NHL 2020 Draft Happiness Poll

[lilidk]

Raymond pick was the best choice who was available. Rest of the pics were reach . Just like last year Hakaan was the man . Draper had his pics later. They did not go after best player , but positional needs. Out of 12 prospects in this draft we might only going to get 1 nhler. I expected much better results from this draft

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Will Raymond be the first RH shot F we've had that is consistently in our top 6 since like Shanahan/ Lang?

No.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

I gave it a 3. When you look at the drafts the Canes or Leafs had and compare it to our later round selections I don't think we can really argue that the Wings had a great 2nd day.

Raymond - Good, he was my 2nd choice behind Rossi and we didn't take Sanderson or Askarov (A)
Wallinder - Meh, not my first choice given the F on the board but he should be an interesting prospect (B)
Niederbach - Again, not my favorite, but he should be good to follow. I think he can definitely be a 2/3C (B)
Hanas - Big reach, even if you like him I think you trade down again for more assets or hope he's there at 70 or later. Interesting upside, great skill (D)
Sebrango - You can't have an Yzerman draft without his token 6'1 - 6'3 smooth skating two way D (C)
Eemil Viro - I don't hate it, but I'd have preferred Niemela if we were going Finish Dmen (C)
Sam Stange - Really dislike this pick. Limited upside, overager. (F)
Jan Bednar - Token goalie pick. Should be interesting to follow (B)
Alex Cotton - My favorite re-entry Dmen, I think he'll be fun to watch (A)
Kyle Aucoin - Really dislike this pick as well. He doesn't have a profile that porjects to even be an AHLer right now. I hope he proves me wrong (F)
Kienan Draper - THE WORST. I know 7ths are joked about as being valuless, but they do produce NHLers and wasting one on a family member is selfish. (F)
Chase Bradley - Know nothing about him, doesn't project well (D)

So, I guess that averages out to (2A+3B+2C+2D+3F) = 2.75/5 and a total of 33 out of 60 points(A=5, B=4, C=3, D=2, and F=0). So I guess a C- would be appropriate. Given the draft capital the Wings had I really expected them to have a better draft and I'm getting shades of 2017 from some of our selections.

After sleeping on in it I think I can bump up some of the grades. I'm still not huge on the Aucoin, Draper, or Bradley selections; the Bradley one I'm quite perplexed on to be honest. That being said I think Hanas should be about a C and Stange could move up to a D or even a C. The rest stay the same as I'm still not sold on Sebrango, Viro, et al to move them up.

So I think overall that would boost my grade to a (2A+3B+2C+3D+2F) for a 2.83/5 and a 34/60 overall. I do think we should get 2-4 NHLers from this draft, but the misuse of draft capital is what hurts the ranking in my eye.

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

Plenty of room for improvement if were going on individual takes but none of us have the tools and staff available to make a real judgement

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

I gave it a 3, only because no Perfetti, no birthday buddy (JJ Peterka), and that's all I have to say about that.

People getting angry at Drapes picking Drapes need to give their head a shake. It's a thrill for the kid, his dad gets to draft him into the best league in the best sport in the world, and everyone has a a little fun.

And apparently several of the other scouts had highish opinions of him.

Besides, they got another pick to compensate anyway. Who cares?

People need to give their head a shake for being annoyed at a nepotism pick and choosing a pick based on their relationship to a member of the organization?

Riiiight

 

[Bob Probert Owns You]

Will Raymond be the first RH shot F we've had that is consistently in our top 6 since like Shanahan/ Lang?

Uhhhhh, what about the Shinguard Assassin Mikael Samuelsson??

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

Trust the Yzerplan

Hot take but I’m so tired of this saying already. Yeah I trust Stevie as he’s never given me a reason to not give him 100% loyalty but just because his franchise history is with us doesn’t mean he should be above criticism or elicit some worry

 

[Ulysses31]

Changed my vote from a 5 to a 4. First draft i really nerded out on, was always just a casual observer before. voted 5 in terms of enjoying the draft experience and even tho stoked about wallinder and Raymond...

I think Wild had a 5/5 draft, think there first two picks were as good as our 1st 2 with a worse draft position

 

[Henkka]

Uhhhhh, what about the Shinguard Assassin Mikael Samuelsson??

Alfredsson was there!

Like a real hockeyplayer, instead of an assasin.

Awood should do Mikael Samuelsson -highlights...

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

I give it a 4 based on the first 4 selections.

