HFBoards The Draft: Did we focus TOO much on defense?
 Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
 Notices Please do not post or solicit links to illegal game streams.

# The Draft: Did we focus TOO much on defense?

 05-28-2013, 07:13 PM #26 Greg02 Registered User     Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,129 vCash: 500 I found a proposed NHL draft pick value guide and am currently tallying it up (with approximated values when the pick number falls below 210). Not sure how good the proposed chart is, but it's just some more data to consider.
05-28-2013, 07:35 PM
#27
Greg02
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,129
vCash: 500
 Position Points F 7379 D 3509 G 1038

Assuming the point values are accurate, that's a surprising result.

 05-28-2013, 08:22 PM #28 Lundsanity30 Registered User     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 12,320 vCash: 500 yes, no question
 05-28-2013, 08:31 PM #29 Mr Atoz*   Join Date: Apr 2010 Country: Posts: 2,915 vCash: 500 The problem isn't the position. It's the quality. Getting Lunqvist in the 7th round was probably the best draft pick in Ranger history. On the other hand, the Rangers knew about Lunqvist and gambled no one else did. So if someone else had picked him in the 6th round it would have been the biggest Ranger disaster in draft history. Even if we didn't know about it. Who now wouldn't pick Lunqvist first overall knowing what you know about him?
05-28-2013, 08:53 PM
#30
Richter Scale
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg02
 Position Points F 7379 D 3509 G 1038

Assuming the point values are accurate, that's a surprising result.
Interesting, thanks for doing that!

So for 51 forward picks, divided into 7379, avg pick pts for forwards = ~144.7

20 defensemen picks, divided into 3509, avg pick pts for dmen = ~175.5

Actually, I don't think that's all that surprising at all. Just the general sense I got from looking at the picks in one sitting is that a lot of the d picks that were made from 2003-2012 were either relatively early in the draft or fairly late -- with not so many mid-rounders. Whereas a lot of the forward picks that were made were lumped in the middle rounds and skewed earlier rather than later. If that has been the case, then you're going to get similar avg pts. And since you have more overall forward positions to fill on a roster, you're going to have more overall forward points.

On first glance those #s would seemingly support that the overall drafting strategy has not actually been ignoring forwards at the expense of d-men; but certainly that the picks for d-men tended to be earlier.

Another thing to note, though is -- I'm assuming you lumped all the forwards together? If you wanted to get a # that may be more applicable to what Crease is talking about, looking at the avg pts for center picks vs. d-men picks might yield something a bit different.

--

The last thing to point out is this: I took a quick look at the paper you linked (from which you got the relative point values for draft picks). I didn't read it thoroughly; so apologies if I'm missing something in his methodology that would render this meaningless... But I'm not sure the sample years from which the author chose to use to assign values are very representative of how drafts shake out today; and they probably over value later round draft picks.

The draft years he used to assign relative values were 1988 to 1997. The mid 1980s to the early 1990s, were some of the first draft years in which Soviet players were drafted who ultimately played in the NHL. Due to the cold war, it just wasn't realistic for teams to expect to draft a Soviet player and have them one day play in the NHL. Soviet players who wanted to play in the NHL at that time, had to defect in order to do so - and the first Soviet defections happened in the late 1980s. Combine this with the scouting of soviet players being relatively poor, and many teams not wanting to take the risk of using early draft picks on these players only to have them be unable to play in the NHL... and you got a lot of damn good hockey players being drafted in much later rounds than they would have been otherwise.

I haven't gone through and done a very thorough analysis/look, but on a few quick looks at some of the draft years in and outside of his sample, there seemed to be significantly more late round gems in those years (primarily Soviets) than in the draft years from the late 90s to today.

Last edited by Richter Scale: 05-28-2013 at 08:59 PM.

