2013 ENTRY DRAFT POST 2: ARE THE OILERS GUILTY OF TOO MUCH ‘WALKABOUT’?

I’d like to spend a little time talking about the Oilers inside the ‘top 100′ selections for each season. I think we can agree that NHL scouts as a group are so good that most of the good to great players are off the board by the end of round three (or about #100). I hope we can also agree that the MacGregor group has done some good work outside the top 100 (Hartikainen, Rajala, Rieder, Gernat) and that anything you get beyond the century should be considered a bonus asset.

During the MBS draft era, I have argued the club has been mostly risk averse in the top 100. Here, allow me to show you using Bob McKenzie’s final list (the gold standard for final slotting of prospects in their draft year):

  • 2008-Jordan Eberle selected #22 overall, ranked #29
  • 2009-Magnus Paajarvi selected #10 overall, ranked #10
  • 2009-Anton Lander selected #40 overall, ranked HM (BM list went to 60, then 25 Honorable mentions)
  • 2009-Troy Hesketh selected #71 overall, unranked
  • 2009-Cameron Abney selected #82 overall, unranked
  • 2009-Kyle Bigos selected #99 overall, unranked
  • 2010-Taylor Hall selected #1, ranked #1
  • 2010-Tyler Pitlick selected #31, ranked #25
  • 2010-Martin Marincin selected #46, ranked #71
  • 2010-Curtis Hamilton selected #48, ranked #57
  • 2010-Ryan Martindale selected #61, ranked #58
  • 2010-Jeremie Blain selected #91, not ranked
  • 2011-Ryan Nugent Hopkins selected #1, ranked #1
  • 2011-Oscar Klefbom selected #19, ranked #21
  • 2011-David Musil selected #31, ranked #41
  • 2011-Samu Perhonen selected #62, ranked #51
  • 2011-Travis Ewanyk selected #74, ranked HM  (BM list went to 60, then 25 Honorable mentions)
  • 2011-Dillon Simpson selected #92, ranked HM (BM list went to 60, then 25 Honorable mentions)
  • 2012-Nail Yakupov selected #1, ranked #1
  • 2012-Mitchell Moroz selected #32, ranked #56
  • 2012-Jujhar Khaira selected #63, not ranked
  • 2012-Daniil Zharkov selected #91, ranked #47

Okay, let’s get back to my argument–the Oilers in the top 100 are mostly risk averse and do not go walkabout often. I’m going to create a ‘line in the sand’ of 15 spots–about one half a round–and suggest that a team picking in a slot would reasonably have a ‘window of talent’ that includes all players ranked above their number and still available, along with 15 names beyond that number. So, when the Oilers chose Martin Marincni #56, he was inside the ‘reasonable’ marker (#71) for that selection. Fair? Let me know if you don’t agree and I’ll adjust because we’re going to need that number when we move forward with other teams during these years (more on that later).

With that established, here are the ‘walkabout’ selections by the Oilers 2008-2012 inside the top 100:

  • 2009-Anton Lander selected #40 overall, ranked HM (BM list went to 60, then 25 Honorable mentions)
  • 2009-Troy Hesketh selected #71 overall, unranked
  • 2009-Cameron Abney selected #82 overall, unranked
  • 2009-Kyle Bigos selected #99 overall, unranked
  • 2010-Martin Marincin selected #46, ranked #71
  • 2010-Jeremie Blain selected #91, not ranked
  • 2012-Mitchell Moroz selected #32, ranked #56
  • 2012-Jujhar Khaira selected #63, not ranked

So, in 22 selections, 8 have been outside the perimeter I established above. 36.36% of the selections are beyond the outer marker. Let’s look at how well each is doing:

  • Lander is “in the range” as a prospect, although his NHL times has been uneven. There are some positives–his PK work in the NHL was solid–and he seemed to recover some of his offense before injury. There are up and down arrows with this player, imo too soon to make the call.
  • Hesketh was an absolute miss. It should be mentioned that the McKenzie list totals only 85 players, but I don’t think Hesketh would have been on a top 120.
  • Abney is in pro hockey, but hasn’t progressed as an enforcer/nucler deterrent.
  • Bigos wasn’t signed, an indication they don’t believe he’s worth of a spot on the 50 man list. I’m not entirely comfortable including him on the list (he was drafted 99th) but as long as we’re consistent it should even out.
  • Marincin is clearly on track as a prospect, and a strong argument for reaching.
  • Blain is somewhat similar to Bigos, I’m not certain he really fits the conversation.
  • Moroz is the lightning rod selection for this look-see we’re having.
  • Khaira should also be a lightning rod for this look-see, but he’s been more successful. Will he join Marincin as a guy who outkicks his coverage?

I’ve decided to do a ‘walkabout’ list for one other team. I’m thinking Chicago but maybe Los Angeles, but have decided to let you decide. Please let me know and we’ll reach a consensus in the comments section.

