View Single Post
Old
03-13-2012, 04:53 PM
  #20
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MM425 View Post
I think people also need to note the change in the NHL Draft since 2003 or so.

Since then look at the overwhelming "success rate" if you will, of high end (call it top 5-7) draft picks. It's pretty remarkable. Go browse the draft history on mynhldraft.com if you don't believe me.

More often than not now it seems, these picks translate into quality NHL players AND are making the jump to the NHL sooner.:
You are absolutely right. There is way more “certainty” in the scouting than ever before. It doesn’t appear that it even happened that gradually, it was pretty much like a switch was flipped around 2003.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
About five years ago I mentioned an actual study that had been done by resident stats guru SeventiesLord who's a mod over in the history of hockey thread and he basically showed that the draft is very linear. The 1st on average is better than the 2nd, the 2nd is better than the 3rd etc... and this holds true almost without exception from 1969-2000. He uses the HF scale of 8.5 as superstar and 9.0 for franchise player. Here are his findings:


Here he talks about finding superstars outside the top 30. Despite having thousands of picks there are actually fewer total superstars than there are drafted top 5. A little caveat here though, there are a few players like Adam Oates who were never drafted and went on to become superstars. However, as they weren't drafted at all, it makes no sense to include them in the study. Some people have argued that there are a couple of other players (Glenn Anderson) who should qualify as an 8.5. You can quibble here or there but I think it's a pretty accurate list.



Here is franchise player vs. superstar:

Basically, if you want superstars with any kind of regularity it's really hard to do it without drafting top five. Detroit has managed this with a little help from Lady Luck but I can't think of any other club that's done it with any kind of regularity at all.

One other note, Seventies probably should've started with 1970. That was the start of the modern draft. If you start from that date instead of '69 I'd expect there to be an even stronger correlation between superstars and top picks.
Thank you for digging that up. It was a great post. Thanks for bringing my first real research project some exposure. Since getting involved in the ATD in October 2007, I have not even touched this. Ranking and debating the best players in history is just far too fulfilling.

I stand by this research though. The only thing I would do now, is update it to 2004, since there are four more drafts worth of players we can properly judge, and most importantly, revamp those player ratings. Having been in about 30 ATD/MLD/AAA/AA drafts at various boards I have a much better idea how these 70s and 80s players rank and could probably improve these ratings a bit more.

However, this would not change what is perfectly clear – the higher you draft, the greater your chances of finding an NHL player, a star player, or a superstar player. The connection is undeniable. Unless you’re Carmissimo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveForDrawingBlood View Post
No reason to tank...you can get elite players if you hire the good scouts and GM does his due diligence. Pacioretty was best player in his draft at 22nd overall. Giroux was best his draft year at 25th, Chara was best his draft year at 135. The secret is covering a wide base of players and being a good judge of talent.
Chara was dumb luck. No one thought he would be a Norris winner. You take a guy at 135, it’s because you think he “might” be an NHL player at all. Any player that good, taken that low, was just luck. Know how I know? Because NHL scouts and GMs aren’t idiots. You don’t sit there smugly and let Niklas Lidstrom fall to round 3 while you take Mike Sillinger, if you know Lidstrom is the type of player who will win 7 norris trophies… or even one, for that matter! In fact, if you’re the wings, you do everything you can to trade up from #19, package in Gerard Gallant and/or whoever else to absolutely guarantee you get that player.

Credit to them for seeing something in Nik, but a Norris winner they did not see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Seventies did another really interesting study that analyzed teams that had top five players vs. cup success. It didn't take into account if those players were passengers or not, only if they were drafted top five. So a non-superstar good player like Petr Svoboda would count just as equally as Mario Lemieux or Jaromir Jagr.

Clubs with the most top five picks were far more successful at winning cups than those without. Once again it was linear. Those with the most won the most.

I can't remember though if his study took into account whether or not those top fives were drafted by their respective cup winning teams or not though. Shanahan for example won cups with Detroit but wasn't drafted by them. I'll message him and see if he wants to participate here.
That study was far from scientific, and suffered from a really small sample size.

But yes, the connection was there with top-5 picks developed by the organization (not drafted – I remember making an exception for a higher pick who was traded before ever playing. I forget who that was, though)

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote