Draft smaft: projections of prospects and their value.

[finchster]

I've been around hfboards for 10 years now; I signed up for hfboards during the wonderful 2006-07 season. I understand the board is called 'hockey's future board", but the part that irritates me the consistent overvaluing of prospects. Not to point fingers because every fan base does the same.

With an influx of prospects there is a bit of excitement/debate over their projections.I don't want to complain about Sweeney/Neely, or to judge which prospects will 'bust' or not. The point of this thread is to simply remove the human element and to statistically analyse draft picks and decide what is a good/ bad/realistic return on our draft picks/prospects.

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects/f/draft_success.htm

Between 1990 and 1999, there were 2,600 names called at the NHL Entry Draft. As of 2007, 494 of those players have appeared in at least 200 NHL games. That's a success rate of 19 percent.

So let's start by saying on average 19-20% of drafted players make it to the NHL. With seven rounds in the draft, you should be getting one player a year and every third year two players who become career NHL'ers. Getting three players in one draft can set your team up for a decade. For example, Boston drafted Kessel, Lucic, and Marchand in one draft. Tampa in 2011 drafted Namestnikov, Kucherov and Palat, young producing guys that helped put them up to the top of the league.

We all know that not all draft picks are equal, first round picks are significantly more valuable than other picks.

Based on the 1990s sample, a first-round draft pick has a 63 percent chance of being a career players
From 1990 to 1999, about one-quarter of the players selected in the second round turned into NHL career players. Those
From over 2,000 players selected in the third round and beyond during 1990s, just 261 made it as NHL career players. That's about 12 percent.

First round picks have a 63% chance of becoming NHL players and second round picks have a 25% chance of becoming NHL players. More recent studies have first round picks as high as 80%, which I believe was buoyed by the 2003 draft class.

But again, not all first round picks are equal. The Bruins picked five first round picks in two seasons; picks 13-14-15 in 2015, and picks 14, 29 in 2016.

As you can see, the probability of picks 14-16 playing 200 games or more is around 50% and the pick 29 is just below 40%. (ORANGE LINE)

So to the purpose of this thread, what is a realistic return on our five first round picks and four second round picks? What is a good/bad/realistic return?

Between Zboril, DeBrusk, Senyshyn, McAvoy, and Frederic, a realistic expectation is that 2-3 players will become NHL regulars and the others will not. Between Carlo, Forsbacka-Karlsson, Lauzon and Lindgren, a realistic expectation is one player will become an NHL player and the others will not. Out of nine players, four would be the average. Five to six becoming NHL players would be great and two (or less)to three would be bad.

So before we pencil everyone in the line up in the future, (Because I still remember Krejci, Kalus, and Karsums destroying the league and I also remember Spooner, Knight and Khokhlachev killing the league), think about this for just one minute. Four guys from the nine picks is a pretty realistic expectation. More than that is great and less than that is bad.

Click to read more...

 

[Fierce1]

I've been around hfboards for 10 years now; I signed up for hfboards during the wonderful 2006-07 season. I understand the board is called 'hockey's future board", but the part that irritates me the consistent overvaluing of prospects. Not to point fingers because every fan base does the same.

With an influx of prospects there is a bit of excitement/debate over their projections.I don't want to complain about Sweeney/Neely, or to judge which prospects will 'bust' or not. The point of this thread is to simply remove the human element and to statistically analyse draft picks and decide what is a good/ bad/realistic return on our draft picks/prospects.

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects/f/draft_success.htm



So let's start by saying on average 19-20% of drafted players make it to the NHL. With seven rounds in the draft, you should be getting one player a year and every third year two players who become career NHL'ers. Getting three players in one draft can set your team up for a decade. For example, Boston drafted Kessel, Lucic, and Marchand in one draft. Tampa in 2011 drafted Namestnikov, Kucherov and Palat, young producing guys that helped put them up to the top of the league.

We all know that not all draft picks are equal, first round picks are significantly more valuable than other picks.



First round picks have a 63% chance of becoming NHL players and second round picks have a 25% chance of becoming NHL players. More recent studies have first round picks as high as 80%, which I believe was buoyed by the 2003 draft class.

But again, not all first round picks are equal. The Bruins picked five first round picks in two seasons; picks 13-14-15 in 2015, and picks 14, 29 in 2016.

