HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

*HF Story* Kings NEW Top 20 Prospect Rankings

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2005, 10:59 PM
  #76
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer
Right, which is basically where I see Karlsson ending up.

Even if we just trim off all those draftees that played in 100 or less games in the NHL as being inconsequential, that still leaves you with nearly a 75% chance of landing what you might term an "NHLer". If all you're looking for is an "NHLer" to be a success, then your standards need to be a little higher.

Even if you want to set a threshold where 50% of the draftees will exceed the threshold and 50% will not (defining those who exceed as a success and those who don't as a bust), the GP threshold would be 515.

You can never predict the future with 100% certainty but I don't see Karlsson as reaching the 515 GP threshold or 353 GP threshold for #18 overall picks. In other words, the Kings had a coin's flip chance of finding someone to reach this threshold. They are likely not going to get that out of Karlsson. So they did not win the coin flip. So he might be termed a "bust". But again, every GM drafts busts from time to time. This is in no way an indictment of DT.
Again, the problem with comparing #18 picks against each other from different years is that it doesn't contemplate the depth or shallowness of the various drafts.

Also, the tsn article I read, as well as other articles I read and the McMaster University study, doesn't talk about 1st round picks overall...they discuss 1st rounders picked outside the top 10.

jt is offline  
Old
09-03-2005, 02:52 PM
  #77
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
Can you break it down by players chosen after the 10th pick? That's what the tsn guy did.
I can give you any break down you want based on either: NHL games played, year, round, overall pick, league drafted out of, and position. It would only take me a couple of minutes to get you the break down for all 1st rounders excluding the top 10. However, I am in San Diego this weekend and don't have the information on the computer I am currently using. I'll post it when i get back on Monday afternoon.

__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research
David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
09-03-2005, 02:59 PM
  #78
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
This is some great analysis and it can spur an awful lot of interesting analysis. I think the relevant questions here are:

1) How does the Kings' pick at #18 compare to other #18 picks in the draft? The issues with a question this narrow is that the comparison does not contemplate the depth of this draft vs other other drafts. Naturally, a more shallow draft will yield a lesser prospect at #18 than a deeper draft.

2) Should the Kings have selected someone else with the #18 pick? The issues with this question include: What was the goal with that pick? Would it have been better to pick a "safe" guy who would likely play in the NHL but was almost sure NOT to be a top 6er or even an "impact" bottom 6er? Or would it have been better to take a higher risk, higher reward player? In other words, Karlsson (higher risk, higher reward) vs Goc (lower risk, lower reward)?

I deal with stats at my job and I think the median is a more relevant number than the mean. That keeps a guy like Ken Daneyko from totally skewing the numbers. I don't know what that'll do to the numbers. But I don't think comparing "the #18 pick" is really dispositive because it doesn't consider the depth or shallowness of the given drafts.

IMO, the only legitimate question is #2. And for that, the only true answer is to look at the players selected in the next, oh, 30 picks or so from that year. And IMO, only Gleason has proven enough to date to say that the Kings would be significantly better off had they chosen him.

Of course the x factor in all this is that if Karlsson never comes over, it's really impossible to say whether the pick was a good one or a bad one. NO GM can predict if a player will chose never to leave Europe.

By the way, here's that McMaster University in Hamilton report I was talking about: http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/e...ve/2000-04.pdf
These are all valid points, and points that i identified and brought to the attention of the Kings when I pitched the statistical break down to them. My recommendation was to view the numbers as a starting point for analysis and employ the observations of scouts to augment the numbers by locating the various talent "drop-offs" in any given draft.

However, the numbers can be used to: (i.) give a good starting point for analysis of the expectations of a given selection (but by no means the stopping point of the analysis); and (ii.) dispell this myth that just getting someone that can make it to the NHL out of the first round is a sucess (nearly every 1st rounder makes it to the NHL in some sort of capacity).

