What NHL teams have strong/weak drafting

[Henkka]

I do think this “Jim Nill was awful” narrative that gets floated around from time to time on here is not really accurate.

It goes interesting, when you exclude all the obvious Håkan-picks. Everything comes from Europe and mostly from Sweden. Also Datsyuk-case is well reported being Andersson's own.

What comes to Zetterberg's and Datsyuk, being only luck, I don't write that at all.

There's still the eye for skill in play. 5 rounds have been drafted and group of players are still left. You like of some players and others like different players.

I've been in a keeper league for 9 years, and it's always funny and most entertaining moment, when we do our seasonal draft.

If I have 1st round picks, yeah I have 1st round talent with those picks. Then we go to 2nd round and I still got guys ranked on 1st round on my lists. Then we go to 3rd round I start getting my 2nd round guys on the 3rd. Same at 4th round. Or latest rounds I got 3rd round guys from my list.

I didn't even list all the players, because there was somebody I didn't like at all or have seen them at all. Totally excluded. But it just feels phenomenally well, when I can get better ranked players, the lower we go in rounds. Versus my own list. And also those players have been panning out pretty well, of course not everybody, but versus competition, my league-mates.

So there we are. In theoretical World, I could have drafted Datsyuk at 6th round, but he was a 3rd rounder on my list. Teams just do their list on various ways and that makes the difference. Detroit at 90's overvalued midget skill. That's why we hit with these Datsyuks, Zetterbergs and Hudlers. That's we drafted Yuri Butsaev, Anatoly Ustyugov, Andrei Samokhvalov, Dmitri Semenov, Mikael Johansson etc. They thought that if this midget or this midget or this midget will get over their physical weaknesses, it becomes a fine player for out puck-posession hockey. And they did bet on their possible growth spurt based on the parents/brothers. This has been discussed for decades. Others excluded them, because their identity was proably size and strength. NHL was different at 1999.

That's why I wouldn't look much before the salary cap. Then most of teams started drafting skill , because new rules for obstruction came etc. There has been a lot more parity after that, and I'm interested more of those results.

Detroit looks superior in everything what includes Datsyuk and Zetterberg. More interested about years after those. We can already re-draft everything until 2015. Just find a way to separate players.

 

[njx9]

I have not plugged all the teams in as of yet.. but so far Detroit ranks as the Best drafting team (2001-2010) I have evaluated so far.

Let's suppose that holds - isn't the obvious methodological flaw that the results of those drafts have been average to far below average in the 8 years since? I feel like this is an obvious sign that your model is badly undervaluing top end talent, and highly overvaluing late round JAGs.

 

[Flowah]

You have confused me here. Are you saying 4/44 is good ?

I can say this. When you look closely at my redrafts. It may be surprising how few players even make the NHL each year.
Probably legit NHL'ers is more like 20-30 per year with 30-60 real borderline NHL'ers. So i can say most picks are actually expected to be Busts.

4/44 is "good" relative to the rest of the league. Other teams only did 1 or 2 out of ~40 picks. But at such low hit rates, just swapping one draft pick from a bust to a hit changes your ranking so much that it's tough to tell.

But obviously it's not really that good. If you only find 4 top9 NHL forwards in 10 years are you really drafting via some drafting skill and expertise you've acquired?

By the way, added some more stuff to my spreadsheet. I had the leagues players were drafted from in my data so I did an analysis by league. The vast majority of the leagues have very few players taken from them so you can't really say anything about how successful a pick from X or Y league is going to be. The sample sizes are just too small. But the Swedish league looks solid both on defense and forward.

Let's suppose that holds - isn't the obvious methodological flaw that the results of those drafts have been average to far below average in the 8 years since? I feel like this is an obvious sign that your model is badly undervaluing top end talent, and highly overvaluing late round JAGs.

It's just a convenient cherrypicking of dates. Not trying to downplay Bin Cookin's work here, but that's the period where we found guys like Hudler, Kronwall, Filppula. We may not think they're elite, but statistically they are significantly better than the vast majority of players picked from the 15th pick on down. Great for us.