As you can see, the probability of picks 14-16 playing 200 games or more is around 50% and the pick 29 is just below 40%. (ORANGE LINE)

So to the purpose of this thread, what is a realistic return on our five first round picks and four second round picks? What is a good/bad/realistic return?

Between Zboril, DeBrusk, Senyshyn, McAvoy, and Frederic, a realistic expectation is that 2-3 players will become NHL regulars and the others will not. Between Carlo, Forsbacka-Karlsson, Lauzon and Lindgren, a realistic expectation is one player will become an NHL player and the others will not. Out of nine players, four would be the average. Five to six becoming NHL players would be great and two (or less)to three would be bad.

So before we pencil everyone in the line up in the future, (Because I still remember Krejci, Kalus, and Karsums destroying the league and I also remember Spooner, Knight and Khokhlachev killing the league), think about this for just one minute. Four guys from the nine picks is a pretty realistic expectation. More than that is great and less than that is bad.

Some perspective, nicely done! Hopefully Keith Gretzky will come in above average on his picks.

 

[Eddie Munson]

This should be stickied! Nice post

 

[ODAAT]

I've been around hfboards for 10 years now; I signed up for hfboards during the wonderful 2006-07 season. I understand the board is called 'hockey's future board", but the part that irritates me the consistent overvaluing of prospects. Not to point fingers because every fan base does the same.

With an influx of prospects there is a bit of excitement/debate over their projections.I don't want to complain about Sweeney/Neely, or to judge which prospects will 'bust' or not. The point of this thread is to simply remove the human element and to statistically analyse draft picks and decide what is a good/ bad/realistic return on our draft picks/prospects.

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects/f/draft_success.htm



So let's start by saying on average 19-20% of drafted players make it to the NHL. With seven rounds in the draft, you should be getting one player a year and every third year two players who become career NHL'ers. Getting three players in one draft can set your team up for a decade. For example, Boston drafted Kessel, Lucic, and Marchand in one draft. Tampa in 2011 drafted Namestnikov, Kucherov and Palat, young producing guys that helped put them up to the top of the league.

We all know that not all draft picks are equal, first round picks are significantly more valuable than other picks.



First round picks have a 63% chance of becoming NHL players and second round picks have a 25% chance of becoming NHL players. More recent studies have first round picks as high as 80%, which I believe was buoyed by the 2003 draft class.

But again, not all first round picks are equal. The Bruins picked five first round picks in two seasons; picks 13-14-15 in 2015, and picks 14, 29 in 2016.

As you can see, the probability of picks 14-16 playing 200 games or more is around 50% and the pick 29 is just below 40%. (ORANGE LINE)

So to the purpose of this thread, what is a realistic return on our five first round picks and four second round picks? What is a good/bad/realistic return?

Between Zboril, DeBrusk, Senyshyn, McAvoy, and Frederic, a realistic expectation is that 2-3 players will become NHL regulars and the others will not. Between Carlo, Forsbacka-Karlsson, Lauzon and Lindgren, a realistic expectation is one player will become an NHL player and the others will not. Out of nine players, four would be the average. Five to six becoming NHL players would be great and two (or less)to three would be bad.

So before we pencil everyone in the line up in the future, (Because I still remember Krejci, Kalus, and Karsums destroying the league and I also remember Spooner, Knight and Khokhlachev killing the league), think about this for just one minute. Four guys from the nine picks is a pretty realistic expectation. More than that is great and less than that is bad.

Terrific and well thought out post

 

[BNHL]

Good points. My only argument would be that 200 games is hardly a career. I'd barely call 500 games a career,which is the number another draft study used to lower the success rate to about 50% for first rounders and about 5% for players drafted in the third and later.

 

[PlayMakers]

Great post and very informative.

I think if I were a GM, I'd value volume at the draft. Pick, pick, pick. The more spins of the wheel, the higher the chance I get someone who can play one day.

It also puts an interesting perspective on a pick like Frederic. When there's a 60% chance the pick will fail (maybe even higher given the weakness of this draft), why not go for a safe pick on a kid with a lower ceiling but a higher probability of making it? Who would you prefer in three years; a Nick Bonino type playing for your team or a Chris Bourque type tearing up the minors for the next 10 years?

