Probability of a First Round Pick = Top 6/4

[The Sweetness]

To be fair a late first round pick isn't really over rated. If a contender making a push trades a first between say 15-30 for a low end second liner or high end third that's pretty decent return. That first round pick only has a 30% chance of being anything better then that. Furthermore, they've got about 30% chance of being equal ( a third liner) and about a 30% chance of busting completely. The liklihood of getting a "home run" or top line player in the back half of the first is not usually significantly higher then a second round pick, its pretty much a complete lotto roll at that point.



To be honest, the most overrated picks would be those in the 6-10 range. Fans especially seem to be attache dot the diea that a pick in this range requires legitimate top 6 player to come back. There's a 60% chance that player doesn't reach top 6 ability. of course, theres about a 20% chance he exceeds that talent, but you'll find the amount of "home runs" outside the top 5 is nearly identical from picks 6-30, at that point, most GM's will admit it's just luck.

My point beign theirs a signifact drop off after the top 5, and that in reality, picks 6-10, which often seem to be as coveted as the top 5 are more often then not no better then picks 10-15. The liklihood ofa ctually getting "homeruns" or first liners outisde of the top 5 is pretty well consistent from 6 all the way to 26

Interesting, thanks. Maybe I missed it but is there any kind of analysis showing the odds of getting a top-liner (i.e. homerum) for picks 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, etc? Apologies if I missed it if it was already shown.

 

[Grind]

Interesting, thanks. Maybe I missed it but is there any kind of analysis showing the odds of getting a top-liner (i.e. homerum) for picks 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, etc? Apologies if I missed it if it was already shown.

no that was more basedon other research i had read. I'd ahve to go backa nd doit again so maybe on a rainy day in the off season i'll do an update.

considering how my metric for "impact" players followed the same curve essentially as "career" players used in others i'd assume there wouldn't be much change to "super stars" either but i'll give it alook and update.i don't know aht criteria would be good to use, especially for defencement as ELITE d men are often not statistically that much different then their counterparts dependant on playstyle.

for forwards i would probably use something like 65+ points in two seasons or possibly 70 + points? its hard to say without just going off an opinion of who's a star

(ie: an all offense 60 pt player isn't a star necessarily, but a 60 pt two way player is)

i guess i could just aggregate the top 60 forward socrers and see waht the cu toff is over 3 seasons

 

[jBuds]

no that was more basedon other research i had read. I'd ahve to go backa nd doit again so maybe on a rainy day in the off season i'll do an update.

considering how my metric for "impact" players followed the same curve essentially as "career" players used in others i'd assume there wouldn't be much change to "super stars" either but i'll give it alook and update.i don't know aht criteria would be good to use, especially for defencement as ELITE d men are often not statistically that much different then their counterparts dependant on playstyle.

for forwards i would probably use something like 65+ points in two seasons or possibly 70 + points? its hard to say without just going off an opinion of who's a star

(ie: an all offense 60 pt player isn't a star necessarily, but a 60 pt two way player is)

i guess i could just aggregate the top 60 forward socrers and see waht the cu toff is over 3 seasons

Awesome read grind. Nice job

 

[Wizeman*]

interesting read. Thank you so much for this

 

[Hero]

It be cool to see this on the next level of the % change of being a 1st line forward or 1st pair D.

 

[Wizeman*]

Agreed

 

[ginner classic]

So i decided to break down the first round of the draft a little more indepthly. I've read a number of studies on the average likelyhood of draft picks succeeding, but i found the studies to either be too broad (using "averaged" probability for entire rounds, or considering 3rd liners/bottom pairing D's "successful") or too narrow (looking only for "elite" talent).

