Prospect Info: Oskari Laaksonen (2017, 89th) 2018-19 Ilves - Traded to Dallas

[Rasmus CacOlainen]

Found here

https://hockey-graphs.com/2017/06/23/friday-quick-graphs-16-years-of-drafting-summarized/

You are taking the fun of it, I like doing spreadsheets : (((

 

[sincerity0]

Source?

Like I said before each model will assign different values but if you're interested in reading how they're made:

https://puckalytics.com/blog/2016/05/15/draft-pick-value/

http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-nhl-draft-pick-value-1.786131

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-value-nhl-draft-picks/sn-amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br.../4/25/4262594/nhl-draft-pick-value-trading-up

 

[Sabre Dance]

FWIW here's another interpretation of this question.

It's so pretty.

 

[Rasmus CacOlainen]

I would only really focus on drafts between 2000 and 2007 but count only 300+ games players and plot them vs PPG. Interested how that would come out. This guy has used 30 games minimum which IMO is not realistic. If you don't have the equivalent of 4 NHL seasons at age 28+ you are not an NHLer and your PPG shouldn't matter IMO (in general, there might be the very odd occurance)... Then to see how this translates to draft position.

 

[sincerity0]

Cheers looks good. I will try to put in also PPG to account for higher level players vs lower level players (although for D it will skew this a bit as PPG is not as important).

Ppg is not a good stat to necessarily measure the success of overall draft picks. This is because of the reasoning you mentioned, defense scores less points than forwards. You're looking to aggregate value of players selected in the draft. You don't want to have to start splitting by position because strictly points is not a measure of success.

You don't need to be Erik Karlsson to be a good defenseman.

So generally GP is a solid measure of the aggregate success of the player. It's not a perfect measure but it does a good job of encompassing how good a player is.

 

[sincerity0]

I would only really focus on drafts between 2000 and 2007 but count only 300+ games players and plot them vs PPG. Interested how that would come out. This guy has used 30 games minimum which IMO is not realistic. If you don't have the equivalent of 4 NHL seasons at age 28+ you are not an NHLer and your PPG shouldn't matter IMO (in general, there might be the very odd occurance)... Then to see how this translates to draft position.

You're missing the point. The idea is to catch as many players as possible. A player who is a fringe NHLer (let's say Derek Grant or Cal Oreilly) who plays 50-200 NHL games has some value, even if t is small.

If you say a player only has NHL value if they play 300 games + then when you actually plot it out you're going to over inflate later round values unless you weight it by the probability of success (playing 300+ games).

Think of it like this: of you find a Cal oreilly in the 5th or 6th round isn't that solid value for the pick? The player doesn't need to be Datsuyk to be a good pick in the later rounds.

 

[Dex]

I'm still awaiting the journalistic icons of TBN to dig into the whys and wherefores of this pick to find out more about the kid beyond the snippet that they've had him on their radar for two years. Is it really that hard to ask? Especially if that is their job??

I thought their job was to automatically criticize every move the Sabres make, exclaim how they have been "calling for this" (whatever "this" may be) for years, try to run star players out of town, complain that they want to trot Terry Pegula out and hold him accountable, and label anyone who has even one glimmer of hope a fanboy.

 

[Rasmus CacOlainen]

I did some calcs for 2000-2008 drafts based on following criteria:
G with 300+ games (gradually decreasing for 2005+ as backups and even starters don't get that many games)
D with 300+ games and more than 0.15PPG
F with 300+ games and more than 0.25PPG

The percentages of hitting on a player in the above brackets is as follows:

Round - Number Success - Total Number - Percentage Success
1-150-270--55.56%
2-74-303--24.42%
3-26-284--9.15%
4-23-293--7.85%
5-16-298--5.37%
6-23-274--8.39%
7-19-287--6.62%

I think this is way more accurate representation than "players with more than 30 NHL games" ... cause simple example Nail Yakupov goes in that category and he is a complete and utter waste of space.

Basically - rely on rounds 1 and 2....from 3 to 7 it's anyone's guess and the hit rate between 7 and 3 is only less than 40% increase in hit rate ... which is next to nothing...

Yes sample size is only 9 years but later data would be unstable and I don't want to go into the 90s. I think 9 years is enough to show a trend of what is happening.

And to go back to the original point....So whether we take this young lad in 3rd or 7th, I couldn't give a flying ****. I hope he becomes one of those suprising 3 round + good NHLers.

FYI plots per year for GP and PPG of these players identified above here (no adjustment made of F vs D for PPG):

https://goo.gl/photos/gQGh3pNEtJrfthkD6

also ... if we have a 3rd, 4th and a 7th as we did...that according to above numbers is less than 25% chance to draft an NHLer. What we have done with the 3 1st and 2nd round picks is numerous times more important.

