HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The value of draft picks.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-04-2013, 09:27 PM
  #26
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,295
vCash: 500
Great job.

Most interesting thing there for me is the lack of a real drop off across the 2nd round picks. I would have thought that there would be more of a gap between the success rates of those early-round picks and 50-60.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 09:48 PM
  #27
Tripod
Registered User
 
Tripod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appleyard View Post
With a few people getting mad at losing a 3rd rounder in the Mason deal, it got me wondering the chance a 3rd rounder actually turned into a serviceable NHL player. Therefore I decided to look into it.

I looked through each draft from 1990-2004, working out the percentages of the 1st to 4th rounds producing players who play 200 games, 400 games, 700 games and All Star players (players who made an allstar team either mid season or end of season awards.) 4059 players overall went into the analysis.

I chose these as cut off as 200-399 seems right for a useful 4th liner or 3rd pair D who has a 3-7 year career. 400-699 is a player who generally made a decent impact on the league, playing 5-10 years and in some cases being well known, usually 2nd-3rd liners and 2nd pair or stay home D men. 700+ are generally some of the best at what they do in the NHL, 10+ years and well regarded round the league. All-star speaks for itself.

I also looked at the later rounds, though only as a whole, as after about pick 120 it is just pot luck seemingly.

I went further in depth on the top 120 picks, dividing them into brackets of 5 to see whether an early 3rd, for example, is worth much more than a late 3rd, or is it even equal to a late 2nd.

Here are the more general results:

1st round:

200 GP: 64%, 400 GP: 53.6%, 700 GP: 38%, All-Star: 22.9%

2nd round:

200 GP: 28%, 400 GP: 19%, 700 GP: 12%, All-Star: 5.33%

3rd round:

200 GP: 22%, 400 GP: 15.8%, 700 GP: 7.33%, All-Star: 4.22%

4th round:

200 GP: 13.8%, 400 GP: 8.2%, 700 GP: 4.2%, All-Star: 2.7%

5th round onwards:

200 GP: 10.4%, 400 GP: 6.8%, 700 GP: 3.5%, All-Star: 1.9%

From this it seems that 1st are literally worth their weight in gold, about a 250% more chance of finding a useful player than a 2nd, and 400% more likely to find a great player.

2nds and 3rds seem closer in value, with 2 3rd round picks definitely worth more than a 2nd.

4th round is further from a 3rd than a 3rd is a 2nd, two 4ths equal a tiny bit more than a 3rd.

5th onwards are actually not worth much less than a 4th, a 5th and a 7th is almost certainly more valuable statistically than a 4th. Also, a 5th, 6th and 7th are worth more than a 3rd, and only slightly less than a 2nd, as there is less chance of a top end player, but those three picks have more chance of a useful NHLer than one 2nd!

Now for a more in depth breakdown of picks in brackets of 5.

1st round

1-5: 200 GP: 93.33%, 400 GP: 89.33%, 700 GP: 76%, All-Star: 48%
6-10: 200 GP: 70.7%, 400 GP: 57.33%, 700 GP: 38.7%, All-Star: 24%
11-15: 200 GP: 57.3%, 400 GP: 50.7%, 700 GP: 38.7%, All-Star: 24%
16-20: 200 GP: 57.3%, 400 GP: 45.3%, 700 GP: 25.3%, All-Star: 14.7%
21-25: 200 GP: 60%, 400 GP: 44%, 700 GP: 29.3%, All-Star: 16%
26-30: 200 GP: 45.3%, 400 GP: 34.7%, 700 GP: 20%, All-Star: 10.7%

2nd round

31-35: 200 GP: 28%, 400 GP: 17.3%, 700 GP: 10.7%, All-Star: 6.7%
36-40: 200 GP: 33.3%, 400 GP: 24%, 700 GP: 13.3%, All-Star: 6.7%
41-45: 200 GP: 28%, 400 GP: 22.7%, 700 GP: 12%, All-Star: 4%
46-50: 200 GP: 28%, 400 GP: 22.7%, 700 GP: 16%, All-Star: 5.3%
51-55: 200 GP: 24%, 400 GP: 14.7%, 700 GP: 9.3%, All-Star: 6.7%
56-60: 200 GP: 24%, 400 GP: 13.3%, 700 GP: 10.7%, All-Star: 2.7%