(photo by Rob Ferguson, all rights reserved)

written by

The author didn‘t add any Information to his profile yet.
Related Posts

128 Responses to "2013 ENTRY DRAFT POST 2: ARE THE OILERS GUILTY OF TOO MUCH ‘WALKABOUT’?"

  1. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Of note this morn:

    https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/status/340830509804445696

    Leafs grant Dallas Stars permission to speak with Marlies coach, Dallas Eakins about coaching job. Van,Edmtn,NYR, Dal interested in Eakins.

    https://twitter.com/Aportzline/status/340823660531179520

    Finnish G Antti Raanta has agreed to terms with an #NHL club, but it’s not the #CBJ. Though #CBJ did have talks with him. @GibbyCBJ

  2. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    In Button’s mockdraft on the TSN Combine special he has Fucale going at the 9 spot to NJD and the big Russian at 8 going to BUF and he has EDM picking up Nurse at 7.

  3. jonrmcleod says:

    Antti Raanta ‏@AnttiRaanta 22h
    I’ve made my decision! #future #nytmökkeillään

  4. Mr DeBakey says:

    2009
    Yikes
    Somebody spiked the brownies that day.

    Regarding your experiment, one east, one west, choose the teams with the most picks.

  5. Rondo says:

    Romulus Apotheosis,

    This Bob Mackenzie’s list

    1SJ
    2NM
    3JD
    4AB
    5VN
    6EL
    7SM
    8Rasmus Ristolainen

    This is Button’s list
    1SJ
    2NM
    3JD
    4AB
    5SM
    6EL
    7DN
    8VN

  6. SoxandOil says:

    Lt, I feel LA has been killing it the last few years in regards to drafting, they have a deep talented farm system.

    As for Raanta watch, hopefully MacT had Kurri make a phone call. This is where the old boys club has paid off.

  7. vishcosity says:

    While the results of your 15 point line does seem effective, my mind says your results would be more proper if it was relative to draft number, ie 20%. Although that makes top picks pretty fragile, and I don’t know which system seems better really.

    20 minutes ago Josh Green was nterviewed on ESPN. I didn’t see any footage of the ice.

    And while I was typing that, they reported that Gretz and Mess are each vying for Tort’s job. With video footage and everything.

  8. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    “I’m going to create a ‘line in the sand’ of 15 spots–about one half a round–and suggest that a team picking in a slot would reasonably have a ‘window of talent’ that includes all players ranked above their number and still available, along with 15 names beyond that number. So, when the Oilers chose Martin Marincni #56, he was inside the ‘reasonable’ marker (#71) for that selection. Fair?”

    I think you should probably weight this line in the sand at a couple of points along the top 100.

    Presumably there is a big difference in the dispersal of talent across the 100, with the top 15 being more tightly clustered than the next and so on.

    Your lines in the sand might instead go something like:

    1. 3 spots
    2. 5 spots
    3. 7 spots
    4. 10 spots
    5. 10 spots
    6. 10 spots
    7. 10 spots
    (that gets you through round 1 and most of round 2)

    then maybe you use 15 spots as the marker through the final 45 spots up to the top 100

    8. 15 spots
    9. 15 spots
    10. 15 spots

    Maybe you come of with a different dispersion model, but I think something with a bit more nuance would be a better reflection of what counts as a “walkabout” at various points in the top 100.

  9. Lowetide says:

    Rom: So if I understand you, you’re saying:

    #1 pick-3 slots
    #2-6-5 slots
    #6-15-7 slots
    #16-44-10 slots
    #45-60-15 slots
    #60-+-18 slots

    That kind of thing?

  10. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Rondo:
    Romulus Apotheosis,

    This Bob Mackenzie’s list

    1SJ
    2NM
    3JD
    4AB
    5VN
    6EL
    7SM
    8Rasmus Ristolainen

    This is Button’s list
    1SJ
    2NM
    3JD
    4AB
    5SM
    6EL
    7DN
    8VN

    Unfortunately TSN doesn’t have a page up with Button’s mockdraft (that I could find… they have an old one that is out of date), you have to watch the vid. Thanks for posting the list.

    Button’s list is interesting because he is trying to gauge what will actually happen, rather than simply what he feels the best players are… and there are some real surprises.

    FWIW I don’t put a great deal of stock in his projections, but it is surprising to see

    1. he really seems to take the Russian Factor to heart have VN so low
    2. he has Fucale up way higher than anyone has a right to expect, that would be a huge walkabout IMO
    3. he seems to think the centers will all be gone by 7 and that the Oil want Nurse over Zadarov (if they pick and pick a D). Which is weird because did Stauffer say the Oil were interested in Zadarov? (maybe Button missed the rumor, or more likely simply prefers Nurse himself).

  11. BlacqueJacque says:

    I think if Nichushkin slips to Edmonton, we have to pick him. Too much talent and size to pass up. Plus, we already have a Russian on the team to help him come along.

  12. Lowetide says:

    IF Button’s list is true, Oilers trade out of there. I don’t think they like the Russian blue SO much theyll pass on dealing down, getting Lazar and another pick in the top 60.

  13. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Lowetide:
    Rom: So if I understand you, you’re saying:

    #1 pick-3 slots
    #2-6-5 slots
    #6-15-7 slots
    #16-44-10 slots
    #45-60-15 slots
    #60-+-18 slots

    That kind of thing?

