Former Canucks Thread (Dan Hamhuis retires)

[HockeyWooot]

I know he’s been bouncing between the AHL and bigs for a while, but I never knew Kevin Connauton has played over 300 NHL games.

One of the few players from the Gillis era. Sad.

 

[vanuck]

Savage.

 

[Bubbles]

Brendan Leipsic signed a one-year contract with the CSKA Moscow of the KHL on Tuesday. Hopefully, we'll never have to see him in the NHL again.

 

[Hit the post]

I know he’s been bouncing between the AHL and bigs for a while, but I never knew Kevin Connauton has played over 300 NHL games.

One of the few players from the Gillis era. Sad.

D drafted by Gilligan:
2008:
Yann Sauve (41st overall).....8 NHL games

2009:
Kevin Connaugton (83rd overall).....314 NHL games
Jeremy Price (113th overall)....zero NHL games
Peter Anderson (143rd overall)....zero NHL games

2010:
Patrick McNally (115th overall)....zero NHL games
Adam Polasek (145th overall)....zero NHL games

2011:
Frank Corrado (150th overall)....76 NHL games
Henrik Tommernes (210th overall)....zero NHL games

2012:
Ben Hutton (147th overall)....341 NHL games

2013:
Jordan Subban (115th overall)...zero NHL games
Anton Cederholm (145 overall)....zero NHL games
Mike Williamson (175th overall)....zero NHL games
Mike Liberati (205th overall)....zero NHL games

As you can see, Gilligan never drafted D-man higher than 41st overall (2nd round pick). The lack of "success" isn't surprising. If the drafting guru didn't select an D-men higher than 41st overall; I'd imagine the "success" rate wouldn't be much (if any) better.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Brendan Leipsic signed a one-year contract with the CSKA Moscow of the KHL on Tuesday. Hopefully, we'll never have to see him in the NHL again.

Too bad. I would have enjoyed the theatre the next time he had to play against the Canucks. Leipsic is due one hell of an ass kicking.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

snip

As you can see, Gilligan never drafted D-man higher than 41st overall (2nd round pick). The lack of "success" isn't surprising. If the drafting guru didn't select an D-men higher than 41st overall; I'd imagine the "success" rate wouldn't be much (if any) better.

Just for fun:

2014:
Nikita Tryamkin (66th overall)...79 NHL games
Gustav Forsling (126th overall)...122 NHL games
Mackenzie Stewart (186th overall)...0 NHL games

2015:
Guillaume Brisebois (66th overall)...8 NHL games
Carl Neill (144th overall)...0 NHL games
Tate Olson (210th overall)...0 NHL games

2016:
Cole Candella (140th overall)...0 NHL games

2017:
Jack Rathbone (95th overall)...0 NHL games
Kristopher Gunnarsson (135th overall)...0 NHL games
Matt Brassard (188th overall)...0 NHL games

2018:
Toni Utunen (130th overall)...0 NHL games


So Rathbone is really the only player that looks like he will get some games in, with an outside chance at Brisebois, Utunen, and maybe Tryamkin if they can work out the contract. Forsling might still have a chance as a journeyman, depth defender, but Benning clearly didn't think that highly of him since he preferred Clendening.

 

[Bubbles]

In regards to drafting, IMO if you get anything from the 4th to 7th, it's a bonus. Even a steady AHLer would be a plus, one NHL game from someone there is a win.

Your 1st rounder should be a top 6xer or top4 d, and should be with your team for 10 years or more.

Your 2nd rounder should be a decent contributor. A solid NHL level guy.

Your 3rd rounder should be a fringe NHLer, or bottom depth guy.

That's my minimum requirements for the draft rounds.

 

[MS]

In regards to drafting, IMO if you get anything from the 4th to 7th, it's a bonus. Even a steady AHLer would be a plus, one NHL game from someone there is a win.

Your 1st rounder should be a top 6xer or top4 d, and should be with your team for 10 years or more.

Your 2nd rounder should be a decent contributor. A solid NHL level guy.