3rd round

61-65: 200 GP: 25.3%, 400 GP: 18.7%, 700 GP: 10.7%, All-Star: 6.7%
66-70: 200 GP: 20%, 400 GP: 17.3%, 700 GP: 4%, All-Star: 1.3%
71-75: 200 GP: 26.7%, 400 GP: 20%, 700 GP: 9.3%, All-Star: 4%
76-80: 200 GP: 17.3%, 400 GP: 12%, 700 GP: 4%, All-Star: 4%
81-85: 200 GP: 20%, 400 GP: 10.7%, 700 GP: 6.7%, All-Star: 4%
86-90: 200 GP: 22.6%, 400 GP: 16%, 700 GP: 9.3%, All-Sta: 5.3%

4th round

91-95: 200 GP: 20%, 400 GP: 12%, 700 GP: 5.3%, All-Star: 4%
96-100: 200 GP: 16%, 400 GP: 10.6%, 700 GP: 5.3%, All-Star: 2.7%
101-105: 200 GP: 12%, 400 GP: 6.7%, 700 GP: 4%, All-Star: 0%
106-110: 200 GP: 13.3%, 400 GP: 6.7%, 700 GP: 4%, All-Star: 1.3%
111-115: 200 GP: 9.3%, 400 GP: 5.3%, 700 GP: 2.7%, All-Star: 2.7%
116-120: 200 GP: 12%, 400 GP: 8%, 700 GP: 4%, All-Star: 5.3%

Pretty interesting IMO, it shows how well NHL team are spotting and assessing talent, at least in the top 120, as there are very few outliers through the rounds, and a definite trend with the lower in the draft, the less likely picks are going to play in the NHL.

You can almost break it up into brackets where the quality of players drop off (on average)

Top 5: Twice as good as 6-15.
6-15: Pretty equal through these ten, 15 and 6 pretty similar picks.
16-25: As above with 6-15, these are similar quality.
26-30: Better than any second rounder but a cut below other firsts.
30-50: Similar throughout, true 2nd rounders.
51-65: Worse than the '2nd' rounders, but the 1st five of the 3rd are equal to last 10 of 2nd.
66-100: Little statistical difference, these picks, pretty much all the 3rd and the start of 4th, are interchangeable.
101-120: All similar to the 5th round onwards... suggesting after pick 100 it does become a crapshoot, though 100-120 have more chance of hitting gold than after, even if bit part and useful players are similar.

Hope you enjoyed reading!
This needs to be posted on the Main Boards and kept for reference forever. Great to have during drafts and the deadline.

Tripod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 10:15 PM
  #28
Pantokrator
Who's the clown?
 
Pantokrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Semmes, Alabama
Country: Guatemala
Posts: 4,319
vCash: 500
This is good stuff. I was one who always wanted to keep every pick if possible, but I have come to realize (and this thread confirms it) that 2nd round and later picks are often not worth an actual player in the NHL. It also seems to me the the 2nd round is a real crap shoot. When you look back at 2nd rounders who were impact players, it isn't in order - like the data shows here, a player who is a late 2nd rounder has almost the same chance to play the same # of games as an early 2nd rounder. It seems like picking 31st isn't much better than picking 60th.

This also affirms my view of first round picks, that they should only be traded in rare circumstances.

Pantokrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 10:23 PM
  #29
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appleyard View Post
With a few people getting mad at losing a 3rd rounder in the Mason deal, it got me wondering the chance a 3rd rounder actually turned into a serviceable NHL player. Therefore I decided to look into it.

I looked through each draft from 1990-2004, working out the percentages of the 1st to 4th rounds producing players who play 200 games, 400 games, 700 games and All Star players (players who made an allstar team either mid season or end of season awards.) 4059 players overall went into the analysis.

I chose these as cut off as 200-399 seems right for a useful 4th liner or 3rd pair D who has a 3-7 year career. 400-699 is a player who generally made a decent impact on the league, playing 5-10 years and in some cases being well known, usually 2nd-3rd liners and 2nd pair or stay home D men. 700+ are generally some of the best at what they do in the NHL, 10+ years and well regarded round the league. All-star speaks for itself.