    I’m no math genius so I’d have to stare at this for a while (numbers give me a headache), but I think more like:

    #1-3 picks = variance of 3 spots
    #4-8 picks = variance of 5 spots
    #9-15 picks = variance of 7 spots
    #16-25 picks = variance of 10
    #26-35 = variance of 10
    #36-45 = variance of 10
    #46-55 = variance of 10
    #56-70 = variance of 15
    #71-85 = variance of 15
    #86-100 = variance of 15

    So “walkabout” would be weighed by where you are.

    If you pick in the top 3, but pick outside BM’s top 3… that is a walkabout (ie., instead of having a 15 spot leeway)

    And if pick at say 37 your leeway on BM’s list is 10 spots

    or something.

  14. vishcosity says:

    Yeah Rom. To me that seems better than anything I was talking about.

  15. VOR says:

    I am starting to wonder if this is 1990 all over again. The claim of a very depp draft, a supposed big drop off in talent after #4, players bouncing around the rankings (Gauthier, Rychel – plunging for example).

    Scouts weren’t wrong the four guys take 1 through 4 could all play hockey. The problem was the guy at five, well if he ever retires he will go straight into the Hall of Fame, Jaromir Jagr. LA was picking 7 that year. The best players left were all defensemen. They didn’t really want D but they picked one anyway, kid named Daryl Sydor. I seem to remember he could play hockey. New Jersey went walk about and took this kid for the St. Hyacinthe Lasers, a goalie with a 4.01 GAA. Turned out he could play as well. Of course so could the kid from Lutsk, Ukraine taken at 156OV, Petr Bondra. But my personal favorite for walkabout stories was the college kid from Lake Superior State. He wasn’t on anybody’s list but Dougie Weight should have gone in the top four or five.

    In other words I wouldn’t be trying to trade up. In both 1990 and 2003 the guys at the top were good to great players all right but there was an awful lot of talent left after they were taken. I don’t know about you but if we were lucky enough to draft at D at #7 who is as good as Sydor I wouldn’t think we’d done badly. Or maybe the 2003 version, kid name Ryan Suter.

  16. Lowetide says:

    So that would make the Oilers list of ‘reaches’:

    2009-Anton Lander selected #40 overall, ranked HM (BM list went to 60, then 25 Honorable mentions)
    2009-Troy Hesketh selected #71 overall, unranked
    2009-Cameron Abney selected #82 overall, unranked
    2009-Kyle Bigos selected #99 overall, unranked
    2010-Jeremie Blain selected #91, not ranked
    2012-Mitchell Moroz selected #32, ranked #56
    2012-Jujhar Khaira selected #63, not ranked

    Same 7 guys. :-) I will use this for the LA/CHI/other study though, I like it better.

  17. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Lowetide:
    So that would make the Oilers list of ‘reaches’:

    2009-Anton Lander selected #40 overall, ranked HM (BM list went to 60, then 25 Honorable mentions) 2009-Troy Hesketh selected #71 overall, unranked 2009-Cameron Abney selected #82 overall, unranked 2009-Kyle Bigos selected #99 overall, unranked 2010-Jeremie Blain selected #91, not ranked 2012-Mitchell Moroz selected #32, ranked #56 2012-Jujhar Khaira selected #63, not ranked

    Same 7 guys. I will use this for the LA/CHI/other study though, I like it better.

    Ha!

    That probably reflects how rare and crazy it is to reach in the top 10-15 picks, such that a more nuanced system is kind of unnecessary…

    I also forgot that BM’s list ends at 60 and the fact that he offers an unranked list of 25 HMs is probably a good indication that the distribution of talent really starts to hit chaos by the 3rd round.

    also, cool :)

    happy to try and contribute.

  18. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    VOR: I am starting to wonder if this is 1990 all over again. The claim of a very depp draft, a supposed big drop off in talent after #4, players bouncing around the rankings (Gauthier, Rychel – plunging for example).

    On the interesting scattering of talent, BM did a bit on Pulock in the TSN special and noted he had scouts everywhere from top 15 to late 2nd round… that is a pretty wide distribution.

  19. unca miltie says:

    LT, congrats on the new radio show. You are a media mogul. Blogger on at least two sites and now back on the air. Busy lad.

    My vote for a team to look at would also be the Kings They had a lot of picks after Lombardi took over, and have a reputation of doing a good job. Winning the cup seems to do that for a team. Like Detroit, they have had their first rounds misses too.

  20. Rondo says:

    Romulus Apotheosis,

    Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Bob Mackenzie’s list a list that comes from GM’s and scouts.

    Button’s list is what he thinks, which has never been that accurate.

    This year seems like there is a almost definite top 7 unlike last year.

    Maybe there will be a Forsberg moment.

  21. Rondo says:

    Sounds like MacT thinks a D-man maybe drafted before #7.

    “It’s going to be a very strategic draft in that regard. There are teams ahead of us that are more inclined to draft a defenseman and there may be more of those that you’d be very happy with on the 7th, 8th or 9th pick, so there might be a fit there. Those are definitely discussions that we’re having that we’re looking to improve our team by.”

  22. PerryK says:

    I would vote for a closer look at LA. If you are going to do an Eastern Team, I would consider New Jersey.

