Shero's Drafting Record 2006 - 2010

[Riptide]

I've decided to try and look into the results of the Penguins drafts from June 2006 to June 2010. I don't see how anyone could look past the 2010 draft and make an analytical assessment on the players draft when many of these players have never played an NHL game yet. So for the purposes of this, I'll be ignoring those drafts completely - for everyone. I've also dropped all 1st rd picks. I don't care how many you have, I've dropped them all. I know this will piss people off, but GMs make/break their teams and reputations with savy late round picks (2-7). This is where the NHL depth comes from, and this is precisely why (in my opinion) Shero was terrible at drafting players. I do have the data, and might revisit this part later on, but for now it's out.

This will be done in 2 stages.

The first stage will compare Shero against 12 other GMs. Those 12 other GMs are all GMs who were the GM of the same NHL team from June 2006 to June 2010. This means each GM had the same chance to draft the same players, and they ultimately were the guy in charge of the team that made the draft picks for those drafts. Some GMs were only hired in May that year, and others were fired right after the draft. As they were still in charge during that time, they're included. GMs who missed even a single year between 06/10 were removed from this stage.

This will be further broken down into multiple categories. Players to play 1 NHL game, 10 games, 40 games, 100 games, 200 games, 100 games (adjusted), 200 games (adjusted) and top 6F/4D/1G. The adjusted categories are for 2 purposes. As many of these kids are still quite young, it's a way to account for how some teams bring players along slower than others, and a way to account for those players who are very close (Bortuzzo's 78 games, or Byron's 97 games), who will realistically hit 100 games this year. However unless those players are very good (Toffoli, Nyqvist, etc) they wouldn't have gotten credit (or the benefit of the doubt) for the 200 games adj.

The 100 games adj is for any player who stands a reasonable chance over the next year or so to hit 100 games, AND goalies who while haven't made 100 starts, were on an NHL roster over the last 2 years as the backup. Guys like Reto Berra while only having 37 starts to his game, was a backup all of last season, and will be all of this season. However I didn't give him the 200 game adjustment. Zatkoff and Bortuzzo got the same credit (100, not 200).

The 200 game adjustment is for players who have shown enough so far at the NHL level that it's realistic for them to hit 200 games over the next 2 seasons (or for goalies who've been in the NHL a while with a realistic chance to hit 200 games - even as the backup). Guys like Toffoli, Nyqvist, etc with less than 100 games still get credit for this. Yes the adjusted categories are subjective. I gave an edge to top prospects that have seen some NHL action (even if only a few games) who've looked good enough (in my mind) to hit these numbers (100/200 games). If you don't like that, ignore them. If you're looking at actual games played... that's right on. If the player is at 99 games, I wouldn't have given him credit for 100. But would have in the adjusted 100.

The top 6F/4D/1G is for players who project to be a top 6 forward, top 4 D or who could be a #1G. This is very subjective. But I tried to limit it to players who I think have a very good chance to hit those targets. So someone like Jake Allen got credit while Brayden McNabb and Brian Dumoulin did not (and I think highly of both of those players).

The second stage will compare Shero against the 29 other teams and who those teams drafted with no regard to changes in management. I'll use the same categories for both stages.

There will be no adjustments to where teams picked in each round or how competitive any given team is/was. If the players were good enough, they would have seen NHL icetime (either with us or elsewhere). If they're not good enough, then the wrong player was drafted. I have no interest in points players acquired (although I do that the data), I don't really see the value in trying to make adjustments for D vs F vs G. My focus is more on how well Shero did vs other GMs/teams, what percentage of his players (vs other GMs) made it to the NHL, and played 100/200 games (either real or adjusted) and how many were top 6/top 4/1G players.

Here's a link to Scott Cullen's draft breakdown for picks, and what teams could expect to get from picks (95-04).
http://www2.tsn.ca/columnists/scott_cullen/?ID=267960

Click to read more...

 

[Riptide]

Stage 1

Stage 1 will consist of 13 teams.

Boston (Chiarelli - May 26th 2006)
Buffalo (Regier - 1997 - 2013)
Calgary (Sutter - 2003 - Dec 2010)
Carolina (Rutherford - 1997 - 2014)
Detroit (Holland - 1997)
LA Kings (Lombardi - April 21st 2006)
Nashville (Poile - 1997)
New Jersey (Lamoriello - 1997)
NY Rangers (Sather - 2000)
Pittsburgh (Shero - May 2006 - 2014)
San Jose (Wilson - 2003)
St Louis (Pleau - 1997 - July 1st 2010)
Washington (McPhee - 1997 - 2014)