 

[Ice Nine]

This is a great post -- one thing I'd love to see done is the very same projections, but instead of using the round of the pic as the predictive variable, instead use Central Scouting final ranking for players as of drafting day, or an aggregate average ranking for all rankings as of draft day (projected 1st or 2nd round, etc). This would help control for players who actually are ranked as 2nd/3rd rounders but are taken in the 1st round.

I suspect the results would be overall similar as such "reaches" or "offboard" picks are increasingly rare, but still I think you might see a truer set of predictive results; as such off board pics may produce outliers-- they may drag down the percentage of 1st rounders who make the NHL as I suspect such "offboard" or "reaching" draft pics, over the long run with a big N sample, are unsuccessful.

 

[Eddie Munson]

This is a great post -- one thing I'd love to see done is the very same projections, but instead of using the round of the pic as the predictive variable, instead use Central Scouting final ranking for players as of drafting day, or an aggregate average ranking for all rankings as of draft day (projected 1st or 2nd round, etc). This would help control for players who actually are ranked as 2nd/3rd rounders but are taken in the 1st round.

I suspect the results would be overall similar as such "reaches" or "offboard" picks are increasingly rare, but still I think you might see a truer set of predictive results; as such off board pics may produce outliers-- they may drag down the percentage of 1st rounders who make the NHL as I suspect such "offboard" or "reaching" draft pics, over the long run with a big N sample, are unsuccessful.

This would be too tough to do because none of the scouting bodies agree on much past pick #3-5. For example if the Bruins took Markus Niemelainen at 29 most Bruins fans would be happy because people like Dom and Kirk were high kids like him and Allison. People here did their research because of them and they liked what they saw. Other scouting agencies had Niemelainen ranked closer to 49, he was picked at 63. So at 29 Boston fans considered him good value, other scouts saw good value closer to 49 and the teams actually saw value at 63. So who is to say who is a reach or steal? That's a 34 pick difference.

Each scouting agency has their perks and downfalls. Some weigh things differently than others. Some do straight up rankings while redline comprises a list like teams do of the players. That doesn't mean redlines list even compares to a 10th of other teams list around the league. It's all just reference material for GMs to make the best decision possible with the situation at hand.

I would however like to see a chart by team. Which teams have higher percentages than league average of picks becoming good NHL players and which are far below average.

Just so we're all on the same page, that is not a shot at Dom or Kirk, two people who I have the utmost respect for and value their opinions. It's just an example on how views vary from person to person, scout to scout, team to team. It's not easy projecting young kids careers, these guys do it well which is why they do what they do. It's also why there's so little consensus though because it is so hard and scouts rate things so differently.

 

[finchster]

Good points. My only argument would be that 200 games is hardly a career. I'd barely call 500 games a career,which is the number another draft study used to lower the success rate to about 50% for first rounders and about 5% for players drafted in the third and later.

That is accurate.

Also for information, between 1990-2000 picks 13-15 has had a hit rate of 42% for careers over 500 games.

 

[BNHL]

That is accurate.

Also for information, between 1990-2000 picks 13-15 has had a hit rate of 42% for careers over 500 games.

Wow,I did it myself for the last decade or so and the 3rd thru 5th rounds were near 4 or 5% I think.

 

[BruinDust]

That is accurate.

Also for information, between 1990-2000 picks 13-15 has had a hit rate of 42% for careers over 500 games.

Given the advancements in scouting, the increased investment in scouting, the access to information and footage, combines and interviews, advanced stats, etc. I don't know how the success rate of 1st/2nd rounders from 1990-2000 is even relevant when discussing their potential of success in 2016.

 

[finchster]

Given the advancements in scouting, the increased investment in scouting, the access to information and footage, combines and interviews, advanced stats, etc. I don't know how the success rate of 1st/2nd rounders from 1990-2000 is even relevant when discussing their potential of success in 2016.

The basics are the same, but the tools are different.

So let's ask the question how have new tools affected scouting?

If you look at the drafts between 2001-2008, and you use 200 games as the minimum; the percentages of players who made the NHL from the first round goes up to 66% compared to 63%. However, that also includes the historic 2003 draft class where 27 players from the first round went to the NHL. On average 18-20 first round picks will make the NHL and in this period it is the same.

There isn't a significant difference. Unless you believe in a major scouting revolution I haven't heard about?

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

Great post and very informative.

