Drafting defencemen on the First round

[obey86]

Right, but that 40% took six times as many picks to achieve

Good thing you have 6 times as many later round picks.

 

[Henkka]

Good thing you have 6 times as many later round picks.

A miracle just happened.

 

[Henkka]

What if there is a 70% chance to get great forwards on the 1st round picks and 30% chance to get great forwards on later rounds?

When there's 60% chance for 1st round defencemen and 40% chance for later round defencemen?

Why not going 70+40 = 110% chances in the big picture? Why going like the opposite, 60+30=90% chances?

Red Wings are completing this plan A.

If it's not intelligence, I don't know what it is?

Pure Mathematics to win the probablities on your favor.

 

[Frk It]

I have made my own opinion clear for sure and shown reasonable data why I think like that.

Still waiting for some real counter-argument with more information than just "beliefs" or "feelings".

I will provide some data, since I feel like talking hockey this morning.

Here is data from 1998-2010 that shows draft selection and odds of becoming 20+ minute defenseman

1-2 = 100%
3-8 = 61%
9-18 = 32%
19-29 = 18%
30-50 = 13%
51-75 = 8%

This illustrates the very high margin of error that goes along with drafting defenseman outside of the top half of the draft.

Now I can understand and sign off on taking a forward like Zadina this year, but we're passing up a 61% chance at getting a good defenseman for a 13% chance at getting a good defenseman when we make choices like that and then take McIssac in round 2. That is a huge difference.

Another thing I will say is, this is just a base line... I don't think every defenseman taken in the 3-8 range has equal odds of succeeding, nor do I think the same for everyone in the 30-50 range.

But the averages tell you a bit about the big picture. Right now we are choosing to only draft defenseman from the ranges that do not produce at a high rate. We would have to draft 8-10 guys like Hronek, Lindstrom, McIsaac just to have ONE hit to match the league average.

So what we are doing is POSSIBLE, but statistically speaking there is a high margin of error with this plan. I think we have done a much better job of drafting defenseman, but I will feel a lot better once we add a blue chip prospect from that top 8 range to what we have.

 

[Henkka]

I will provide some data, since I feel like talking hockey this morning.

Here is data from 1998-2010 that shows draft selection and odds of becoming 20+ minute defenseman

How does that go with forwards?

I did found 94 +20 minute defencemen from last season who played over 40 games.

If I mulltiply 2 def positions to 3 forward positions, the 20-minute range for 94 defencemen is 16:30 for 141 forwards.

Then the split is like ~TOP4-5 forwards (141 players/31 teams = 4.55 forwards) and ~TOP3 defencemen (94/31 teams = 3.03 def) if we use these minute ranges as a determing factor.

 

[Frk It]

How does that go with forwards?

I did found 94 +20 minute defencemen from last season who played over 40 games.

If I mulltiply 2 def positions to 3 forward positions, the 20-minute range for 94 defencemen is 16:30 for 141 forwards.

Then the split is like ~TOP4-5 forwards (141 players/31 teams = 4.55 forwards) and ~TOP3 defencemen (94/31 teams = 3.03 def) if we use these minute ranges as a determing factor.

The data I use does PPG for forwads, and ATOI for defenseman.

They assume that drafting a 20:00 defenseman is about equivalent to drafting a .5 PPG forward.

Here is the draft ranges and their odds of drafting a forward that produces >.50 PPG over the same time frame:
(I wish they would have used the same range of picks as the defenseman... )

#1 = 90%
#2 = 100%
#3 = 86%
#4 = 75%
#5-7 = 52%
#8-15 =29%
#16-33 = 26%
#34-72 = 8%

 

[Pavels Dog]

1st round is best place to find everything.
We’ve been ”unlucky” to not even have a realistic choice of a D very often in that round without doing some crazy hindsight-reach though.

’08 - Last pick of 1st round, terrible pick and very good D available. FAIL.

’09 - traded down from #29 into 2nd round. Simon Despres was taken #30, no notable D early in 2nd.

