HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Elite talent in the draft

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-13-2012, 02:25 PM
  #1
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,187
vCash: 500
Elite talent in the draft

I have seen alot of posts lately on this board talking about elite talent and that it's important for Montreal to ''tank'' to get some. The reason given is : that's important to get a top 5 pick, because that's where you find elite talent and I wanted to look if it's was true. I looked in every drafts in the period of 1979-2000 and found the players that I thought was either having an elite talent when they were playing in the NHL or elites careers (a very good player that can be even a gamebreaker on some seasons, but is good on a long period of time, but never a big superstar). Since I'm not perfect, I perhaps have missed some names or made some mistakes. But I think it's still a good list.

Elite talent drafted in the top 5 1979-2000 :

Mike Gartner, Rick Vaive, Dave Babych, Denis Savard, Larry Murphy, Dale Hawerchuk, Ron Francis, Brian Bellows, Scott Stevens, Pat LaFontaine, Steve Yzerman, Mario Lemieux, Pierre Turgeon, Brendan Shanahan, Mike Modano, Mats Sundin, Jaromir Jagr, Eric Lindros, Scott Niedermayer, Alexei Yashin, Chris Pronger, Paul Kariya, Wade Redden, Joe Thornton, Vincent Lecavalier, Daniel Sedin, Henrik Sedin, Dany Heatley.

Arguable players :

Zarley Zalapski, Al Iafrate, Kirk Muller, Bill Guerin, Owen Nolan, Roman Hamrlik, Bryan Berard, Patrick Marleau, Roberto Luongo, Marian Gaborik, Tom Barrasso.

Elite talent not-drafted in the top 5 1979-2000 :

Mark Messier, Ray Bourque, Michel Goulet, Glenn Anderson, Dale Hunter, Mats Naslund, Paul Reinhart, Kevin Lowe, Paul Coffey, Jari Kurri, Bernie Nicholls, Steve Larmer, Al MacInnis, Chris Chelios, Doug Gilmour, Phil Housley, Pat Verbeek, Cam Neely, Luc Robitaille, Brett Hull, Gary Roberts, Gary Suter, Joe Nieuwendyk, Vincent Damphousse, Brian Leetch, Teppo Numminen, Joe Sakic, Theoren Fleury, John LeClair, Eric Desjardins, Mathieu Schneider, Mark Recchi,
Teemu Selanne, Jeremy Roenick, Rod Brind'Amour, Alexander Mogilny, Rob Blake, Sergei Fedorov, Nicklas Lidstrom, Pavel Bure, Keith Tkachuk, Doug Weight, Sergei Zubov, Alexei Kovalev, Peter Forsberg, Markus Naslund, Zigmund Palffy, Sergei Gonchar, Dominik Hasek, Patrick Roy, Martin Brodeur, Daniel Alfredsson, Jarome Iginla, Marc Savard, Zdeno Chara, Marian Hossa, Brad Richards, Pavel Datsyuk, Andrei Markov, Henrik Zetterberg.

Arguable players :

Thomas Steen, Mike Foligno, Anton Stastny, Brent Sutter, Hakan Loob, James Patrick, Ray Ferraro, Tomas Sandstrom, Rick Tocchet, John MacLean, Kevin Stevens, Dave Gagner, Stephane Richer, Kevin Hatcher, Craig Janney, Jyrki Lumme, Peter Bondra, Ray Whitney, Jason Arnott, Ryan Smyth.

Note 1 :Some players had their career derailed by injuries and I perhaps have missed some of theses.

Note 2 : About the goalies front, since it's so hard to claim elite talent on a goalie I put the really obvious one (Hasek, Roy, Brodeur) and since Luongo and Barrasso are the only ones drafted in the top 5 in that period that have amount to good players I put them both as arguables.

As you can see :

28 to 39 elite players have been drafted in the top 5

60 to 80 elite players have been drafted after the top 5

So around 32,5 % of the elite talent drafted has been taken in the top 5 of a draft during the 1979-2000 period. It also need to be noted that alot of europeans are in the list of players drafted after the top 5, because it was seen has a bigger gamble and they were less scouted. Also, it seem that in the present era the elites players are even more often took in the top 5, probably because of the evolution of drafting methods. In conclusion, it appears that drafting elite talent is really hard without a top 5 pick, I don't like my team to loose and you can't tell to the players to play bad, but I wish we get a top 5 pick this season !