I think if I were a GM, I'd value volume at the draft. Pick, pick, pick. The more spins of the wheel, the higher the chance I get someone who can play one day.

It also puts an interesting perspective on a pick like Frederic. When there's a 60% chance the pick will fail (maybe even higher given the weakness of this draft), why not go for a safe pick on a kid with a lower ceiling but a higher probability of making it? Who would you prefer in three years; a Nick Bonino type playing for your team or a Chris Bourque type tearing up the minors for the next 10 years?

I 100% agree with that. Which is why throwing away picks like candy at marginal rentals is never a good thing. Go big or go home. No halfassing things.

 

[Ice Nine]

This would be too tough to do because none of the scouting bodies agree on much past pick #3-5. For example if the Bruins took Markus Niemelainen at 29 most Bruins fans would be happy because people like Dom and Kirk were high kids like him and Allison. People here did their research because of them and they liked what they saw. Other scouting agencies had Niemelainen ranked closer to 49, he was picked at 63. So at 29 Boston fans considered him good value, other scouts saw good value closer to 49 and the teams actually saw value at 63. So who is to say who is a reach or steal? That's a 34 pick difference.

Each scouting agency has their perks and downfalls. Some weigh things differently than others. Some do straight up rankings while redline comprises a list like teams do of the players. That doesn't mean redlines list even compares to a 10th of other teams list around the league. It's all just reference material for GMs to make the best decision possible with the situation at hand.

I would however like to see a chart by team. Which teams have higher percentages than league average of picks becoming good NHL players and which are far below average.

Just so we're all on the same page, that is not a shot at Dom or Kirk, two people who I have the utmost respect for and value their opinions. It's just an example on how views vary from person to person, scout to scout, team to team. It's not easy projecting young kids careers, these guys do it well which is why they do what they do. It's also why there's so little consensus though because it is so hard and scouts rate things so differently.

All good points. Perhaps the better way to do it would simply be to choose one: like the official ranking from Central Scouting? Or maybe do what I noted earlier -- an averaging of all ranking (the way, say, political analysts project results based on an aggregate average of all polls); but only use those lists that use a comparable list (a full list of all players ranked) and exclude those with radically different lists or outputs. There would be variability among the rankings, but an average could product an overall decent projection or assessment of value across different ranking lists.

The highlighted portion is a great idea, btw.

 

[BruinsPortugal]

I would however like to see a chart by team. Which teams have higher percentages than league average of picks becoming good NHL players and which are far below average.

This!!!

I remember seeing a chart that said Chicago picked very well..dont remember exactly how it was.

 

[BruinDust]

The basics are the same, but the tools are different.

So let's ask the question how have new tools affected scouting?

If you look at the drafts between 2001-2008, and you use 200 games as the minimum; the percentages of players who made the NHL from the first round goes up to 66% compared to 63%. However, that also includes the historic 2003 draft class where 27 players from the first round went to the NHL. On average 18-20 first round picks will make the NHL and in this period it is the same.

There isn't a significant difference. Unless you believe in a major scouting revolution I haven't heard about?

Thanks, I just figured I'd point it out, even though it hasn't been a revolution things have evolved.

So the first round is an essentially a 2 out of 3 chance that they make the NHL. Maybe it seems that the success at the Top End (Picks 1 through 12) of the 1st round is better.

 

[Agent86]

That is accurate.

Also for information, between 1990-2000 picks 13-15 has had a hit rate of 42% for careers over 500 games.

The salary cap era should, theoretically, push this number up as teams need to add cheap contracts to balance out their rosters. On the flip side careers will become shorter.

 

[finchster]

Between Zboril, DeBrusk, Senyshyn, McAvoy, and Frederic, a realistic expectation is that 2-3 players will become NHL regulars and the others will not. Between Carlo, Forsbacka-Karlsson, Lauzon and Lindgren, a realistic expectation is one player will become an NHL player and the others will not. Out of nine players, four would be the average. Five to six becoming NHL players would be great and two (or less)to three would be bad.

So before we pencil everyone in the line up in the future, (Because I still remember Krejci, Kalus, and Karsums destroying the league and I also remember Spooner, Knight and Khokhlachev killing the league), think about this for just one minute. Four guys from the nine picks is a pretty realistic expectation. More than that is great and less than that is bad.

