What NHL teams have strong/weak drafting

[Henkka]

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

Just my opinion mixed with input in threads on HF.

Ok. Maybe I'll do a math version and then compare.

 

[BinCookin]

Well the problem with doing Points is of course overweighting Scorers vs Defensive players

Problem with GP is a Long medium career vs shorter great career.

So there is no "numbers" to use to organize players.

I used a mix of both metrics arbitrarily. As in i value players with long careers or good ceilings.

 

[Henkka]

I used a mix of both metrics arbitrarily. As in i value players with long careers or good ceilings.

I like your way.

How would you handle a case like Konstantinov? Career ended accidentally. Superior draft pick.

 

[BinCookin]

Konstantinov is a tough one... but id make him a first round pick for sure. Basically i dont think "detroit drafting" should be penalized because he got hurt.

(of course some players have gotten injured, that i may not know about... thus i rank thm too low) ... but for the most part, no one else probably caugght such a mistake either)

Who was famously "good" but got injured much too fast? 2001-2015?

 

[Henkka]

Who was famously "good" but got injured much too fast? 2001-2015?

- 2001 NYR G Dan Blackburn, something happened to him..?
- 2001 DET W Igor Grigorenko, car accident
- 2002 MIN G Josh Harding, MS-disease
- 2004 NSH W Alexander Radulov, preferred KHL
- 2005 VAN D Luc Bourdon, death in motorcycle accident
- 2005 MTL W Quillaume Latendresse, injuries took over at 23-year old
- 2006 PHX C Peter Mueller, concussions forced him to Europe before turning 25.
- 2006 NSH W Blake Geoffrion, career-ending head injury
- 2007 NYR W Alexei Cherepanov, death
- 2008 VAN C Cody Hodgson, early retirement, injuries?
- 2010 COL C Joey Hishon, concussions
- 2011 CAR D Ryan Murphy, bad hit 5 months after the draft

These came on my mind on fast look. Did check only 1st + 2nd rounders.

 

[Flowah]

Ok. Maybe I'll do a math version and then compare.

What were you thinking for an objective, mathed out redraft?

Well the problem with doing Points is of course overweighting Scorers vs Defensive players

Problem with GP is a Long medium career vs shorter great career.

So there is no "numbers" to use to organize players.

Do you mean forwards vs defense or scorers vs defensive specialists? I don't think the latter distinction is all that important. When was the last time anyone was ever drafted in the first round because they were great defensively without scoring a lot? I don't think it happens all that often until the latter rounds. First few rounds most people are trying to pick up someone who puts points up.

And it shouldn't be that hard to weight points for forwards and defensemen to even them out. We know the average PPG for both groups by round and pick even.

GP and PPG can be combined to address your long medium career vs short great career. Though I'm not sure the latter happens often enough to be worried. Great players typically play a while because they're effective longer. That really only happens with career ending injuries. My sheet shows that on average, higher PPG = higher GP because higher PPG = more effective player = longer career.

 

[Henkka]

What were you thinking for an objective, mathed out redraft?

Someting I posted earlier ont his topic.

- Forwards, career games (longevity) + career points as goals counted 1.5x. Plus some weight for career peak years which will eaven out the injury factor.

Imo, injuries/accidents later on the career don't have anything to do with pure drafting. Longevity guys are luck. Draft pick can be absolutely great, like Ficher and Konstantinov, but shit just happen afterwards.

- Defencemen, career games + 1.5x career points. Career peak effect based sime way on TOI, which determines defencemen best, imo. 30min D has much greater impact than 20min guy. In general, best guys play most, defensive or offensive.

- Goalies, those crapshoot guys. Career games + wins with some multiplier. They are tough to rank relatively to skaters, because goalies won't play all the games. Have to implement something. Career SV% included in somehow.

 

[Flowah]

Where did the 1.5x come from?

 

[Henkka]

Where did the 1.5x come from?

I just favor more goals with forwards.

Then, to make some forward data-values somewhat equal with defencemen, multiply their points.

Etc. complicated system, numbers can still differ, I don't have anything ready. Just planned a while ago some really simple formula, when I was for another reason interested in re-drafts.