But as you say, what have we done since then? Not much. Either we lost all our drafting talent or we never had it to begin with and luck just ran out. I go with the latter.

 

[Flowah]

doubled

 

[BinCookin]

Not trying to downplay Bin Cookin's work here, but that's the period where we found guys like Hudler, Kronwall, Filppula.

Ya I mostly picked the most recent / most predictable drafts that could be re-drafted. Although I could likely extend into 2011,2012,2013 After that there are probably lots of players still in minors which will make the NHL.

I figure i could go up to 2015 with a preliminary redraft list.

Also my breakdown does go by year. Its clear removing 2002-2004 will significantly decrease our score. (i highlighted solid years in Green)

 

[TheOtherOne]

Hm, I did say I would drop it with the luck conversation, but turns out I have some more to say after mulling it over.

Of course a lot of luck is involved all around. But think about what luck gets you and what skill gets you.

If you are the most skilled drafter in an ideal world, you will pick the best available player every time. So you won't get any negatives. But you will get anywhere from 0 to positive max, where the max depends entirely on other teams.

You have no control over what everyone else does. So you have to rely on luck, essentially, to get anything positive. With no luck, but perfect skill, all the best players will be gone and you will get 0. But with luck, someone ahead of you misses a gem, which you can then pick up for a positive.

So every round that goes by before Datsyuk, you got lucky that a team didn't draft him. When you finally get to the Datsyuk pick, it takes skill to recognize that he's the best remaining player.

Of course, skipping over him yourself in earlier rounds speaks to negative skill, because you do have control over that, but you didn't make the right choice.

The only time neither luck nor skill matters is when you pick Crosby at 1OA. Because there is just no alternative. But at the same time, maybe he plays a half a preseason and has a career ending injury. Oops. Anyway, 2OA might be a little contested, so maybe there's a little skill and a little luck. 3OA is a little more. Each consecutive position involves BOTH more skill (because the player is more of an unknown) and more luck (because you have to rely on other teams not taking him/her).

Also, unrelated to the above: Player development and team makeup probably have a massive impact on all this. For example, choose a borderline NHLer who played 50 games and retired. He could give you a decent score, right? Depending where you drafted him. Well, put him on another team, and maybe he never clicked with their farm system, and gave up to pursue his dream of delivering pizzas. Or maybe the team is stacked and has no room for him. Now the same player is a zero or even a big negative. But it's not because of the draft, it's because of other factors.

Ericsson gave us a huge plus, right? Well what if Edmonton picked him in the second round and he just rotted in the minors for a few years and swam back to Sweden because nobody succeeds in Edmonton? Huge negative for the same pick. Obviously I'm being a little hyperbolic but yea.

Just thoughts.

 

[Flowah]

So every round that goes by before Datsyuk, you got lucky that a team didn't draft him. When you finally get to the Datsyuk pick, it takes skill to recognize that he's the best remaining player.

You are still making an unwarranted assumption that implies drafting skill.

Did you actually know his potential? He might be BPA but if you thought his ceiling was 3C and he turns into an elite 1C, that's not your drafting skill winning out. That's getting lucky.

Skill means you got a good result but also that you intended that result. Let's try some examples. Sidney Crosby is undoubtedly an extremely skilled player. That doesn't mean everything he does is the result of intentional skill. I'm sure he's had random pucks bounce in off of him into the net by this point in his career. That's luck.

In the opposite way, I can make a decision that results in the right choice but made in the wrong way. I'm an awful poker player. I don't know what I'm doing. Maybe I do something that a pro poker player would do and it wins me the hand. I still didn't know what I was doing. It's still luck. The process and the result and the intent all need to align for it to be "skill" and not luck.

The fact is that everyone from Hakan to Devellano have admitted they didn't know Datsyuk would be what he became.

You have to challenge your beginning assumption here that just because a scout liked a guy and picked him, that such a selection was the result of skill.

 

[TheOtherOne]

You are still making an unwarranted assumption that implies drafting skill.