I hope you enjoy and I just wish to create a good discussion !

Forsead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 02:31 PM
  #2
One Trick Pony
Registered User
 
One Trick Pony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,542
vCash: 500
You're comparing a top 5, to a top 200 or so (minus the first 5). Of course there's going to be more players from the latter.

One Trick Pony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 02:33 PM
  #3
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eliash View Post
You're comparing a top 5, to a top 200 or so (minus the first 5). Of course there's going to be more players from the latter.
You really hasn't read my thread at all thanks !

I'm saying that even when comparing that around 32,5 % of elites talent have been taken in the top 5, it's huge and demonstrate the importance of that draft position !

Forsead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 02:35 PM
  #4
One Trick Pony
Registered User
 
One Trick Pony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
You really hasn't read my thread at all thanks !

I'm saying that even when comparing that around 32,5 % of elites talent have been taken in the top 5, it's huge and demonstrate the importance of that draft position !
Still

One Trick Pony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 02:49 PM
  #5
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,334
vCash: 500
Of course, it's impossible to say for certain in advance, but some drafts will have different breakdowns than other drafts... and while you never *know* in advance, your scouting staff will still have a perception for a given draft where the cutoffs or tiers of probabilities for that draft might be. It's totally subjective in terms of predicting a draft beforehand, unfortunately. But subjectively, it looks like this year's draft may not be one of the better ones for providing a larger grouping of elite talents at the top. Or that picking out which ones after the top 1-2 names will become "elite" is more difficult to predict this year than it might be in some other years.

I think your argument works in terms of saying, yeah, if you wanted your best odds of getting the highest number of elite talents with 10 straight years of drafting, you would want as many top-5 picks as possible. But if you're the New York Islanders or Columbus Bluejackets, or if you have just a 1-off pick in a single "weak" draft year, it probably doesn't matter as much.

Good scouting and player development trumps fuzzy draft statistics IMHO.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 02:49 PM
  #6
MM425
Registered User
 
MM425's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,586
vCash: 500
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. Sure, there is always going be the risk drafting "busts" but those now appear to be the exception rather than the norm.

A high end pick = as close to a golden ticket to a superstar player as it gets.

Of course, I also believe you can't tell professional players to quit playing. All we can do as fans is continue to hope they suck so we can get that golden ticket!

MM425 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 02:56 PM
  #7
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,269
vCash: 500
Good research, thanks for numbers.

Have to add one criticism to this approach though:
Drafting, scouting and player developpment has changed so much over last 10 years, i don't think looking at Data from 10 + years ago will do much.
IMO all you have too look at is last few drafts (08-09-10-11) and you will see how secure a pick in top 5 is, not to mention in the top 10. Not to mention 4 of top 10 of the '11 draft are currently filling a full time role on their respective teams.

What i get from your post OP, is that you point out that you can draft high end talent and elite talent outside of top5-10 etc. Which is reasuring, considering i don't want this team to draft in top 5 too often.

uiCk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 03:00 PM
  #8
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,201
vCash: 500
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:
Quote:
"Between 1969 and 2000, there have been 160 top-5 picks. 35 of those have become superstars. (using 8.5 on the HF scale as a cutoff).

During that time, there have been 672 11th-30th picks. 23 of those have become superstars, using the same cutoff.

50% more superstars in 1/4 the picks, hmmm...

the actual sucess rates of these blocks of picks work out to 21.9% and 3.4%.

You can talk about Brodeur, Sakic, Hossa, Ignila, MacInnis all you want, but the truth is, they are 5 of the 23 superstars drafted out of 672 picks.

If your goal is to just get a "good" or better NHL player - (a 7.0 or higher, meaning 2nd line, 2nd pairing, or average/journeyman starter), you're looking at 112/160 in the top 5, or 70%. In the 10th-30th slots, you;re looking at 169/672, or 25%.

Or maybe you just want to make sure you get a player who will become a full-time NHLer for at least a few seasons (5 or higher, at worst, Belak). Drafting top-5, you're looking at 148/160, or 92.5%. In 10th-30th, 398/672, or 59.2%, hardly a guarantee that you'll even get an NHL player.