It doesn't have to be God's word, just some rank. Don't think it differs much from public ranks. Guys who have "opinions", have some math already on the play etc.

 

[Frk It]

But that's factually wrong. It was a throwaway pick. They didn't expect him to turn into what he did. He just did. That's luck, not drafting talent.

It is luck. The mere fact that we're talking about 1, maybe 2, players out of 25-45 picks turning into anything special for all the teams indicates no one is doing it with any regularity. No regularity = luck. How else do you describe a process where you can't repeat your results? That's called luck.

If you think there are actually scouts out there who can find those elite players in the late rounds via skill and not luck, then why isn't anyone doing it? Outside of the 1st round, no team has shown they can do it. 10 years of drafts, hundreds and hundreds of picks. No one has done it.

You are assuming it's possible to be good at drafting such that you can find those players. That's an assumption you seem unwilling to abandon. Unfortunately that means you're just going to be wrong.

Of course not. That requires data that doesn't exist and couldn't exist, frankly. To determine what was talent and what was luck you'd need to know the minds and discussions of the drafting decision makers. You'd have to hear Hakan Andersson say "That Datsyuk is going to be a 1C. Future Hall of Famer." We're never getting that data if it even exists.

The fact that the number of exceptional, elite talent outside the first round is so tiny is a huge sign that it's luck outside the first round. There's not one single team finding these guys with repeated success. There's a couple teams who got slightly luckier than others and it led to 1-2 more amazing players (IN 10 YEARS OF DRAFTING) and that's all you need. You get 1-2 more great players than everyone else and you can win. A great player can stick around for 15-20 years barring injury. They give you a huge window.

Wings did it. We got lucky and snagged Datsyuk and Zetterberg while we had Lidstrom still. Boom. We're contenders for like 8 years. Since Zetterberg we've drafted what that approaches their level? Larkin's the closest and he's not that close. It's been over 10 years since we drafted Zetterberg and so far we've drafted a single player who projects to be anything close to their level. Kronwall, our last actually good drafted defensemen was over a decade ago as well. It's been over a decade since we drafted any player that might be elite one day outside the 1st round. Hell even including the first round.

Did we just get bad at drafting? No. We were just never good in the first place. Because it's all luck.

My biggest issue with this line of thinking is not everyone taken in rounds 2-7 have equal chances at becoming an outlier to begin with. FAR from it. I think some guys realistically pretty much have no chance at ever becoming an outlier.

Pavel Datsyuk and Reilly Webb were both 6th rounders. One guy had a chance (even if it's small) at becoming an impact player, whereas Webb has no chance. So to say it's not in a team's control, or it's just all luck, I can't sign off on it regardless of what the numbers say.

Go back and read the scouting reports on the guys who have become impact players from the later rounds. Were they viewed as unskilled players at 17 and teams just got lucky? With most guys I can think of the answer is no. So while it is incredibly difficult, I think there is a thought process and some strategy to the picks that work out.

I mean, I would try and take one (or two) of these undersized productive forwards every year. That seems to be the trend hitting the most. If you look at the defenseman this year, the most productive guys are also the guys who are ranked highest. Even if they are small. But at forward it's not like that. The league still seems skeptical of doing it with forwards, so I think you can take advantage there. Mix in some bigger guys with your other picks or in free agency. I think Tampa Bay has done something similar to this to an extent with some success.

 

[TheOtherOne]

My biggest issue with this line of thinking is not everyone taken in rounds 2-7 have equal chances at becoming an outlier to begin with. FAR from it. I think some guys realistically pretty much have no chance at ever becoming an outlier.

Pavel Datsyuk and Reilly Webb were both 6th rounders. One guy had a chance (even if it's small) at becoming an impact player, whereas Webb has no chance. So to say it's not in a team's control, or it's just all luck, I can't sign off on it regardless of what the numbers say.

Go back and read the scouting reports on the guys who have become impact players from the later rounds. Were they viewed as unskilled players at 17 and teams just got lucky? With most guys I can think of the answer is no. So while it is incredibly difficult, I think there is a thought process and some strategy to the picks that work out.