So to get a decent middle grounds I looked at the rate at which each pick in the first round developed into a top 6 or top 4 d man.

criteria for study:

10 years study (99-08 draft) I have excluded previous years due to changing nature of game and change of draft. I would like to revisit this and add more years, but i believe criteria will need to be adjusted for different "era's"

Forwards: Scored at 45 pts/82gp rate in 2 or more season, with at least 35 games played in each season or 1 season if it was last year.

defensemen: ETOI/per game of 19 minutes + in at least 2 or more seasons, with at least 35 games played, or one season if it was last year.

draft table. A 1 designates success where a 0 designates failure (Failure does not mean total bust, just did not meet the criteria laid out).

YEAR|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|24|25|26|27|28|29|30|TOTAL|Avg % success
2008|1|1|1|1|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|1|0|0|1|0|1|0|0|1|0|1|0|0|0|1|1|0|0|0|12|40
2007|1|1|1|0|1|1|1|0|1|0|0|1|0|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|11|36.67
2006|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|0|0|1|1|1|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|0|0|1|1|0|1|0|0|1|0|0|15|50.00
2005|1|1|1|0|1|0|0|1|0|0|1|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|1|0|11|36.67
2004|1|1|0|1|1|0|0|0|1|0|0|0|1|1|1|0|0|0|0|1|1|0|1|0|0|1|1|0|1|0|14|46.67
2003|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|0|1|1|0|0|1|0|1|1|0|0|1|1|0|0|0|1|0|0|19|63.33
2002|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|0|0|1|1|1|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|1|1|0|0|0|0|0|15|50.00
2001|1|1|0|1|0|1|1|0|1|0|0|1|1|0|0|0|0|0|1|1|1|0|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|12|40.00
2000|1|1|1|1|1|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|1|0|1|1|0|0|1|0|0|0|1|1|0|13|43.33
1999|0|1|1|0|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|1|1|0|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|7|23.33

Totals (success count in players and probability)

pick|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|24|25|26|27|28|29|30|Average
Total successful players out of 10|9|10|8|7|8|6|5|3|4|3|4|6|5|4|2|1|4|2|3|5|5|3|4|4|2|4|2|3|3|0|4.3
Avg percent chance of success|90|100|80|70|80|60|50|30|40|30|40|60|50|40|20|10|40|20|30|50|50|30|40|40|20|40|20|30|30|0|43

Probability by 5 pick "blocks"

Block|Avg %|
1 to 5|84
6 to 10|42
11 to 15|42
16 to 20|30
21 to 25|36
26 to 30|24

The Low down

Average success in the first round: 42.3%
Average success outside of the top 5: 34.8%
Average success in the bottom 15: 30%
Average amount of players per year: 12

highest rate of success: pick # 2: 100% success rate
Highest rate of success outside of top 5: 6,7,12,13,20,21

top 5: 84% 1st over all 90% #2: 100%, #3: 80%, #4: 70%, #5: 80%. - Obviously the most successful block of 5. Nothing outlandish here. Your top 3 picks are pretty much the only spots your gauraunteed a top 6 player.

6-10: 42% 6: 60%, 7: 50%, 8: 30%, 9: 40%, 10: 30% -As found initially, a very sharp drop off from this and the last category. A pick in the 8, 9, 10 range really is not worth the value it seems to hold.

11-15: 42%11: 40%, 12: 60%, 13: 50%, 14: 40%, 15: 20%-Interesting to noe that outside the top 7, picks 12 and 13 are the best bang for your buck both with suprisingly higher success rates then a number of picks in front of them. If not for the poor success rate of pick # 15, this block would be better then the block before it.

16-20: 30%16: 10%, 17:40%, 18: 20%, 19: 30%, 20: 50% - An interesting block in that it is worse then both the block before it and after it, with it's strongest pick being it's last at number 20. The anomaly of how poorly pick # 16 performs is interesting to note.

21-25: 36% 21: 50%, 22: 30%, 23: 40%, 24: 40%, 25: 20% - Surpising...4 of the 5 picks in this block have the same statistical returns as those in the 6-10 block. Pick 21 is interesting to say the least. That top 10 sure isn't looking that swell anymore...

