Post Draft analysis question

[IronMarshal]

I am curious as to how members of the board do post draft analysis. My question is spawned from the Draft Analyst's (Steve K. ) grades for the 2017 draft. They gave the Flyers an A-, and a bunch of teams an A. I realize that this really doesn't matter, and the performance of the players in the draft years from now will actually determine who did well. The question is really a methodology question.

Obviously, each person or entity will rate based on their own rankings, however, their still is what I think is an interesting dilemma on whether your gambles' or perceived reaches can be outweighed by getting an elite or close to elite player at the top of the draft that meets your organizational needs.

For example, DA has Chicago with an A drafting Jokiharju (DA Ranking 24), and Mitchell (DA Rank 31), as well as a couple of overagers (Atylbarmakyan, and Soderlund, Laavinen and Foo), and then drafted a couple ranked 145 and 251. I thought the Flyers draft was better even by their rankings. Patrick (1), Frost (55, Ratcliffe (58), Strome (71), Sushko, (178), Cates (125), and the goalie in the third.

I asked would you trade Patrick for Chicago's top two or even their entire draft? Obviously, no, so all the other players are extras. I think that Philly has the better draft based on that.

Do you rate a team's draft by the quality of what they did, or on teh bases of you thought they could do better or not?

Click to read more...

 

[TheKingPin]

I am curious as to how members of the board do post draft analysis. My question is spawned from the Draft Analyst's (Steve K. ) grades for the 2017 draft. They gave the Flyers an A-, and a bunch of teams an A. I realize that this really doesn't matter, and the performance of the players in the draft years from now will actually determine who did well. The question is really a methodology question.

Obviously, each person or entity will rate based on their own rankings, however, their still is what I think is an interesting dilemma on whether your gambles' or perceived reaches can be outweighed by getting an elite or close to elite player at the top of the draft that meets your organizational needs.

For example, DA has Chicago with an A drafting Jokiharju (DA Ranking 24), and Mitchell (DA Rank 31), as well as a couple of overagers (Atylbarmakyan, and Soderlund, Laavinen and Foo), and then drafted a couple ranked 145 and 251. I thought the Flyers draft was better even by their rankings. Patrick (1), Frost (55, Ratcliffe (58), Strome (71), Sushko, (178), Cates (125), and the goalie in the third.

I asked would you trade Patrick for Chicago's top two or even their entire draft? Obviously, no, so all the other players are extras. I think that Philly has the better draft based on that.

Do you rate a team's draft by the quality of what they did, or on teh bases of you thought they could do better or not?

By the quality. It's too early to say if someone could have done better as they haven't translated to players yet. I look for a team getting the most NHL talent and further if the talent is top or bottom 6/pairing.

In a cap era you have to draft well to fill everything from your top center to your 6th dmen with ELC. FA should be avoided ideally. Chicago drafts well as do the flyers. You have to assume the players they draft are better than their ranking or the fact that other teams passed over them.

 

[Rebels57]

I am curious as to how members of the board do post draft analysis. My question is spawned from the Draft Analyst's (Steve K. ) grades for the 2017 draft. They gave the Flyers an A-, and a bunch of teams an A. I realize that this really doesn't matter, and the performance of the players in the draft years from now will actually determine who did well. The question is really a methodology question.

Obviously, each person or entity will rate based on their own rankings, however, their still is what I think is an interesting dilemma on whether your gambles' or perceived reaches can be outweighed by getting an elite or close to elite player at the top of the draft that meets your organizational needs.

For example, DA has Chicago with an A drafting Jokiharju (DA Ranking 24), and Mitchell (DA Rank 31), as well as a couple of overagers (Atylbarmakyan, and Soderlund, Laavinen and Foo), and then drafted a couple ranked 145 and 251. I thought the Flyers draft was better even by their rankings. Patrick (1), Frost (55, Ratcliffe (58), Strome (71), Sushko, (178), Cates (125), and the goalie in the third.

I asked would you trade Patrick for Chicago's top two or even their entire draft? Obviously, no, so all the other players are extras. I think that Philly has the better draft based on that.

Do you rate a team's draft by the quality of what they did, or on teh bases of you thought they could do better or not?

They clearly don't have a legit system for grading drafts if they gave Chicago an A and the Flyers and A-

That's basically a joke.

 

[Striiker]

Draft grades usually seem to be more about the perceived "steal value" than the overall gained value of the draft.

By that I mean, getting Patrick is massive for us, but they'd probably grade a mid-first round pick higher if it was considered a "steal" at that pick spot, even if we got the better player.

So we probably won't get high grades, despite likely getting the best player in the draft, because it was an easy pick to make.

 

[BritainStix]

How can you grade a draft when these kids haven't even stepped foot on NHL ice yet. Beyond moronic.

 

[Larry44]

How can you grade a draft when these kids haven't even stepped foot on NHL ice yet. Beyond moronic.

It's just an exercise that writers go through. It's fair enough to say team X did well to get prospects Y and Z. Steve K didn't like Frost or Ratcliffe, so he p*ssed on Hexy's picks and only gave him an A-.

 

[Tripod]

The Hockey news had us as one of the draft winners.

It's all based on opinion. DA had Frost and Radcliffe lower than where we took them....and graded us lower because they felt we could have done better. Whereas others say if you have a guy you like, go get him. And that's what we did.

In the end, who's rankings do we trust more....Hextall/our scouts or DA.

 

[Rebels57]

A- is a pretty fair score.

I just dont see how Chicago could receive an A. Their draft was very average.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

The Hockey news had us as one of the draft winners.

It's all based on opinion. DA had Frost and Radcliffe lower than where we took them....and graded us lower because they felt we could have done better. Whereas others say if you have a guy you like, go get him. And that's what we did.

In the end, who's rankings do we trust more....Hextall/our scouts or DA.

I went and read the recap on DA last night (my time) and it was pretty strange. IIRC he only gave one team a C (Panguins, which was nice) and that was the lowest score. While he had complaints about several teams, it sounded like if he liked a player that a team drafted, he gave them a decent score - he likes just about every draft-eligible player to some degree, so gave out a lot of good grades. I have the same problem at the university - I don't like to give bad scores, and tend to see the good in the students, so my grades are usually too high. It skews results.

 

[Chuck Downie]

I posted in his thread because I didn`t like his system. It`s lazy and he`s not willing to improve on it next year. Giving all but 2 teams an A or B is not a ``draft analysis``.

We`ve been using his top 500 to fill in the autopicks in the mock draft for the last 2 years. Steve does okay work on his rankings but some of his stuff like this is yikes.

 

[Rebels57]

I posted in his thread because I didn`t like his system. It`s lazy and he`s not willing to improve on it next year. Giving all but 2 teams an A or B is not a ``draft analysis``.

We`ve been using his top 500 to fill in the autopicks in the mock draft for the last 2 years. Steve does okay work on his rankings but some of his stuff like this is yikes.

The system is garbage. It's pointless.