I also looked at the later rounds, though only as a whole, as after about pick 120 it is just pot luck seemingly.

I went further in depth on the top 120 picks, dividing them into brackets of 5 to see whether an early 3rd, for example, is worth much more than a late 3rd, or is it even equal to a late 2nd.

Here are the more general results:

1st round:

200 GP: 64%, 400 GP: 53.6%, 700 GP: 38%, All-Star: 22.9%

2nd round:

200 GP: 28%, 400 GP: 19%, 700 GP: 12%, All-Star: 5.33%

3rd round:

200 GP: 22%, 400 GP: 15.8%, 700 GP: 7.33%, All-Star: 4.22%

4th round:

200 GP: 13.8%, 400 GP: 8.2%, 700 GP: 4.2%, All-Star: 2.7%

5th round onwards:

200 GP: 10.4%, 400 GP: 6.8%, 700 GP: 3.5%, All-Star: 1.9%

From this it seems that 1st are literally worth their weight in gold, about a 250% more chance of finding a useful player than a 2nd, and 400% more likely to find a great player.

2nds and 3rds seem closer in value, with 2 3rd round picks definitely worth more than a 2nd.

4th round is further from a 3rd than a 3rd is a 2nd, two 4ths equal a tiny bit more than a 3rd.

5th onwards are actually not worth much less than a 4th, a 5th and a 7th is almost certainly more valuable statistically than a 4th. Also, a 5th, 6th and 7th are worth more than a 3rd, and only slightly less than a 2nd, as there is less chance of a top end player, but those three picks have more chance of a useful NHLer than one 2nd!

Now for a more in depth breakdown of picks in brackets of 5.

1st round

1-5: 200 GP: 93.33%, 400 GP: 89.33%, 700 GP: 76%, All-Star: 48%
6-10: 200 GP: 70.7%, 400 GP: 57.33%, 700 GP: 38.7%, All-Star: 24%
11-15: 200 GP: 57.3%, 400 GP: 50.7%, 700 GP: 38.7%, All-Star: 24%
16-20: 200 GP: 57.3%, 400 GP: 45.3%, 700 GP: 25.3%, All-Star: 14.7%
21-25: 200 GP: 60%, 400 GP: 44%, 700 GP: 29.3%, All-Star: 16%
26-30: 200 GP: 45.3%, 400 GP: 34.7%, 700 GP: 20%, All-Star: 10.7%

2nd round

31-35: 200 GP: 28%, 400 GP: 17.3%, 700 GP: 10.7%, All-Star: 6.7%
36-40: 200 GP: 33.3%, 400 GP: 24%, 700 GP: 13.3%, All-Star: 6.7%
41-45: 200 GP: 28%, 400 GP: 22.7%, 700 GP: 12%, All-Star: 4%
46-50: 200 GP: 28%, 400 GP: 22.7%, 700 GP: 16%, All-Star: 5.3%
51-55: 200 GP: 24%, 400 GP: 14.7%, 700 GP: 9.3%, All-Star: 6.7%
56-60: 200 GP: 24%, 400 GP: 13.3%, 700 GP: 10.7%, All-Star: 2.7%

3rd round

61-65: 200 GP: 25.3%, 400 GP: 18.7%, 700 GP: 10.7%, All-Star: 6.7%
66-70: 200 GP: 20%, 400 GP: 17.3%, 700 GP: 4%, All-Star: 1.3%
71-75: 200 GP: 26.7%, 400 GP: 20%, 700 GP: 9.3%, All-Star: 4%
76-80: 200 GP: 17.3%, 400 GP: 12%, 700 GP: 4%, All-Star: 4%
81-85: 200 GP: 20%, 400 GP: 10.7%, 700 GP: 6.7%, All-Star: 4%
86-90: 200 GP: 22.6%, 400 GP: 16%, 700 GP: 9.3%, All-Sta: 5.3%

4th round

91-95: 200 GP: 20%, 400 GP: 12%, 700 GP: 5.3%, All-Star: 4%
96-100: 200 GP: 16%, 400 GP: 10.6%, 700 GP: 5.3%, All-Star: 2.7%
101-105: 200 GP: 12%, 400 GP: 6.7%, 700 GP: 4%, All-Star: 0%
106-110: 200 GP: 13.3%, 400 GP: 6.7%, 700 GP: 4%, All-Star: 1.3%
111-115: 200 GP: 9.3%, 400 GP: 5.3%, 700 GP: 2.7%, All-Star: 2.7%
116-120: 200 GP: 12%, 400 GP: 8%, 700 GP: 4%, All-Star: 5.3%

Pretty interesting IMO, it shows how well NHL team are spotting and assessing talent, at least in the top 120, as there are very few outliers through the rounds, and a definite trend with the lower in the draft, the less likely picks are going to play in the NHL.