Team​

| # picks |

# GMs​

| 1 GM played |

10 GMs​

|

40 GMs​

|

100 GMs​

|

200 GMs​

|

100 ADJ​

|

200 ADJ​

|

6F/4D/1G​

|

100 GMs %​

|

200 GMs %​

|

100 ADJ %​

|

200 ADJ %​

|

6F/4D/1G %​

|

AVG Pick​

| Rank

Boston|

26​

|

898​

|

10​

|

4​

|

2​

|

2​

|

2​

|

4​

|

2​

|

2​

|

7.69%​

|

7.69%​

|

15.38%​

|

7.69%​

|

7.69%​

|

122.2​

Buffalo|

32​

|

863​

|

9​

|

8​

|

8​

|

2​

|

1​

|

7​

|

3​

|

0​

|

6.25%​

|

9.38%​

|

21.88%​

|

3.13%​

|

0%​

|

99.5​

Calgary|

28​

|

514​

|

9​

|

4​

|

3​

|

3​

|

1​

|

4​

|

1​

|

1​

|

10.71%​

|

3.57%​

|

14.29%​

|

3.57%​

|

3.57%​

|

114​

Carolina|

26​

|

896​

|

10​

|

7​

|

6​

|

3​

|

1​

|

5​

|

2​

|

2​

|

11.54%​

|

7.69%​

|

19.23%​

|

3.85%​

|

7.69%​

|

124.5​

Detroit|

29​

|

936​

|

13​

|

9​

|

6​

|

5​

|

1​

|

9​

|

3​

|

4​

|

17.24%​

|

10.34%​

|

31.03%​

|

3.45%​

|

13.79%​

|

112.3​

LA Kings|

36​

|

1904​

|

14​

|

12​

|

10​

|

7​

|

3​

|

11​

|

5​

|

4​

|

19.44%​

|

13.89%​

|

30.56%​

|

8.33%​

|

11.11%​

|

91.8​

Nashville|

32​

|

1178​

|

13​

|

10​

|

7​

|

4​

|

2​

|

8​

|

4​

|

3​

|

12.50%​

|

12.50%​

|

25.00%​

|

6.25%​

|

9.38%​

|

103.2​

New Jersey|

32​

|

837​

|

10​

|

10​

|

7​

|

2​

|

2​

|

4​

|

2​

|

3​

|

6.25%​

|

6.25%​

|

12.50%​

|

6.25%​

|

9.38%​

|

101​

Rangers|

28​

|

1217​

|

9​

|

8​

|

5​

|

4​

|

2​

|

4​

|

4​

|

2​

|

14.29%​

|

14.29%​

|

14.29%​

|

7.14%​

|

7.14%​

|

112.9​

Pittsburgh|

26​

|

543​

|

12​

|

7​

|

5​

|

2​

|

0​

|

5​

|

1​

|

1​

|

7.69%​

|

3.85%​

|

19.23%​

|

0%​

|

3.85%​

|

120.4​

San Jose|

30​

|

1478​

|

10​

|

8​

|

7​

|

6​

|

4​

|

6​

|

5​

|

2​

|

20.00%​

|

16.67%​

|

20.00%​

|

13.33%​

|

6.67%​

|

103​

St Louis|

33​

|

239​

|

10​

|

7​

|

3​

|

0​

|

0​

|

4​

|

0​

|

2​

|

0%​

|

0%​

|

12.12%​

|

0%​

|

6.06%​

|

97.6​

Washington|

33​

|

829​

|

9​

|

5​

|

5​

|

5​

|

1​

|

5​

|

4​

|

2​

|

15.15%​

|

12.12%​

|

15.15%​

|

3.03%​

|

6.06%​

|

100.9​

* This doesn't included ANY 1st round picks. Those picks are not calculated anywhere in any way - at least in this table.
** The games played totals are NHL games played with ANY NHL team. For example Muzzin drafted by Pittsburgh, but has only played NHL games with the Kings. Shero/Pittsburgh gets all the credit for drafting him, and his game totals all count towards Shero/Pittsburgh's draft numbers/rankings.
*** The games played total is only correct as of 11/10/2014