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
09-03-2005, 03:27 PM
  #79
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer
However, the numbers can be used to: (i.) give a good starting point for analysis of the expectations of a given selection (but by no means the stopping point of the analysis); and (ii.) dispell this myth that just getting someone that can make it to the NHL out of the first round is a sucess (nearly every 1st rounder makes it to the NHL in some sort of capacity).
I don't know if this was directed at me, since I was one of those saying a 1st rounder making it to the NHL as a successful pick. I think I was not very extensive in my view. What I meant was that if a player was an NHL regular who could play at least 4 seasons in any capacity. Because I would rather have a 1st round guy play on my teams 4th line for 5 seasons then a 1st round pick who played on the 1st line for 1 season then tanked.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
09-03-2005, 04:15 PM
  #80
guzmania
Registered User
 
guzmania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SCV
Country: United States
Posts: 2,492
vCash: 500
Another set of factors could figure in here also. The Major Junior player vs. the College player vs. the Euro player. Because of when a player is taken in the draft there would be a natural inclination to take a chance on developing a Euro or College player the further from the top one gets. The signing rules allowed a more time. DT employed this strategy. When categorizing the picks at 18 their origin should be considered too, (if the is enough data to make a determination). Is it possible to factor that in too D.A.R.? Because they had more intrinsic value, in that teams had the ability to wait to sign them, i.e. less risky, the Euro and College players selected in the second half of the first round make it difficult to compare apples to apples. I am glad we have more time to evaluate these guys instead of having our backs against the wall and having to sign them. At least that's what I think.

guzmania is offline  
Old
09-03-2005, 08:59 PM
  #81
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by guzmania
Another set of factors could figure in here also. The Major Junior player vs. the College player vs. the Euro player. Because of when a player is taken in the draft there would be a natural inclination to take a chance on developing a Euro or College player the further from the top one gets. The signing rules allowed a more time. DT employed this strategy. When categorizing the picks at 18 their origin should be considered too, (if the is enough data to make a determination). Is it possible to factor that in too D.A.R.? Because they had more intrinsic value, in that teams had the ability to wait to sign them, i.e. less risky, the Euro and College players selected in the second half of the first round make it difficult to compare apples to apples. I am glad we have more time to evaluate these guys instead of having our backs against the wall and having to sign them. At least that's what I think.
Sure it can be done. But the sample size is way too small. You might be comparing 12 major junior draftees to 3 collegians to 2 euros (for example). It's just too small to make any kind of meaningful interpretation. Maybe in 30 years or so...

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
09-03-2005, 09:06 PM
  #82
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
I don't know if this was directed at me, since I was one of those saying a 1st rounder making it to the NHL as a successful pick. I think I was not very extensive in my view. What I meant was that if a player was an NHL regular who could play at least 4 seasons in any capacity. Because I would rather have a 1st round guy play on my teams 4th line for 5 seasons then a 1st round pick who played on the 1st line for 1 season then tanked.
You were the individual that brought it up in this thread but it is repeated everywhere on these boards. It was directed to them all. If you look at the average number of years before a player becomes a UFA after making it to the NHL (now, approximately 6 years), each organization needs to find 3-4 NHL starters with every draft to be able to reproduce their roster. So a successful NHL franchise needs to find a starter (and likely a superstar) with their 1st round pick as well as 2-3 more starters in other rounds. If you augment with signed free agents, then the organization still needs to find about 2-3 per draft.

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
09-03-2005, 09:23 PM
  #83
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer
You were the individual that brought it up in this thread but it is repeated everywhere on these boards. It was directed to them all. If you look at the average number of years before a player becomes a UFA after making it to the NHL (now, approximately 6 years), each organization needs to find 3-4 NHL starters with every draft to be able to reproduce their roster. So a successful NHL franchise needs to find a starter (and likely a superstar) with their 1st round pick as well as 2-3 more starters in other rounds. If you augment with signed free agents, then the organization still needs to find about 2-3 per draft.
I don't usually disagree with you David. But I think that figure is a little high. I could see 2 maybe 3 of a teams picks making it to the NHL from any given draft. If it were 3 or 4 as you say then the league would have between 90 and 120 rookies making the jump to the NHL every year. That number just seems a bit high to me.