I mean, I would try and take one (or two) of these undersized productive forwards every year. That seems to be the trend hitting the most. If you look at the defenseman this year, the most productive guys are also the guys who are ranked highest. Even if they are small. But at forward it's not like that. The league still seems skeptical of doing it with forwards, so I think you can take advantage there. Mix in some bigger guys with your other picks or in free agency. I think Tampa Bay has done something similar to this to an extent with some success.

Right. Obviously.

Of all the thousands of nobody hockey players in the world outside round 5, it OBVIOUSLY took some amount of skill (along with a lot of luck) to find Pavel Datsyuk.

My mind is a little bit blown that this was ever up for debate.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Someting I posted earlier ont his topic.

- Forwards, career games (longevity) + career points as goals counted 1.5x. Plus some weight for career peak years which will eaven out the injury factor.

Imo, injuries/accidents later on the career don't have anything to do with pure drafting. Longevity guys are luck. Draft pick can be absolutely great, like Ficher and Konstantinov, but **** just happen afterwards.

- Defencemen, career games + 1.5x career points. Career peak effect based sime way on TOI, which determines defencemen best, imo. 30min D has much greater impact than 20min guy. In general, best guys play most, defensive or offensive.

- Goalies, those crapshoot guys. Career games + wins with some multiplier. They are tough to rank relatively to skaters, because goalies won't play all the games. Have to implement something. Career SV% included in somehow.

I really like the idea of using TOI as a factor. Shouldn't you use it for forwards too? If Zetterberg and AA both score the same amount of goals in a season, but Z played 3 times the minutes, that says a lot about their difference in importance to the team.

 

[Henkka]

I really like the idea of using TOI as a factor. Shouldn't you use it for forwards too? If Zetterberg and AA both score the same amount of goals in a season, but Z played 3 times the minutes, that says a lot about their difference in importance to the team.

This is a good idea. NHL.com has nowadays a good tool to sum seasons together. Total career TOI includes games in a way...

Let's go as simple as it gets.

Career TOI x Pts/Game from 2003 draft:

RANK	Payer	Team	Pos	CareerTOI	Pts/Gm	TOTAL
1.	Eric Staal	CAR	C	21692	0.844	18308
2.	Ryan Getzlaf	ANA	C	18096	0.954	17264
3.	Corey Perry	ANA	RW	17441	0.800	13953
4.	Patrice Bergeron	BOS	C	18163	0.762	13840
5.	Joe Pavelski	SJS	C	16753	0.785	13151
6.	Zach Parise	NJD	LW	16175	0.786	12714
7.	Thomas Vanek	BUF	W	15873	0.780	12381
8.	Ryan Suter	NSH	LD	24862	0.497	12356
9.	Jeff Carter	PHI	C	16420	0.743	12200
10.	Brent Bruns	MIN	RD	20658	0.589	12168
11.	Shea Weber	NSH	RD	20945	0.578	12106
12.	Dion Phaneuf	CGY	LD	23591	0.497	11725
13.	Dustin Brown	LAK	W	18616	0.543	10108
14.	Dustin Byfuglien	CHI	RD	18032	0.597	10765
15.	Ryan Kesler	VAN	C	17863	0.600	10718
16.	Loui Eriksson	DAL	W	15333	0.656	10058
17.	Brent Seabrook	CHI	RD	22371	0.430	9620
18.	David Backes	STL	C	15408	0.620	9553
19.	Mike Richards	PHI	C	13515	0.650	8785
20.	Milan Michalek	SJS	W	13091	0.600	7855
21.	Lee Stempniak	STL	RW	14487	0.520	7533
22.	Nathan Horton	FLO	RW	10821	0.671	7261
23.	Tobias Enström	ATL	LD	16363	0.430	7036
24.	Matt Moulson	PIT	LW	10519	0.570	5996
25.	Matt Carle	SJS	LD	15125	0.390	5899
26.	Clarke MacArthur	BUF	W	8581	0.550	4720
27.	Nikolay Zherdev	CBJ	RW	7046	0.620	4369
28.	Kyle Brodziak	EDM	C	12118	0.340	4120
29.	Braydon Coburn	ATL	LD	16956	0.241	4086
30.	Andrei Kostitsyn	MTL	W	6078	0.560	3404
31.	Kyle Quincey	DET	LD	11837	0.270	3196
32.	Patrick Eaves	OTT	RW	8076	0.390	3150
33.	Steve Bernier	SJS	RW	8426	0.360	3033
34.	Jan Hejda	BUF	LD	13244	0.220	2914
35.	Kevin Klein	NSH	RD	11637	0.250	2909
36.	David Jones	COL	RW	6914	0.410	2835
37.	Brad Richardson	COL	F	9193	0.300	2758
38.	Eric Fehr	WSH	RW	7220	0.380	2744
39.	Patrick O'Sullivan	MIN	C	5614	0.480	2695
40.	Brian Boyle	LAK	C	9059	0.280	2537

