were in the NHL, and you end up with 31.2 pt avg for the top 10, and 22.6 for the next 10.

So, assuming you can keep your pick under contract, according to your stats a top-10 pick will score 50% more than a 10-20 pick.

Meaning that you are much more likely to find a high-impact player in the top 10. Obviously.

EDIT: even when you look at career NHL points, the above lists of players total 3266 pts for top 10, and 2479 pts for the next 10.

 

[XX]

Statistics are EASY to manipulate

Which you did here, obviously, as OEL pointed out. It's also cute that you cherry picked what is probably one of the better drafts (read: deep) in NHL history to support your point.

In a big enough sample, draft position is going to matter. We would never see trades up, tanking, or teams caring about where they draft if it didn't. You're also looking at draft spots as if they are independent of one another. That isn't true. If I pick at 6th overall, I can have anyone after the first five players are selected. If I pick at tenth overall, I'm now looking at nine players off the board. To accurately capture the importance of 'moving up a few slots' you would have to measure the difference in values accordingly.

Averaging points of the top 10 and the next 10 doesn't even support your hypothesis. Not in practice, and not in application. The difference between a 'few spots' is Pouliot or Getzlaf, Jessiman or Carter, Stewart or Kesler, Zherdev or Staal. How you managed to make such a list without noticing these contradictions to your hypothesis blows my mind.

Inside the top 15 or so, a few spots matter a great deal. A potential jump from 11th to 6th would be absolutely incredible for this franchise.

 

[DesertDawg]

Further analysis would dictate to stay away from Russians. And that Parise and Getzlaf were available to everyone in the 1st round, while none of the 1st rounders were available during the 2nd round!!!!

So, Yes draft position matters, and doing your due diligence matters, as well as patience with the prospect's development!

 

[kihekah19*]

Of course position matters. I think we'd all agree missionary is the most popular, but damn it there's a lot to be said for doggy style!

Seriously, the odds are in favor of the higher draft pick being the better pick, but it is certainly no guarantee and DEFINITELY not worth playing the pansy and tanking!

 

[DesertDawg]

Tell you the truth, I would rather the Coyotes get the 30th pick (without trading for it) than the most (lottery) balls...

 

[MIGs Dog]

Those numbers are so easy to manipulate

I stated that above.

Re-do the math based on players who actually were in the NHL, and you end up with 31.2 pt avg for the top 10, and 22.6 for the next 10.

I think the realty that your top ten pick, in this case 4 out of 10, will not necessarily have a long NHL career is relevant in this discussion.

assuming you can keep your pick under contract

I think you are on to something here. I'll comment on that more later

Meaning that you are much more likely to find a high-impact player in the top 10. Obviously.

but will it obviously lead to a cup?

 

[MIGs Dog]

It's also cute that you cherry picked what is probably one of the better drafts (read: deep) in NHL history to support your point.

I mentioned above that I didn't cherry pick the year, nor compare to any other year for that matter. Perhaps I was just lucky

In a big enough sample, draft position is going to matter. We would never see trades up, tanking, or teams caring about where they draft if it didn't.

Really? By your logic if lots of people do it, it must be rational. Guess I better start playing the lottery, cuz everybody's doing it.

You're also looking at draft spots as if they are independent of one another.

Agree. As stated above this was a very quick and easy survey.

Averaging points of the top 10 and the next 10 doesn't even support your hypothesis. Not in practice, and not in application. The difference between a 'few spots' is Pouliot or Getzlaf, Jessiman or Carter, Stewart or Kesler, Zherdev or Staal. How you managed to make such a list without noticing these contradictions to your hypothesis blows my mind.

Actually it does. Besides the averages, what it also means is that by moving up one spot I may have drafted Nikolay Zherdev instead of Thomas Vanek. In other words, moving up in draft position is not always a blessing. Mistakes by the GM and decision makers can still be made.

Inside the top 15 or so, a few spots matter a great deal. A potential jump from 11th to 6th would be absolutely incredible for this franchise.

Agree that the odds of getting a better player would be better, but "absolutely incredible"? We've had high picks before. I don't remember the result being absolutely incredible.

 

[MIGs Dog]

Apparently no on agrees with my theory on draft position, but despite that I'm about tell you what I believe does matter. I can see it...you're all on the edge of your seat.

drum roll please.....MONEY!