Did you actually know his potential? He might be BPA but if you thought his ceiling was 3C and he turns into an elite 1C, that's not your drafting skill winning out. That's getting lucky.

Skill means you got a good result but also that you intended that result. Let's try some examples. Sidney Crosby is undoubtedly an extremely skilled player. That doesn't mean everything he does is the result of intentional skill. I'm sure he's had random pucks bounce in off of him into the net by this point in his career. That's luck.

In the opposite way, I can make a decision that results in the right choice but made in the wrong way. I'm an awful poker player. I don't know what I'm doing. Maybe I do something that a pro poker player would do and it wins me the hand. I still didn't know what I was doing. It's still luck. The process and the result and the intent all need to align for it to be "skill" and not luck.

The fact is that everyone from Hakan to Devellano have admitted they didn't know Datsyuk would be what he became.

You have to challenge your beginning assumption here that just because a scout liked a guy and picked him, that such a selection was the result of skill.

I have never said making a pick is all skill. I clearly stated there is BOTH skill and luck involved in every single pick outside the 1OA.

Are you claiming there was zero skill involved in the Datsyuk pick? If that's true, then there is zero skill in the entire draft whatsoever. Then why are we even having this discussion? Everything is a crapshoot.

Everything IS a crapshoot. There is an immense amount of luck involved in seeing a Datsyuk drop to your pick. I have never said anything to contradict that.

But if there is ANY drafting skill involved in the process whatsoever, it's in identifying that player once you get to that point.

And at the same time, if there is NO skill involved, then why does anyone pay Hakan Andersson? Just leave the whole damn thing up to a computer.

 

[BinCookin]

e

.... Others excluded them, because their identity was proably size and strength. NHL was different at 1999.

That's why I wouldn't look much before the salary cap. Then most of teams started drafting skill , because new rules for obstruction came etc. There has been a lot more parity after that, and I'm interested more of those results.

Detroit looks superior in everything what includes Datsyuk and Zetterberg. More interested about years after those. We can already re-draft everything until 2015. Just find a way to separate players.

Ya I started my sheet in 2001. So D and Z are not in my analysis, but clearly they would be massive factors pushing us to having the best result. Also You are right, I am not sure what value is to be had in going back too far in time, other than to just have a historical record of who drafted better. (Of course that is basically what I am doing )

Let's suppose that holds - isn't the obvious methodological flaw that the results of those drafts have been average to far below average in the 8 years since? I feel like this is an obvious sign that your model is badly undervaluing top end talent, and highly overvaluing late round JAGs.

I am not sure what JAG actually stands for but i know you mean late round Gem. If you only looked at the image i posted, yes there is just a single value for Detroit. If you look at my sheet I have a year by year break down. But Ideally I can expand the sheet to use various blocks of time: Example:

2001-2010
2005-2015
2000-2005
2005-2010
2010-2015

I havent set up as many break downs, but you can see the total sum of each year, OR look directly at the players.

I am not sure the model undervalues top end talent. As has been pointed out before, if you pick #7/8 (+1500 to ~16oo pts) and it turns out that player is redrafted to #1... that is a huge gain in points. Infact, its a much bigger gain than drafting Ericsson (630 pts). If you look closely at the scale and individual scores. the main reason detroit did so well overall, is an insane score for 2002. We picked 4 players that would be drafted in the top 20. Boston did really well because they took 2 even much better players that turned into top 5 picks. (Marchand/Bergeron)

Hm, I did say I would drop it with the luck conversation, but turns out I have some more to say after mulling it over.

Of course a lot of luck is involved all around. But think about what luck gets you and what skill gets you.

......

Now the same player is a zero or even a big negative. But it's not because of the draft, it's because of other factors.

Ericsson gave us a huge plus, right? Well what if Edmonton picked him in the second round and he just rotted in the minors for a few years and swam back to Sweden because nobody succeeds in Edmonton? Huge negative for the same pick. Obviously I'm being a little hyperbolic but yea.

Just thoughts.