 

[Rasmus CacOlainen]

You're missing the point. The idea is to catch as many players as possible. A player who is a fringe NHLer (let's say Derek Grant or Cal Oreilly) who plays 50-200 NHL games has some value, even if t is small.

If you say a player only has NHL value if they play 300 games + then when you actually plot it out you're going to over inflate later round values unless you weight it by the probability of success (playing 300+ games).

Think of it like this: of you find a Cal oreilly in the 5th or 6th round isn't that solid value for the pick? The player doesn't need to be Datsuyk to be a good pick in the later rounds.

Nonsense.

 

[Sabre the Win]

I did some calcs for 2000-2008 drafts based on following criteria:
G with 300+ games (gradually decreasing for 2005+ as backups and even starters don't get that many games)
D with 300+ games and more than 0.15PPG
F with 300+ games and more than 0.25PPG

The percentages of hitting on a player in the above brackets is as follows:

Round - Number Success - Total Number - Percentage Success
1-150-270--55.56%
2-74-303--24.42%
3-26-284--9.15%
4-23-293--7.85%
5-16-298--5.37%
6-23-274--8.39%
7-19-287--6.62%

I think this is way more accurate representation than "players with more than 30 NHL games" ... cause simple example Nail Yakupov goes in that category and he is a complete and utter waste of space.

Basically - rely on rounds 1 and 2....from 3 to 7 it's anyone's guess and the hit rate between 7 and 3 is only less than 40% increase in hit rate ... which is next to nothing...

Yes sample size is only 9 years but later data would be unstable and I don't want to go into the 90s. I think 9 years is enough to show a trend of what is happening.

And to go back to the original point....So whether we take this young lad in 3rd or 7th, I couldn't give a flying ****.

FYI plots per year for GP and PPG of these players identified above here (no adjustment made of F vs D for PPG):

https://goo.gl/photos/gQGh3pNEtJrfthkD6

that 5th round seems to be a nightmare for scouts lol

 

[jc17]

I don't think that gives us anything different^.

Side note: I think for forwards the .25 p/g is too low. You mentioned Yakupov as useless, but he's about to satisfy the your criteria as he's played 292 games with .41 points per game.

I think there also has to be a measurement of scoring rather than a baseline. For example, I'd guess that the forwards that fit your criteria from round one score more than those that fit from round 2. So even if a pick is a success, its probably not as successful as earlier rounds.

 

[Rasmus CacOlainen]

that 5th round seems to be a nightmare for scouts lol

I guess at the time it was. Point is in these rounds is anyone's guess and the difference between round 5 and 7 is non existent. There's barely any difference between 3 and 6 in this data scope LOL

 

[Rasmus CacOlainen]

I don't think that gives us anything different^.

Side note: I think for forwards the .25 p/g is too low. You mentioned Yakupov as useless, but he's about to satisfy the your criteria as he's played 292 games with .41 points per game.

I think there also has to be a measurement of scoring rather than a baseline. For example, I'd guess that the forwards that fit your criteria from round one score more than those that fit from round 2. So even if a pick is a success, its probably not as successful as earlier rounds.

And he's not gonna reach 300 cause he will be off to the KHL most likely For the PPG per year you can see the graphs I posted. Yes there is on average higher PPG for earlier rounds but not a massive difference IMO (of course neglecting 1st round altogether where the elite talent is)

 

[jc17]

This is also a reason I like looking at prospect stats so much. Its evident scouts really aren't that accurate past round 1 and even 2 is questionable.

I'll see if I can find the numbers but a few years ago I think I mock drafted from Canadian Juniors purely based on points per game, and it was about as successful as the actual draft results. Of course I don't think teams should draft like that, but it clearly cant be overlooked.

 

[Rasmus CacOlainen]

I don't think that gives us anything different^.

Side note: I think for forwards the .25 p/g is too low. You mentioned Yakupov as useless, but he's about to satisfy the your criteria as he's played 292 games with .41 points per game.

I think there also has to be a measurement of scoring rather than a baseline. For example, I'd guess that the forwards that fit your criteria from round one score more than those that fit from round 2. So even if a pick is a success, its probably not as successful as earlier rounds.

I did a recalc with:
G
D above 0.19PPG
F above 0.45PPG
(all above 300 games and slightly adjusted for later years)

Outcomes:
Round-Number Success-Total Number-Percentage Success
1 127 270 47.03703704
2 46 303 15.18151815
3 21 284 7.394366197
4 15 293 5.119453925
5 10 298 3.355704698
6 14 274 5.109489051
7 14 287 4.87804878

3rd round jumps out a bit more as it should in theory. Still high end players very skewed towards 1st round and between 3 and 7 rounds difference is very small (only 50% increase in success rate).