  23. Lowetide says:

    Okay, I’ll do LA 2008-12 and compare, should have it up tomorrow morning.

  24. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Rondo:
    Romulus Apotheosis,

    Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Bob Mackenzie’s list a list that comes from GM’s and scouts.

    Button’s list is what he thinks, which has never been that accurate.

    This year seems like there is a almost definite top 7 unlike last year.

    Maybe there will be a Forsbergmoment.

    Yea, that’s right. (did I say otherwise?)

    BM: (I don’t know about GMs though) makes a kind of poll of polls (think Nate Silver) of the scouts he interviews and puts no consideration into team need, etc. just BPA

    CB: it’s his own list and he tries to cobble it based in part on who various teams are likely to pick, i.e., he considers team need.

    I’m hoping you are right about the Forsbergmoment….

    the wild cards this year will probably be where the Russian ends up and how high the collection of D after Jones go.

  25. Chris Hext---formerly EasyOil--- says:

    LT: correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Marincin selected 46th overall, just before Hamilton, making him a walkabout pick by your standards? Don’t want to be a petty party pooper but, y’know, I am!

  26. delooper says:

    Do any of you have a plot of “average number of NHL games played in a career” vs “draft order” plot? That would go a long way towards telling you how much you should feel comfortable picking away from normal in any draft year.

  27. Lowetide says:

    Chris Hext—formerly EasyOil—:
    LT: correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Marincin selected 46th overall, just before Hamilton, making him a walkabout pick by your standards?Don’t want to be a petty party pooper but, y’know, I am!

    Ack! You’re right! Dammit dammit dammit. Will change and adjust numbers in post.

  28. geowal says:

    As a team that has been in the “perennial rebuild” category a while, somewhat like the Oilers, I think the Islanders would be a really good comparison. They are showing signs of emerging from the cellar (one playoff appearance is just a tease at this point), so would be interesting to see how well they did at the draft table.

    They’ve had a ton of picks, some famous ones but maybe a lot of duds too that we are unaware of. The results may be surprising.

    Edit: Let’s do the same exercise for the Islanders if that wasn’t obvious from my comment…

  29. Mark-LW says:

    If Nichushkin is on the board at 7 and the Oilers take Nurse I will blow my brains out

  30. Bruce McCurdy says:

    So, when the Oilers chose Martin Marincni #56, he was inside the ‘reasonable’ marker (#71) for that selection. Fair?

    It would be, if the Oilers had in fact chosen Marincin at #56. He actually went at #46, so would be a “walkabout” pick by your definition.

    Edit: Never mind, I see Chris has already mentioned this.

  31. Lowetide says:

    Chris and Bruce: Noted and corrected in original item. Should always COMPLETE my first cup of coffee before typing.

  32. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    geowal:
    As a team that has been in the “perennial rebuild” category a while, somewhat like the Oilers, I think the Islanders would be a really good comparison.They are showing signs of emerging from the cellar (one playoff appearance is just a tease at this point), so would be interesting to see how well they did at the draft table.

    They’ve had a ton of picks, some famous ones but maybe a lot of duds too that we are unaware of.The results may be surprising.

    Edit: Let’s do the same exercise for the Islanders if that wasn’t obvious from my comment…

    On the Isle…

    it might make for a better comparable, because their draft position through the rounds over the past decade or so would more closely mirror EDM.

    MONT might also be another good target and perhaps CBJ.

    Hell… LT, pull a Cullen and do all the teams!

  33. Lowetide says:

    Romulus Apotheosis: On the Isle…

    it might make for a better comparable, because their draft position through the rounds over the past decade or so would more closely mirror EDM.

    MONT might also be another good target and perhaps CBJ.

    Hell… LT, pull a Cullen and do all the teams!

    HA HA, ha ha ha.

  34. Bruce McCurdy says:

    Lowetide:
    Chris and Bruce: Noted and corrected in original item. Should always COMPLETE my first cup of coffee before typing.

    Haha, yeah. I have my own marker at Top 50, so it’s easy to remember all of Stu’s second rounders — Lander, Pitlick, Marincin, Hamilton, Musil, Moroz — are inside of it.

    Given that Marincin was the plum of the Riley Nash trade, maybe he’s the ultimate walkabout pick.

  35. Lowetide says:

    Top 50 makes more sense, but I wanted to include the Hesketh picks etc because that’s part of the downside/thing people complain about; between Hesketh and 100, though, only 2 guys appear to be emerging (Eakin, Smith) as NHL players so it might be about the strength of the draft that season.

  36. leadfarmer says:

    A reasonable marker would be 30 spots after the first round, IMO. Meaning the player will probably not be there when you pick again. For example if you pick a guy 60th when he was ranked 75th, he is probably gone when you pick again in 30 spots

  37. rickithebear says:

    This chart gives the success rate of every pick.
    just ad a decimal between 2nd and 3rd digit

    http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

    last three years:
    # 1 pick should have yielded 3 nhl players
    if we had the three years of 31- 181 picks (18) we should by average get 2 players.