# Picks = Total number of picks made
# GMs = # of NHL games played by all players drafted.
1 GM Played = # of drafted players to play 1 NHL game
10 GMs = # of drafted players to play 10 NHL games
40 GMs = # of drafted players to play 40 NHL games
100 GMs = # of drafted players to play 100 NHL games
200 GMs = # of drafted players to play 200 NHL games
100 ADJ = # of drafted players likely to play 100 NHL games (aka they're very close, or close and on an NHL roster). Them hitting this is a realistic goal. THIS IS A SUBJECTIVE COLUMN
200 ADJ = # of drafted players likely to play 200 NHL games (aka they're very close, or close and on an NHL roster). Them hitting this is a realistic goal. THIS IS A SUBJECTIVE COLUMN
6F/4D/1G = # of players who might reasonably hit this title. THIS IS A VERY SUBJECTIVE COLUMN.
100 GMs % = # of players with 100 games as a % of that teams total picks (BOS had 2 players play 100 games out of 26 picks, so 2/26=7.69%)
200 GMs % = # of players with 200 games as a % of that teams total picks
100 ADJ % = # of players with 100 ADJ games as a % of that teams total picks. Again this is subjective. I believe this column reflects the number of players who'll realistically hit 100 games
200 ADJ % = # of players with 200 ADJ games as a % of that teams total picks. Again this is subjective. I believe this column reflects the number of players who'll realistically hit 200 games
6F/4D/1G % = # of players who might reasonably hit this title, as a % of that teams total picks. THIS IS A VERY SUBJECTIVE COLUMN.
AVG Pick = totaled up each pick by draft position (eg 32nd, 99th, 150th, 200th, etc) then divided by total number of picks that team had. This was the only way I could think of right now to give some sort of reflection on how early/late different teams were drafting players at. It's not an exact science, but it should give some credit for how early some teams were drafting vs others.

***********************************************

Thoughts on the above table (stage 1) comparing Shero against his 12 fellow GMs who all held jobs over the exact same time frame. Shero wasn't the worse, and I was actually somewhat surprised at who was worse than him. But he definitely falls into the bottom 3rd of those 13 GMs.

Loosely ranked, I think it would look something like this:
Group 1
LA Kings
Detroit
Nashville

Group 2
NY Rangers
New Jersey
San Jose
Washington
Boston
Carolina

Group 3
Pittsburgh
Calgary
Buffalo
St Louis

Now for some of the players drafted. This is mostly for where I'm showing the adjustments. And yes I'm aware that this is going to get really subjective really quick. But here's where I ranked those players (I'm looking specifically at the ADJ games and 6F/4D/1G).

Team|Name|Pick|# GMs|100 ADJ|200 ADJ|6F/4D/1G

BOS|Lucic|

50​

|

500​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

BOS|Marchand|

71​

|

315​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

BOS|Spooner|

45​

|

32​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

|||||

BUF|Enroth|

46​

|

90​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

N​

BUF|McNabb|

66​

|

52​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

BUF|Foligno|

104​

|

146​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

N​

|||||

CGY|Aulie|

116​

|

139​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

CGY|Brodie|

114​

|

201​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|||||

CAR|McBain|

63​

|

275​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

N​

CAR|Faulk|

37​

|

193​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

CAR|Andersen|

187​

|

38​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

Y​

|||||

DET|Emmerton|

41​

|

139​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

DET|Matthias|

47​

|

346​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

N​

DET|Nyqvist|

121​

|

112​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

DET|Tatar|

60​

|

115​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

DET|Jarnkrok|

51​

|

22​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

Y​

DET|Pulkkinen|

111​

|

3​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

DET|Mrazek|

141​

|

11​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

Y​

|||||

LAK|Zatkoff|

74​

|

20​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

LAK|Simmonds|

61​

|

463​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

LAK|Martinez|

95​

|

218​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

LAK|King|

109​

|

172​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

N​

LAK|Voynov|

32​

|

190​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

LAK|Toffoli|

47​

|

87​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

Y​

|||||

NSH|Spaling|

58​

|

310​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

N​

NSH|Josi|

38​

|

186​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

NSH|Lindback|

207​

|

88​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

NSH|Beck|

70​

|

33​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

NSH|Smith|

98​

|

209​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

NSH|Ekholm|

102​

|

79​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

Y​

NSH|Bourque|

132​

|

161​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

N​

|||||

NJD|Halischuk|

117​

|

208​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

N​

NJD|Henrique|

82​

|

206​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

NJD|Gelinas|

54​

|

72​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

Y​

NJD|Merrill|

38​

|

63​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

Y​

|||||

NYR|Horak|

127​

|

84​

|

N​

|

N​

|

N​

NYR|Weise|

111​

|

191​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

N​

NYR|Stepan|

51​

|

294​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

NYR|Hagelin|

168​

|

198​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

NYR|Anisimov|

54​

|

369​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

N​

|||||

PIT|Strait|

65​

|

89​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

PIT|Muzzin|

141​

|

141​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

PIT|Jeffrey|

171​

|

124​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

PIT|Bortuzzo|

78​

|

78​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

PIT|Johnson|

125​

|

43​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

|||||

SJS|McGinn|

36​

|

363​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

N​

SJS|Bonino|

173​

|

205​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

SJS|Braun|

201​

|

233​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

SJS|McLaren|

203​

|

102​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

SJS|Demers|

186​

|

294​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

SJS|Wingels|

177​

|

173​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

N​

|||||

STL|Berra|

106​

|

37​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

STL|Allen|

34​

|

20​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

Y​

STL|Lehtera|

65​

|

13​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

Y​

|||||

WSH|Neuvirth|

34​

|

143​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

WSH|Perreault|

177​

|

243​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

N​

WSH|Holtby|

93​

|

115​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

Y​

WSH|Orlov|

55​

|

119​

|

Y​

|

N​

|

N​

WSH|Eakin|

85​

|

171​

|

Y​

|

Y​

|

N​

|||||

 

[Riptide]

Stage 2

Stage 2

This table compares ALL teams regardless of management changes between the draft in June 2006 and the June 2010 draft. It does not include 1st rd picks.

