The Importance of Drafting a Defenceman With the 6th OA?

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
Is that the same guy who has zero cups and drafted Colin Wilson and Chet Pickard over Erik Karlsson?
Same guy who essentially got nothing or close to nothing out of 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 (outside of a top 5 pick who was traded for another player), and maybe 2015 (not looking great) drafts?

Pointing at Cups is stupid when he does not have full control over what is going on since he's not the GM. He has drafted phenomenally well, not sure why you are even trying to contest that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fire Ken Holland

Pavels Dog

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
19,736
14,704
Sweden
I'm seeing several posts about the RW drafting D-men very poorly. Is that the problem, or is it just the RW developing D-men poorly?
Drafting. Unless Wings put something in the water bottles of their D prospects as soon as they draft them.

Pointing at Cups is stupid when he does not have full control over what is going on since he's not the GM. He has drafted phenomenally well, not sure why you are even trying to contest that.
If he owns the successes he owns the failures too. Not sure how you can contest that they've had many poor draft years or have struggled to find forward talent. Defensively, yeah they've done amazing. But Weber+Rinne was before Fenton, no?
 

ShelbyZ

Registered User
Apr 8, 2015
3,798
2,559
While reading this thread, I can't help but be reminded of the Oilers leading up to the 2012 Draft...

Remember when half the hockey world was screaming about how they should handle (their 3rd consecutive) #1OA when they their biggest need was on D? Either draft Ryan Murray with the pick, get a decent return by trading down a couple spots and drafting a dman, or trade the pick to get a legit top line dman were the directions thrown around. Instead they went BPA with Yakupov and we all know how that ended up.

I just hope if the Red Wings do take a winger at BPA, they have the opposite luck.
 

Enders Game

Registered User
Jun 4, 2018
53
28
Properly rebuilding a team starts with defenseman. They peak LATER. You get your top defenseman early, then you go for your top centers, and then your wingers. Defenseman peak later on. Wingers are less important than centers and that winger top talent is easily available. You can get wingers. with value anywhere in the draft... centers that's a much more difficult feat.

If you draft forwards first you end up with a mess like Toronto or Edmonton. It's better to be rebuilding like a Nashville or Carolina team. It's not rocket appliances people
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
Properly rebuilding a team starts with defenseman. They peak LATER. You get your top defenseman early, then you go for your top centers, and then your wingers. Defenseman peak later on. Wingers are less important than centers and that winger top talent is easily available. You can get wingers. with value anywhere in the draft... centers that's a much more difficult feat.

If you draft forwards first you end up with a mess like Toronto or Edmonton. It's better to be rebuilding like a Nashville or Carolina team. It's not rocket appliances people

-Carolina is garbage. What on earth are you talking about? They have a fantastic defense pool... and not a whole lot else.
-Edmonton is garbage because they got **** all outside of the 1st round in all those years they had 1st OAs and they dealt Eberle and Hall (the two biggest booms in value) for underwhelming returns. Edmonton is just a poorly managed team.
-Toronto actually looks like they're still going to be good. Real gud. They lost in 7 to Boston this year, where Boston was a legit contender. Hell, if Toronto does it right this offseason and can improve their defense, they'll be a top contender NEXT YEAR.

And no, top talent of any kind is not easily available. And landing wingers with value anywhere in the draft is a literal crapshoot. Johnny Gaudreau was a 4th round pick. If teams at all thought he'd remotely resemble what Johnny Gaudreau has turned out to be, he doesn't last remotely that long.

If you get a chance at a truly elite player in the top ten, you worry about position later. You get the best player you can. It's entirely possible that Oliver Wahlstrom is a better hockey player than Noah Dobson ever will be. And I'm certain that if you took Dobson and he was an okay middle pairing guy while Wahlstrom was a Mitch Marner type, you'll ***** about not taking the Mitch Marner type.
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
Drafting. Unless Wings put something in the water bottles of their D prospects as soon as they draft them.