26-30: 24% 26: 40%, 27: 20%, 28:30%, 29: 30%, 30: 0% - Value sure can still be found for the cup contenders in the tail end of the draft, unfortunately just not for the cup winner. Over the 10 drafts examined not a single 30th overall pick became an impact player.

to sum it up, Whats it All Mean?

We can draw a number of conclusions based off this though its hardly concrete (a much bigger sample size would be ideal).

Conclusion number 1: 1st round picks are overrated

It's true, especially here on HFBoards where the 1st round pick is worth it's weight in gold. In the offseason, when nothings been determined for the following year, that pick has only a 43% chance of being anything more then 3rd pairing or 3rd line grinder. A good third liner that's not on the wrong side of 30 should be considered a decent return for 1st round pick from a top 15(standings) team. As shown above, outside of the top 5 thats a less then 35% chance of being more then a third liner, and a 305 chance in the bottom 15.

Conclusion Number 2: Trading up is a bad idea

Given the cost often associated with trading up, GM's are certainly almost always better off sitting tight. In fact, it can be argued that if your sitting just inside the top 10 (8th-10th) you should be burning up the phone lines trying to find that gm with the 2 first rounders in the bottom 13 for you. Even in the final 5, if your not sitting 30th, it hardly seems worth moving any additional assets for 10% increase in probability of landing something meaningful. On the flipside, the Stanley cup champ should always move his first rounder.

Of course, GM's will always trust their scouts and trade to get "their guy" but in a non-specific situation, it doesn't seem worth it.


Conclusion Number 3: Go Easy on Your Prospects

It definitely seems that the idea is every first round pick is almost guaranteed to be a top 6 player, and has a good shot at being a "first liner"- that is simply not the case. The average success rate of becoming a top 6, through the whole draft EDIT: First Round, is only 42%.

Outside of the top 5, it drops to 34.8%.

so outside of the top 5, you less then a 35% chance of drafting a top 6 or top 4 player, meaning the vast majority of your coveted first round prospects or those even given the title of "blue chipper" are quite far from a sure bet.

Final thoughts:

Hopefully this helps highlight a more accurate and realistic sense of worth for First round picks. Correcting for the high success rate in the top 5 is integral to not only properly understanding the likelihood of your prospect developing, but understanding what really is "a good deal". This is be no means a completed study as a much larger sample size would be ideal, but I think it does do a good job of adding a little perspective to the much ballyhoo'd First Day of the Draft.

Comments/Criticisms Encouraged. If any more advanced statheads would like to work on doing something similar with "better" criteria, i'd be all for that.

EDIT: Below is a reposting of the more indepth look by DaveG on Page two. See his post for the attached data.

so breaking it down farther:

Over time the following prescriptive approach should work


1-5 - F
6-10 F,D
11-15 D
16-20 D,G
21-25 G,F
26-30 No bias

 

[Ryan English]

Love this study.

If you're looking for a non-binary way to assess value, I think minutes played would be a good metric.

Robyn Regehr will be below average in any statistical analysis, but playing 22+ tough minutes a night makes him valuable.

No matter how you shake it, a team has gotten their value from a player if he plays top 6/top 4 minutes for X amount of time. NHL teams don't just give away minutes, players earn them in ways stats somtimes cannot measure.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Love this study.

If you're looking for a non-binary way to assess value, I think minutes played would be a good metric.

Robyn Regehr will be below average in any statistical analysis, but playing 22+ tough minutes a night makes him valuable.

No matter how you shake it, a team has gotten their value from a player if he plays top 6/top 4 minutes for X amount of time. NHL teams don't just give away minutes, players earn them in ways stats somtimes cannot measure.

I agree MPG is probably a better way to evaluate Dmen.

One question though, which would apply much more to earlier drafts than more recent ones, but did you factor out for the "Russian Factor", ie guys who are probably good enough to meet the criteria but decided to stay in, or go back to, Europe for a variety of reasons?

