Percentage of draft picks that "make it" in NHL

[Northerner]

thanks to years of historical data, we can make reasonable estimates as to the probability of a draft pick ending up as an eventual NHL talent.

So, this is reasonably what we would expect. 80% of first-round picks, 44% of second-round picks, and 30% of third-round picks will become low-level (or better) NHL players.

https://www.tsn.ca/playing-the-percentages-in-the-nhl-draft-1.206144

Click to read more...

 

[Edmonton East]

Another lazy, half baked piece of journalism.

Before anyone wastes time clicking on the link: A player that played 50+ NHL games is considered a success. And no, they didn't bother doing any deeper analysis on points or, heck, even a higher GP threshold.

Lazy. Lazy. Lazy.

 

[Northerner]

I think in general most players who hit the 50 mark are far more likely to have what would be considered success. I'm guessing that's where they're coming from or what the statistics show.

 

[Siludin]

Personally I think 5 seasons is a success.
If a player's career was only cut short due to injuries, you can probably account for that.

 

[Edmonton East]

I think in general most players who hit the 50 mark are far more likely to have what would be considered success. I'm guessing that's where they're coming from or what the statistics show.

I'd argue players who hit the 100 GP would be far more useful. 50GP is nothing for 1st and 2nd rounders in my opinion (in terms of a threshold). Fun fact: Stefan Matteau would be considered a success (64GP, 7pts)

Either way, it's lazy of the author not to show different thresholds for GP (at the very least). And flat out embarrassing that he considers himself a leader in advanced analytics. Sidenote...I'll cut the author some slack considering I just noticed the time stamp is 2015; he would have only been a year into the job based on his bio.

 

[Name Nameless]

Another lazy, half baked piece of journalism.

Before anyone wastes time clicking on the link: A player that played 50+ NHL games is considered a success. And no, they didn't bother doing any deeper analysis on points or, heck, even a higher GP threshold.

Lazy. Lazy. Lazy.

Makes sense for the later rounds: a seventh-rounder playing 50 games is a success.

For the first or second round, this isn't that interesting, though. Apart from the "outright bust"-ratio, or something, of them not even making it to 50 games.

 

[Djp]

Another lazy, half baked piece of journalism.

Before anyone wastes time clicking on the link: A player that played 50+ NHL games is considered a success. And no, they didn't bother doing any deeper analysis on points or, heck, even a higher GP threshold.

Lazy. Lazy. Lazy.

50 g is a joke.

200 g is a little better of a measure

Tat chart for the OP is also a joke.

need to really break is down by

top 5
#6-13
#14-22
#23=40
#40-60
#61-80
#80-100
#100+

Also factor in expectations===you could draft someone at 5--you expect a start player but instead you get a career bottom pair/bottom 6 player. this would have been a great success if picked after 100 but not at 5OA
































36-14

 

[morehockeystats]

I think the following weighted approach is more reasonable:

A function is defined F(N,P) = avg(f(games, points, ...)) for past picks, i.e. there is a known value for D-men picked at position 7 F(7,D).
Then the expected value E(N,P) = 0.1(F(N-2,P)) + 0.2(F(N-1,P)) + 0.4(F(N,P)) + 0.2(F(N+1,P)) + 0.1(F(N+2,P))

For pick #1 use 0.7, 0.2 and 0.1
For pick #2 use 0.3, 0.4, 0.2 and 0.1

This is just a sample weighting, others can be used, but this is much better than the arbitrary strict grouping of picks.

 

[lomiller1]

50 g is a joke.

200 g is a little better of a measure

Even that questionable. IMO you need a % of games played threshold as well.

Eg Keaton Ellerby played over 212 games, over 6 seasons. He was either on the bench or in the minors for 280 games. Even if you exclude his first NHL season he played 190 out of 410 possible games over 5 seasons, and many of those were strictly, because he was a former first round pick. He was never more than a the 8th on 9th D-man on an NHL teams depth chart. To me this doesn’t add up to a successful pick.

 

[Chili]

Did an analysis a few years ago based on 250 games played (125 for goaltenders) for the drafts 1979 to 2001 assumed every round had 30 players.

1st rd 419 players or 18.2 per draft or 61%
2nd 206 9 30%
3rd 162 7 24%
4th 101 4.4 15%
5th 80 3.5 12%
6th 76 3.3 12%
7th 48 2 7.5%
7+ 64 2.7 10%

If I did another analysis would probably use 400 games (200 for goaltenders) which was my original intention. Used 250 based on scanning the players above and below that number at the time.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

My problems with these kinds of analyses is that doesn't it kind of ignore how variant the value of a certain draft position can vary year to year based on player(s) that could realistically be taken there? obviously once you get past a certain point such as perhaps the mid-late 1st round it's essentially a crapshoot not matter the year or field.

 

[Habsrule]

I did a study like this a few years back. I only looked at second round picks and only at the last sixteen picks in the second round.

I used that as a second round pick is the most common currency come the trade deadline. I used 200 games played as my indicator of if the pick became a NHL regular. On a side note I kept the 200 game threshold for goalies as well.

It came out between 30-33% odds of drafting a NHL regular in the second half of the second round. I can remember the exact number but it worked out to 5 of the 16 made it on average.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Thread title overpromises, but I don't get the posters freaking out about the chart. It's a just a piece of information - something you didn't have before you clicked on the link.

I would be interested to see the percentages based on a higher threshold like 300 games.

 

[Northerner]

Thread title overpromises, but I don't get the posters freaking out about the chart. .

Triggered HFboards posters gonna be triggered.

 

[Henkka]

Personally I think 5 seasons is a success.
If a player's career was only cut short due to injuries, you can probably account for that.

This. I did once a small study and took 300 games for the limit of success. That's kind of the 4-5 seasons. If you go past 300 games the probability for a longer career extends a lot.