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Goalies not ilncluded... still planning a formula for them.

Any flaws in here...? Does this value defencemen enough?

 

[BinCookin]

toi is not bad, and a good metric. Maybe a small correction to balance F's and D would work (~20min vs ~25min) for top F and D respectively.

Also maybe usingg Atoi, instead of just toi. that will eliminate injuries and GP to some extent.

 

[BinCookin]

Just doing some updating... You may find these results comical

 

[Henkka]

Just doing some updating... You may find these results comical

Hmm, yeah. When Wings don't have high (and failed) 1st rounders, we don't have misses with big minuses and mostly go on plus side.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Hmm... if you trade all your picks for sixth rounders, you essentially will always get a positive score!

Don't tell Holland...

 

[Henkka]

Hmm... if you trade all your picks for sixth rounders, you essentially will always get a positive score!

Don't tell Holland...

Yeah, that's kind of the flaw in this system. You basicly do good drafting work relatively, but that won't turn to a good hockey team. It just adds depth year after year for your core. It's still good pure drafting, but doesn't achieve the main goal.

Would be interesting to add some criteria, which would result building a winner/contender...

...like a mimimun in draft picks strength, which should result to Elite players (4-5 pieces) on some time period.

 

[BinCookin]

Hmm, yeah. When Wings don't have high (and failed) 1st rounders, we don't have misses with big minuses and mostly go on plus side.

It is true, if you never pick early, you cant score a -1200/-1500/-2000 player.
Detroit is a rather unique example. But I can say this, detroit is not simply scoring well because they dont have misses. We have produced a lot of NHL talent from later rounds, and that usually gives OK bonuses, but not huge pluses. Later round "NHL" hits usually 500-700 pts. Unless you draft a Kucherov // Gadreau. So you need a lot of late round hits to come out on top. (you will see when file is done)

Also if you had only 6th rounders... the average team usually acquires almost no one good from those rounds. So you still shouldnt be scoring very well overall just because you are drafting lower.

But the lack of big minuses is a factor.

I am getting close to finishing the analysis, so you guys can all look over the fine details... and or we can easily change the analysis system once its done.

 

[njx9]

If the scoring puts the Wings above the Bruins, for taking a bunch of utter junk and Mantha between 2010-2013, while the Bruins took Seguin and Hamilton, the scoring isn't really representative of reality. Taking Pulk, XO and Jurco shouldn't be big enough 'steals' to outweigh taking actual, good players, even if you took a guy where you 'should have'.

Edited to add: in your screenshot, BinCookin, there's no reason in the world that Ottawa should be so far below the Wings (in the '10-'13 period), in spite of taking by far the best player (Stone in the 6th) that either team selected in that time frame. The collection of late round junk we accumulated just can't outweigh that kind of draft pick, especially given that they had no Yakupov-type picks with their firsts. I posit that the scoring system is badly biased towards accumulating mediocre depth and doesn't reward actual good picks nearly enough, given the results.

 

[Henkka]

We have produced a lot of NHL talent from later rounds, and that usually gives OK bonuses, but not huge pluses. Later round "NHL" hits usually 500-700 pts. Unless you draft a Kucherov // Gadreau. So you need a lot of late round hits to come out on top. (you will see when file is done).