Ericsson gave us 630 pts. to be clear if you get the 3rd OA pick, and take the player that would later turn out to be redrafted #1OA (move up only 2 spots), you would get + 750 pts. Or if we picked 13th and got a player to be redrafted somewhere around 7th. So As much as Ericsson was a nice pick. He really is not the driving factor of our score.
Here are the main reasons we scored so well in 2001-2010:

listed chronologically
(2001)
No hits / No Busts
(2002)-Huge year (check out my redraft and tell me if i screwed it up)
Ericsson +630
Filpulla +1013
Fleischmann +769
Hudler +882
(2003)
Howard +572
(2004)
Franzen +834
(2005)
Kindl -430 (our biggest miss drafted 19th, redrafted 37th)
Abdelkader +353
Helm +365
(2006)
No hits / No Busts
(2007)
Smith -115
Anderson +153
(Smith sucked for us, but we picked him 27th, i have him redrafted #33)
(2008)
McCollum -278 (again a miss, but 30th pick redrafted 76th is still not a horrible drop on the scale)
Nyquist +730 (redrafted 17th)
(2009)
Ferraro -236
tatar +440 (redrafted 22, taken at 60)
(2010)
Sheahan -305 (Another miss, but not so bad, taken 21, redrafted 33) (Realize this would be a severe miss if we had drafted him top 10 or something)
Jarnkrok +151
Mrazek +389

A big factor for us is since we have never drafted highly, we don't risk huge misses. there are few (no?) teams with an average draft position as low as us.
Also there are a significant # of late round hits for our team. We hit almost 1 a year. So we have a pretty solid track record of finding NHL players in round 2-4.
Mix that with near no misses. And amazing scores in 2002-2004, and that basically explains our score.

I have never said making a pick is all skill. I clearly stated there is BOTH skill and luck involved in every single pick outside the 1OA.

Are you claiming there was zero skill involved in the Datsyuk pick? If that's true, then there is zero skill in the entire draft whatsoever. Then why are we even having this discussion? Everything is a crapshoot.

Everything IS a crapshoot. There is an immense amount of luck involved in seeing a Datsyuk drop to your pick. I have never said anything to contradict that.

But if there is ANY drafting skill involved in the process whatsoever, it's in identifying that player once you get to that point.

And at the same time, if there is NO skill involved, then why does anyone pay Hakan Andersson? Just leave the whole damn thing up to a computer.

I mean I am kinda doing a historical take of how we have drafted.
this result does not necessarily take into account how much is luck vs skill (i dont think that can be measured)
I can say we consistently have found players in later rounds almost every year.
I think our next 4-5 years of drafting are much more significantly important to all of us. And also open the door to (statistically) big misses on my score sheet.

I have a feeling our 2011-2015 record is much worse than 2005-2010, but that will take me a little time to redo the redrafts.
If you guys want to doubl check my redrafts, that will also help in accuracy (as much as possible)

 

[njx9]

I am not sure what JAG actually stands for but i know you mean late round Gem. If you only looked at the image i posted, yes there is just a single value for Detroit. If you look at my sheet I have a year by year break down. But Ideally I can expand the sheet to use various blocks of time: Example:

2001-2010
2005-2015
2000-2005
2005-2010
2010-2015

I havent set up as many break downs, but you can see the total sum of each year, OR look directly at the players.

I am not sure the model undervalues top end talent. As has been pointed out before, if you pick #7/8 (+1500 to ~16oo pts) and it turns out that player is redrafted to #1... that is a huge gain in points. Infact, its a much bigger gain than drafting Ericsson (630 pts). If you look closely at the scale and individual scores. the main reason detroit did so well overall, is an insane score for 2002. We picked 4 players that would be drafted in the top 20. Boston did really well because they took 2 even much better players that turned into top 5 picks. (Marchand/Bergeron)

Sorry, JAG = 'just another guy'. Nick Jensen isn't a late round gem - nor was he a bad pick (given the rate of finding NHL players in the 5th), but he's basically the definition of 'just another guy' as an NHL player.