If you have 10 picks in the 10-30 slots, there is actually a 71% chance that you WON'T get a superstar player. (a 29% chance that you will) If you have 3 picks in the top 5, there is a 47% chance that you'll end up without a superstar, but a 53% chance that you will."
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.
Quote:
"I thought I'd add a fun little note - get outside of the top 30 and there have only been 24 players (EVER!) drafted outside of the top 30 who qualify as superstars, this is from a pool of 6141 picks for a success rate of 0.4%.

In case you're wondering, these players are, in order of greatness:
Roy, Hasek, Messier, Lidstrom, Chelios, Hull, Langway, Fedorov, Kurri, Mogilny, Bure, Blake, Smith, Gilmour, Recchi, Zetterberg, Greschner, Richards, Bondra, Elias, Chara, Kiprusoff, Fleury, Robitaille."

Here is franchise player vs. superstar:
Quote:
"Suppose we're looking for a "true franchise player" who is 9.0 or over instead of a mere "superstar" at 8.5+.

There have been 36 of these in total.

In the top 5: 16 out of 160 picks or 10%
In 6-10: 5 out of 160 picks or 3.1%
In 11-30: 7 out of 640 or 1.1%
In 30-end of draft: 8 out of 6142 or 0.13%

It's worth mentioning, as well, that only two of these came after the 74th pick: Brett Hull and Dominik Hasek. So i could make two brackets out of that bottom one:
31-90: 6 out of 1920 or 0.31%
91-end of draft: 2 out of 0.047%

In the top 5, you are 322% as likely to get a franchise guy as in the 6-10 slots. In 6-10 you are 281% as likely to get one as in 11-30. In 11-30 you are 355% as likely to get one as you are in 31-90, and in 31-90 you are 660% as likely to find one than past the 90th pick.

And comparing the 91st pick and onwards to the top 5 shows you just how hard it is. You are 212 times as likely to find a franchise player in the top 5 compared to 91st and on."
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.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 03-13-2012 at 03:07 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 03:13 PM
  #9
Fozz
Registered User
 
Fozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
About five years ago I mentioned an actual study that had.... .
Are there any such studies that show the impact those superstar players have on actually winning the cup?

Fozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 03:27 PM
  #10
FiveForDrawingBlood
Registered User
 
FiveForDrawingBlood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsead View Post
I have seen alot of posts lately on this board talking about elite talent and that it's important for Montreal to ''tank'' to get some. The reason given is : that's important to get a top 5 pick, because that's where you find elite talent and I wanted to look if it's was true. I looked in every drafts in the period of 1979-2000 and found the players that I thought was either having an elite talent when they were playing in the NHL or elites careers (a very good player that can be even a gamebreaker on some seasons, but is good on a long period of time, but never a big superstar). Since I'm not perfect, I perhaps have missed some names or made some mistakes. But I think it's still a good list.

Elite talent drafted in the top 5 1979-2000 :

Mike Gartner, Rick Vaive, Dave Babych, Denis Savard, Larry Murphy, Dale Hawerchuk, Ron Francis, Brian Bellows, Scott Stevens, Pat LaFontaine, Steve Yzerman, Mario Lemieux, Pierre Turgeon, Brendan Shanahan, Mike Modano, Mats Sundin, Jaromir Jagr, Eric Lindros, Scott Niedermayer, Alexei Yashin, Chris Pronger, Paul Kariya, Wade Redden, Joe Thornton, Vincent Lecavalier, Daniel Sedin, Henrik Sedin, Dany Heatley.

Arguable players :

Zarley Zalapski, Al Iafrate, Kirk Muller, Bill Guerin, Owen Nolan, Roman Hamrlik, Bryan Berard, Patrick Marleau, Roberto Luongo, Marian Gaborik, Tom Barrasso.