Team​

| # picks |

# GMs​

| 1 GM played |

10 GMs​

|

40 GMs​

|

100 GMs​

|

200 GMs​

|

100 ADJ​

|

200 ADJ​

|

6F/4D/1G​

|

100 GMs %​

|

200 GMs %​

|

100 ADJ %​

|

200 ADJ %​

|

6F/4D/1G %​

|

AVG Pick​

| Rank

Anaheim|

31​

|

972​

|

13​

|

9​

|

7​

|

4​

|

1​

|

2​

|

1​

|

2​

|

12.90%​

|

3.23%​

|

6.45%​

|

3.23%​

|

6.45%​

|

104.3​

Atlanta|

32​

|

208​

|

9​

|

6​

|

2​

|

0​

|

0​

|

0​

|

0​

|

0​

|

0%​

|

0%​

|

0%​

|

0%​

|

0%​

|

135.7​

Boston|

26​

|

898​

|

10​

|

4​

|

2​

|

2​

|

2​

|

4​

|

2​

|

2​

|

7.69%​

|

7.69%​

|

15.38%​

|

7.69%​

|

7.69%​

|

122.2​

Buffalo|

32​

|

863​

|

9​

|

8​

|

8​

|

2​

|

1​

|

7​

|

3​

|

0​

|

6.25%​

|

9.38%​

|

21.88%​

|

3.13%​

|

0%​

|

99.5​

Calgary|

28​

|

514​

|

9​

|

4​

|

3​

|

3​

|

1​

|

4​

|

1​

|

1​

|

10.71%​

|

3.57%​

|

14.29%​

|

3.57%​

|

3.57%​

|

114​

Carolina|

26​

|

896​

|

10​

|

7​

|

6​

|

3​

|

1​

|

5​

|

2​

|

2​

|

11.54%​

|

7.69%​

|

19.23%​

|

3.85%​

|

7.69%​

|

124.5​

Chicago|

36​

|

420​

|

9​

|

4​

|

3​

|

2​

|

1​

|

2​

|

1​

|

0​

|

5.56%​

|

2.78%​

|

5.56%​

|

2.78%​

|

0%​

|

117.8​

Colorado|

33​

|

1118​

|

13​

|

10​

|

7​

|

3​

|

2​

|

3​

|

2​

|

2​

|

9.09%​

|

6.06%​

|

9.09%​

|

6.06%​

|

6.06%​

|

110.8​

Columbus|

35​

|

1397​

|

12​

|

12​

|

7​

|

6​

|

2​

|

6​

|

6​

|

3​

|

17.14%​

|

5.71%​

|

17.14%​

|

17.14%​

|

8.57%​

|

121.1​

Dallas|

25​

|

971​

|

11​

|

9​

|

7​

|

3​

|

1​

|

6​

|

3​

|

3​

|

12%​

|

4%​

|

24%​

|

12%​

|

12%​

|

114.9​

Detroit|

29​

|

936​

|

13​

|

9​

|

6​

|

5​

|

1​

|

9​

|

3​

|

4​

|

17.24%​

|

10.34%​

|

31.03%​

|

3.45%​

|

13.79%​

|

112.3​

Edmonton|

28​

|

702​

|

10​

|

7​

|

6​

|

2​

|

1​

|

4​

|

1​

|

2​

|

7.14%​

|

3.57%​

|

14.29%​

|

3.57%​

|

7.14%​

|

113.3​

Florida|

33​

|

416​

|

11​

|

8​

|

5​

|

0​

|

0​

|

2​

|

0​

|

0​

|

0%​

|

0%​

|

6.06%​

|

0%​

|

0%​

|

108.8​

LA Kings|

36​

|

1904​

|

14​

|

12​

|

10​

|

7​

|

3​

|

11​

|

5​

|

4​

|

19.44%​

|

13.89%​

|

30.56%​

|

8.33%​

|

11.11%​

|

91.8​

Minnesota|

25​

|

1011​

|

12​

|

11​

|

6​

|

3​

|

1​

|

6​

|

2​

|

3​

|

12%​

|

4%​

|

24%​

|

8%​

|

12%​

|

125.3​

Montreal|

28​

|

821​

|

8​

|

6​

|

5​

|

4​

|

1​

|

4​

|

3​

|

2​

|

14.29%​

|

3.57%​

|

14.29%​

|

10.71%​

|

7.14%​

|