When Smith looked good for the Rangers for a hot minute, it certainly raised questions. But then Smith returned to doing Smith things and the balance of the force was restored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98

FMichael

Registered User
Dec 22, 2010
5,040
4,939
Wisconsin
Or you look at Washington and see that 5 of their 6 defenseman were acquired and only carlson was developed.



Draft best player available.
What's interesting is that according to Craig Button a few forwards have made their way into the top 10, and a few Dmen were pushed back.
 

Go Wings

Registered User
Sep 26, 2009
6,162
4,126
Chatham, ON
Well I agree that should most likely be the case.

But if say svechnikov dropped to us. You take him, no question because he would be the best available. Same thing with tkachuk or dahlin. Now obviously they wont drop to us, but when you need elite talent at all positions you take the best player available.

Yah but he isnt going to drop.
 

The Zetterberg Era

Ball Hockey Sucks
Nov 8, 2011
40,957
11,577
Ft. Myers, FL
When Smith looked good for the Rangers for a hot minute, it certainly raised questions. But then Smith returned to doing Smith things and the balance of the force was restored.

Smith always looks good in the Playoffs. He had some bumpy moments but also stand out games against Chicago, that is probably his worst series. He was really good most of the post-season runs. It is like Jack Johnson and Team USA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98
Jul 30, 2005
17,660
4,588
I mean, what is location, really
We know some things to be true: that top pairing defensemen are very valuable in today's game, that the Detroit Red Wings have not drafted well with defensemen recently, that the Wings have not drafted particularly well in later rounds recently, that it's difficult to sign top pairing defensemen in free agency, and that it's perhaps even harder to trade for them.

We also know as an empirical fact that the players taken in the top 10 are much more likely on a per pick basis to make the NHL than players taken later, including picks as soon as the early 2nd round. I think it is also uncontroversial that defensemen taken earlier in the first round are more likely on a per pick basis to be top pairing defensemen than defensemen taken elsewhere.

I would also add something that I believe, and I think other people believe as well: that if the Wings don't add a high end defenseman in the near-ish future, it will prolong the rebuild and potentially hamstring an attempt at contending.

Give these premises are acceptable, I don't know how you can not take a defenseman with the first pick. If top pairing defensemen are particularly valuable and Detroit isn't drafting so well with them, and especially considering that defensemen taken early are both less likely to bust and more likely to be top pairing guys, drafting a defenseman early helps save Detroit from themselves in that respect.

Detroit could take a forward and go with a defenseman later, but then they fall victim to the facts that they suck at drafting defensemen, and that defensemen taken later are less likely to make the NHL or be stars. And Detroit would be unlikely to sign a defenseman or trade for one, especially because the cupboard is full of wingers, stay at home defensemen, and not much else. Not exactly the sexiest bunch of trade chips.

Detroit could try to trade the pick for a defenseman, but good luck. I think you'll find you get a lesser quality of defenseman than you think, and probably not a top pairing guy. This goes back to the point about how valuable top pairing guys are; the 6th overall pick is not enough.

There, I wrote a book. TL;DR : Drafting a winger is a bad idea. Drafting a defenseman is smart, given this team's track record. Signing or trading for a top pairing defenseman is not going to happen.
 
Jul 30, 2005
17,660
4,588
I mean, what is location, really
In favor of drafting a defenseman in the first round:

1. Development time. Defensemen typically take longer to develop than forwards, peak later than forwards, and decline more slowly than forwards. See Hockey metrics: Measuring when and why NHL players peak | CBC News. So all else being equal, if we're committed to a full rebuild, it might make sense to focus on drafting defensemen first, continue tanking for a few years, draft a few forwards, and then hit the ground running with our defensemen and forwards at the same time.

2. Team need.

3. Draft peculiarities. This draft has an unusually high number of defensemen (and comparatively few centers) in the top 10.

In favor of drafting a forward in the first round:

1. Statistical analysis. To be sure, it's harder to find good forwards and defensemen in the later rounds. (See Analyzing the value of NHL draft picks - Sportsnet.ca and https://www.tsn.ca/playing-the-percentages-in-the-nhl-draft-1.206144.) But comparatively speaking, it's generally easier to find a good defenseman than a good forward in the later rounds (see https://curve.carleton.ca/system/fi...n-miningnhldraftdataandanewvaluepickchart.pdf and the picture below).