You can almost break it up into brackets where the quality of players drop off (on average)

Top 5: Twice as good as 6-15.
6-15: Pretty equal through these ten, 15 and 6 pretty similar picks.
16-25: As above with 6-15, these are similar quality.
26-30: Better than any second rounder but a cut below other firsts.
30-50: Similar throughout, true 2nd rounders.
51-65: Worse than the '2nd' rounders, but the 1st five of the 3rd are equal to last 10 of 2nd.
66-100: Little statistical difference, these picks, pretty much all the 3rd and the start of 4th, are interchangeable.
101-120: All similar to the 5th round onwards... suggesting after pick 100 it does become a crapshoot, though 100-120 have more chance of hitting gold than after, even if bit part and useful players are similar.

Hope you enjoyed reading!
Thanks for your diligent work. Now you should go outside and meet some people, and maybe get some sunshine.

I see picks like Schrodinger saw his cat: all possibilities united at the same point in time. Each pick could be a forward, defenseman, or goaltender, a future HoF or a bust. There are just too many variables to limit by mere numbers.

Can you tell I'm actively avoiding completing the meeting summary I need to finish for my boss by noon tomorrow?

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 01:05 AM
  #30
Dirty but Good
but mostly dirty
 
Dirty but Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Country: United States
Posts: 1,131
vCash: 500
Very nice post! I've always been interested in the value of draft picks.

I think with the salary cap draft picks have gone up in value because of the potential to save millions of dollars on a free agent by using a player on an entry level contract.

Also draft picks are kind of like a form of currency for NHL teams. If a team stockpiles enough of they have a lot of flexibility to help trade for a player at the deadline or get a few extra prospects into the system in the summer.

Dirty but Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 02:01 AM
  #31
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,407
vCash: 50
good work OP. Puts things into perspective with draft picks.
i will probably still stick to my guns on how I feel about dealing draft picks for certain players. Sometimes it is worth it(See Grossman) other times it is not (See Kubina)
Sure some deals are bad in hindsight. I don't think the Kubina deal qualifies as "in hindsight" That was just terrible asset management by Holmgren. Not on the level of the Eminger deal tho. That was on a whole new level of bad.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 06:05 AM
  #32
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,516
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
good work OP. Puts things into perspective with draft picks.
i will probably still stick to my guns on how I feel about dealing draft picks for certain players. Sometimes it is worth it(See Grossman) other times it is not (See Kubina)
Sure some deals are bad in hindsight. I don't think the Kubina deal qualifies as "in hindsight" That was just terrible asset management by Holmgren. Not on the level of the Eminger deal tho. That was on a whole new level of bad.
How can you call the Kubina deal "terrible" even without hindsight? The Flyers were in the midst of a Cup Run and in a pretty bad need for a player that had Pavel Kubina's skill set. They traded a 2nd and a 4th rounder. What is terrible about it (without hindsight)? Kubina wasn't the player he used to be, but he was still a player that could fill a role the Flyers needed filled. You don't think it was ok to risk missing out on that 28% and 13% chance of a serviceable player to get a guy that probably had AT LEAST that percent chance to fill a role the team needed for a Stanley Cup run?

With hindsight, I agree, the trade sucked. He was not good here. But without hindsight, I don't see the issue with the trade. Was it an overpayment? Maybe a little. (maybe a third and a fourth? just a second?) But again I'd sacrifice a miniscule chance at a serviceable future NHL player for a miniscule chance to improve my chances at the Cup in most circumstances.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 07:19 AM
  #33
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
How can you call the Kubina deal "terrible" even without hindsight? The Flyers were in the midst of a Cup Run and in a pretty bad need for a player that had Pavel Kubina's skill set. They traded a 2nd and a 4th rounder. What is terrible about it (without hindsight)? Kubina wasn't the player he used to be, but he was still a player that could fill a role the Flyers needed filled. You don't think it was ok to risk missing out on that 28% and 13% chance of a serviceable player to get a guy that probably had AT LEAST that percent chance to fill a role the team needed for a Stanley Cup run?