 

[GenerationalTalent]

Just to get some thoughts.

What tiers of ability would you be interested in seeing in an anaylsis of a draft? Would three do? Superstar/Star/Servicable?

 

[Grind]

Just to get some thoughts.

What tiers of ability would you be interested in seeing in an anaylsis of a draft? Would three do? Superstar/Star/Servicable?

three would probably do.

Personally, due to the questions i've mostly gotten, you'd probably want to do 4 or five

1)superstar (probably top 5 in the league at their position)
2) First line/first pairing
3) second line/second pairing
4)3rd line/3rd pairing
5)utility/depth (4th line/7th dmen/callups/etc)


I think whats interesting is just frlom recollection of the names on the list it seemed to me that outside the top 3 picks, "superstar" and even "first line/first pairing" types seemed to come pretty uniformly over the next 20. But that little tidbits primarily anecdotal.

as for the idea of minute per game, that's a good idea, but i had recalled reading somewhere as to why it could be a bad data point, but can't for the life of me recall what it was. It would be nice to compare even strength minutes as i think PP/PK would be too dependent on the team

 

[Sens Rule]

I think a really key factor in looking at the first round is how long a team waits for the first top6/top4 season. It is a huge factor in drafting and why the top 3-5 picks hold such value because you might get a player that contributes within a season or two. The future value of an asset is much lower then the current value. The reason the Devils chose to pick at 29th overall instead of forfeiting their pick.

I was thinking of why picks 10-15 perform so poorly. Maybe it is because that is where several GMs (enough for it to be statistically relevant in such a small sample size) have gone off the board and picked guys that were not supposed to be picked until later on in the 1st round or early second. They want a certain player, all the true blue chippers are gone and they can justify going outside the consensus draft ratings. How often do we see a GM at 13 or 14 going for a guy rated 28th or 32nd in the draft? It happens several times a draft and usually those picks are flops. Once you go deeper into the first round, GMs still are picking guys they want... but if you pick a guy rated 31st at 22nd overall no one blinks. This thinking would basically validate your research in saying after you get through the first 10 picks or so... the draft is a crapshoot. GMs even know that... and once they get through a certain number of blue chip consensus to everyone picks... then it is just who you like from the next group of a dozen or two dozen players.

I also wonder if the success rate of later 1st round picks in your analysis being so similar to that of earlier picks is due to the better teams picking the players. Better teams often have better minor league systems, will not rush players. Like Detroit for example. They might get a pick at 27th, let the guy finish junior and have him in the minors for 2 or 3 or 4 years. The same player drafted by Columbus might have been in the NHL at 20 and struggled and never developed to the same potential he would have had. So later first round picks could look better simply because of who drafted them.

 

[Grind]

I think a really key factor in looking at the first round is how long a team waits for the first top6/top4 season. It is a huge factor in drafting and why the top 3-5 picks hold such value because you might get a player that contributes within a season or two. The future value of an asset is much lower then the current value. The reason the Devils chose to pick at 29th overall instead of forfeiting their pick.

I was thinking of why picks 10-15 perform so poorly. Maybe it is because that is where several GMs (enough for it to be statistically relevant in such a small sample size) have gone off the board and picked guys that were not supposed to be picked until later on in the 1st round or early second. They want a certain player, all the true blue chippers are gone and they can justify going outside the consensus draft ratings. How often do we see a GM at 13 or 14 going for a guy rated 28th or 32nd in the draft? It happens several times a draft and usually those picks are flops. Once you go deeper into the first round, GMs still are picking guys they want... but if you pick a guy rated 31st at 22nd overall no one blinks. This thinking would basically validate your research in saying after you get through the first 10 picks or so... the draft is a crapshoot. GMs even know that... and once they get through a certain number of blue chip consensus to everyone picks... then it is just who you like from the next group of a dozen or two dozen players.