Your 3rd rounder should be a fringe NHLer, or bottom depth guy.

That's my minimum requirements for the draft rounds.

Only 30% of #1 picks meet your expectations (and most of those are taken with top-10 picks).

Only 25% of #2 picks meet your expectations.

Maybe 20% of #3 picks meet your expectations.

 

[Bubbles]

Only 30% of #1 picks meet your expectations (and most of those are taken with top-10 picks).

Only 25% of #2 picks meet your expectations.

Maybe 20% of #3 picks meet your expectations.

Interesting. I wonder if someone out there has done analytics for this kind of thing, like what actual percentages for each round. It would be fascinating to read.

These are of course just my expectations. I'm curious if you share the same.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Interesting. I wonder if someone out there has done analytics for this kind of thing, like what actual percentages for each round. It would be fascinating to read.

These are of course just my expectations. I'm curious if you share the same.

I did an analysis for just 1st round picks from 2010 - 2016 (recent enough to account for the preference of skill/speed over size, but not so recent as to screw up the results for players who are just beginning their NHL careers like Cody Glass). It's just for the odds of picks becoming NHL players, not necessarily top 4 dmen/top 6 forwards, though.

Results and Analysis

Here are some interesting takeaways:

• 73.33% of the 1st round picks became NHL players (132 out of 180 players).
• The most notable drop off occurs at 22nd overall, where the chances go from 83% in the top 21 picks to 50% in the bottom 9 picks.
• Another drop off occurs from 11th to 13th overall, which goes from 90% in the top 10 picks to 56% from picks 11th – 13th overall (although this might be the result of a small sample size more than anything else).
• The worst spots to pick are 25th, 27th, and 29th overall, with only a 33.33% chance for each pick becoming an NHL player.
• The worst draft was 2011, which yielded a 66.66% success rate in drafting NHL players.
• The best drafts were 2012 through 2015, with a 77% success rate in drafting NHL players for each draft.

The following are the results for the success rates of picks becoming NHL players. The players listed in the brackets are the ones that failed to meet the requirements to be considered NHL players.

1. 83.33% (Yakupov)
2. 100%
3. 100%
4. 83.33% (G. Reinhart)
5. 83.33% (Dal Colle)
6. 100%
7. 100%
8. 66.66% (Burmistrov and Pouliot)
9. 100%
10. 83.33% (McIlrath)
11. 66.66% (Siemens and Morin)
12. 50% (Ryan Murphy, Grigorenko, and Gurianov)
13. 50% (Gormley, Baertschi, and Zboril)
14. 83.33% (Honka)
15. 83.33% (Senyshyn)
16. 100%
17. 83.33% (Hishon)
18. 83.33% (McNeill)
19. 66.66% (Rychel, Svechnikov)
20. 83.33% (B. Bennett)
21. 100%
22. 50% (Tinordi, Biggs, and Poirer)
23. 66.66% (Morrow, Bleackley)
24. 66.66% (Puempel, Shinkaruk)
25. 33.33% (Howden, Percy, Schmaltz, McCarron)
26. 50% (Gaunce, Scherbak, Juulsen)
27. 33.33% (Visentin, Samuelsson, Dano, Goldobin)
28. 50% (Phillips, Klimchuk, Ho Sang)
29. 33.33% (Etem, Jensen, Matteau, Carlsson)
30. 66.66% (Quenneville, Merkley)

It is worth noting that this analysis does not account for players playing on bad teams who otherwise would not be NHL regulars. This assessment was not intended to determine the quality or skill of the players, just whether they are NHL regulars. It also does not account for “late bloomers” who may prove this assessment wrong.

Methodology

So what exactly qualifies as a “regular NHL player”? The criteria depends on the year that the player was drafted. Beginning with the 2010 draft, the minimum requirements to be considered an NHL roster player are:

1. Having played at least 200 NHL games throughout the player’s career; and
2. Having played a majority of the games in the 2019-2020 season (barring injury).