Raymond wasn't my first choice. I'd personally have preferred Rossi, but I can live with it.
2nd round I got 2 of the 6 players who were on my wishlist (Niederbach and Wallinder) and Hanas who after not knowing anything about I've become pleasantly surprised by.
3rd round and later I think we could have done better than Sebrango and Viro.

I like the Bednar pick. I'm not sure what his potential is but seems to have great athletic ability. I'm hoping the rest can be boosted by having a good goaltending coach.

I think guys like Tullio, Nybeck, Nikishin would have provided better value than Cotton, Sebrango, Stange and Aucoin in the later rounds.

I'm very surprised I didn't see Glotzl and Styf get selected by anyone. Glotzl was Germany's 2nd or 3rd best DMan at the WJC. Maybe we get him as a FA at some point?

You can kind of tell that it was the Hakan Andersson show picks 1 to 3, then the rest was taken over by Draper.

I know he lucked out with Bertuzzi and Givani Smith, but is Draper going to become another Tyler Wright? I don't think we swung for the fences with a single pick after the 2nd round.

 

[nbwingsfan]

I gave it a 3. When you look at the drafts the Canes or Leafs had and compare it to our later round selections I don't think we can really argue that the Wings had a great 2nd day.

Raymond - Good, he was my 2nd choice behind Rossi and we didn't take Sanderson or Askarov (A)
Wallinder - Meh, not my first choice given the F on the board but he should be an interesting prospect (B)
Niederbach - Again, not my favorite, but he should be good to follow. I think he can definitely be a 2/3C (B)
Hanas - Big reach, even if you like him I think you trade down again for more assets or hope he's there at 70 or later. Interesting upside, great skill (D)
Sebrango - You can't have an Yzerman draft without his token 6'1 - 6'3 smooth skating two way D (C)
Eemil Viro - I don't hate it, but I'd have preferred Niemela if we were going Finish Dmen (C)
Sam Stange - Really dislike this pick. Limited upside, overager. (F)
Jan Bednar - Token goalie pick. Should be interesting to follow (B)
Alex Cotton - My favorite re-entry Dmen, I think he'll be fun to watch (A)
Kyle Aucoin - Really dislike this pick as well. He doesn't have a profile that porjects to even be an AHLer right now. I hope he proves me wrong (F)
Kienan Draper - THE WORST. I know 7ths are joked about as being valuless, but they do produce NHLers and wasting one on a family member is selfish. (F)
Chase Bradley - Know nothing about him, doesn't project well (D)

So, I guess that averages out to (2A+3B+2C+2D+3F) = 2.75/5 and a total of 33 out of 60 points(A=5, B=4, C=3, D=2, and F=0). So I guess a C- would be appropriate. Given the draft capital the Wings had I really expected them to have a better draft and I'm getting shades of 2017 from some of our selections.

I dont know how you can say the Canes/Leafs had a good draft and we didnt when its been one day since the draft...?

Was theirs good because they picked guys who were higher on draft rankings or more "brand names"? I dont think I need to explain the lack of logic there?

Its also strange to me to see you rate players highly or poorly due to "high/low upside".

Larkin was considered to have low upside. Bertuzzi was unanimously hated here when picked. Smith was supposed to be our future #1D because of his high upside. Most here hated the Seider pick. The list goes on and on.

Fact is we have NO idea how any of these players will turn out. All we know is Yzerman built a powerhouse franchise in Tampa off the back of the draft so we should really trust his choices.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

I dont know how you can say the Canes/Leafs had a good draft and we didnt when its been one day since the draft...?

Was theirs good because they picked guys who were higher on draft rankings or more "brand names"? I dont think I need to explain the lack of logic there?

They picked more players that were higher on my own personal list. I don't really care for what mainstream pundits may have to say if we're being honest. I loved their drafts and felt that they selected the most excess value and made their picks count.

Its also strange to me to see you rate players highly or poorly due to "high/low upside".

Larkin was considered to have low upside. Bertuzzi was unanimously hated here when picked. Smith was supposed to be our future #1D because of his high upside. Most here hated the Seider pick. The list goes on and on.

Fact is we have NO idea how any of these players will turn out. All we know is Yzerman built a powerhouse franchise in Tampa off the back of the draft so we should really trust his choices.

The idea that you need to wait to make comment on a draft pick or trade is a bit silly. Every pick has an expected value and every player has a distribution of likely outcomes that you can compare to that picks expected value.