To the valuations - Ericsson was a great pick for the final player of the round. But he's a vastly less 'good' pick than getting a 1D in the second round, for instance. Apologies, I can't pull your spreadsheets for some reason, so it's hard to point to actual values or disagree with specific point valuations. I do think this is a really interesting point of analysis, though.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I mean I am kinda doing a historical take of how we have drafted.
this result does not necessarily take into account how much is luck vs skill (i dont think that can be measured)

I totally agree and am glad you feel that way. I forget how I started the luck discussion (durrr) but I just think it's an interesting side-discussion. The only way to do what you're doing is to completely ignore the impact of luck vs skill, and hence you're not learning which team is the "more skilled" drafting team, but rather which team "drafted better".

lol. carry on.

 

[BinCookin]

Sorry, JAG = 'just another guy'. Nick Jensen isn't a late round gem - nor was he a bad pick (given the rate of finding NHL players in the 5th), but he's basically the definition of 'just another guy' as an NHL player.

To the valuations - Ericsson was a great pick for the final player of the round. But he's a vastly less 'good' pick than getting a 1D in the second round, for instance. Apologies, I can't pull your spreadsheets for some reason, so it's hard to point to actual values or disagree with specific point valuations. I do think this is a really interesting point of analysis, though.

You cant access it? (Our score on Jensen is +95 btw) So as he should be (he is not a big factor at all!)
(For the most part I am really happy with the draft value chart I have used, I have not found any logical holes at this point.

Draft-ReDraft

I totally agree and am glad you feel that way. I forget how I started the luck discussion (durrr) but I just think it's an interesting side-discussion. The only way to do what you're doing is to completely ignore the impact of luck vs skill, and hence you're not learning which team is the "more skilled" drafting team, but rather which team "drafted better".

lol. carry on.

I mean its just a fun analysis in the end

 

[njx9]

You cant access it?

It's a problem on my end, not yours. I'll try from the home PC when I get a chance.

 

[Henkka]

I have a feeling our 2011-2015 record is much worse than 2005-2010, but that will take me a little time to redo the redrafts.
If you guys want to doubl check my redrafts, that will also help in accuracy (as much as possible)

I really like these results.

But could you cut that data to year 2013, so we see the results before Jim Nill and Joe McDonell left and everything what has happened with Wright. 2014 was first Wright operated draft and 2013 was last time McDonnell operated.

Wright's sample size is still small, but as time goes on, we will got a better picture. Also as an extra, would like to see points from Tyler Wright's only Columbus draft at 2012.

Interesting timelines for further exam:
Wright 2014 - 2017 (+2012 as an added possible bonus)
Joe McDonnell 2004-2013
Jim Nill 1995-2003
Ken Holland 1988-1994 (with or without of these debated Neil Smith -drafts at 88 and 89)

 

[Henkka]

listed chronologically
(2001)
No hits / No Busts

Should every draft pick have some small minus number, if the player didn't hit at all ?

Like if it's 5th overall and it's expected to get 500 point player and you won't get nobody, it's -500 points ?

And with 7th rounder, it would be almost zero ?

 

[waltdetroit]

Skill means you got a good result but also that you intended that result. Let's try some examples. Sidney Crosby is undoubtedly an extremely skilled player. That doesn't mean everything he does is the result of intentional skill. I'm sure he's had random pucks bounce in off of him into the net by this point in his career. That's luck.

First let me say that all the work BinCookin & everyone has done is great. I have enjoyed following this thread.
My side point (& it may be moot) is that good preparation & making the most of your position leads to good fortune. Every pick has some chance to be better (ex. 1C over a 3C). Your intention is to pick a good player. I guess I am making a distinction on what is considered luck and what is good fortune. Using your example of a bounced in goal, the players intention is to score a goal. He probably went to the net, maybe battled for position, screened the goalie, etc and the puck bounced off of him into the goal. The player was in the right place as intended. For me luck is more like shooting from the point, missing the net, the puck bounces of the glass, hits the goalie in the back of the head into the net. So, just because a lower pick turns out great, the scouts did pick him so why is that so "lucky"

 

[waltdetroit]

To further a point, take the case of D Malte Setkov picked in the 4th round 2017. The scouts did their homework on this guy. His probability of making the NHL is very low. He is very raw but his ceiling is incredibly high by comparison. Quoting the Free Press "May have most upside of all the defensemen the Wings picked. Smart, can move the puck." So the wings pick him with the intention of getting him every opportunity to develop. If he makes the NHL, is that luck?