’10 - Sheahan at #21, Faulk at #37 was closest notable D

’11 - Traded down from 1st to get Jurco+Ouellet, no notable D taken late in 1st or early 2nd

’12 - Traded 1st for Quincey, best possible D pick at that position would be Olli Maatta

’13 - Traded down, ”missed” Mirco Mueller. Shea Theodore best possible D pick instead of Mantha with Mantha clearly being the BPA at that position.

’14 - Larkin. Sanheim/DeAngelo possible D options.

’15 - Chabot taken one spot ahead. Missed no notable D after our pick.

’16 - Traded down to take Cholowoski+Hronek. Good value.

’17 - BPA was forward, not many quality D available top 10.

’18 - BPA clearly Zadina. This will look ugly if Zadina busts and some of the D available become top-pairing.

So I guess... other than a huge miss in 08(too much faith in Smith+Kindl?), would we trade Larkin+Mantha+ a few years of Quincey for Sanheim+Theodore+Maatta? Essentially best ”realistic” outcome of a heavy 1st round D focus last 10 years. Or Bertuzzi+Mantha for Mirco Mueller?

 

[Frk It]

1st round is best place to find everything.
We’ve been ”unlucky” to not even have a realistic choice of a D very often in that round without doing some crazy hindsight-reach though.

’08 - Last pick of 1st round, terrible pick and very good D available. FAIL.

’09 - traded down from #29 into 2nd round. Simon Despres was taken #30, no notable D early in 2nd.

’10 - Sheahan at #21, Faulk at #37 was closest notable D

’11 - Traded down from 1st to get Jurco+Ouellet, no notable D taken late in 1st or early 2nd

’12 - Traded 1st for Quincey, best possible D pick at that position would be Olli Maatta

’13 - Traded down, ”missed” Mirco Mueller. Shea Theodore best possible D pick instead of Mantha with Mantha clearly being the BPA at that position.

’14 - Larkin. Sanheim/DeAngelo possible D options.

’15 - Chabot taken one spot ahead. Missed no notable D after our pick.

’16 - Traded down to take Cholowoski+Hronek. Good value.

’17 - BPA was forward, not many quality D available top 10.

’18 - BPA clearly Zadina. This will look ugly if Zadina busts and some of the D available become top-pairing.

So I guess... would we trade Larkin+Mantha+ a few years of Quincey for Sanheim+Theodore+Maatta? Essentially best ”realistic” outcome of a heavy 1st round D focus last 10 years.

There has been some bad luck for sure. Was really praying Chabot would make it another pick. Was also hoping McAvoy would make it another few picks.

This year would have been tough for me, I had Zadina at #3 and Dobson at #4. Really don’t know what I would have done on the spot in the situation we’re in, with our current back end.

We have some more high picks coming and the trade avenue so we will see what happens. I know people would be against it, but I’d at least consider a Rasmussen + package for Trouba. Could be one of those win-win trades where both teams make out well.

 

[Henkka]

The data I use does PPG for forwads, and ATOI for defenseman.

They assume that drafting a 20:00 defenseman is about equivalent to drafting a .5 PPG forward.

The line for the 141th best forward on last season was 0.61 points per game.

Does that change anything on a fast look? Or did you use longer term point averages?

And why did you use different pick ranges for Def and Forw?

 

[Frk It]

The line for the 141th best forward on last season was 0.61 points per game.

Does that change anything on a fast look? Or did you use longer term point averages?

And why did you use different pick ranges for Def and Forw?

It’s not my data, it’s taken from here:
BLUE BULLET REPORT

 

[Henkka]

It’s not my data, it’s taken from here:
BLUE BULLET REPORT

Okay, finally some real data.

Thanks a lot about this!

Michael Shuckers’s research revolves around the value of players based on NHL games played. Therefore, Schuckers’s research was based off of quantity while my research is based off of quality. By combining the two sets of data, it gives the best of both worlds.

Both ways, quantity and quality involved, I like this study.

So forwards have had better average value at ranges 1-4, 9-15 and 19-31.