    This year
    picks #7, #37, #56 have a 104.6% chance of getting us a player.
    we traded our #68 and # 98 a 28.7% chance at a player for 35 games of fistric and smithson with the potential to resign both.
    Picks # 128, #158, #188 a 22.5%

    Talking about walk about.
    #34(22.8%)
    #56 (17.8%)
    #78 (15.8%)
    #98(11%)
    #175 (7%)
    #210 (5%)

    what kind of walk about are we talking from the start of 2nd round to start of 4tha 10 % extra chance.

  38. oilswell says:

    I would pick a team considered crummy for drafting. It may be that the “walkabout” profiles of teams with good results and those of teams with bad results aren’t so much different. Would be nice to know if this analysis effort is simply chasing rainbows.

    To me the effort sniffs a little like copying the strategies of the old lady who keeps getting payouts on the slot machines.

  39. jonrmcleod says:

    Lowetide,

    That gives us a better perspective, I think. We can all look at the Heskett and Abney picks and say they were terrible choices. But how many actual NHLers were picked after them? (Rajala just missed the list, being picked 101st.)

  40. Lowetide says:

    oilswell:
    I would pick a team considered crummy for drafting.It may be that the “walkabout” profiles of teams with good results and those of teams with bad results aren’t so much different.Would be nice to know if this analysis effort is simply chasing rainbows.

    To me the effort sniffs a little like copying the strategies of the old lady who keeps getting payouts on the slot machines.

    What I’m hoping to get is an idea about how many walkabout picks a “good drafting” team actually makes in a 5 year period (2008-2012). We can argue about success etc and that’s a little in the development too, but for this specific item the question I’m asking is:

    ‘do the Oilers make too many walkabout picks in the top 100?’

    Based on their own number compared to what my brain suggests intuitively the answer is yes. We’ll see.

  41. Captain Happy says:

    Lowetide:
    Okay, I’ll do LA 2008-12 and compare, should have it up tomorrow morning.

    A more interesting comparison would be the Kings 2005–09 since, during that period, the Kings were still drafting high.

  42. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Ok, I tried the Isles from 2008-2012.

    NB: I used the model I outlined above; also 2008 isn’t complete because the tsn websites for that year are mangled, see for yourself:

    http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?fid=11437

    2008 (pick – player – BM rank)
    9 – Bailey – 12 (within range)
    36 – trivino – ??
    40 – ness – ??
    53 – hamonic – HM (on the bubble and into the nebulas HM)
    66 – toews – ??
    72 – Niemi – ??
    73 – Petrov – 43 (well within range)
    96 – Donovan – ??

    (NB: ?? indicates tsn site doesn’t list player but they could be there all the same)

    2009
    1 – tavares – 1 (nailed)
    12 – de haan – 23 (walkabout)
    31 – koskinen – 48 (walkabout)
    62 – nilsson – unranked (walkabout)
    92 – cizikas – unranked (walkabout)

    2010
    5 – niederreiter – 7 (within range)
    30 – nelson – 34 (within range)
    65 – kabanov – 43 (under range)
    82 – clark – unranked

    2011
    4 – strome – 7 (within range)
    34 – mayfield – 46 (walkabout)
    50 – sundstrom – HM (on the bubble and into the nebulas HM)
    63 – Petan – HM (within range)
    95 – Russo – HM (within range)

    2012
    4 – reinhart – 4 (nailed)
    34 – pokka – 31 (under range)
    65 – pelech – 49 (under range)

    Looks to me like after they nabbed Tavares in 2009 they lost their mind a bit. maybe they thought with him in their pocket they could afford to wander (cizikas might be a player though)

    Also looks like they really tightened things up in the years after and made much more conservative picks.

  43. rickithebear says:

    By history of pick results.
    2012:
    Moroz; Khaira; Zharkov; Gustaffsson; Laleggia; McCarron
    83.8%
    2011:
    Musil; Perhonen; Ewanyk; Simpson; Rieder; Gernat; Touhimaa
    96.4%
    2010:
    pitlic; Marincin; Hamilton; Martindale; Blain; Bunz; Davidson; Czerwonka; pelss; K. jones
    129.3%
    2009:
    Lander; Hesketh; Abney; bigos; Rajala; Roy
    82.9%
    2008:
    Motin; Cornet; Hartikainen; benefield
    32.3%

    From the 33 picks macgregor used
    the average results should be 4.25 players.

    A little reality!
    Less HF Board please!

  44. Ontarioil says:

    I know a little off topic, but watching the Raanta stuff on twitter I had a thought, I’d always been a little confused about MacT’s verbal re Dubnyk, I thought he’d done a lot to proove himself as a #1 but the MacT seemed way lower on him than me and most fans, I’m wondering if Dubnyk was being talked down by the organization as a long term strategy to increase the attractiveness of EDM to someone like Raanta.

  45. Lowetide says:

    I’ll work on finding 2008, suspect I printed it somewhere. Interesting that 2009 appears to be a giant opium haze weekend.

  46. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Mont. same as above:

    2008
    56 – kristo – ??
    86 – quailer – ??