 

[Flowah]

First let me say that all the work BinCookin & everyone has done is great. I have enjoyed following this thread.
My side point (& it may be moot) is that good preparation & making the most of your position leads to good fortune. Every pick has some chance to be better (ex. 1C over a 3C). Your intention is to pick a good player. I guess I am making a distinction on what is considered luck and what is good fortune. Using your example of a bounced in goal, the players intention is to score a goal. He probably went to the net, maybe battled for position, screened the goalie, etc and the puck bounced off of him into the goal. The player was in the right place as intended. For me luck is more like shooting from the point, missing the net, the puck bounces of the glass, hits the goalie in the back of the head into the net. So, just because a lower pick turns out great, the scouts did pick him so why is that so "lucky"

To further a point, take the case of D Malte Setkov picked in the 4th round 2017. The scouts did their homework on this guy. His probability of making the NHL is very low. He is very raw but his ceiling is incredibly high by comparison. Quoting the Free Press "May have most upside of all the defensemen the Wings picked. Smart, can move the puck." So the wings pick him with the intention of getting him every opportunity to develop. If he makes the NHL, is that luck?

If they saw his ceiling as X and he turns into X, that's great. Good job.

I still don't think you can call that skill unless they also had some reasonable explanation for why they thought he'd turn into X. People are strange, biased creatures. If someone's criteria for who turns into an elite player is "are they Russian?" they're eventually going to be right on a few. But that's stopped clock being right twice a day, not skill.

That's why reproducability of results is so important to me in this "who drafts better" discussion. If you have the right method for picking high end players, you should be able to do it regularly. I don't think the data shows that happening.

And at the same time, if there is NO skill involved, then why does anyone pay Hakan Andersson? Just leave the whole damn thing up to a computer.

Inertia. Bias. Delusions of grandeur and control.

People pay investment firms big fees to invest their money for them. Most of those places cannot beat a simple index fund. Very few people beat the market over the long term.

I'm fairly sure a similar thing happens in hockey. I think over the long haul, these scouting departments are so close together in terms of "skill" that there's not going to be much of a gap in their results. 10 years isn't that long a time. And on average you only have 7-8 picks per year. One or two bad years for one team, one or two good years for another team, that's your separation between great and awful drafting.

 

[Henkka]

You cant access it? (Our score on Jensen is +95 btw) So as he should be (he is not a big factor at all!)
(For the most part I am really happy with the draft value chart I have used, I have not found any logical holes at this point.

Draft-ReDraft

I mean its just a fun analysis in the end

What is the draft value chart you did use?

 

[BinCookin]

What is the draft value chart you did use?