Elite talent not-drafted in the top 5 1979-2000 :

Mark Messier, Ray Bourque, Michel Goulet, Glenn Anderson, Dale Hunter, Mats Naslund, Paul Reinhart, Kevin Lowe, Paul Coffey, Jari Kurri, Bernie Nicholls, Steve Larmer, Al MacInnis, Chris Chelios, Doug Gilmour, Phil Housley, Pat Verbeek, Cam Neely, Luc Robitaille, Brett Hull, Gary Roberts, Gary Suter, Joe Nieuwendyk, Vincent Damphousse, Brian Leetch, Teppo Numminen, Joe Sakic, Theoren Fleury, John LeClair, Eric Desjardins, Mathieu Schneider, Mark Recchi,
Teemu Selanne, Jeremy Roenick, Rod Brind'Amour, Alexander Mogilny, Rob Blake, Sergei Fedorov, Nicklas Lidstrom, Pavel Bure, Keith Tkachuk, Doug Weight, Sergei Zubov, Alexei Kovalev, Peter Forsberg, Markus Naslund, Zigmund Palffy, Sergei Gonchar, Dominik Hasek, Patrick Roy, Martin Brodeur, Daniel Alfredsson, Jarome Iginla, Marc Savard, Zdeno Chara, Marian Hossa, Brad Richards, Pavel Datsyuk, Andrei Markov, Henrik Zetterberg.

Arguable players :

Thomas Steen, Mike Foligno, Anton Stastny, Brent Sutter, Hakan Loob, James Patrick, Ray Ferraro, Tomas Sandstrom, Rick Tocchet, John MacLean, Kevin Stevens, Dave Gagner, Stephane Richer, Kevin Hatcher, Craig Janney, Jyrki Lumme, Peter Bondra, Ray Whitney, Jason Arnott, Ryan Smyth.

Note 1 :Some players had their career derailed by injuries and I perhaps have missed some of theses.

Note 2 : About the goalies front, since it's so hard to claim elite talent on a goalie I put the really obvious one (Hasek, Roy, Brodeur) and since Luongo and Barrasso are the only ones drafted in the top 5 in that period that have amount to good players I put them both as arguables.

As you can see :

28 to 39 elite players have been drafted in the top 5

60 to 80 elite players have been drafted after the top 5

So around 32,5 % of the elite talent drafted has been taken in the top 5 of a draft during the 1979-2000 period. It also need to be noted that alot of europeans are in the list of players drafted after the top 5, because it was seen has a bigger gamble and they were less scouted. Also, it seem that in the present era the elites players are even more often took in the top 5, probably because of the evolution of drafting methods. In conclusion, it appears that drafting elite talent is really hard without a top 5 pick, I don't like my team to loose and you can't tell to the players to play bad, but I wish we get a top 5 pick this season !


I hope you enjoy and I just wish to create a good discussion !
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.

FiveForDrawingBlood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 03:30 PM
  #11
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozz View Post
Are there any such studies that show the impact those superstar players have on actually winning the cup?
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.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 03:36 PM
  #12
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,201
vCash: 500
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.
Except that the numbers don't jive with what you're saying at all. Cherrypicking players won't change this fact.

Go compare the 25th player drafted vs. the 3rd overall. The 3rd overall picks will crush the 25th. Yes, you may find the odd star later on but on average it's not even close.

You're sitting there trying to say that a 25th pick is just as good as a top five. It's not. Moreover, if you're drafting top five you still have the option of getting Giroux. If you're drafting 25th and Giroux is out there, you now have to hope that nobody is going to take him. It happens sometimes as it did with Giroux, but drafting 3rd is still a hell of a lot better than drafting 25th.

And btw, I'd rather have Toews than Giroux.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 03:41 PM
  #13
jeffl97
Registered User
 
jeffl97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 608
vCash: 500
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.
Ever heard of this guy called Patrick Kane?

jeffl97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 03:48 PM
  #14
LeMAD
Registered User
 
LeMAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,342
vCash: 500
Between the picks #2 and #10 this year, there's not much difference at this point. So obviously "tanking" would be pointless, and finishing the season with strong performances would be a lot better for the future of the team than getting a better pick.

LeMAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 03:50 PM
  #15
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
These stats just show how vitally important a top five pick is. You're saying more than a third of the top talent come from a tiny number of top picks (2.5 percent if 200 players are drafted).

TANK!

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 03:50 PM
  #16
Aznrx8
Registered User
 
Aznrx8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffl97 View Post
Ever heard of this guy called Patrick Kane?
Nope but I heard taxi cab drivers are afraid of him

Aznrx8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 03:52 PM
  #17
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMAD View Post
Between the picks #2 and #10 this year, there's not much difference at this point. So obviously "tanking" would be pointless, and finishing the season with strong performances would be a lot better for the future of the team than getting a better pick.
It's not pointless, we need a strong forward man.