124.1​

Nashville|

32​

|

1178​

|

13​

|

10​

|

7​

|

4​

|

2​

|

8​

|

4​

|

3​

|

12.50%​

|

12.50%​

|

25.00%​

|

6.25%​

|

9.38%​

|

103.2​

New Jersey|

32​

|

837​

|

10​

|

10​

|

7​

|

2​

|

2​

|

4​

|

2​

|

3​

|

6.25%​

|

6.25%​

|

12.50%​

|

6.25%​

|

9.38%​

|

101​

NY Islanders|

38​

|

1661​

|

18​

|

13​

|

9​

|

6​

|

4​

|

8​

|

5​

|

3​

|

15.79%​

|

10.53%​

|

21.05%​

|

13.16%​

|

7.89%​

|

110.5​

NY Rangers|

28​

|

1217​

|

9​

|

8​

|

5​

|

4​

|

2​

|

4​

|

4​

|

2​

|

14.29%​

|

14.29%​

|

14.29%​

|

7.14%​

|

7.14%​

|

112.9​

Ottawa|

27​

|

1158​

|

12​

|

11​

|

8​

|

5​

|

2​

|

9​

|

3​

|

2​

|

18.52%​

|

7.41%​

|

33.33%​

|

11.11%​

|

7.41%​

|

123.6​

Philadelphia|

31​

|

665​

|

13​

|

11​

|

5​

|

2​

|

0​

|

4​

|

1​

|

0​

|

6.45%​

|

0%​

|

12.9%​

|

3.23%​

|

0%​

|

128.4​

Pittsburgh|

26​

|

543​

|

12​

|

7​

|

5​

|

2​

|

0​

|

5​

|

1​

|

1​

|

7.69%​

|

3.85%​

|

19.23%​

|

0%​

|

3.85%​

|

120.4​

Phoenix|

25​

|

304​

|

7​

|

5​

|

2​

|

1​

|

0​

|

1​

|

1​

|

0​

|

4%​

|

0%​

|

4%​

|

4%​

|

0%​

|

108.2​

San Jose|

30​

|

1478​

|

10​

|

8​

|

7​

|

6​

|

4​

|

6​

|

5​

|

2​

|

20.00%​

|

16.67%​

|

20.00%​

|

13.33%​

|

6.67%​

|

103​

St Louis|

33​

|

239​

|

10​

|

7​

|

3​

|

0​

|

0​

|

4​

|

0​

|

2​

|

0%​

|

0%​

|

12.12%​

|

0%​

|

6.06%​

|

97.6​

Tampa Bay|

31​

|

685​

|

9​

|

8​

|

6​

|

4​

|

0​

|

6​

|

1​

|

0​

|

12.90%​

|

0%​

|

19.35%​

|

3.23%​

|

0%​

|

133.4​

Toronto|

32​

|

1560​

|

14​

|

9​

|

7​

|

6​

|

3​

|

7​

|

4​

|

2​

|

18.75%​

|

9.38%​

|

21.88%​

|

12.50%​

|

6.25%​

|

120.1​

Vancouver|

24​

|

60​

|

3​

|

1​

|

1​

|

0​

|

0​

|

1​

|

0​

|

0​

|

0%​

|

0%​

|

4.17%​

|

0%​

|

0%​

|

141.8​

Washington|

33​

|

829​

|

9​

|

5​

|

5​

|

5​

|

1​

|

5​

|

4​

|

2​

|

15.15%​

|

12.12%​

|

15.15%​

|

3.03%​

|

6.06%​

|

100.9​

* This doesn't included ANY 1st round picks. Those picks are not calculated anywhere in any way - at least in this table.
** The games played totals are NHL games played with ANY NHL team. For example Muzzin drafted by Pittsburgh, but has only played NHL games with the Kings. Shero/Pittsburgh gets all the credit for drafting him, and his game totals all count towards Shero/Pittsburgh's draft numbers/rankings.
*** The games played total is only correct as of 11/10/2014