With hindsight, I agree, the trade sucked. He was not good here. But without hindsight, I don't see the issue with the trade. Was it an overpayment? Maybe a little. (maybe a third and a fourth? just a second?) But again I'd sacrifice a miniscule chance at a serviceable future NHL player for a miniscule chance to improve my chances at the Cup in most circumstances.
He had sucked for over a season before he got here. We traded for someone that sucked, and then.. shockingly... continued to suck. He also only played like 20 games. Even if the picks have a slim chance of playing more than 200 games in the NHL, you can't trade them for players like Kubina.

Grossmann was fine, Mez was fine, Versteeg would have been fine if he wasn't battling injuries, but you don't have to just aimlessly trade away picks for a rental that's nothing more than a warm body.

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 10:03 AM
  #34
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,516
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
He had sucked for over a season before he got here. We traded for someone that sucked, and then.. shockingly... continued to suck. He also only played like 20 games. Even if the picks have a slim chance of playing more than 200 games in the NHL, you can't trade them for players like Kubina.

Grossmann was fine, Mez was fine, Versteeg would have been fine if he wasn't battling injuries, but you don't have to just aimlessly trade away picks for a rental that's nothing more than a warm body.
He had a down year. At the deadline every single year players who are underperforming are traded. Sometimes they continue to underperform, other times they don't. That is certainly a risk (trading for a player coming off or during a down year), but again, it is AT LEAST as "risky" to hold on to that second and fourth and home one of them ever even makes the NHL for any regular playing time.

EDIT: For instance...Ryane Clowe to NYR. Granted he has only played one game, but the Rangers gave up more for him than the Flyers did for Kubina. Clowe had a bad year last year and was having an even worse year this year. The Rangers believed (and I would agree) that there was more of a chance that he would rebound than those picks would turn out to help the team down the road.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 03:55 PM
  #35
Leaf Rocket
Leaf Fan Till I Die
 
Leaf Rocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: India
Posts: 70,627
vCash: 500
This is a pretty awesome work. Great job buddy!

__________________
Leaf Rocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 03:57 PM
  #36
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,663
vCash: 3075
I noticed that either the 21-25 or 26-30 picks in almost every round you posted (except the first) have a higher chance to become an all-star than picks drafted earlier than them (except the first five) in each round. Could this be because they are drafted by a team that made it deep in the playoffs?

__________________
Kane One is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 04:35 PM
  #37
PALE PWNR
Registered User
 
PALE PWNR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,034
vCash: 1050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker McDonald View Post
I noticed that either the 21-25 or 26-30 picks in almost every round you posted (except the first) have a higher chance to become an all-star than picks drafted earlier than them (except the first five) in each round. Could this be because they are drafted by a team that made it deep in the playoffs?
I think thats partially the answer, I think in general teams that are picking later in the draft have a good team, they aren't neccesarily looking at their rosters and saying this is what we need and taking safe picks. Drafting in the later rounds means more boom or bust prospects. If they bust well your a playoff team already without them, if they boom then you look like a genius. Whereas a non playoff team the GM may not keep his job in a similair position if a prospect busts.

PALE PWNR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 04:40 PM
  #38
mantis toboggan
Registered User
 
mantis toboggan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
Starting to sound a bit repetitive here but great job OP. you should post this on the main boards I feel like everyone needs to see this

mantis toboggan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2013, 04:50 PM
  #39
Appleyard
Registered User
 
Appleyard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manc/Shef/Utrecht
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 5,637
vCash: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogenIsTheMan View Post
Starting to sound a bit repetitive here but great job OP. you should post this on the main boards I feel like everyone needs to see this
I'm going to post it is the numbers section, but maybe going to do one just on Goaltenders due to how interesting that breakdown would be, then post them at the same time.

Appleyard 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 10:00 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.