One thing I'd like to see, is NA and Europe split for Detroit. IF you have extra time for that, try to split:

Detroit_European draft picks vs. pick value
Detroit_NorthAmerican draft picks vs. pick value

 

[BinCookin]

s

If the scoring puts the Wings above the Bruins, for taking a bunch of utter junk and Mantha between 2010-2013, while the Bruins took Seguin and Hamilton, the scoring isn't really representative of reality. Taking Pulk, XO and Jurco shouldn't be big enough 'steals' to outweigh taking actual, good players, even if you took a guy where you 'should have'.

Edited to add: in your screenshot, BinCookin, there's no reason in the world that Ottawa should be so far below the Wings (in the '10-'13 period), in spite of taking by far the best player (Stone in the 6th) that either team selected in that time frame. The collection of late round junk we accumulated just can't outweigh that kind of draft pick, especially given that they had no Yakupov-type picks with their firsts. I posit that the scoring system is badly biased towards accumulating mediocre depth and doesn't reward actual good picks nearly enough, given the results.

Since you have picked a small window, we can actually look at the bare bones. And see if the system holds any water.

Lets take Ottawa // Detroit 2010-2013

		Ottawa
Draft	Draft-#	Player	Redraft-#	Draft Value	ReDraft Value	Overall Score
2013 Entry	17	Curtis Lazar	41	750	203	-547
2013 Entry	78	Marcus Hogberg	97	58.5	35.75	-23
2013 Entry	102	Tobias Lindberg	113	32	23.5	-9
2013 Entry	108	Ben Harpur	56	26.5	126	100
2013 Entry	138	Vincent Dunn	143	12	10.2	-2
2013 Entry	161	Chris Leblanc	165	6	5.2	-1
2013 Entry	168	Quentin Shore	171	4.8	4.5	0
2012 Entry	15	Cody Ceci	28	830	380	-450
2012 Entry	76	Chris Driedger	113	62	23.5	-39
2012 Entry	82	Jarrod Maidens	116	52.5	22	-31
2012 Entry	106	Tim Boyle	129	28	15.6	-12
2012 Entry	136	Robbie Baillargeon	152	12.8	7.8	-5
2012 Entry	166	Francois Brassard	173	5	4.3	-1
2012 Entry	196	Mikael Wikstrand	197	2.7	2.65	0
2011 Entry	6	Mika Zibanejad	12	1650	960	-690
2011 Entry	21	Stefan Noesen	45	590	179	-411
2011 Entry	24	Matt Puempel	70	490	79	-411
2011 Entry	61	Shane Prince	50	107	154	47
2011 Entry	96	Jean-Gabriel Pageau	27	36.5	400	364
2011 Entry	126	Fredrik Claesson	64	17	98	81
2011 Entry	156	Darren Kramer	170	7	4.6	-2
2011 Entry	171	Max McCormick	76	4.5	62	58
2011 Entry	186	Jordan Fransoo	193	3.25	2.85	0
2011 Entry	204	Ryan Dzingel	33	2.3	285	283
2010 Entry	76	Jakub Culek	102	62	32	-30
2010 Entry	106	Marcus Sorensen	127	28	16.5	-12
2010 Entry	178	Mark Stone	6	3.8	1650	1646
2010 Entry	196	Bryce Aneloski	197	2.7	2.65	0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Obviously Mark Stone was a home run pick #178, i have him redrafted 6th OA. For a score of +1646 (Solid hit)
In 2011 we actually traded our 1st round pick to Ottawa (as a fun aside from this analysis for two 2nd rounders
Ottawa ended up with 3 1st round picks... thats a pretty solid year. Who did they get?

Zibanejad picked at 6th OA, i have redrafted at 12th for a -690. this may seem overly Harsh a score at a glance (players re-picked ahead of Zib are: (kucherov, Schiefele, Gadreau, Landeskog, trocheck, huberdeau, dougie hamilton, RNH, Sean couturier, John Gibson, and Rickard Rakell.) (this is the subjective part of the scale, as where we redraft Zib is where his score comes from).

Stefan Noesen, Matt Puempel.. are both decidedly redrafted much lower, so both are misses, but not horrible misses -400 pts each.
JG Pageau taken 96th redrafted late first round was a nice boost here with +364, As well as Dzingel +283

In 2012 Cody Ceci at 15th redrafted as a late 1st rounder is a bit of a miss. (-450)
In 2013 Lazar at 17th also a decent miss (-547).