# Picks = Total number of picks made
# GMs = # of NHL games played by all players drafted.
1 GM Played = # of drafted players to play 1 NHL game
10 GMs = # of drafted players to play 10 NHL games
40 GMs = # of drafted players to play 40 NHL games
100 GMs = # of drafted players to play 100 NHL games
200 GMs = # of drafted players to play 200 NHL games
100 ADJ = # of drafted players likely to play 100 NHL games (aka they're very close, or close and on an NHL roster). Them hitting this is a realistic goal. THIS IS A SUBJECTIVE COLUMN
200 ADJ = # of drafted players likely to play 200 NHL games (aka they're very close, or close and on an NHL roster). Them hitting this is a realistic goal. THIS IS A SUBJECTIVE COLUMN
6F/4D/1G = # of players who might reasonably hit this title. THIS IS A VERY SUBJECTIVE COLUMN.
100 GMs % = # of players with 100 games as a % of that teams total picks (BOS had 2 players play 100 games out of 26 picks, so 2/26=7.69%)
200 GMs % = # of players with 200 games as a % of that teams total picks
100 ADJ % = # of players with 100 ADJ games as a % of that teams total picks. Again this is subjective. I believe this column reflects the number of players who'll realistically hit 100 games
200 ADJ % = # of players with 200 ADJ games as a % of that teams total picks. Again this is subjective. I believe this column reflects the number of players who'll realistically hit 200 games
6F/4D/1G % = # of players who might reasonably hit this title, as a % of that teams total picks. THIS IS A VERY SUBJECTIVE COLUMN.
AVG Pick = totaled up each pick by draft position (eg 32nd, 99th, 150th, 200th, etc) then divided by total number of picks that team had. This was the only way I could think of right now to give some sort of reflection on how early/late different teams were drafting players at. It's not an exact science, but it should give some credit for how early some teams were drafting vs others.

*******************************************************************************

I'll be honest... these were to some extent surprising. And to another extent, not at all surprising. But for the success Vancouver has had over this time frame... to only have a total of 60 games played by ALL their draft picks (rd 2-7) from the 06, 07, 08, 09, 10 drafts blows my mind. I thought STL was bad with 239 games played.

As to how I'd rank these teams. Again, these are done fairly loosely.

Upper tier (aka good)
Detroit, LA, Columbus, Dallas, Minny, Nashville, NJ, NYI

Mid tier
Anaheim, Boston, Colorado, Edmonton, Montreal, NYR, Ottawa, San Jose, Toronto, Washington, Carolina, St Louis, Calgary, Pittsburgh

Lower tier
Buffalo, Atlanta, Chicago, Florida, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Tampa Bay, Vancouver

Now... while Pittsburgh isn't in the lower tier, there are teams that picked (on avg) later than them (Carolina, Montreal) who still managed to do better statically. So while I don't think I could say Shero's drafting in those rounds was brutal... I would say it's in the bottom 10 in the league over that time frame with the picks made - aka far from good.

 

[Riptide]

reserved 3

 

[Riptide]

reserved 4

 

[DearDiary]

I think that any draft pick beyond the 2nd round is just picking who looks to have decent upside rather than the safest choice. In the first 2 rounds GM's are picking players who they think can parallel their game into the NHL, while in later rounds you're looking at individual aspects of a player and deciding if there's upside to improve on any.

If one GM is better than another at it, the only possible reason I can see is they have much more scouts employed, not better.

 

[Gallatin]

Looking forward to seeing this detailed data driven analysis of Shero's early post 1st round drafting record Rip. Thanx for all the effort this will take.

 

[penguins2946*]

I'll analyze the first 4 round picks of each of those drafts in different posts starting in 2006. 5th-7th round picks are total crap shots, so it doesn't make much sense to over-analyze those picks.

2006:

-Staal wasn't a terrible pick at the time, he was the 2nd rated NA skater by Central Scouting's final rankings (behind EJ, who went 1st overall). It didn't make much sense with Crosby and Malkin in the system, but maybe Shero thought Staal could make the transition to wing. Not a terrible pick and it fit the BPA, but it didn't really make much sense.
-Sneep was a reach at the time of the draft and it looked even worse in hindsight. At that point, both Clutterbuck (ranked 24th NA skater) and Anisimov (ranked 6th European skater) were available when we picked Sneep (who was ranked 26th ranked NA skater). Those are also only players who ended up playing in the NHL, there were probably others that were ranked higher that were still not drafted when we picked Sneep. Just a terrible pick. If I could do it again without knowing who would end up as a NHLer, I would have drafted Anisimov.
-Strait was a good pick at the time. He was the 22nd rated NA skater and he fell in the draft to us. When he was drafted, Clutterbuck was also still available, but Strait was ranked ahead of him in the final rankings. It sucked that he was misused and eventually waived, but he wasn't a bad pick.

Overall, it wasn't a terrible draft for being hired the month before. Most of the players drafted after Sneep and Strait that ended up having better NHL careers were ranked later in the final rankings, so you can't get too mad about that. Overall, I would have picked Anisimov over Sneep, but not too bad.

I'll post stuff like this for 2007-2010 later.

 

[Gallatin]

I think that any draft pick beyond the 2nd round is just picking who looks to have decent upside rather than the safest choice. In the first 2 rounds GM's are picking players who they think can parallel their game into the NHL, while in later rounds you're looking at individual aspects of a player and deciding if there's upside to improve on any.