Round 1	Value	Round 2	Value	Round 3	Value	Round 4	Value	Round 5	Value	Round 6	Value	Round 7	Value
1	3000	31	320	61	107	91	41	121	19.5	151	8	181	3.5
2	2600	32	300	62	104	92	40	122	19	152	7.8	182	3.45
3	2250	33	285	63	101	93	39	123	18.5	153	7.6	183	3.4
4	1950	34	270	64	98	94	38	124	18	154	7.4	184	3.35
5	1800	35	260	65	93	95	37.25	125	17.5	155	7.2	185	3.3
6	1650	36	250	66	91	96	36.5	126	17	156	7	186	3.25
7	1500	37	240	67	88	97	35.75	127	16.5	157	6.8	187	3.2
8	1350	38	230	68	85	98	35	128	16	158	6.6	188	3.15
9	1200	39	220	69	82	99	34.25	129	15.6	159	6.4	189	3.1
10	1050	40	210	70	79	100	33.5	130	15.2	160	6.2	190	3.05
11	1000	41	203	71	76	101	32.75	131	14.8	161	6	191	3
12	960	42	197	72	73	102	32	132	14.4	162	5.8	192	2.9
13	910	43	191	73	70	103	31.25	133	14	163	5.6	193	2.85
14	870	44	185	74	67	104	30.5	134	13.6	164	5.4	194	2.8
15	830	45	179	75	64	105	29.75	135	13.2	165	5.2	195	2.75
16	790	46	174	76	62	106	28	136	12.8	166	5	196	2.7
17	750	47	169	77	60	107	27.25	137	12.4	167	4.9	197	2.65
18	710	48	164	78	58.5	108	26.5	138	12	168	4.8	198	2.6
19	670	49	159	79	57	109	25.75	139	11.6	169	4.7	199	2.55
20	630	50	154	80	55.5	110	25	140	11.2	170	4.6	200	2.5
21	590	51	149	81	54	111	24.5	141	10.8	171	4.5	201	2.45
22	550	52	144	82	52.5	112	24	142	10.5	172	4.4	202	2.4
23	520	53	139	83	51	113	23.5	143	10.2	173	4.3	203	2.35
24	490	54	134	84	49.5	114	23	144	9.9	174	4.2	204	2.3
25	460	55	130	85	48	115	22.5	145	9.6	175	4.1	205	2.25
26	430	56	126	86	46.5	116	22	146	9.3	176	4	206	2.2
27	400	57	122	87	45	117	21.5	147	9	177	3.9	207	2.15
28	380	58	118	88	44	118	21	148	8.75	178	3.8	208	2.1
29	360	59	114	89	43	119	20.5	149	8.5	179	3.7	209	2.05
30	340	60	110	90	42	120	20	150	8.25	180	3.6	210	2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[BinCookin]

Should every draft pick have some small minus number, if the player didn't hit at all ?

Like if it's 5th overall and it's expected to get 500 point player and you won't get nobody, it's -500 points ?

And with 7th rounder, it would be almost zero ?

Generally speaking no.

If you have the 5th OA pick (lets assume that is what we get this year) than it is expected (if we do an acceptable job) that in the year 2023, if we did a redraft, that player would be taken 5th OA.

So Expected value for 5th OA is (from above) = 1800

If the player we pick never makes the NHL (full on bust). than our score will be 1800 - redraft position (ex 70th) (79pts) = -1721

If our Vegas first rounder ends up 27th... expected score of 400. If that player busts... -400.

So basically if you have a very early pick, and you screw it up... you are heavily penalized.
Much more so, than if our Vegas pick doesn't work out. And i think that is appropriate, because vry few of us are thinking we are getting our #1 future D man from 27, but many of us have hope that our #5 will.

Also note that if our 5thOA hits at being the 5th best player in a redraft.... we get a score of 0.
But if our 27th OA becomes a 6th in a redraft... we would have 1650-400=1250+ Score (i.e. a pretty solid hit "from nowheree".

It should be noted that if a 5thOA is a bust, i put him in order with other busts .. I.e. if all of round 3-7 are busts... our 5th OA will b start of 3rd round (to minimize the negative score (by a bit))

 

[chances14]

nice work as always bin

 

[BinCookin]

I have finished all the redrafts up to 2015.

But copying in data for all the teams takes time... I have rebuilt the sheet to be much nicer. Will take me a little while to publish if we want all the teams analysed (i have 6 so far)

 

[Henkka]

I have finished all the redrafts up to 2015.

But copying in data for all the teams takes time... I have rebuilt the sheet to be much nicer. Will take me a little while to publish if we want all the teams analysed (i have 6 so far)

Nice.

What was the formula for the re-draft player ranking? Games, points, points/gm, something combined?

 

[BinCookin]

Nice.

What was the formula for the re-draft player ranking? Games, points, points/gm, something combined?

the most accurate formula possible.... No math.

Just my opinion mixed with input in threads on HF.