For each additional draft (2011 onwards), the first requirement (total career games played) is reduced by 15% to account for the players having had less time to establish themselves by virtue of being drafted a year later. However, having played the majority of games in the 19-20 season is still a requirement regardless of a player’s draft year.

The logic behind this criteria is to ensure that the player has been a regular NHL player in previous seasons (not just an emergency call-up or fringe player for only the 19-20 season), yet is still making an impact in the NHL today.

A different criteria applies to goalies. Goalies need to have:

1. Played at least 50 NHL games throughout a goalie’s career; and
2. Played at least 20 NHL games in the 2019-2020 season.

There is a 30% reduction for each subsequent draft year for the first requirement. The reason for having a different standards being applied to goalies is because back-up goalies generally don’t play many games in a season (back-up goalies are still considered NHL regulars for the purposes of this analysis). However, this does not really impact the analysis, as there are only three goalies included in this sample (Campbell, M. Subban, and Samsonov; all of them qualified as NHL regulars).

The sample of data that was analyzed is based on six NHL drafts, from 2010 to 2015. The reason for this sample size is because: (1) it’s far enough back to fairly judge players with enough time having passed; and (2) both the league and drafting have evolved with a preference for speed and skill over size, so 2010 seemed like a good spot to draw the line.

 

[MS]

Interesting. I wonder if someone out there has done analytics for this kind of thing, like what actual percentages for each round. It would be fascinating to read.

These are of course just my expectations. I'm curious if you share the same.

My rough numbers on draft pick success are :

- for #1 picks as a whole, you usually have 1/3 who become top-6/top-4 guys, 1/3 who become depth players, 1/3 who bust. But that's heavily skewed toward the top-10 picks.

- #2 picks, 25% make the NHL in some capacity, with 10% as top-6/top-4 guys.

But that's very rough, and there's huge variation. 2007 really only 3 guys made it from that 2nd round. Other years it's up around 10-12.

People assume most #1 picks stick in the NHL, but when you look at picks 11-30, it's maybe 50%.

 

[Bubbles]

Ah thanks 50 Sheas! Very interesting. So, using your analysis:

2010 - No pick
2011 - Nicklas Jensen - 31 games
2012 - Brendan Gaunce - 118 games
2013 - Bo Horvat - 446 games
- Hunter Shinkaruk - 15 games
2014 - Jake Virtanen - 279 games
- Jared McCann - 310 games
2015 - Brock Boeser - 197 games

4/7 = 57%

When the average rate should be 73.3%. And McCann no longer plays for the Canucks.

 

[supercanuck]

1. 83.33% (Yakupov)
2. 100%
3. 100%
4. 83.33% (G. Reinhart)
5. 83.33% (Dal Colle)

Oof! Examples of the work of Snow and Chiarelli. At least Snow got Barzal out of Reinhart I guess.

 

[MS]

Ah thanks 50 Sheas! Very interesting. So, using your analysis:

2010 - No pick
2011 - Nicklas Jensen - 31 games
2012 - Brendan Gaunce - 118 games
2013 - Bo Horvat - 446 games
- Hunter Shinkaruk - 15 games
2014 - Jake Virtanen - 279 games
- Jared McCann - 310 games
2015 - Brock Boeser - 197 games

4/7 = 57%

When the average rate should be 73.3%. And McCann no longer plays for the Canucks.

That 73.3% is based on equal pick distribution throughout round 1. 5 of those 7 picks for us were below pick #20, so you'd expect our numbers to be substantially worse.

 

[PecaFan]

Another drop off occurs from 11th to 13th overall, which goes from 90% in the top 10 picks to 56% from picks 11th – 13th overall (although this might be the result of a small sample size more than anything else).

I've had a theory on that for years now. I think it's due to our human nature of sticking to nice round numbers like 10. IE, scouts get in the room and they say things like 'ok, let's really concentrate on getting these top ten guys in order'. So they spend more time evaluating some guys than others. Or, they don't evaluate as much 'across boundaries', first break up the list into the top 10, next 10, then arrange within those groups, so guy 14 doesn't get compared to guy 10 as much as he should, and so on.