Defenceman have had better average value at ranges 5-8 and 16-18.

Point Value Total for forwards from 1st round is 834,4 value points and 724,3 for defencemen.

 

[obey86]

I will provide some data, since I feel like talking hockey this morning.

Here is data from 1998-2010 that shows draft selection and odds of becoming 20+ minute defenseman

1-2 = 100%
3-8 = 61%
9-18 = 32%
19-29 = 18%
30-50 = 13%
51-75 = 8%

This illustrates the very high margin of error that goes along with drafting defenseman outside of the top half of the draft.

Now I can understand and sign off on taking a forward like Zadina this year, but we're passing up a 61% chance at getting a good defenseman for a 13% chance at getting a good defenseman when we make choices like that and then take McIssac in round 2. That is a huge difference.

Another thing I will say is, this is just a base line... I don't think every defenseman taken in the 3-8 range has equal odds of succeeding, nor do I think the same for everyone in the 30-50 range.

But the averages tell you a bit about the big picture. Right now we are choosing to only draft defenseman from the ranges that do not produce at a high rate. We would have to draft 8-10 guys like Hronek, Lindstrom, McIsaac just to have ONE hit to match the league average.

So what we are doing is POSSIBLE, but statistically speaking there is a high margin of error with this plan. I think we have done a much better job of drafting defenseman, but I will feel a lot better once we add a blue chip prospect from that top 8 range to what we have.

Problem with this study is that I don't think a 20+ minute defenseman is anything special. And lots of top picks who aren't good end up playing 20+ minutes simply because they were drafted high. For example, Zach Bogosian is a "20+ minute defenseman" and he sucks. If I took him at #3 like Winnipeg did (or hell, even at like #15) i'd be extremely disappointed, despite him having crossed this magical 20+ minute barrier. Dekeyser is a "20+ minute defenseman" that we got for free, and we all think he sucks.

Plenty of crappy defensemen who play 20+ minutes because they are on bad teams and someone has to play the minutes. The study would be worth a lot more if those defensemen were weeded out.

 

[obey86]

1st round is best place to find everything.
We’ve been ”unlucky” to not even have a realistic choice of a D very often in that round without doing some crazy hindsight-reach though.

’08 - Last pick of 1st round, terrible pick and very good D available. FAIL.

’09 - traded down from #29 into 2nd round. Simon Despres was taken #30, no notable D early in 2nd.

’10 - Sheahan at #21, Faulk at #37 was closest notable D

’11 - Traded down from 1st to get Jurco+Ouellet, no notable D taken late in 1st or early 2nd

’12 - Traded 1st for Quincey, best possible D pick at that position would be Olli Maatta

’13 - Traded down, ”missed” Mirco Mueller. Shea Theodore best possible D pick instead of Mantha with Mantha clearly being the BPA at that position.

’14 - Larkin. Sanheim/DeAngelo possible D options.

’15 - Chabot taken one spot ahead. Missed no notable D after our pick.

’16 - Traded down to take Cholowoski+Hronek. Good value.

’17 - BPA was forward, not many quality D available top 10.

’18 - BPA clearly Zadina. This will look ugly if Zadina busts and some of the D available become top-pairing.

So I guess... other than a huge miss in 08(too much faith in Smith+Kindl?), would we trade Larkin+Mantha+ a few years of Quincey for Sanheim+Theodore+Maatta? Essentially best ”realistic” outcome of a heavy 1st round D focus last 10 years. Or Bertuzzi+Mantha for Mirco Mueller?

Great post, I brought this up before as well. There were very few defensemen that would have made sense being picked where the Red Wings picked, even using 100% hindsight.

 

[Henkka]

Looks like we got 3rd best (Zadina), 14th best (Veleno), 24th best (Berggren) and 27th best (MCIsaac) based on that guy's studies.

A draft of 4 first-round talents.

No wonder why others are hyping our draft.

going after bouchard instead of Zadina would have been a 30.8 point loss in value.

That loss is combined the value of Veleno + Berggren.