I know the Kings may not be the best example for a team with a history of drafting well. But I cant find too many years where the Kings had even 3 guys make it to the NHL from a specific draft.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
09-03-2005, 10:52 PM
  #84
guzmania
Registered User
 
guzmania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SCV
Country: United States
Posts: 2,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer
Sure it can be done. But the sample size is way too small. You might be comparing 12 major junior draftees to 3 collegians to 2 euros (for example). It's just too small to make any kind of meaningful interpretation. Maybe in 30 years or so...
Yeah and now the rule has changed, thanks anyway.

guzmania is offline  
Old
09-03-2005, 11:12 PM
  #85
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer
You were the individual that brought it up in this thread but it is repeated everywhere on these boards. It was directed to them all. If you look at the average number of years before a player becomes a UFA after making it to the NHL (now, approximately 6 years), each organization needs to find 3-4 NHL starters with every draft to be able to reproduce their roster. So a successful NHL franchise needs to find a starter (and likely a superstar) with their 1st round pick as well as 2-3 more starters in other rounds. If you augment with signed free agents, then the organization still needs to find about 2-3 per draft.
I'm with Spongebob on this one. If 3-4 rookies made every roster every year that would be 90-120 new kids every year and 90-120 vets gone...and I think that's very unrealistic. Going forward I think teams will be signing ALOT more of each other's UFA's rather than making so many trades. So I don't see that the need to draft your future starters will change that much and it may even go DOWN. In fact, I could see the draft getting cut shorter and shorter every few seasons until it's maybe just 3-4 rounds...kind of like the NBA.

For the life of me I can't remember who said it but it was someone like Bob Gainey or Lamoriello (i.e. a GM who I think is VERY respectable) who said that if he was able to get just ONE starter per draft he considered the draft a success. If he got two he was absolutely ECSTATIC.

jt is offline  
Old
09-03-2005, 11:13 PM
  #86
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
I don't usually disagree with you David. But I think that figure is a little high. I could see 2 maybe 3 of a teams picks making it to the NHL from any given draft. If it were 3 or 4 as you say then the league would have between 90 and 120 rookies making the jump to the NHL every year. That number just seems a bit high to me.

I know the Kings may not be the best example for a team with a history of drafting well. But I cant find too many years where the Kings had even 3 guys make it to the NHL from a specific draft.
90-120 would be the number is no UFA were signed by any team. If a team decides to pursue UFA, then the number is less, about 2-3 or 60-90 in the league. That is a little more realistic.

It's basically a Beane analysis. Billy Beane argued that, in baseball, an organization controls the destiny of their prospects for 6 years (3 years of exclusive rights + 3 years of arbitration). Oakland is in a situation where they cannot hope to look to UFA to fill roster spots. With 25 roster spots and the organization controlling their home grown talent for 6 years, he argues that the organization needs to find 4 MLB players in every draft (25players/6years) in order to reproduce their roster every 6 years. Not every organization needs to look at it that way as not every organization is in the shape that Oakland is. But some are and it acts as a good minimum standard. If an organization does have an ability to pursue UFA (which seems more feasible under the new CBA), then 4 players out of every draft is not necessary. But 2-3 probably is.

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
09-04-2005, 12:21 AM
  #87
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Rainer
90-120 would be the number is no UFA were signed by any team. If a team decides to pursue UFA, then the number is less, about 2-3 or 60-90 in the league. That is a little more realistic.

I agree that 2-3 is about right. Even though I would lean more to the 2 side. I just think that a team bringing in more than 2 rookies a year is not very common. Consider how many of the Kings draft picks that have made it to the NHL from the 1991-2000. I can't even find 20 guys total from those drafts that made any significant contributions at the NHL level.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
09-08-2005, 12:42 AM
  #88
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
Can you break it down by players chosen after the 10th pick? That's what the tsn guy did.
Here are those nunbers.

From 1979-1995, there are 206 picks taken in the first round after the #10 selection. Of those 206, 181 made it to the NHL (87.9%).

0 GP: 25
1-100 GP: 46
101-200 GP: 22
201-300 GP: 19
301-400 GP: 12
401-500 GP: 11
501-600 GP: 13
601-700 GP: 12
701-800 GP: 14
801-900 GP: 9
901-1000 GP: 5
1001+ GP: 18

Obviously, when the top 10 picks are taken out of the equation, the numbers get slightly worse in terms of performance. But still, with an average of 380 games played and a median of 250 games played, I still don't see Karlsson reaching any of the standards that can be set for an "average" draftee of the first round based on historical data.

I would love to compare him to the rest of his draft class (as this would be the tell-tale sign for his year's overall strength in terms of talent), but unfortunately his draft class is too recent for any meaningful data. Check back in 10 years or so.

David A. Rainer is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.