The franchise needs the money to hold on to those draft picks that turn out golden, but also the money to go out in the free agent market and get what the team needs. Give me zero draft picks but the biggest pot of money in the league and I'm willing to bet I could build a cup contender. Not in one year, but over time definitely.

LA Kings: 7th Highest salary 2011/12
Boston: 7th Highest salary 2010/11
Chicago: 14th salary 2009/10 , but only 5 mil below the cap, and 13 mil more than the Yotes
Penguins: 14th 2008/09

But you say hey, we made it to the WCF last year. I know, awesome year, but I want to be awesome every year, not just pulling the top draft pick like the Oilers.

 

[ClassLessCoyote]

There are going to always be exceptions when it comes to the draft and Yandle is a perfect example of that. But of course it matters. Thank god that all teams that don't make the playoffs have a chance to get the 1st overall.

 

[rt]

You certainly could look at the first rounds from 2002 to 2007 and start working out averages for positions, etc., etc. It's been done before many times and it's always pretty interesting. One key point that escapes that number crunching, though, is the individual staff. The Coyotes might have their fourth ranked player still on the board at number nine, for example. if you trust your staff and believe in in them, than a few draft spots could be HUGE. It's possible that they only get their 12th ranked player at number twelve even though their 4th ranked player was still on the board at number nine.

 

[XX]

Really? By your logic if lots of people do it, it must be rational. Guess I better start playing the lottery, cuz everybody's doing it.

A terrible red herring. GMs understand the implications of five draft spots, even if you don't. There is a certain personal bias towards particular players, sure. But that is canceled out by the randomness of the draft. Blake effin Wheeler is actually a pretty good pick at #5 in his year. It took him awhile, but he did it. It totally vindicates the Coyotes for being bat**** crazy at that spot. They might have been forced into picking someone else who busted out at #11, as an example. The difference in picks has a very real, measurable value in that example. What you are suggesting is that there's no difference between #3 or #4 and #1. We know that's absolutely stupid. So why are we extending it to later picks? Because you're trying to shoot from the hip and apply a terrible observation to a multifaceted process. The difference between Lindholm and Wennberg is palpable, even if only in trade value. Any scout will tell you that. That's why we have rankings, and why teams value top 10 picks highly. It's also why this team was ****ed over by finishing in the n+1 spot so many times.

Actually it does. Besides the averages, what it also means is that by moving up one spot I may have drafted Nikolay Zherdev instead of Thomas Vanek. In other words, moving up in draft position is not always a blessing. Mistakes by the GM and decision makers can still be made.

You are approaching this from a very unscientific, casual angle. You shouldn't be looking at what players were drafted in those spots. You should take a big sample, and average out the value of each particular spot. To do this accurately, to a level of statistical significance, you'd need to re-rank the first and second rounds, at minimum. These are players that are well known to all scouts, and are the more relevant to the discussion at hand. You will find that 2 or 3 spots might not blow your mind every draft, but it's consistently better.

The problem is that you are having trouble admitting as much. There is value in picking higher, even if only in trade. There's simply no denying that. You cannot use one year in a vacuum that you cherry picked to support your hypothesis.

Agree that the odds of getting a better player would be better, but "absolutely incredible"? We've had high picks before. I don't remember the result being absolutely incredible.

You play the game of averages. In a big enough sample, the #6 pick will always be better than the #11. Whether players bust or make it is entirely irrelevant to your argument, but you don't quite understand that. At pick #6, I get my favorite of the litter after the first five. At #11, I'm more at the mercy of the teams in front of me. That in any given year the two picks have roughly the same chance of making it to the NHL is not relevant. We're playing the long game here. That the Coyotes whiffed on three top 10 picks is also irrelevant to your argument, if you're still pretending to be serious about it. There's also the matter of OEL and Boedker both turning into great players, that most assuredly wouldn't be available if the Coyotes were picking 13-15.

tl;dr winning out for prides sake is for suckers.

 

[rt]

tl;dr winning out for prides sake is for suckers.

Every team will always do this. Dave Tippett wants to win tonight. So does every player on the team. The only disconnect is that some fans (me and you) want to see the Coyotes lose just these last two games (I was actually rooting for a win against Detroit) while other fans (MIG and others) always want to see the team win no matter what. I don't think there is anything wrong with MIG feeling that way. I also don't think there is any harm in you or I rooting for a couple of losses to close out the season.