    (again can’t find listing, but could be there)

    2009
    18 – leblanc – 17 (under)
    65 – nattinen – unranked (walkabout)
    79 – bennett – unranked (walkabout)

    2010
    22 – tinordi – 23 (within range)

    2011
    17 – beaulieu – 11 (under)
    97 – didier – unranked (walkabout)

    2012
    3 – galchenyuk – 5 (within range)
    33 – collberg – 27 (under)
    51 – thrower – 39 (crazy under)
    64 – bozon – 50 (crazy under)
    94 – vail – stupid crazy under)

    first: Mont is a bad comparable after all… they simply didn’t give the scouting staff enough picks in this period to really assess what they could do.

    that said… wow… 2012!!! they nailed it. It looks like they simply took BM’s list in with them and picked the lowest player not already taken with each pick after 3.

    (finally… the picks after HMs don’t really deserve the “walkabout label” because we don’t know where BM would have slotted them… “inconclusive” would be better)

  47. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    One last one… CBJs (same formula as above)

    2008
    6 – filatov – 5 (under)
    37 – goloubef – ??

    (same tsn issue)

    2009
    21 – moore – 13 (well under)
    56 – lynch – HM (within range probably)
    94 – savard – unranked (who knows)

    2010
    4 – johansen – 6 (within range)
    34 – smith – 65 (walkabout)
    55 – straka – 38 (well under)
    94 – archibald – unranked (who knows)

    2011
    37 – jenner – 26 (well under)
    66 – tynan – unranked (probable walkabout)
    95 – reilly – HM (well under)

    2012
    2 – murray – 2 (nailed)
    31 – dansk – 35 (within range)
    62 – korasalo – unranked
    95 – andersen – unranked

    (note 2012 doesn’t have an honorable mention list, which so far has only effected this CBJ list)

    Of note is how in both 2010 and 2011 they lept way up to grab a player early (walkabout) only to use their next pick to grab a player left on the board (well under range), not unlike the Moroz/Zharkov situation.

  48. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Romulus Apotheosis: 94 – vail – stupid crazy under)

    That should read:

    94 – vail – 60 (stupid crazy under)

  49. rickithebear says:

    better yet first round;
    Eberle 32.4%
    MP 56.55
    Hall 91.7%
    RNH 91.7%
    klefbom 36.45
    Yakupov 91.7%
    By historical results we should get 4.004 players.

    All strange walk about has done is turn the ability to trade more covered assets for System Definciency.

  50. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Captain Happy: A more interesting comparison would be the Kings 2005–09 since, during that period, the Kings were still drafting high.

    The problem is that TSN’s website is a place for stories, entertainment and current sports happenings…

    they are horrible is archiving things and offering basic information and stats.

    I can’t find a record of bob’s lists earlier than 2008 (and as I mentioned that year is fucked). and google doesn’t come up with anyone else who publicly archived them either.

    the best they offer is the top 30 listings going back to 2004 with an easy comparison chart:

    http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=10903

    maybe LT has the lists on his own.

  51. Lowetide says:

    Rom: No, I only archive the Oilers picks on this blog by season, and then only since 2007.

  52. spoiler says:

    This makes no sense to me. In fact it seems goal-seeked.

    In reality, the spread on MacKenzie’s poll is far wider than the arbitrarily set 15 pick spread criteria for “walkabout”. That’s some bad math.

    Not to mention, considering what “walkabout” really means, it’s bad metaphor too. Unless you actually intend the derogatory colonial use of the word.

  53. Lowetide says:

    spoiler:
    This makes no sense to me. In fact it seems goal-seeked.

    In reality, the spread on MacKenzie’s poll is far wider than the arbitrarily set 15 pick spread criteria for “walkabout”. That’s somebad math.

    Not to mention, considering what “walkabout” really means, it’s bad metaphor too.Unless you actually intendthe derogatory colonial use of the word.

    spoiler: Okay, let’s build a better mousetrap. What do you suggest as a better number? If we’re going to bitch and moan about Moroz, Marincin, Khaira, it’s a good idea to know how common the practice, no?

  54. gd says:

    When I go through the list of 2nd round picks from 2006-2011 and unscientifically look at the guys I wish the Oilers had taken and whether they were walkabouts, fallers or in range, I get the following list;

    2006-Neuvirth (a bit of a walkabout) McGinn (walkabout) Kulemin (walkabout) Petry (walkabout) Enroth (in range) Matthias (walkabout) Lucic (walkabout) Anisimov (faller) Mike Weber (in range) McBain (walkabout)

    2007-Subban (walkabout) Galliardi (in range) Simmonds (walkabout)

    2008-Markstrom (faller) Voynov (walkabout) Josi (in range) Schultz (walkabout) Stepan (walkabout) Hamonic (walkabout) Scandella (walkabout)

    2009-O’Reilly (in range) Clifford (walkabout) Silverberg (a bit of a walkabout) Lehner (in range) Orlov (in range)

    2010-Faulk (in range) Toffolli (in range) Larsson (walkabout) Zucker (in range) Jarnkrok (faller)

    2011-Rattie (in range) Jenner (in range) Gibson (faller) Jaskin (faller) Rask (in range) Saad (faller) Ritchie (in range)

    It looks to me like in the past teams have been better off going on walkabouts, but I do find it interesting that in 2011 that trend looked to reverse itself maybe indicating the general scouting is more sophisticatedly accurate.

    the biggest lesson I’ve learned in all my draft research is if you are going to make a big mistake like Hickey at 4 or Barker at 3 make sure you stay bad enough so you can pick Doughty, Toews and Kane in the next couple of years.