View attachment 123873

This is especially true of European defensemen who are taken in the later rounds:

View attachment 123881

2. BPA. If the best player available is a forward, you can always trade for other needs later (ignoring any transactional friction / inefficiency). Or so the argument goes.

As a counter to this, though, the appeal of the BPA approach depends on how big the difference is between the two players we are considering. If our choice is between, say, a Connor McDavid and a Noah Hanifin, then sure, by all means, take the best player available, no matter what our team needs are. But if our choice is between someone like Aleksander Barkov and someone like Seth Jones, and we're not sure which player is better, perhaps team needs should play a bigger factor in the decision.
Great post. I love those graphs.

I did want to point out that although there are some guys there in the later round range for defensemen, 1500 minutes a season is 18 minutes a night on average. That is, that graph is essentially saying that you can get 3/4 guys later on, but the bona fide top pairing minute munchers are much more strongly clustered in the 1st/early 2nd rounds.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,077
12,078
Tampere, Finland
HF Boards Software guy got Kotkaniemi ranked 3rd best player of the draft. And Pronman ranked him 4th.

I wouldn't mind getting the best center at 6th overall and then get a group of defencemen (or package 2 picks of 30-33-36) and trade up for a sliding D.
 

DetroitRed

Crashes the Crease
Apr 7, 2013
2,871
951
Detroit
What is actually meant when we say BPA? Is that another way of saying pick whoever such-and-such ranked lowest if they are available?

What is confusing about that is that not a lot of people agree on who the BPA is, but especially the higher you go in the draft. Also, even with the first or second pick there is slight disagreement.

Maybe BPA means pick whoever the team privately decides is best regardless of other rankings? Or does it have to use rankings, and if so, which rankings? Or is it based on an average of all the rankings? What is BPA?
 
Last edited:
Jul 30, 2005
17,660
4,588
I mean, what is location, really
What is actually meant when we say BPA? Is that another way of saying pick whoever such-and-such ranked lowest if they are available?

What is confusing about that is that not a lot of people agree on who the BPA is, but especially the higher you go in the draft. Also, even with the first or second pick there is slight disagreement.

Maybe BPA means pick whoever the team privately decides is best regardless of other rankings? Or does it have to use rankings, and if so, which rankings? Or is it based on an average of all the rankings? What is BPA?
This is such a great point. People in hockey throw around BPA, but what teams mean is the best player on their list. Fans mean the best player by public consensus. But teams' lists are almost always much, much different from public consensus. I don't think we can ever actually know a team went BPA unless they tell us.

This is especially relevant because we know the Wings have a weird, very specific idea of BPA. It almost certainly includes stuff like character and leadership, which aren't things that fans attribute to BPA.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,077
12,078
Tampere, Finland
What is actually meant when we say BPA? Is that another way of saying pick whoever such-and-such ranked lowest if they are available?

What is confusing about that is that not a lot of people agree on who the BPA is, but especially the higher you go in the draft. Also, even with the first or second pick there is slight disagreement.

Maybe BPA means pick whoever the team privately decides is best regardless of other rankings? Or does it have to use rankings, and if so, which rankings? Or is it based on an average of all the rankings? What is BPA?

On this draft Red Wings people in here are talking more and more about an ORGANIZATIONAL NEED. I almost sounds like same guys who prefer absolute BPA, are going after a NEED.

It's simple logic how a group of people will habit:
1. We have a lot of wingers and this 2018 draft offers a lot of wingers at TOP9, at Wings pick range. We should avoid them.
2. Our prospect defenceman group seems to be weak, and this draft offers a lot of defencemen at Wings pick range. We should get one of those.
3. People wouldn't mind drafting a center, but because of the consensus lists won't have any in Red Wings pick range, it would be a mistake. But no one really knows how high a guy like Kotkaniemi is appreciated on Red Wings list. there has been comparisons for Kopitar and these two-way guys correlate most with winning.