I also wonder if the success rate of later 1st round picks in your analysis being so similar to that of earlier picks is due to the better teams picking the players. Better teams often have better minor league systems, will not rush players. Like Detroit for example. They might get a pick at 27th, let the guy finish junior and have him in the minors for 2 or 3 or 4 years. The same player drafted by Columbus might have been in the NHL at 20 and struggled and never developed to the same potential he would have had. So later first round picks could look better simply because of who drafted them.

This is one thing that i got from this that i really need to hammer home, top ten should not be considered a "block". the variance from 6th overall to 10th overall is dramatic. People pikc "top ten" because..you know...that's a thing, but in reality your tiers should be top 6, as 7-15 are essentially equal.

 

[Sens Rule]

This is one thing that i got from this that i really need to hammer home, top ten should not be considered a "block". the variance from 6th overall to 10th overall is dramatic. People pikc "top ten" because..you know...that's a thing, but in reality your tiers should be top 6, as 7-15 are essentially equal.

I think it really varies on the draft. You can not compare different drafts in a total way over 10 or 15 years. I think in a strong draft... it could be the top 10, weak ones it is only the top 3 or 4. We always get a consensus of the first few picks. There is always a drop off at a certain point very early in the 1st round. After that drop off it is a crap shoot in the first round.

 

[I am Lorde]

Love this study.

If you're looking for a non-binary way to assess value, I think minutes played would be a good metric.

Robyn Regehr will be below average in any statistical analysis, but playing 22+ tough minutes a night makes him valuable.

No matter how you shake it, a team has gotten their value from a player if he plays top 6/top 4 minutes for X amount of time. NHL teams don't just give away minutes, players earn them in ways stats somtimes cannot measure.

Another non-binary value you could use is average salary. This is essentially what GMs and agents conclude is the "worth" of a player. This would give a consistent measure (you won't be comparing apples to oranges, points by forwards, minutes by defencemen, etc). I'm not going to argue that every player in the study is worth exactly what he's making, but hopefully this will be averaged out over the entire sample.

Basically graph the average salary of every player picked first overall, second overall, etc.

I'd love to see a study done like this for all rounds of the draft. I think then you could say "a first overall pick is worth on average a 6 million dollar player. A tenth overall pick is worth on average a 2 million dollar player. I'll trade you the 9th, 10th, and 11th, overall picks for your first overall"

 

[Grind]

I think it really varies on the draft. You can not compare different drafts in a total way over 10 or 15 years. I think in a strong draft... it could be the top 10, weak ones it is only the top 3 or 4. We always get a consensus of the first few picks. There is always a drop off at a certain point very early in the 1st round. After that drop off it is a crap shoot in the first round.

waht the study shows is that over the course of ten or 12 years, on average, that's where the block falls.

Obviously it will very year to year, but people love doing top 10's even frequently in yeras where the division is clearly much higher.

It is a VERY rare draft where the quality is comparable from picks 5 to 10 so when dealing in "blind' terms (which is all we can do when prognoticating on the future) this is historically going to be more accurate (1-6, 7-15, as opposed to 1-10, 10-20, etc)

 

[Grind]

Another non-binary value you could use is average salary. This is essentially what GMs and agents conclude is the "worth" of a player. This would give a consistent measure (you won't be comparing apples to oranges, points by forwards, minutes by defencemen, etc). I'm not going to argue that every player in the study is worth exactly what he's making, but hopefully this will be averaged out over the entire sample.

Basically graph the average salary of every player picked first overall, second overall, etc.

I'd love to see a study done like this for all rounds of the draft. I think then you could say "a first overall pick is worth on average a 6 million dollar player. A tenth overall pick is worth on average a 2 million dollar player. I'll trade you the 9th, 10th, and 11th, overall picks for your first overall"

This is a very neat idea. of course it would all have to be adjusted for the salary cap at the time each contract was signed, but otherwise it hink this (and ice time) could work decently.