5th round is truly LOL-worthy at 3.3% success rate hahah

 

[sincerity0]

I did a recalc with:
G
D above 0.19PPG
F above 0.45PPG
(all above 300 games and slightly adjusted for later years)

Outcomes:
Round-Number Success-Total Number-Percentage Success
1 127 270 47.03703704
2 46 303 15.18151815
3 21 284 7.394366197
4 15 293 5.119453925
5 10 298 3.355704698
6 14 274 5.109489051
7 14 287 4.87804878

3rd round jumps out a bit more as it should in theory. Still high end players very skewed towards 1st round and between 3 and 7 rounds difference is very small (only 50% increase in success rate).

5th round is truly LOL-worthy at 3.3% success rate hahah

This pretty much validates what I said earlier in the thread. The baselines for GP / PPG are pretty arbitrary but I think any way you slice it you're going to get similar results. With that said I have no problem with teams picking the player they like in rounds 3-7 over BPA because there is no difference.

 

[Dingo44]

I'd love to see this kid at Development Camp.

 

[Rasmus CacOlainen]

This pretty much validates what I said earlier in the thread. The baselines for GP / PPG are pretty arbitrary but I think any way you slice it you're going to get similar results. With that said I have no problem with teams picking the player they like in rounds 3-7 over BPA because there is no difference.

Point is that this supposed model you guys were on about is only really validated to somewhere near mid third round... after that is an absolute crap shoot and you take who you are high on and like and don't follow some imaginary BPA rankings. I dont the blame the scout team about this pick one bit based on this statistical data.

 

[Jagemon]

I'd love to see this kid at Development Camp.

And then you would see what you already know: He is a kid waiting to develop. Some fans of the finnish team state that he is very keen on making things happen with the puck and tries to be the difference maker. More at home in the opposing end, have troubles in defensive side of the game due to lack of strength.

More likely than not to be involved in the juniors but few rotation to the mens Liiga are likely.

A project player.

 

[truthbluth]

Can mods fix this thread so that just the 5 or so posts about the player remain? There is definitely another interesting thread about success rate of late round picks, but that doesn't need to be here.

 

[Dingo44]

And then you would see what you already know: He is a kid waiting to develop. Some fans of the finnish team state that he is very keen on making things happen with the puck and tries to be the difference maker. More at home in the opposing end, have troubles in defensive side of the game due to lack of strength.

More likely than not to be involved in the juniors but few rotation to the mens Liiga are likely.

A project player.

I'd still like to see him.

 

[Wisent42]

Maybe some of our Finnish friends can answer this: How good is Ilves development program? There seems to be a pretty consistant flow of good players developing in Finland, but I would guess that - much like Sweden - some teams are better than others at developing youngsters. So how about Ilves?

 

[Rasmus CacOlainen]

Maybe some of our Finnish friends can answer this: How good is Ilves development program? There seems to be a pretty consistant flow of good players developing in Finland, but I would guess that - much like Sweden - some teams are better than others at developing youngsters. So how about Ilves?

To add to that - if we do have some Finnish friends able to watch a game of him - any chance you can shoot one of his games and put it online to see what we actually drafted cause right now I got no clue.

 

[Huokaus]

I'm not too familiar with Ilves but after digging around, some good recently drafted players have played for their U20 teams, most notably this year's draft's Juuso Välimäki and Aleksi Heponiemi before they left for WHL, Otto Koivula (Islanders prospect, nowadays a Liiga player with Ilves) and Roope Hintz.

The most intriguing thing is that Karri Kivi is the coach of Ilves' men's team. He's a young and very good head coach that's great with the youngsters; he was the head coach of Finland's 2014 WJC gold winning team. I read some Finnish hockey board discussions about Laaksonen and it looks like he should at least get some games with the men's team this season. I don't even know if there are any live feeds of Junior SM-Liiga games, so it's hard to get to watch Laaksonen there, but I'll try to remember to check him out if/when he gets called up

 

[Wisent42]

I'm not too familiar with Ilves but after digging around, some good recently drafted players have played for their U20 teams, most notably this year's draft's Juuso Välimäki and Aleksi Heponiemi before they left for WHL, Otto Koivula (Islanders prospect, nowadays a Liiga player with Ilves) and Roope Hintz.

The most intriguing thing is that Karri Kivi is the coach of Ilves' men's team. He's a young and very good head coach that's great with the youngsters; he was the head coach of Finland's 2014 WJC gold winning team. I read some Finnish hockey board discussions about Laaksonen and it looks like he should at least get some games with the men's team this season. I don't even know if there are any live feeds of Junior SM-Liiga games, so it's hard to get to watch Laaksonen there, but I'll try to remember to check him out if/when he gets called up

Thanks!