So overall the scoring system basically says this:
Homeruns: Mark Stone
Unexpected Small Hits: Pageau Dzingel
Miss: Noesen, Puempel, Ceci, Lazar. (this is not an impressive list of 4 first round picks)
Big Miss: None

I would say the key issue here would be the scoring on Zibanejad. Is it fair that late round super gems should be ranked ahead of him? Is his redraft position fair? Upon closer inspection could Ottawa have drafted better?


Now lets looks at Detroit:

Draft	Draft-#	Player	Redraft-#	Draft Value	ReDraft Value	Overall Score
2013 Entry	20	Anthony Mantha	10	630	1050	420
2013 Entry	48	Zach Nastasiuk	78	164	58.5	-105.5
2013 Entry	58	Tyler Bertuzzi	27	118	400	282
2013 Entry	79	Mattias Janmark-Nylen	29	57	360	303
2013 Entry	109	David Pope	118	25.75	21	-4.75
2013 Entry	139	Mitch Wheaton	144	11.6	9.9	-1.7
2013 Entry	169	Marc McNulty	172	4.7	4.4	-0.3
2013 Entry	199	Hampus Melen	200	2.55	2.5	-0.05
2012 Entry	49	Martin Frk	52	159	144	-15
2012 Entry	80	Jake Paterson	115	55.5	22.5	-33
2012 Entry	110	Andreas Athanasiou	24	25	490	465
2012 Entry	140	Mike McKee	154	11.2	7.4	-3.8
2012 Entry	170	James De Haas	176	4.6	4	-0.6
2012 Entry	200	Rasmus Bodin	200	2.5	2.5	0
2011 Entry	35	Tomas Jurco	49	260	159	-101
2011 Entry	48	Xavier Ouellet	57	164	122	-42
2011 Entry	55	Ryan Sproul	79	130	57	-73
2011 Entry	85	Alan Quine	66	48	91	43
2011 Entry	115	Marek Tvrdon	135	22.5	13.2	-9.3
2011 Entry	145	Philippe Hudon	162	9.6	5.8	-3.8
2011 Entry	146	Mattias Backman	163	9.3	5.6	-3.7
2011 Entry	175	Richard Nedomlel	184	4.1	3.35	-0.75
2011 Entry	205	Alexey Marchenko	62	2.25	104	101.75
2010 Entry	21	Riley Sheahan	33	590	285	-305
2010 Entry	51	Calle Jarnkrok	32	149	300	151
2010 Entry	81	Louis-Marc Aubry	106	54	28	-26
2010 Entry	111	Teemu Pulkkinen	63	24.5	101	76.5
2010 Entry	141	Petr Mrazek	27	10.8	400	389.2
2010 Entry	171	Brooks Macek	174	4.5	4.2	-0.3
2010 Entry	201	Ben Marshall	202	2.45	2.4	-0.05

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In 2010 Sheahan is a slight miss 21st down to 33rd -305
Jarnkrok was a slight hit +151, and Pulks a slight hit 111th up to 63rd +76
note both those players dont make up for missing on Sheahan.
Mrazek however 141 up to a late 1st rounder is a decent hit at +389

In 2011 Jurco, XO, Sproul are actually all misses (slightly) -100, -42, -73. It should be noted 2 of thesee picks are for matt puempel (ottawa 2011 pick). So both our teams drafted poorly, but our border line NHLers taken in 2nd round count as misses on my scale, while puempel never making NHL at all is a bigger miss. Ironically Puempel currently plays for Grand Rapids, and is in our system now. hahaha, its kind of funny.
Marchenko making NHL was a slight hit, but only +100 pts.
Quine also made the NHL for a tiny point bonus, only he doesnt play for us.