If one GM is better than another at it, the only possible reason I can see is they have much more scouts employed, not better.[/COLOR]

Your bolded comment is absurd IMO. Completely absurd. I would like to see you try to prove that a few GM's cannot possibly hire better scouts than others. Asserting that all scouts have the same skill level and ability is just so ridiculous that you finally pulled me into one of your arguments.

This is really one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen on this board, and that takes some doing my friend.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

As I said in the other thread, getting a stud after the 1st round is HUGE in being able to create a great roster. You can't just have 1st rounders and a bunch of depth guys on a good team.

Of all of his picks only drafted one stud outside of the 1st round, who he didn't even sign, in Muzzin. Everyone else was either a bust or a depth guy. Hell, looking at it, he didn't really get a middle guy either with Bort, Strait and DJ all being 3rd pairing/4th line guys.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

I'll analyze the first 4 round picks of each of those drafts in different posts starting in 2006. 5th-7th round picks are total crap shots, so it doesn't make much sense to over-analyze those picks.

2006:

-Staal wasn't a terrible pick at the time, he was the 2nd rated NA skater by Central Scouting's final rankings (behind EJ, who went 1st overall). It didn't make much sense with Crosby and Malkin in the system, but maybe Shero thought Staal could make the transition to wing. Not a terrible pick and it fit the BPA, but it didn't really make much sense.
-Sneep was a reach at the time of the draft and it looked even worse in hindsight. At that point, both Clutterbuck (ranked 24th NA skater) and Anisimov (ranked 6th European skater) were available when we picked Sneep (who was ranked 26th ranked NA skater). Those are also only players who ended up playing in the NHL, there were probably others that were ranked higher that were still not drafted when we picked Sneep. Just a terrible pick. If I could do it again without knowing who would end up as a NHLer, I would have drafted Anisimov.
-Strait was a good pick at the time. He was the 22nd rated NA skater and he fell in the draft to us. When he was drafted, Clutterbuck was also still available, but Strait was ranked ahead of him in the final rankings. It sucked that he was misused and eventually waived, but he wasn't a bad pick.

Overall, it wasn't a terrible draft for being hired the month before. Most of the players drafted after Sneep and Strait that ended up having better NHL careers were ranked later in the final rankings, so you can't get too mad about that. Overall, I would have picked Anisimov over Sneep, but not too bad.

I'll post stuff like this for 2007-2010 later.

I hate this excuse. Cha was hired after Shero and picked Lucic (with Anisimov still available) and Marchand (with Clutterbuck still available) in 2006.

 

[DearDiary]

Your bolded comment is absurd IMO. Completely absurd. I would like to see you try to prove that a few GM's cannot possibly hire better scouts than others. Asserting that all scouts have the same skill level and ability is just so ridiculous that you finally pulled me into one of your arguments.

This is really one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen on this board, and that takes some doing my friend.

It seems you misunderstood. Some teams have lots of scouts employed all over Europe. That is going to make a lot more difference than have a handful of very good scouts in the later rounds where decisions on who to draft comes down to who you scouted and which has the most upside. That's one of the reasons Detroit did so well with European drafting, they had lots of scouts employed watching lots of game. They weren't paying attention to who was putting up points, but who has the largest room for improvement

 

[penguins2946*]

I hate this excuse. Cha was hired after Shero and picked Lucic (with Anisimov still available) and Marchand (with Clutterbuck still available) in 2006.

Uh okay? I don't see how that's remotely relevant.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

Uh okay? I don't see how that's remotely relevant.

Really? You don't see how Cha totally debunks the "Shero didn't have enough time to prepare" excuse?

 

[Gallatin]

It seems you misunderstood. Some teams have lots of scouts employed all over Europe. That is going to make a lot more difference than have a handful of very good scouts in the later rounds where decisions on who to draft comes down to who you scouted and which has the most upside

I would postulate that GM's who can effectively hire good scouts in volume and support their efforts in the field will draft the best players on average. If you are angling toward our lack of European scouts under Shero, being a reason for our average drafting, that is a legit argument IMO. However nobody knows why Shero didn't scout Europe much. I doubt it was economically driven though, not with this organization.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

It seems you misunderstood. Some teams have lots of scouts employed all over Europe. That is going to make a lot more difference than have a handful of very good scouts in the later rounds where decisions on who to draft comes down to who you scouted and which has the most upside. That's one of the reasons Detroit did so well with European drafting, they had lots of scouts employed watching lots of game. They weren't paying attention to who was putting up points, but who has the largest room for improvement

Let's assume this is true, which is debatable.

Shero not employing enough scouts and sending them to the correct places, which led to ****** drafts, is completely his fault.

 

[Gurglesons]

Yay, more Shero bashing. Look at our cap situation next year, and half the other teams in the league. If the cap doesn't go up, we will be praising Shero for not making us get rid of essentially pieces like a Boychuk or a Patrick Sharp. Also, Shero never really used a cap circumventing contract except with Sid which is pretty impressive as well. Hossa would've had one, but still.