I am bumping my old thread since there is a lot of discussion about the 2015 draft and the kids not preforming.

So the Bruins currently have DeBrusk, McAvoy, and Carlo, not all in the line up unfortunately, but legitimate NHL players. The Bruins also have Zboril, Senyshyn, Frederic,Forsbacka-Karlsson, and Lauzon. One of these players needs to become an NHL player for the drafting in this period to be average, two would put them slightly above average, three would be great.

When it is all said and done, average to above average seems to be the result. I guess 1-2 of the listed will make it

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

I've been around hfboards for 10 years now; I signed up for hfboards during the wonderful 2006-07 season. I understand the board is called 'hockey's future board", but the part that irritates me the consistent overvaluing of prospects. Not to point fingers because every fan base does the same.

With an influx of prospects there is a bit of excitement/debate over their projections.I don't want to complain about Sweeney/Neely, or to judge which prospects will 'bust' or not. The point of this thread is to simply remove the human element and to statistically analyse draft picks and decide what is a good/ bad/realistic return on our draft picks/prospects.

How Many Draft Picks Make It to the NHL?



So let's start by saying on average 19-20% of drafted players make it to the NHL. With seven rounds in the draft, you should be getting one player a year and every third year two players who become career NHL'ers. Getting three players in one draft can set your team up for a decade. For example, Boston drafted Kessel, Lucic, and Marchand in one draft. Tampa in 2011 drafted Namestnikov, Kucherov and Palat, young producing guys that helped put them up to the top of the league.

We all know that not all draft picks are equal, first round picks are significantly more valuable than other picks.



First round picks have a 63% chance of becoming NHL players and second round picks have a 25% chance of becoming NHL players. More recent studies have first round picks as high as 80%, which I believe was buoyed by the 2003 draft class.

But again, not all first round picks are equal. The Bruins picked five first round picks in two seasons; picks 13-14-15 in 2015, and picks 14, 29 in 2016.

As you can see, the probability of picks 14-16 playing 200 games or more is around 50% and the pick 29 is just below 40%. (ORANGE LINE)

So to the purpose of this thread, what is a realistic return on our five first round picks and four second round picks? What is a good/bad/realistic return?

Between Zboril, DeBrusk, Senyshyn, McAvoy, and Frederic, a realistic expectation is that 2-3 players will become NHL regulars and the others will not. Between Carlo, Forsbacka-Karlsson, Lauzon and Lindgren, a realistic expectation is one player will become an NHL player and the others will not. Out of nine players, four would be the average. Five to six becoming NHL players would be great and two (or less)to three would be bad.

So before we pencil everyone in the line up in the future, (Because I still remember Krejci, Kalus, and Karsums destroying the league and I also remember Spooner, Knight and Khokhlachev killing the league), think about this for just one minute. Four guys from the nine picks is a pretty realistic expectation. More than that is great and less than that is bad.

Easiest way to test bruins ability to find prospects and graduate them into the nhl is look around at current nhl players and see who was found by the bruins

Top line of pastrnak, bergeron, marchand... is that any good?

Might as well support them with some offense kessel, seguin, debrusk... not too bad right?

A third line of wheeler, krecji, and maybe play joe thornton on wing... wow

Sobotka, heinen, lucic... 4th line has options

On defense a right side of mcavoy, carlo, hamilton
And krug, grezlyck, on left... maybe lauzon as the 6th?

This is your cup winning 18 man lineup

Only real weakness is goal... but if we take credit for finding rask in Toronto's minor system we got a home grown goalie too

Every guy here played their first nhl game for us... one of our kids... and these guys are amazing good

 

[finchster]

Easiest way to test bruins ability to find prospects and graduate them into the nhl is look around at current nhl players and see who was found by the bruins

Top line of pastrnak, bergeron, marchand... is that any good?

Might as well support them with some offense kessel, seguin, debrusk... not too bad right?

A third line of wheeler, krecji, and maybe play joe thornton on wing... wow

Sobotka, heinen, lucic... 4th line has options

On defense a right side of mcavoy, carlo, hamilton
And krug, grezlyck, on left... maybe lauzon as the 6th?