Also, is it just me, but with Leipsic leaving, isn't it an insanely high number of Benning signings that are out of the league in a few years?

 

[MS]

I've had a theory on that for years now. I think it's due to our human nature of sticking to nice round numbers like 10. IE, scouts get in the room and they say things like 'ok, let's really concentrate on getting these top ten guys in order'. So they spend more time evaluating some guys than others. Or, they don't evaluate as much 'across boundaries', first break up the list into the top 10, next 10, then arrange within those groups, so guy 14 doesn't get compared to guy 10 as much as he should, and so on.

Hmm.

I've always felt these divides were because of the pressure on GMs to have their top-10 picks and #1 picks succeed, so those players get far bigger opportunities than players taken just below them. Look at how Gillis was crucified for having a #28 overall pick fail but nobody even remembers #34 overall ... and you see a big drop in success rates as soon as you cross that threshold to the 2nd round. And the top 10 as well.

Possibly there's also a psychological effect for the player as well where a player who gets into the top-30 or top-10 is given extra confidence as a result.

 

[PecaFan]

Hmm.

I've always felt these divides were because of the pressure on GMs to have their top-10 picks and #1 picks succeed, so those players get far bigger opportunities than players taken just below them.

Yup, good point. I think it's two sides of the same coin, the GM dividing guys into nice even bunches based on round.

 

[vanuck]

Only 30% of #1 picks meet your expectations (and most of those are taken with top-10 picks).

Only 25% of #2 picks meet your expectations.

Maybe 20% of #3 picks meet your expectations.

I wonder - if you added up these percentages for rounds 1 through 7, and assuming you have a pick in each round - whether you could expect a total of 100% (essentially meaning you'd draft 1 NHL'er), regardless of where you're picking in each round.

 

[F A N]

As you can see, Gilligan never drafted D-man higher than 41st overall (2nd round pick). The lack of "success" isn't surprising. If the drafting guru didn't select an D-men higher than 41st overall; I'd imagine the "success" rate wouldn't be much (if any) better.

It is easier to find a top 4 Dman later in the draft than a top 6 forward. Then again, the Canucks, as you have pointed out, have not drafted an Edler or a Bieksa since... well Edler and Bieksa. So logic would dictate that at some point it makes sense to use premium picks on defensemen. It's not a fluke that Carolina has a great blueline.

In 2012, the next Dman drafted after the Canucks chose Gaunce and Mallet were Skjei and Severson.

In 2013, the Canucks could have easily gotten Morrisey and Theodore instead of Horvat and Shinkaruk.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

I wonder - if you added up these percentages for rounds 1 through 7, and assuming you have a pick in each round - whether you could expect a total of 100% (essentially meaning you'd draft 1 NHL'er), regardless of where you're picking in each round.

You can get the probability of not getting a NHL player in a draft by multiplying the probability of not getting an NHL player for each round. If you minus that number from one that is the probability of getting at least one NHL player.

There used to be a site that had 20 of draft data that isn't around anymore. I did rounds 2-7. I don't remember the exact numbers but this should be in the ball park.

2nd: 80% chance of not returning an NHLer
3rd: 90%
4th: 92%
5th: 94%
6th: 95%
7th: 96%

There is approximately a 43.2 percent chance of getting an NHL player from rounds 2-7.

 

[Pip]

I mean it’s pretty stupid that it is even asked of goalies to play b2b games nowadays but still an interesting comment. Smart of Lu

 

[Fire Benning]

Hamhuis just did an interview on 1040 and basically announced his retirement. Great career, was a horse for us back in the day.

 

[Zombotron]

hammer <3

 

[Breakers]

He was a #1 d-man during those peak years

 

[Zippgunn]

I mean it’s pretty stupid that it is even asked of goalies to play b2b games nowadays but still an interesting comment. Smart of Lu

...and selfish. I can see having an "understanding" with the coach but to actually put it in your contract is a bit much...