  55. speeds says:

    Lowetide: spoiler: Okay, let’s build a better mousetrap. What do you suggest as a better number? If we’re going to bitch and moan about Moroz, Marincin, Khaira, it’s a good idea to know how common the practice, no?

    Yes and no.

    It would be interesting to know how common the practice is, but more interesting to know how effective it is.

    If it turned out that EDM was middle of the road in terms of picking players earlier than their consensus rating, that’s one thing. But if it turned out that, on aggregate, those picks failed leaguewide more than picking “draft sliders”, well, jumping off a bridge because everyone else is doing it doesn’t make it smart.

  56. RexLibris says:

    Romulus Apotheosis,

    Agreed. Montreal absolutely stole that draft. Granted, it wasn’t the strongest one in recent years, but they truly got some promising talent in that year, and Detroit came up perhaps second in terms of potential success.

    Why other teams let players like Thrower, Frk and others fall into the later rounds I can only guess. I’m of the mind that the scouting groups began to overthink things or perhaps considered contract numbers when calling the names, and so took chances on a few older longshots.

    Who knows, either way it was a strange draft year.

    Interesting review by the way.

    I’m not certain there is a fair comparable for what the Oilers have done at the draft these last few years. The last team to enjoy their draft position were the 90s Nordiques and they traded away a lot of that talent, but also did a phenomenal job in the depth picks.

    Los Angeles is one I’d take some time to study, although not as a guide on how to draft, necessarily. They’ve gambled heavily and are very, very fortunate that some of their depth picks (Quick) and first round character selections (Brown) have turned out.

  57. Lowetide says:

    speeds: Yes and no.

    It would be interesting to know how common the practice is, but more interesting to know how effective it is.

    If it turned out that EDM was middle of the road in terms of picking players earlier than their consensus rating,that’s one thing.But if it turned out that, on aggregate, those picks failed leaguewide more than picking “draft sliders”, well, jumping off a bridge because everyone else is doing it doesn’t make it smart.

    Sure, but we’re not going to be able to measure that for the 2008-2012 group for several years. I certainly agree that’s valuable, but we don’t have (to my knowledge) the Bob McKenzie lists going back to 2001 (or so).

  58. BG14 says:

    gd,

    I think rather than scouting becoming better, it’s more indicative of the book still being out on these players that are all 20 years old. So at this point all of us armchair scouts are still basing our opinions largely on the talk of other scouts, rather than looking back to 2008 and being able to see so many of these players in the NHL and making our own judgements.

  59. Jordan says:

    Lowetide: Sure, but we’re not going to be able to measure that for the 2008-2012 group for several years. I certainly agree that’s valuable, but we don’t have (to my knowledge) the Bob McKenzie lists going back to 2001 (or so).

    Couldn’t you just get in touch with Bob, explain what you’re doing and why, and ask him for his lists? Hell, maybe he’d be interested in co-publishing on TSN.ca or something.

  60. supernova says:

    Lowetide,

    Speeds,
    Romulus,

    I really like this debate as it is extremely interesting. Although I know you need to have some measuring stick it is extremely unfair to any teams. One of my thoughts is to take all the lists (redline, ISS, central, bob mckenzie, pronman, button) and do a blended average.

    The reason is that obviously each team has its own big board obviously and to compare this to any one list especially bob’s is that it is extremely unfair to that team.

    For example take Hunter Shinkaruk I have seen him play at least 70 times over 3 years and if I am a team in the top 20 there is no way I use a pick that high on him. Now I believe he is a highly skilled player but he really strikes me as a complimentary player ( a Versteeg on the low side maybe a skinner on the high side) but he could also wash out, and if hunter can’t make a top 6 he is in the Omark category. If I am a team drafting In the top 20 and he becomes a zack boychuk it is a complete failure, but if he falls to a Pittsburgh or a St. Louis it’s a home run.

    So in comparing it with bobs list where he polls many team scouts hunter does have top 10 talent but he also is a lot riskier of a draft then say Bo Horvat or Curtis Lazar.

    So in analyzing these drafts it might be best to blend the lists for a waited average use that and also use Bob’s and then see where teams draft according to these lists and comparison. Each NHL team and its scouting department is the equivalent ( actually probably much greater) than say a redline.

    Thoughts?

  61. Tarkus says:

    Lowetide: Sure, but we’re not going to be able to measure that for the 2008-2012 group for several years. I certainly agree that’s valuable, but we don’t have (to my knowledge) the Bob McKenzie lists going back to 2001 (or so).

    Long-time reader, 1st-time-(in-a-loooooong-time)-poster here.

    I happen to have an big ol’ stack of Hockey News Draft Previews going back to 1995 (except for ’99 and ’05, which are probably in storage somewhere.) Looks like McKenzie’s last time actually putting together the prospect lists for THN was 2000. Wouldn’t be any trouble making available the info I have.