It couldn't go any better.

 

[Mike Puck]

What if there is a 70% chance to get great forwards on the 1st round picks and 30% chance to get great forwards on later rounds?

When there's 60% chance for 1st round defencemen and 40% chance for later round defencemen?

Why not going 70+40 = 110% chances in the big picture? Why going like the opposite, 60+30=90% chances?

Red Wings are completing this plan A.

If it's not intelligence, I don't know what it is?

Pure Mathematics to win the probablities on your favor.

So if Zadina was gone before the 6th pick, you suggest they've picked some other F instead of Dobson, Bouchard, Hughes etc.?

 

[Henkka]

So if Zadina was gone before the 6th pick, you suggest they've picked some other F instead of Dobson, Bouchard, Hughes etc.?

The question would have been between Wahlstrom, Hughes and Bouchard, if your draft chart is based on those values.

 

[Frk It]

Problem with this study is that I don't think a 20+ minute defenseman is anything special. And lots of top picks who aren't good end up playing 20+ minutes simply because they were drafted high. For example, Zach Bogosian is a "20+ minute defenseman" and he sucks. If I took him at #3 like Winnipeg did (or hell, even at like #15) i'd be extremely disappointed, despite him having crossed this magical 20+ minute barrier. Dekeyser is a "20+ minute defenseman" that we got for free, and we all think he sucks.

Plenty of crappy defensemen who play 20+ minutes because they are on bad teams and someone has to play the minutes. The study would be worth a lot more if those defensemen were weeded out.

I agree for sure, but then you are making it subjective and open for interpretation.

Wish there was a higher threshold as well like > 22-23 minutes, or an additional qualifier such as PPG to weed guys out and just see “qualify” defenseman.

 

[lilidk]

Nashville has the best defense in the NHL:
1 P.K. Subban was drafted 2 round #43
2 Roman Josi was drafted 2 round #38
3 Ryan Ellis 1 round #11
4. Mattias Ekholm round 4 #102
5 Alexei Emelin round 3 #84
6 Matt Irwin undrafted
7Yannick Weber round 3 #73
3 of them from Montreal

 

[Henkka]

Emelin was let walk walk and Hamhuis was signed.

Poile is turning like Holland by signing his old washed up vets back.

 

[Snuggs]

That is not a significant package at all. Jensen is a guy who might pass through waivers for nothing. That trade offer wouldn't even be close.

Personally I think a deal for Trouba would involve a 1st round pick or a Rasmussen type prospect, along with some other stuff. I mean he had better numbers than Larsson did when he got traded. Last 2 years he has produced at a ~40 pt pace over 82 games while getting pretty minimal PP time.

Well I mean honestly I don't think it's great, I just don't think teams are going to give up what you suggested with the 1st rdp plus high end C prospect... Unless he's resigned and assured the team he'll resign.

I'm not sure any team is going to give up a major haul without a resigning. I mean I get he's good but it's a lot to give up with the 1st rdp, Ras, plus more without a signing.

I'm not pimping Jensen either. I think he'd get picked up if waived but yeah, he's a bottom pair D-man or 7th on about 15-16 teams imo.

 

[Snuggs]

I'm not going to lie either. I'll be interested in Bouchard for a long time too, not quite as tall or big but his game remindes me of Rob Blake. I wanted him with the selection at 6... untill Zadina was sitting with a bow on him like a Mercedez for Christmas.

 

[lilidk]

Don't worry about Bouchard we can get him in about 5 years , remember he was drafted by oilers

 

[SirloinUB]

I believe Dobson was going to be our pick if Zadina didn’t slide to 6.

 

[Frk It]

I believe Dobson was going to be our pick if Zadina didn’t slide to 6.

They were zooming in awfully hard on Quinn Hughes at the draft... But maybe. Tough call between Dobson, Hughes, and Bouchard.

 

[lilidk]

They were zooming in awfully hard on Quinn Hughes at the draft... But maybe. Tough call between Dobson, Hughes, and Bouchard.

it were better if they trade down