Schools of Thought: Late Rounders

[Hasbro]

I hear two theories here.

• Late round pics that pan out are strictly luck and if teams thought they would do well they would have drafted them earlier
• A late find and/or the ability to consistently produce late round pics into players is the product of good scouting

What do You Think?

I'm in the latter camp. While the odds are low, picking up players late is the sign of good leg work and is certainly better scouting than a slam dunk lottery pick. My rejoinder to the "why didn't they pick them earlier" musing is they did pick these players earlier, earlier than other teams and I don't doubt for a minute teams will hold of on a player they like more if they think they can get him in a lower round.

Click to read more...

 

[PhoPhan]

You also have to take into account the concept of organizational development. If five teams (in parallel universes) all drafted the same player in the same slot, that player would likely have five markedly different careers based on the development systems within each franchise.

 

[timlap]

I think a pattern of repeated success in later rounds is an indicator of a good staff, however I think it's rare to have enough drafts strung together with the same staff to get a meaningful result statistically.

Phophan may well be right: player development could be as important as good scouting.

 

[PecaFan]

It's not luck at all. It's percentages.

Player X in round 5 has say a 5% of reaching his potential, player Y in round 7 has a 2% chance. X has a marginally higher ceiling, so you take him first. He busts, but Y turns out.

If they had both reached their maximum potential, then X would have been a better player than Y. But with such low odds, it turns out the Y was better than X, and it looks like luck.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

I hear two theories here.

• Late round pics that pan out are strictly luck and if teams thought they would do well they would have drafted them earlier
• A late find and/or the ability to consistently produce late round pics into players is the product of good scouting

What do You Think?

I'm in the latter camp. While the odds are low, picking up players late is the sign of good leg work and is certainly better scouting than a slam dunk lottery pick. My rejoinder to the "why didn't they pick them earlier" musing is they did pick these players earlier, earlier than other teams and I don't doubt for a minute teams will hold of on a player they like more if they think they can get him in a lower round.

It's a bit of both. You need the scouting find guys. But you also have to be smart and lucky enough to play the market right that those guys will last to the latter rounds.

 

[Hasbro]

You also have to take into account the concept of organizational development. If five teams (in parallel universes) all drafted the same player in the same slot, that player would likely have five markedly different careers based on the development systems within each franchise.

I think that also speaks to having "an eye" for a certain type of player, a team's development staff might be better equipped for turning out goaltenders for instance.

Of course finding players might depend on how you allocate your scouting, the sharks in Germany par example.

 

[VikingAv]

The latter for me. Don't teams bring a list of only 80-100 names? Which means that even though a player is picked at 200th overall, he's top 100 for that team.
For example, last year, Colorado traded their 5th and 6th to get a fourth-rounder, and selected Montgomery. I'll bet Monty was first-round material in Hammett's eyes. Cumiskey, one of the last picks in the entire '05 draft was probably ranked 80-100 by the Avs.
Also have to remember these are mostly 17-18 year-olds. It's way different than drafting (mostly) fully developed players for the NFL...

 

[chillmat]

I hear two theories here.

• Late round pics that pan out are strictly luck and if teams thought they would do well they would have drafted them earlier
• A late find and/or the ability to consistently produce late round pics into players is the product of good scouting

I do stand in the second mindset, there is a lot of players who has been able to crack the lineup in a team and afterward they emerge as quality players, just a fine example of this is "Lucky" Luc Robitaille who was drafted 171st overall in 1984 which has become the best left winger (stats tells it all)...

Sergei Kostitsyn (Habs) is also what seems to be a quality scouting has he seems on his way to the NHL sooner or later, time will tell...

 

[VikingAv]

I think that also speaks to having "an eye" for a certain type of player, a team's development staff might be better equipped for turning out goaltenders for instance.

Of course finding players might depend on how you allocate your scouting, the sharks in Germany par example.

Sharks on goalies, Sharks in Germany. Those Sharks have been good lately...

 

[Respect Your Edler]

You also have to take into account the concept of organizational development. If five teams (in parallel universes) all drafted the same player in the same slot, that player would likely have five markedly different careers based on the development systems within each franchise.

I tend to agree with you. Seems like some teams put prospects in a position of failure.