It's a NEED -talk.

But nobody isn't thinking in bigger picture, what if we draft a Center like Kotkaniemi at 6th of trade down and draft him, and get a package of defencemen with those lower picks, what would be the better overall value for these different tactics. Or opposite ways.

1st pick Defenceman (Dobson/Bouchard)
30-33-36 picks (just forwards? or another D + 2 f)

1st pick center (Kotkaniemi)
30-33-36 (a group of sliding D like Merkley, Samuelsson, K'A. Miller etc.)

Which tactic would give bigger overall value?
 

DetroitRed

Crashes the Crease
Apr 7, 2013
2,871
951
Detroit
This is such a great point. People in hockey throw around BPA, but what teams mean is the best player on their list. Fans mean the best player by public consensus. But teams' lists are almost always much, much different from public consensus. I don't think we can ever actually know a team went BPA unless they tell us.

This is especially relevant because we know the Wings have a weird, very specific idea of BPA. It almost certainly includes stuff like character and leadership, which aren't things that fans attribute to BPA.

Thanks. Actually thanks to both of you who responded.

Basically, I think we have Individual Talent vs.Value to the Team. Sometimes a prospect equals both. Or they can sometimes seem to equal both. However, it's not so easy to feel sure in a lot of cases, and it's just kind of a matter of perspective as to who should be picked, not just when we think about BPA, but also when we think about greatest need.

Don't take this the wrong way, but:

My theory is that often when people say draft BPA, they are really saying, draft who I want instead of who you want. Also, I think when people say draft for greatest need, often they are really just saying draft who I want instead of who you want.

I think it's best to acknowledge that these are fairly empty terms, and instead, just introduce the prospect you prefer and explain why.
 

newfy

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
14,718
8,241
The wings cant draft D, take whichever one is best at 6 and run. Theres going to be a D there thats in the same tier as the forwards in that range. Take Bouchard/Dobson not only because theyre good but because the wings have proven theyre more likely to get an impact forward later in the draft.
 

Rzombo4 prez

Registered User
May 17, 2012
5,980
2,698
Thanks. Actually thanks to both of you who responded.

Basically, I think we have Individual Talent vs.Value to the Team. Sometimes a prospect equals both. Or they can sometimes seem to equal both. However, it's not so easy to feel sure in a lot of cases, and it's just kind of a matter of perspective as to who should be picked, not just when we think about BPA, but also when we think about greatest need.

Don't take this the wrong way, but:

My theory is that often when people say draft BPA, they are really saying, draft who I want instead of who you want. Also, I think when people say draft for greatest need, often they are really just saying draft who I want instead of who you want.

I think it's best to acknowledge that these are fairly empty terms, and instead, just introduce the prospect you prefer and explain why.

Perhaps, but that is really just posters misapplying the BPA concept. BPA means that if a demonstrably better player is available, you take the better player regardless of need. And yes, it is based upon the subjective rankings of the teams. Scouting departments couldn't care less about internet consensus rankings.

I think that Wings fans are struggling with it in the context of this year's draft because they feel that the forwards likely to still be available at six (say some combo of Walhstrom, Kotkaniemi, and Tkachuk) are not demonstrably better than the defensemen that are likely to be available at 6. If you reach this conclusion (again a largely subjective determination), then there is no actual best player available and you should address the position of need.

For me personally, there is no doubt in my mind that if by some act of God Svech is still on the board at 6, you take him no matter how badly you need a defensemen. I say that as someone who very much wants the Wings to take a defensemen at 6. That is taking BPA. If you think Dobson, Hughes and Kokaniemi are all part of the same tier of talent (meaning the players ahead and after these three are much better and much worse) taking Kokaniemi over the other two is not taking BPA.

I agree that it is difficult to observe in the wild because it requires a lot of subjective determinations on the part of the scouting staff. We don't really know if the team really views their pick as demonstrably better than everything else left on the board, even when taking a position of need.
 