To argue that draft position has no bearing on draft success is ludicrous, though. So I feel you there.

 

[MIGs Dog]

A terrible red herring.

One false argument deserves another.

 

[MIGs Dog]

To argue that draft position has no bearing on draft success is ludicrous,

I have probably not stated it very well, but that is not my argument. My argument is that draft position does not have an impact on winning championships, which is the only scorecard that matters.

 

[MIGs Dog]

winning out for prides sake is for suckers.

The team has an obligation to the fans, the broadcast medium, and the advertisers to play to win, regardless of their playoff position. People pay good money to attend the games, watch on Center Ice, or advertise during breaks and at the arena. I personally would not watch or attend if I thought my team was not playing to win. I also probably would cease to be a fan of any team with that little character.

 

[Guest]

Here is why I voted yes. Draft position matters because you can trade it, so it is an asset. If you were in the 3th position you could acquire something of value to move down to the 5th position for example. Obviously the deeper you go in the draft that asset depreciates.

Ultimately, if you are using that draft pick it's up to your scouts to pick the best possible player with the picks that you have. I'm not much of a fan of saying, "Oh if we had only picked player B instead of player A". Without having the draft order of your scouts it's not easy to say that you could have gotten a better player if you moved up if your scouts wouldn't have picked that player.

 

[Redcoyote]

It doesn't matter when you are only going to draft Turris, Wheeler and Mueller anyways

 

[Dirty Old Man]

tl;dr winning out for prides sake is for suckers.

lol. "tl;dr". PKB. (pot kettle black)

and tanking is for pansies

 

[rt]

It doesn't matter when you are only going to draft Turris, Wheeler and Mueller anyways

OEL and Boedker were top ten picks, too.

 

[zz]

I have probably not stated it very well, but that is not my argument. My argument is that draft position does not have an impact on winning championships, which is the only scorecard that matters.

What the...????

LA Kings:

Drew Doughty, 2nd overall
Anze Kopitar, 11th overall
Dustin Brown, 13th overall

Chicago BlackHawks:

Jonathan Toews, 3rd overall
Patrick Kane, 1st overall

Pittsburgh Penguins:

Sidney Crosby, 1st overall
Evgeni Malkin, 2nd overall
Marc-Andre Fleury, 1st overall
Jordan Staal, 2nd overall

Carolina Hurricanes:
Eric Staal, 2nd overall

Tampa Bay Lightning:
Vincent Lecavalier, 1st overall

New Jersey Devils:
Scott Niedermayer, 3rd overall

Colorado Avalanche:
Peter Forsberg, 6th overall

Hell, even among the Coyotes / Jets best drafted players:

Teemu Selanne, 10th overall
Shane Doan, 7th overall
Mikkel Boedker, 8th overall
Oliver Ekman-Larsson, 6th overall

You seem to be grasping at straws.

 

[rt]

I have probably not stated it very well, but that is not my argument. My argument is that draft position does not have an impact on winning championships, which is the only scorecard that matters.

Huh? Penguins had Crosby (1st), Malkin (2nd), Fleury (3rd) and Staal (3rd) among many other top ten picks. Hawks had Kane (1st), Toews (2nd), Ladd (4th) and a whole host of other top ten-fifteen picks.

 

[rt]

The team has an obligation to the fans, the broadcast medium, and the advertisers to play to win, regardless of their playoff position. People pay good money to attend the games, watch on Center Ice, or advertise during breaks and at the arena. I personally would not watch or attend if I thought my team was not playing to win. I also probably would cease to be a fan of any team with that little character.

Nobody has ever suggest that the PLAYERS tank. Nobody. It's an absurd concept that would NEVER happen. Why would a bunch of guys play worse on purpose? To hurt their future contracts and hep the chances of the team drafting players who can more effectively steal their jobs sooner? That's crazy.

NOBODY HERE THINKS PLAYERS WOULD TANK!

 

[Wanic]

Not a fan

I also don't think there is any harm in you or I rooting for a couple of losses to close out the season."

I don't agree.. Guys on the ice are playing to win.. and anyone who is called their fan should root for them at any circumstances, otherwise he is not a fan

 

[rt]

I don't agree.. Guys on the ice are playing to win.. and anyone who is called their fan should root for them at any circumstances, otherwise he is not a fan

You are saying that I'm not a fan of the Phoenix Coyotes?