This is your cup winning 18 man lineup

Only real weakness is goal... but if we take credit for finding rask in Toronto's minor system we got a home grown goalie too

Every guy here played their first nhl game for us... one of our kids... and these guys are amazing good

Try reading what I wrote and what the thread was about before you reply next time? K thanx bye

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Try reading what I wrote and what the thread was about before you reply next time? K thanx bye

lots of ways to try to measure things... we can hope past results predict the future. but it really comes down to 2 pools of data and theres never any guarantees

I did read what you wrote... you looked at a collection of data that measured a huge mix from a very particular time period. it was intresting

then you said lets use it to guess what success rate our team might have... you based the success on abstract names... using an arbitrary measure of 200 games as a success...

I decided to look at just results from our own single team... since that was ultimately the team you were applying your results to. instead of guys with 200 games as an example of success... I threw out real names of real players and let the audience decide if these players were a success or not.

to make it fun... I decided to fill roster spots on a team... I actually left several nice players off the team that could have been mentioned

I went through the data pool of all currently active players

bruins had no problem fielding the 18 skaters here... a little more problem with the goalie but it easily shows we will produce on average 1 very nice player per year who could be active still 18 years after his draft

guys like sean kuraly and noel accari and steven kamfer have a chance to have 200 game careers... I think if we are using 200 game careers as our measure of a successful draft choice it does pollute the study. there aren't a lot of fans here that would get excited if we drafted another one of these guys this year.

anyhow... at the end of the day whether we look at your way of measuring it... or my way... we had some great drafting recently... found some nice undrafted free agents as well... our team has stocked a great farm system.

we might not get much respect in everyones annual future watch rankings but year after year no team does a better job of graduating good nhl pros into the nhl. our alumni class is second to none

 

[NDiesel]

Great post and very informative.

I think if I were a GM, I'd value volume at the draft. Pick, pick, pick. The more spins of the wheel, the higher the chance I get someone who can play one day.

It also puts an interesting perspective on a pick like Frederic. When there's a 60% chance the pick will fail (maybe even higher given the weakness of this draft), why not go for a safe pick on a kid with a lower ceiling but a higher probability of making it? Who would you prefer in three years; a Nick Bonino type playing for your team or a Chris Bourque type tearing up the minors for the next 10 years?

I actually came in to post exactly this. It's a volume game and Sweeney I believe knew this when he first took over. He stockpiled picks for 2 drafts and didn't move them for less picks.

To the OPs point, I think the excitement comes from the fact that we have so many picks from the first 3 rounds that the odds truly favour a good chunk of these guys turning into something. Now your post has the averages, but this means that some teams will surely perform below those averages and others are bound to perform above them, so why not be optimistic that we are one of the over performers?

Now when it's all said and done the draft is just one tool that you can use to build a winning team. I've had Sweeney's back for a while on these boards, but the time has come where he has to start picking and choosing who he believes will pan out and trading some of the other guys before they 'bust' and lose all value.

 

[Mount Kramer Cameras]

It's interesting to look at the mean, but you also have to consider the context of a strong draft class vs a weak draft class, which was touched upon when mentioning 2003.

 

[Bergyesque]

I actually came in to post exactly this. It's a volume game and Sweeney I believe knew this when he first took over. He stockpiled picks for 2 drafts and didn't move them for less picks.

To the OPs point, I think the excitement comes from the fact that we have so many picks from the first 3 rounds that the odds truly favour a good chunk of these guys turning into something. Now your post has the averages, but this means that some teams will surely perform below those averages and others are bound to perform above them, so why not be optimistic that we are one of the over performers?

Now when it's all said and done the draft is just one tool that you can use to build a winning team. I've had Sweeney's back for a while on these boards, but the time has come where he has to start picking and choosing who he believes will pan out and trading some of the other guys before they 'bust' and lose all value.

Exactly! I would call this "asset consolidation".

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

I am bumping my old thread since there is a lot of discussion about the 2015 draft and the kids not preforming.

So the Bruins currently have DeBrusk, McAvoy, and Carlo, not all in the line up unfortunately, but legitimate NHL players. The Bruins also have Zboril, Senyshyn, Frederic,Forsbacka-Karlsson, and Lauzon. One of these players needs to become an NHL player for the drafting in this period to be average, two would put them slightly above average, three would be great.

When it is all said and done, average to above average seems to be the result. I guess 1-2 of the listed will make it

When the draft year itself is an outlier I'd hope for outlier results as well. However this thread is outstanding and in most years a good reminder.