DetroitRed

Crashes the Crease
Apr 7, 2013
2,871
951
Detroit
Perhaps, but that is really just posters misapplying the BPA concept. BPA means that if a demonstrably better player is available, you take the better player regardless of need. And yes, it is based upon the subjective rankings of the teams. Scouting departments couldn't care less about internet consensus rankings.

I think that Wings fans are struggling with it in the context of this year's draft because they feel that the forwards likely to still be available at six (say some combo of Walhstrom, Kotkaniemi, and Tkachuk) are not demonstrably better than the defensemen that are likely to be available at 6. If you reach this conclusion (again a largely subjective determination), then there is no actual best player available and you should address the position of need.

For me personally, there is no doubt in my mind that if by some act of God Svech is still on the board at 6, you take him no matter how badly you need a defensemen. I say that as someone who very much wants the Wings to take a defensemen at 6. That is taking BPA. If you think Dobson, Hughes and Kokaniemi are all part of the same tier of talent (meaning the players ahead and after these three are much better and much worse) taking Kokaniemi over the other two is not taking BPA.

I agree that it is difficult to observe in the wild because it requires a lot of subjective determinations on the part of the scouting staff. We don't really know if the team really views their pick as demonstrably better than everything else left on the board, even when taking a position of need.

I didn't mean to call out Wings fans. I think it goes on with fans of every team.

Yeah. Of course, it's up to individual teams and how they rank prospects. There are some fans with good instincts who get a great look at prospects. It's just very doubtful they get as good a look at every league as an NHL team. I don't, but wish I did.

Demonstrably is a key, the biggest issue of course is comparing guys from different leagues who may even play different positions. My guess is that it's a point of contention more often than not, because to begin with you're kind of talking about guys who are close to the same level when you are talking about guys you might pick at one certain spot in the draft. Moreover, when it's at it's most definite, lets say you have two defenders in the same league who are close in talent, then we have to decide which skills we should prioritize in order to determine which of the two is BPA, and in so doing we are then having a conversation about greatest need. Which skills do we need most? I mean, Wayne Gretzky vs. Stephen Weiss: Easy. But it's usually not nearly that clear.

Just relying on the limited resources available for me to scout prospects, I've seen the six or seven guys who we've talked most about drafting at sixth each ranked lower or or higher than one another multiple times by various sources. So, to me I'd rather not try to wield a term like BPA.
 

RedWingsfan55

Registered User
Jan 5, 2015
575
93
What is actually meant when we say BPA? Is that another way of saying pick whoever such-and-such ranked lowest if they are available?

What is confusing about that is that not a lot of people agree on who the BPA is, but especially the higher you go in the draft. Also, even with the first or second pick there is slight disagreement.

Maybe BPA means pick whoever the team privately decides is best regardless of other rankings? Or does it have to use rankings, and if so, which rankings? Or is it based on an average of all the rankings? What is BPA?

However your teams scouts ranks them is the ranking you go by. So if the wings feel that center is the best player in the draft you take him at 6.

Or if the wings feel like boqvist is the 4th best player and 1-3 are taken. Then we draft him at 6.


It's not difficult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirloinUB

Hen Kolland

Registered User
Feb 22, 2018
9,470
8,335
However your teams scouts ranks them is the ranking you go by. So if the wings feel that center is the best player in the draft you take him at 6.

Or if the wings feel like boqvist is the 4th best player and 1-3 are taken. Then we draft him at 6.


It's not difficult.

I agree with this. I haven't met a single fan invested enough to discuss draft strategy at a relatively high level that uses BPA in reference to some generic list put together by someone without affiliation to the organization. I have been running with the assumption that BPA translates to: "The team should pick the player they like the most."

Any specific criteria about position or a skill set or a personality trait will be considered in the team's rankings, so there's zero reason for the team to set an additional instruction to follow. If the Wings have a forward above a defensemen, they must believe that forward is such a good prospect that it outweighs the need of a defenseman. So I stick to my guns, there is absolutely zero importance on picking a defenseman, even though as a fan I really, really would prefer a one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirloinUB

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->