You can measure a players likelihood to reach X level at the moment they were picked and adjusted it for each season they play there after if you wanted. For example look at this chart for Will Cuylle. If Will has a great DY+1 he will likely see his distribution change and move further to the right as he looks like a more offensive player. You can create probability distributions for ever player in the draft and use that to create pretty accurate representations of their value on draft day.

Spoiler: Will Cuylle

We could also compare Will Cuylle to say Sam Colangelo and notice the difference in their expected outcomes.

Spoiler: Sam Colangelo

Just because a player may end up in the tail of that distribution doesn't mean that it invalidates their value at the time of the draft. Selecting someone like Bertuzzi generally leads to results like Zach Nastasiuk, Givani Smith, Dominic Turgeron, or any other offensively challenged player that fails to make an impact at the NHL level. Bertuzzi was able to reach the tail of his distribution which is great for him, but we need to acknowledge that the process to select him was flawed and inherently risky. Look at all of the similar prospects we selected in the Tyler Wright years and how few of them actually become usable NHLers and not just replacement level.

The same thing can be said for when a player that has a high probability of success fails. Just because they failed to reach their ceiling doesn't mean that they lacked that upside. For the record I agree about the Smith thing. I think the hype was a bit out of a control and his most likely outcome would have been that of a 2nd paring dman.

There have been numerous studies completed that show that if you can't produce points at levels below the NHL not only is the player unlike to make the NHL, they also have a low ceiling. You can build a very simple model and get an excellent idea of a players floor/ceiling. Alternatively you can create a more complex one like the example I put above and get a full idea of the players distribution outcomes.

 

[nbwingsfan]

They picked more players that were higher on my own personal list. I don't really care for what mainstream pundits may have to say if we're being honest. I loved their drafts and felt that they selected the most excess value and made their picks count.



The idea that you need to wait to make comment on a draft pick or trade is a bit silly. Every pick has an expected value and every player has a distribution of likely outcomes that you can compare to that picks expected value.

You can measure a players likelihood to reach X level at the moment they were picked and adjusted it for each season they play there after if you wanted. For example look at this chart for Will Cuylle. If Will has a great DY+1 he will likely see his distribution change and move further to the right as he looks like a more offensive player. You can create probability distributions for ever player in the draft and use that to create pretty accurate representations of their value on draft day.

Spoiler: Will Cuylle

We could also compare Will Cuylle to say Sam Colangelo and notice the difference in their expected outcomes.

Spoiler: Sam Colangelo

Just because a player may end up in the tail of that distribution doesn't mean that it invalidates their value at the time of the draft. Selecting someone like Bertuzzi generally leads to results like Zach Nastasiuk, Givani Smith, Dominic Turgeron, or any other offensively challenged player that fails to make an impact at the NHL level. Bertuzzi was able to reach the tail of his distribution which is great for him, but we need to acknowledge that the process to select him was flawed and inherently risky. Look at all of the similar prospects we selected in the Tyler Wright years and how few of them actually become usable NHLers and not just replacement level.

The same thing can be said for when a player that has a high probability of success fails. Just because they failed to reach their ceiling doesn't mean that they lacked that upside. For the record I agree about the Smith thing. I think the hype was a bit out of a control and his most likely outcome would have been that of a 2nd paring dman.

There have been numerous studies completed that show that if you can't produce points at levels below the NHL not only is the player unlike to make the NHL, they also have a low ceiling. You can build a very simple model and get an excellent idea of a players floor/ceiling. Alternatively you can create a more complex one like the example I put above and get a full idea of the players distribution outcomes.

You still missed the point entirely. You have absolutely no idea how this draft will turn out. Declaring winners or losers of something involving 17 year olds is just plain ridiculous. People were clamoring about how amazing our 2011 draft was because we took such great "value" picks and players with high upside. What did we end up with:

Tomas Jurco: 13th forward
Xavier Ouellette: 7D/AHL player
Ryan Sproul: AHL D
Quine: AHL forward
Tvrdon: awful
Marchenko: #7D/AHL

That was a draft that was almost unanimously viewed as a A+ draft for us

You can have your preferences, but already declaring that we did poorly or someone else did great makes really no sense at all.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

You still missed the point entirely. You have absolutely no idea how this draft will turn out. Declaring winners or losers of something involving 17 year olds is just plain ridiculous. People were clamoring about how amazing our 2011 draft was because we took such great "value" picks and players with high upside. What did we end up with:

Tomas Jurco: 13th forward
Xavier Ouellette: 7D/AHL player
Ryan Sproul: AHL D
Quine: AHL forward
Tvrdon: awful
Marchenko: #7D/AHL

That was a draft that was almost unanimously viewed as a A+ draft for us

You can have your preferences, but already declaring that we did poorly or someone else did great makes really no sense at all.

