View Single Post
08-18-2012, 06:48 AM
Registered User
Fourier's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,398
vCash: 500
Interesting stuff!!!

Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Good work. I think your sample size needs to be much larger to draw many conclusions. Having 15-20 sample size for each of the top 5, instead of 5 will increase the reliability of the data by a large amount.

One thing I wonder, from looking at what data you do have, is if teams in the middle are "reaching" with their first picks. IOW, they've already lost out on top 5 type of talent, and know they have another pick in the middle of second round. I wonder if they are taking more chances on high risk prospects that don't pan out quite as often, but when they do perform a little better. If the pick is a dud, they probably get a player not that much worse in the second round. It's something I thought of while looking at the data, but probably just my imagination.
I agree it would be better to have a larger sample size, but since there is only one draft per year we get what we get I guess. But as you say it would be interesting to continue to track these numbers. I would resist going back in time very much since it seems clear that the effort teams are putting into scouting these days is much greater than it had been in the past.

I am not as convinced that teams do much reaching in the middle rounds. I think it really does come down to something as simple as the fact that the step from junior to the NHL is so large that the vast majority of player simply fade. And with only a handful of elite players expected to come out of any given year it is far more likely that this small group would be populated by those kids who significantly separated themselves from the pack. Once you get outside of the top 5 the gap between players is much smaller making projections for the future much more difficult.

I also thought this study was interesting:

(Thanks to wgknestrick for posting it).

It seems to confirm, again on a small sample though, something that I have suspected for quite sometime and that is that once you get to the second round it is more the number of picks a team has rather than where they are that will determine your team's success with the draft. Performance does seem to be fairly random.

Now again, I think that with the emphasis on scouting it is possible that we see the cutoff where randomization begins to be the norm move a little further out in the draft. It would not surpirse me if today the first 10 picks in the 2nd round are not a little more distinquished than they were in the past. But probably not by much.

I know that games played is a pretty good measure of a drafted players sucess. But I do like that these two studies break down the impact a player has beyond just games dressed. I also wonder if in measuring games played alone if some of the numbers are skewed by bias for draft position in terms of the opportunities a player gets. Do teams really invest more time in a late 1st than they might in a 3rd?

Last edited by Fourier: 08-18-2012 at 07:08 AM.
Fourier is online now   Reply With Quote