 

[penguins2946*]

Really? You don't see how Cha totally debunks the "Shero didn't have enough time to prepare" excuse?

And Cha got lucky with Marchand and Lucic, because they were reaches. That's completely irrelevant to this discussion. I said I didn't mind his 1st and 3rd round picks and the 2nd round pick should have been Anisimov, but overall, it wasn't a terrible draft.

 

[Shady Machine]

Yay, more Shero bashing. Look at our cap situation next year, and half the other teams in the league. If the cap doesn't go up, we will be praising Shero for not making us get rid of essentially pieces like a Boychuk or a Patrick Sharp. Also, Shero never really used a cap circumventing contract except with Sid which is pretty impressive as well. Hossa would've had one, but still.

None of which is remotely relevant in a thread dedicated to his drafting record from 2006 through 2010. Rip made this thread specifically for that. Please try not to derail it (not at you specifically but everyone).

 

[Gurglesons]

None of which is remotely relevant in a thread dedicated to his drafting record from 2006 through 2010. Rip made this thread specifically for that. Please try not to derail it (not at you specifically but everyone).

Then in this world, Muzzin would be considered a quality pick. Even though we didn't retain him. You can't just look at one specific aspect of something and pretend that is all that impacts it.

 

[Shady Machine]

Then in this world, Muzzin would be considered a quality pick. Even though we didn't retain him. You can't just look at one specific aspect of something and pretend that is all that impacts it.

I agree. I'm assuming Rip will give Shero credit for Muzzin.

 

[Riptide]

I would postulate that GM's who can effectively hire good scouts in volume and support their efforts in the field will draft the best players on average. If you are angling toward our lack of European scouts under Shero, being a reason for our average drafting, that is a legit argument IMO. However nobody knows why Shero didn't scout Europe much. I doubt it was economically driven though, not with this organization.

I agree that that is a legit argument. However when analyzing his drafts, the fact that he didn't know there was better talent available because his scouts didn't scout those players is still ultimately on him. Perhaps not in 2006, but definitely later on.

As for giving him a complete pass in 2006 due to him just taking the job, Chiarelli does prove that that's a foolish excuse. He took over Boston later than Shero did, and still managed to make some very good picks (and those picks were North American players who he definitely should have been aware of).

 

[penguins2946*]

I'll post the 2007 analysis now, but with only rounds 1-4. Here's how 2007 went:

-The Pens first pick was Esposito at 20. At the time, I believe it was McGuire who said that this was a coup by Pittsburgh and he thought the league was rigging the draft for the Pens. He was an elite talent that was a challenger to go 1st overall at the start of the season. His natural talent was matched by no one in the Pens system since, although Kapanen isn't too far off. He was ranked the 8th best NA player in the end of the season rankings, and all the players above him were already drafted. That was an excellent pick, even though he didn't end up panning out due to injuries.
-The Pens 2nd round pick was Veilleux at 51. Velieux was ranked 33rd in the NA list, so he wasn't that big of a reach. However, someone that was picked right after him was ranked higher and has had more of an impact in the NHL, and that someone is Spaling. Spaling was ranked 24th in the final rankings and was drafted 58th overall in the draft. Along with Spaling being available, Galiardi (ranked 31st, picked 55th) and Moller (ranked 20th overall, picked 52nd overall were all available at that pick. It was a bad pick that looks worse in hindsight, just like the Sneep pick.
-The Pens next pick was in the 3rd round when they picked Bortuzzo 78th overall. That was a solid pick. Bortuzzo was ranked the 48th NA skater, and there really weren't any higher ranked players that ended up having a better career than him. Andersson was the 5th rated European skater, but he has only been a 4th liner in his NHL career. Overall, it wasn't a bad pick at all, and we probably wouldn't have gotten a better NHLer with anyone else that was ranked higher.
-The final Pens pick pick was another 3rd round pick with Casey Pierro-Zabotel with the 80th overall pick. He was ranked 75th in NA skaters. That pick was really bad. Just as I said above with Bortuzzo, Andersson was available with that pick, and he would have at least played in the NHL.

Overall: Bortuzzo was a good pick and Esposito was a no brainer at the time, but the other 2 stunk.

 

[Riptide]

Then in this world, Muzzin would be considered a quality pick. Even though we didn't retain him. You can't just look at one specific aspect of something and pretend that is all that impacts it.

And he is. In fact he's Shero's only pick (outside the 1st rd - which is all I looked at from 06-10) that is a top 6F/4D/1G. He is ultimately Shero's best pick.

When I look at games played, I'm not looking at which team those games were played on - just that they were played in the NHL.

 

[Shady Machine]

No offense Vokouna, but that seems like major hindsight analysis. The pick stunk because there was one other player available that is now an NHLer?