 

[usiel]

I always end up getting an arguement with people who start with, "oh yeah so and so team drafted player x in the 6 round and he's turned out to be good player...etc." and then one goes and looks at all the 1st round busts said team has.

For me personally I don't care whether the early round picks or late round picks are the ones to pan out.

 

[danishh]

It's not luck at all. It's percentages.

Player X in round 5 has say a 5% of reaching his potential, player Y in round 7 has a 2% chance. X has a marginally higher ceiling, so you take him first. He busts, but Y turns out.

If they had both reached their maximum potential, then X would have been a better player than Y. But with such low odds, it turns out the Y was better than X, and it looks like luck.

unfortunately, unlike in EA's NHL series, the GM's dont get a perfect report of player's top potentials. Therefore, it is some luck, and some skill, based on scouting staff's ability to properly analyze said potential.

 

[Blades 0f Steel]

It's not luck at all. It's percentages.

Player X in round 5 has say a 5% of reaching his potential, player Y in round 7 has a 2% chance. X has a marginally higher ceiling, so you take him first. He busts, but Y turns out.

If they had both reached their maximum potential, then X would have been a better player than Y. But with such low odds, it turns out the Y was better than X, and it looks like luck.

How about no? You can't seriously believe you can categorize human beings like that(personality traits aside).

Like I said, these are human beings with personal choices to make, and individual struggles like injuries or being on an awful team. Perhaps they're in college and having a rough go with school. The amount some people mature from age 18 to 22 can be enormous. I'm sure you can argue that these are all factored into the percentages, but I personally think it's a rather cold and silly way to look at things. You wouldn't talk about your kids like that, would you?

It can also be something as simple as the player is a late bloomer and hasn't acheived any sort of notoriety, and so a team's scouts haven't had much opportunity to see them, in some cases they couldn't watch them play live or even interview them.


To answer the original poster's question: absolutely, the scouting staff know what they're doing. Look at some teams' European scouting staff and the results they yield and you'll know they're not just shooting fish in a barrel. Were that the case, GMs would protest about the length of the draft and have it reduced to 5 rounds.

 

[hfboardsuser]

How do you find a steal? It's a combination of character, genetics and talent.

Peter Forsberg was 5'9 and 160 pounds soaking wet when drafted.

Datsyuk was even worse- 155 or so.

Tomas Kaberle was also not the biggest young man.

One can very easily attribute luck to each of these. But the smart teams meet the family of players- not only to see their background, but to see the height of family members. Heck, if a team really wanted to- and I'm surprised it hasn't been done yet- they could do some genetic tests to really look into the growth potentials of kids.

When you have a kid who will do anything to improve, has the genes to add muscle, and has the talent to dominate otherwise, you have a steal.

 

[Stephen]

I wonder if it has something to do with the kinds of players teams generally draft? A team like Detroit will walk away with guys like Hudler, Zetterberg, Datsyuk because they look for the skilled guys who can play their puck possession game. A team that drafts for size and strength will never uncover these guys, and at best, get bottom line grinders.

 

[V-2 Schneider]

I would at least hope it puts an end to one of the hockey world's dumbest cliches, that you can't find anyone decent after the second round.But it seems this is a recurring fantasy of dimwits and the mentally lazy.

As an exercise, some who presrcibe to that view, no matter evidence to the contrary, should revisit the 1984 and 1996 drafts.

 

[znk]

No big stars but I find it interesting that Montreal has some nhl/potential nhl players from late rounds.

2002 7th Jonathan Ferland (is ready for the nhl as a 3rd/4th liner this year)
2003 9th Jaroslav Halak
2004 9th Mark Streit
2005 7th Sergei Kostitsyn
2006 5th Pavel Valentenko

I havent compared with other teams. I dont have the knowledge to do so anyway. But I think it's pretty solid to have a late round player NHL bound in every draft since 2002.

 

[TheRedressor]

No big stars but I find it interesting that Montreal has some nhl/potential nhl players from late rounds.

2002 7th Jonathan Ferland (is ready for the nhl as a 3rd/4th liner this year)
2003 9th Jaroslav Halak
2004 9th Mark Streit
2005 7th Sergei Kostitsyn
2006 5th Pavel Valentenko

I havent compared with other teams. I dont have the knowledge to do so anyway. But I think it's pretty solid to have a late round player NHL bound in every draft since 2002.