Again, going off feel like we did in 2011 is different than going off a probabilistic model, or even a consensus pick model. You can have draft day winners on day 1 of the draft, day 365, day 730, etc. To say that because we aren't sure how they will develop means we can't evaluate the draft means you're ignoring the value these players had when they were selected. A players value will change drastically depending on when you do your review of the draft so it doesn't really matter at what point you do your review. It's like an observer effect, but for hockey prospects/players.

My overall point is that at every pick there is an expected value, the goal should be to select players that exceed that expected value. At this point I'm totally fine with saying the Wings failed to do that for some of their picks while teams like the Canes and Leafs did much better. The process matters just as much as the result. A bad process that leads to good results just means you got lucky.

If you don't agree with that idea that's fine.

 

[PullHard]

No.

who?

 

[nbwingsfan]

Again, going off feel like we did in 2011 is different than going off a probabilistic model, or even a consensus pick model. You can have draft day winners on day 1 of the draft, day 365, day 730, etc. To say that because we aren't sure how they will develop means we can't evaluate the draft means you're ignoring the value these players had when they were selected. A players value will change drastically depending on when you do your review of the draft so it doesn't really matter at what point you do your review. It's like an observer effect, but for hockey prospects/players.

My overall point is that at every pick there is an expected value, the goal should be to select players that exceed that expected value. At this point I'm totally fine with saying the Wings failed to do that for some of their picks while teams like the Canes and Leafs did much better. The process matters just as much as the result. A bad process that leads to good results just means you got lucky.

If you don't agree with that idea that's fine.

"Expected value" based on stats. There are a million other reasons why someone may be drafted higher or lower than theyre expected to. Clearly Detroit saw something in Bertuzzi to reach for him. Clearly we saw something in Larkin that made them think he will be more than a 3rd liner. This is why you actually watch players instead of just looking at how many points they put up.

Saying someone won the draft because they picked a bunch of good junior scorers is just plain wrong. A good junior player absolutely does not make a good NHL player

 

[Marky9er]

Did Draper take home run pick literally?

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

"Expected value" based on stats. There are a million other reasons why someone may be drafted higher or lower than theyre expected to. Clearly Detroit saw something in Bertuzzi to reach for him. Clearly we saw something in Larkin that made them think he will be more than a 3rd liner. This is why you actually watch players instead of just looking at how many points they put up.

Expected pick value is based on actual results that have happened in the NHL, so it's not "based on stats". You look at a period of selections, say 1998-2008, select a target value for what is considered to be an NHLer, either GP or TOI is commonly used, and then you run your regression and probably smooth the curve so every sequential pick is equal or less than the previous. It's really not that complex.

Why do we only focus on the successes? It's nice, but it's devoid from reality. Players that we selected that are similar to Bertuzzi are: Dominic Turgeon, Zach Nastasiuk, Louis-Marc Aubry, Chase Pearson, Givani Smith, Lane Zablocki, and Zachary Gallant. All were picked with a similar skillset and while not all of them were top 60 picks they were similar to Bertuzzi. Not one of them is really anything more than a 4th liner and most have never even played in the NHL.

In an ideal world an NHL team would use a blended model of traditional scouting and probabilistic models. You can avoid the players with low chances of success and weed out those that models may be unusually high on.

Saying someone won the draft because they picked a bunch of good junior scorers is just plain wrong. A good junior player absolutely does not make a good NHL player

A good junior player doesn't guarantee success, but it does provide a higher likelihood of an NHL player than a bad Jr. player. This really isn't controversial at this point. It takes a few seconds to just google how Junior scoring is a solid indicator of future NHL success. If you're selecting junior players who can't score you're essentially hoping they can develop into 3rd or 4th liners which are always available in FA. Drafting just to get replacement level players or bottom line players really doesn't make sense or sound like a good use of assets.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Expected pick value is based on actual results that have happened in the NHL, so it's not "based on stats". You look at a period of selections, say 1998-2008, select a target value for what is considered to be an NHLer, either GP or TOI is commonly used, and then you run your regression and probably smooth the curve so every sequential pick is equal or less than the previous. It's really not that complex.