In 2012 Athanasiou 110th redrafted 24th (late 1st rounder) is a decent hit +465
Frk is basically break even

In 2013 Janmark +303; Bertuzzi +282; Mantha +420 (Nastasiuk -105)

All decent hits on those players

 

[BinCookin]

I do think the real key is to look at the big picture and see if it makes sense:

Draft-#	Player	Redraft-#	Overall Score
17	Curtis Lazar	41	-547
108	Ben Harpur	56	100
15	Cody Ceci	28	-450
6	Mika Zibanejad	12	-690
21	Stefan Noesen	45	-411
24	Matt Puempel	70	-411
96	Jean-Gabriel Pageau	27	364
204	Ryan Dzingel	33	283
178	Mark Stone	6	1646
20	Anthony Mantha	10	420
48	Zach Nastasiuk	78	-106
58	Tyler Bertuzzi	27	282
79	Mattias Janmark-Nylen	29	303
110	Andreas Athanasiou	24	465
35	Tomas Jurco	49	-101
205	Alexey Marchenko	62	102
21	Riley Sheahan	33	-305
51	Calle Jarnkrok	32	151
141	Petr Mrazek	27	389

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

the players only >+100 or <-100

Obviously Zibanejad and Stone are better than any player we have. So one could say "Ottawa drafted better"
But that is obviously not what I am measuring (exactly).

You have to take this into account:

Ottawa in this time period drafted: #6, 15, 17, 21, 24 (5 first round picks) - and came away with Basically Zibanejad and Ceci. My system says they should have done better than that CONSIDERING their draft position.

Detroit in this time period drafted: #20, 21 (2 first round picks) - and came away with Mantha and Sheahan.
Id say Mantha is better than Ceci, worse than Zib. But the difference in the #6 pick vs #20 is a big deal.
One Should be an NHL top 6 player, while the other "might" be and NHL'er.

Also in the OP which made me do the analysis. the poster mentioned Mantha, XO and Jurco (i believe)

We actually have Mrazek, Jarnkrok, Athanasiou, Janmark, Bertuzzi as acceptable choices on top of just Mantha.

Btw my final score on Detroit vs Ottawa 2010-2013 is:

DET	1502
OTT	-97

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

9 players drafted by detroit have had some NHL time
6 players by Ottawa

Is the score fair?

Not 100% sure.

But Detroit hit on a lot of players round 2-4 which i redraft as 1st round picks (late).
And Ottawa basically hit only only one which became a top 30 pick (Pageau)

Obviously my redrafts are vitally important to the scoring outcome. And would be the 1st place to look for scoring errors in the system.

the 2nd thing to question is: Should team X have done better considering WHERE their picks are in the draft. I can say this.

If you screw up an early pick in a draft.. you get penalized hard
If you hit a home run from a late pick.. you get a big bonus

My system can also adjust the scoring spread by using a different value chart with minimal alterations. And thus the scoring system itself can also be adjusted.

 

[BinCookin]

P.S. I did this analysis not to defend the system.. but to take a close look at a small window to see if things seem really off.

An additional point here:

Zibanejad i have redrafted at 12th
Mantha i have redrafted at 10th

So according to my system when you compare between years: Mantha will give a better redraft score than Zib.

I did have Mantha lower on my list, but HFBoards posters insisted he should be higher. (see thread in hockey talk).


Also Redrafting becomes much harder the closer we get to the present.

 

[njx9]

I really appreciate the thoughtful layout! And again, I hope it's clear that any criticism I have is purely with the methodology, and not with the poster.

Let me pick a small starting point, rather than trying to argue across the board (though I'm happy to expand, if it's more useful): I think that the penalty in taking the 12th best guy at 6 is overly harsh. It's one thing if you whiff entirely on the pick (and worse if you go off board and whiff), but they still got a top player in the draft. Frankly, Lazar is even more problematic (as is Sheahan, little though I want to defend him). I don't think you should lose roughly as many points for overdrafting a redraft 2nd rounder by 10 spots as you gain from drafting a late first rounder in the late second (Bert) or a 2nd rounder (Dzingel) in the 6th.

I think more care needs to be taken to note true busts (taken in the 1st round, shouldn't have been drafted at all), as opposed to slight misses (6th to 12th) and big misses (6th to 40th), as examples. Slightly overdrafting a guy shouldn't completely negate finding a 2nd round guy in the 5th-7th.

I also wonder if pre-draft rankings should come into play - if a guy is called the 5th best player, and I take him at 5, any bonus or penalty should be smaller than if a guy is ranked 300 and I take him 5th. I think someone else (TheOtherOne maybe?) brought this up early, but I can't seem to find it now.