There are four forwards projected to be good. All four will probably be gone by the time the 10th overall pick gets to select or even earlier. So no, it's not good if we miss out on those guys.

Getting another blueliner would be nice but we are hurting for elite talent (as we always are) up front. Missing out on Galchenyuk and Grigorenko would suck.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 03:52 PM
  #18
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,445
vCash: 500
It really is amazing how efficient the draft system is. The fact that #1s outperform #2s who outperform #3s and so on OVERALL pretty much shows the importance of draft positioning.

What is also astounding is how useless picks after the 2nd round are. I would trade every pick below a 2nd rounder for two seasons for one second round pick if I were a GM. The 3rd round and below are complete crapshoots with very little actual return. In fact, if I were invloved in the league's finances, I'd look at the aggregate cost (AHL salaries/bonuses/additional scouting costs/etc.) of all 3rd round picks and below for the past 10 years and see if it might be best to just eliminate rounds 3 and below.

Cyclones Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 03:53 PM
  #19
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMAD View Post
Between the picks #2 and #10 this year, there's not much difference at this point. So obviously "tanking" would be pointless, and finishing the season with strong performances would be a lot better for the future of the team than getting a better pick.
Hindsight will probably show that some of those picks were a heck of a lot better than others. If you pick 8th, 7 of your possible choices are already gone. If you pick 3rd, only two of them are. Certainly you can blow the pick, but in terms of finding a franchise player you have much more choice picking 2nd than you do picking 10th. It cost Toronto a 2nd and 3rd round pick to move from #7 to #5 a few years ago. Clearly GMs think there's a premium on top 5 picks.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 03:53 PM
  #20
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,560
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
Old
03-13-2012, 03:53 PM
  #21
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aznrx8 View Post
Nope but I heard taxi cab drivers are afraid of him
Too bad Kane can't read this, the glare from his Stanley cup ring keeps him from being able to see the monitor. I'm sure he would've laughed though. Right after smoking another 100 dollar bill.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 03:54 PM
  #22
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aznrx8 View Post
Nope but I heard taxi cab drivers are afraid of him
.....then you've heard of him.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 04:00 PM
  #23
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
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.
Cool. If you do update it though, I suggest you start from 1970. Makes more sense to start from there as it really is the start of the modern draft. Moreover, in '69 you probably have players missing due to the C-Form signings.

Also, you may want to include a guy like Glen Anderson to avoid controversy. He's a HOFer so I'd think he has to be an 8.5 at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
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.
I'm pretty sure that taking Bob Boughner over Fedorov was luck too. Not because they didn't think Fedorov was amazing (everyone knew how good he was) it's just that nobody expected him to ever play in the NHL. Ditto with Pavel Bure who was also taken late by the Canucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
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)
Cool. I remember you posting it. I think the only team to ever have five top 5 picks was the Pens right? And they wound up winning the cup that season if I remember correctly.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 04:04 PM
  #24
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Cool. If you do update it though, I suggest you start from 1970. Makes more sense to start from there as it really is the start of the modern draft. Moreover, in '69 you probably have players missing due to the C-Form signings.
not sure where you're getting this. 1969 was the first entry draft.

Quote:
Also, you may want to include a guy like Glen Anderson to avoid controversy. He's a HOFer so I'd think he has to be an 8.5 at this point.
I'll put him above players he's better than and below players he's not - HHOF be damned!

Quote:
Cool. I remember you posting it. I think the only team to ever have five top 5 picks was the Pens right? And they wound up winning the cup that season if I remember correctly.
I definitely wasn't posting there at all in the season the Pens won the cup. I had entirely transitioned over here. But maybe I noted that they were the team that had followed the "path" most often followed by other winners.

We all thought the Pens were set up pretty well, and of course we were all right.

Remember how the naysayers and the leafs apologists would say "ya but how will they sign all those guys huh? they will never fit under the cap so how can all those players evar help them win the cup man???" - and we said, yeah, too many awesome young players, what a terrible problem to have, *insert rolleyes emoticon*

Four years later, they still have all those players.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 04:06 PM
  #25
InTheWrist
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 36
vCash: 500
What's wrong with people who can not endure a little short term gloom (tank) for a highly probable top tier player in the draft...picking up meaningless points - which there are - at this stage serves the club no purpose...

InTheWrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:21 AM.

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.