 05-28-2013, 09:24 PM #31 Greg02 Registered User     Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,129 vCash: 500 That's a great point with regards to the years selected for in the study. I think that a lot of forward points are also coming from things like the four second round picks that we had in 2004.
 05-28-2013, 09:33 PM #32 Leetch3 Registered User   Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 4,339 vCash: 500 i don't think we focused too much on defense. i think we focused too much on crappy players that after all the bs hype turned out to be trash. of those dmen listed only staal and del zotto are nhlers at the moment...and those are the only 2 guys in the nhl on the blueline that we drafted. people act like we've got all this depth and talent on the blueline cause we used all these 1st round picks on dmen when reality mcdonagh and girardi, 2 guys we didn't draft, need to play 30:00/game cause we can't even construct a 3rd pair. and i know hindsight is 20/20 but this wouldn't even be a topic if we had drafted guys like weber, letang, green, etc on the blueline (ie guys that are actually good) with our defensive picks. or forwards that were actually good with our forward picks
 05-28-2013, 09:42 PM #33 pld459666 Registered User     Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Danbury, CT Country: Posts: 19,008 vCash: 500 I don't think that we have done a good enough job drafting offensively talented players. No matter who we have taken, there's always been a player that we passed on that was more gifted offensively. We hear the word "character" to describe a lot of our draft picks and while that's nice, offensive talent wins. It's nice to have character in the line up, but if you are placing to much of an emphasis on that and you pass on the talented players, you are going to have issues. Cherry would have been nice, but that is the last truly talented player we took and that was a no brainer.
 05-28-2013, 11:25 PM #34 theJUMPER Registered User   Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 913 vCash: 500 Yes. 100% mistake. The skillset between D-men in this league isn't as vast as forwards. Thank God Stepan played the way he did this season. He's the only forward this team has drafted that can be relied on to deliver offensively. IMO.
 05-29-2013, 07:54 AM #35 HockeyBasedNYC Back-checking Center     Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Here Country: Posts: 13,491 vCash: 500 If Cherepanov panned out, that list looks a hell of a lot better. We could have had our own Malkin. I was upset with the McIlrath pick. Thought that wasn't a smart move and nothings changed since. The Rangers need speed. All of the ice at all positions. With MCDonagh, Skjei and Moore they have a nice amount on defense. They need more on the wings. Fast, Kreider and Hagelin and a few others have it - but they need even more. Watching the games in the West, it makes the Rangers look several steps too slow.
 05-29-2013, 08:24 PM #36 JayQueensNY88*   Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 1,185 vCash: 500 Defense wins championships. They as in Sather and co are building from the back end out. Right move.
05-29-2013, 08:26 PM
#37
JayQueensNY88*

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC If Cherepanov panned out, that list looks a hell of a lot better. We could have had our own Malkin. I was upset with the McIlrath pick. Thought that wasn't a smart move and nothings changed since. The Rangers need speed. All of the ice at all positions. With MCDonagh, Skjei and Moore they have a nice amount on defense. They need more on the wings. Fast, Kreider and Hagelin and a few others have it - but they need even more. Watching the games in the West, it makes the Rangers look several steps too slow.
Yup,I was very n suck with tha pick as well. Don't know where it's still going. If all works out and Mcailrath excels,this could be a huge move. But it can also be a waste of a 10 overall pick. IMO,if he don't payout to be a top 3 d man,pick was a waste. Even a #4 is acceptable

 05-30-2013, 09:15 AM #38 Hockeyplayer99 Registered User   Join Date: Jul 2005 Country: Posts: 448 vCash: 500 You can't think of it that way if we had Cherapanov we would have a great top 6. Stepan wouldn't have ever been drafted by us, Nash prob wouldn't be here, who knows about Kreider if we would of had him, you can't look back and say if Chery didn't pass this is our top 6, we would of drafted differently in the following years.
05-30-2013, 09:37 AM
#39
Matt4776
Registered User

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,277
vCash: 143
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Hockeyplayer99 You can't think of it that way if we had Cherapanov we would have a great top 6. Stepan wouldn't have ever been drafted by us, Nash prob wouldn't be here, who knows about Kreider if we would of had him, you can't look back and say if Chery didn't pass this is our top 6, we would of drafted differently in the following years.
???

Cherry died (RIP) after we drafted Stepan. Kreider was just about 7 months later. I doubt we wouldn't of drafted Kreider.

McIlrath would've also been drafted most likely. Cherepanov wouldn't of helped our problem of clearing the crease.

I guess you can debate JT Miller, but he doesn't factor into our top-6 this year anyway.

We also probably sign Gabby, as he was only 7 months after. Cherry would've never played an NHL shift at that point. I doubt Glen gambles on Cherry as being the savior to our offense.

I will give you that we probably don't trade for Nash.

Hagelin-Richards-Gaborik
Kreider-Stepan-Cherepanov
Dubinsky-Arty-Callahan
Feds-Boyle-Prust

would've been a hell of a lineup for the POs last year.

Last edited by Matt4776: 05-30-2013 at 09:45 AM.

 05-30-2013, 12:21 PM #40 NYR Sting Heart and Soul     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Brooklyn, NY Country: Posts: 9,507 vCash: 500 Yes, there wasn't enough of a focus on the center ice position, but the biggest problem is the attributes that they were drafting for. Instead of drafting highly skilled, talented, and intelligent, mentally developed players, they focus on drafting raw physical specimens that are essentially huge projects. That's how you get into a situation where, maybe by the time Henrik Lundqvist is 34 years old, Kreider and McIlrath will become viable players on this team (and by viable, I DON"T mean anywhere near as good as the hype machine from the organization would have had you believe - I mean role players). McIlrath instead of Tarasenko, as I have said many times, will go down as an enormous blunder. One of the bigger mistakes this franchise has made over the last 10-15 years, and they've made so, so many.

Forum Jump

 Bookmarks