The Habs have done well in late rounds in the past couple of years.

Rangers seem to do well when they look to Europe

2000: 7th Henrik Lundqvist
2001: 6th Marek Zidlicky
2002: 8th Petr Prucha
2003: 5th Nigel Dawes
2004: 4th Ryan Callahan
2005: 4th Tom Pyatt
2006: 4th David Kveton

 

[Hunter Gathers]

No big stars but I find it interesting that Montreal has some nhl/potential nhl players from late rounds.

2002 7th Jonathan Ferland (is ready for the nhl as a 3rd/4th liner this year)
2003 9th Jaroslav Halak
2004 9th Mark Streit
2005 7th Sergei Kostitsyn
2006 5th Pavel Valentenko

I havent compared with other teams. I dont have the knowledge to do so anyway. But I think it's pretty solid to have a late round player NHL bound in every draft since 2002.

Overagers don't really count, though. That's a bit unfair to rank a guy who was drafted in his mid-late 20s as some wild success for a draft.

 

[Blades 0f Steel]

Overagers don't really count, though. That's a bit unfair to rank a guy who was drafted in his mid-late 20s as some wild success for a draft.

Why not? I think it answers the OP's question: scouts are doing their homework in the later rounds.

 

[znk]

Overagers don't really count, though. That's a bit unfair to rank a guy who was drafted in his mid-late 20s as some wild success for a draft.

Was he drafted? yes.
Is he in the NHL? yes.
Is he valuable? Hell yeah....he's the swiss knife. Only thing he dosent do is play goalie.
29 other teams did not draft him but a Habs scout convinced the team to draft him.

I dont see why he should be excluded.

 

[znk]

The Habs have done well in late rounds in the past couple of years.

Rangers seem to do well when they look to Europe

2000: 7th Henrik Lundqvist
2001: 6th Marek Zidlicky
2002: 8th Petr Prucha
2003: 5th Nigel Dawes
2004: 4th Ryan Callahan
2005: 4th Tom Pyatt
2006: 4th David Kveton

That solid. I guess Europe is the place to go for late rounds. Cause it's the same for the Habs.

 

[Buffaloed]

Rangers seem to do well when they look to Europe

It was easy to do when NHL teams could hold a European player's rights indefinitely. Now they have to be signed in 2 years or it's back into the draft or UFA. It's no coincidence that so many of these late round gems are Europeans. There was no risk. Teams could pick a European wait 3-5 years, and if he developed they'd sign him and look like geniuses. If he was a bust no one would remember. The dynamics have dramatically changed. GM's have their work cut of them now that they have to make a decision on their European prospects after only 2 years. The difficulty is magnified by the rookie salary cap and AHL limit of $62,500 entry level salaries. Some of those guys can make more money playing in Europe.

 

[Osprey]

Why not? I think it answers the OP's question: scouts are doing their homework in the later rounds.

I don't think that it represents a lot of homework. With overagers, most of the homework is done for them, since the players have already developed mentally (into men) and physically (into full-grown bodies). They've also corrected a lot of their problem areas by that point (or haven't, in which case they probably never will). A lot of the guess-work and projection is taken out of the equation. Overagers are relatively safe picks because you know what you're getting. It's low-upside/low-risk/immediate-term with them versus high-upside/high-risk/long-term with 18-year-olds. Once you get to the 3rd round, they start to look very tempting next to the kids available at that point who will probably never see the NHL. I think that it just comes down to the preference (not necessarily scouting talent) of each team (and the direction that their GM has for their team) whether to take the overager or not.

 

[Alfie Turcotte]

No big stars but I find it interesting that Montreal has some nhl/potential nhl players from late rounds.

2002 7th Jonathan Ferland (is ready for the nhl as a 3rd/4th liner this year)
2003 9th Jaroslav Halak
2004 9th Mark Streit
2005 7th Sergei Kostitsyn
2006 5th Pavel Valentenko

I havent compared with other teams. I dont have the knowledge to do so anyway. But I think it's pretty solid to have a late round player NHL bound in every draft since 2002.

1998 #162 Markov
#216 Ryder