Why do we only focus on the successes? It's nice, but it's devoid from reality. Players that we selected that are similar to Bertuzzi are: Dominic Turgeon, Zach Nastasiuk, Louis-Marc Aubry, Chase Pearson, Givani Smith, Lane Zablocki, and Zachary Gallant. All were picked with a similar skillset and while not all of them were top 60 picks they were similar to Bertuzzi. Not one of them is really anything more than a 4th liner and most have never even played in the NHL.

In an ideal world an NHL team would use a blended model of traditional scouting and probabilistic models. You can avoid the players with low chances of success and weed out those that models may be unusually high on.



A good junior player doesn't guarantee success, but it does provide a higher likelihood of an NHL player than a bad Jr. player. This really isn't controversial at this point. It takes a few seconds to just google how Junior scoring is a solid indicator of future NHL success. If you're selecting junior players who can't score you're essentially hoping they can develop into 3rd or 4th liners which are always available in FA. Drafting just to get replacement level players or bottom line players really doesn't make sense or sound like a good use of assets.

So why do teams even have scouts? Why dont we just look at who had the most points in Junior and draft accordingly? Because shockingly, there is a whole lot to the game that doesnt show up on a stat sheet.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

So why do teams even have scouts? Why dont we just look at who had the most points in Junior and draft accordingly? Because shockingly, there is a whole lot to the game that doesnt show up on a stat sheet.

Did you miss the part of my post where I said

In an ideal world an NHL team would use a blended model of traditional scouting and probabilistic models. You can avoid the players with low chances of success and weed out those that models may be unusually high on.

Or are you just being generally obtuse? Traditional scouting in the NHL has been horrendous and it's been shown that teams could do better with just a potato making picks, going with the top scoring CHLer, and any number of combinations. I think that scouts still player an important role in identifying future players, but they're human and have their own biases.

By mixing in any model you can weed out players that should either be avoided due to lack of production or lack of likelihood of success. For example, my simple model had William Villeuneve rated as a top 10 prospect due to his scoring, but I knew that he had so-so skating and needed to work on his defensive game. With that traditional scouting I moved him down to the 2nd round on my board which is still much higher than most, but much more reasonable than having him as a top 10 pick.

I'm just some random on the internet with a very limited skillset when it comes to using statistical methods. Given the talent NHL teams could procure they should be able to do a much better job than me or my potato model.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Did you miss the part of my post where I said



Or are you just being generally obtuse? Traditional scouting in the NHL has been horrendous and it's been shown that teams could do better with just a potato making picks, going with the top scoring CHLer, and any number of combinations. I think that scouts still player an important role in identifying future players, but they're human and have their own biases.

By mixing in any model you can weed out players that should either be avoided due to lack of production or lack of likelihood of success. For example, my simple model had William Villeuneve rated as a top 10 prospect due to his scoring, but I knew that he had so-so skating and needed to work on his defensive game. With that traditional scouting I moved him down to the 2nd round on my board which is still much higher than most, but much more reasonable than having him as a top 10 pick.

I'm just some random on the internet with a very limited skillset when it comes to using statistical methods. Given the talent NHL teams could procure they should be able to do a much better job than me or my potato model.

No im simply saying declaring a winner or loser on day 1 of a draft is purely moronic because no one has a damn clue who will or won't bust.

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

No im simply saying declaring a winner or loser on day 1 of a draft is purely moronic because no one has a damn clue who will or won't bust.

But I've shown you that isn't the case. You can ignore the models that project a players probability of success and stick your head in the sand, but to say that we don't an idea of who will bust and will succeed is factually incorrect.

What the player does next season may change their projection and likelihood of success, but that doesn't change what was thought of them at the draft.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

who?

Mikael Samuelsson was a righty. He was a second line guy.

 

[nbwingsfan]

But I've shown you that isn't the case. You can ignore the models that project a players probability of success and stick your head in the sand, but to say that we don't an idea of who will bust and will succeed is factually incorrect.

What the player does next season may change their projection and likelihood of success, but that doesn't change what was thought of them at the draft.

Which is why, you know, you actually have to watch a player and project how they will proceed from here on out instead of just looking at a stats sheet.

If Aucoin ends up a great player im assuming youll stick to your idea that he was a terrible draft pick?

 

[DatsyukToZetterberg]

Which is why, you know, you actually have to watch a player and project how they will proceed from here on out instead of just looking at a stats sheet.

You can do both. These are not mutually exclusive things. You can have traditional scouting and a model based approach work in unison. If you're happy with a team wasting picks on low ceiling and low floor players than who am I to ruin that for you. When rebuilds take longer than expected our teams go through long periods of no late round success it's generally for wasting those picks.