  62. iHockeyWpg says:

    Any word yet on Antii Raanta? Love to see him in Oiler silks next season.

  63. Lowetide says:

    Tarkus: Cool! And I remember you! (Old) (Surprised to remember anything)

  64. konst16 says:

    archive.org is handy for finding old stuff like this, assuming you know exactly what you are looking for and when it happened. In this case, we do.

    For example here is Bob’s top prospect list for the Crosby draft (seems it was only top 30 at that time):

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060115183042/http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/draft/feature.asp?fid=7329

  65. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    speeds: Yes and no.

    It would be interesting to know how common the practice is, but more interesting to know how effective it is.

    If it turned out that EDM was middle of the road in terms of picking players earlier than their consensus rating,that’s one thing.But if it turned out that, on aggregate, those picks failed leaguewide more than picking “draft sliders”, well, jumping off a bridge because everyone else is doing it doesn’t make it smart.

    I don’t disagree… but it appears to me that if we are going to evaluate the “success” of picks we have to find some way to eliminate, or mitigate as much as possible, the role of luck.

    I think part of that process is doing exactly what LT proposes, i.e., comparing picks against a contemporary consensus list.

    the assumption is that the contemporary consensus list provides a kind of base-line. To deviate from the list is to try and beat it.

    the questions then are

    1) which teams tend more often then not to try and beat it?

    2) do they?

    3) do teams that hew closer to the consensus list fair better?

    that is, in order to evaluate draft success, it might be handy to compare all the teams against a neutral contemporary, consensus list rather than simply comparing them against each other.

    or, the question isn’t did EDM do better than LAK but how did both do against the BM list and how large a role did deviation from the BM list play in the success/failure of their draft?

  66. theres oil in virginia says:

    LT, I’ve dug through the Wayback Machine and found a bunch of Bob’s lists on TSN. Right now, I’m looking at Top 30 for 2004, and I see links for 2005-8. Do you want them? How do I get them to you? Post them here?

    EDIT: I see KONST16 is on to the same thing. Good idea to just post the link for the page. Here’s the 2004 link:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20100325131131/http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=10903

  67. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Maybe it’s just a question of saying…

    before asking: “did x player turn out,”

    we ought to know: “was x player picked outside of his consensus range?”

    that extra bit of information is probably helpful in evaluating a team’s drafting success/failure, but it also grants some insight into their drafting methods.

  68. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    konst16,

    theres oil in virginia,

    thanks!

    Konst16: that’s more indepth, but it is still only the top 30.

    which is still available in a stripped down format

    http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=10903

    I’m starting to wonder if BM only published top 30 lists from 2004 to 2007 and then top 60 from 2008 onward.

  69. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    supernova,

    my understanding was the BM’s list was a blended list like you suggest.

    here’s the blurb from last year’s:

    “Check TSN’s final NHL draft rankings – a compilation based on input from various scouts around the National Hockey League.”

    http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=9825

    and under each player he lists the various ranks from other lists, for example under Yakupov:

    “NHL Central Scouting: 1 NAS, International Scouting Services: No. 1, The Hockey News: No. 1, Button’s Ranking: No. 1″

    At any rate, a more comprehensive list is certainly possible. BM doesn’t list Pronman, but I’m guessing he’s consulted his lists.

  70. theres oil in virginia says:

    Romulus Apotheosis,

    Don’t know if you are still in need of this, but here’s a link to the 2008 rankings:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20080915175735/http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?fid=11437

    Unfortunately, it’s 10 per page and not nice format.

    I’m looking to see if there’s evidence of beyond-Top30 for previous years.

  71. RickDeckard says:

    Tarkus,

    Crazy, I was just listening to that song

    Romulus Apotheosis,

    Bob surveys ten scouts that work for NHL teams to create his lists.

    NHLNumbers has been doing a blended list for the past two years

    http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/4/13/2013-nhl-draft-rankings-seth-jones-valeri-nichushkin

  72. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    theres oil in virginia:
    Romulus Apotheosis,

    Don’t know if you are still in need of this, but here’s a link to the 2008 rankings:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20080915175735/http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?fid=11437

    Unfortunately, it’s 10 per page and not nice format.

    I’m looking to see if there’s evidence of beyond-Top30 for previous years.

    Sweet! Thanks.

    Here’s an update on the ?? players from 2008

    Isles
    36 – trivino – 36 (nailed)
    40 – ness – 40 (nailed)
    66 – toews – unranked (walkabout?)
    72 – niemi – 49 (under range)
    96 – donovan – unranked (who knows)

    mont
    56 – kristo – 39 (under range)
    86 qualier – unranked (who knows)

    cbj
    37 – goloubef – 48 (walkabout)

  73. theres oil in virginia says:

    Romulus Apotheosis,

    Alright, I’ve got 2007 (same as before, 10 per page):
    http://web.archive.org/web/20080604103902/http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?fid=11063&hubname=

    It’s looking tough to get pre-2007. We’ll see.

  74. godot10 says:

    The problem with this “walkabout” analysis is that it is a circular analysis.

    MacKenzie’s list is based on a poll of scout’s lists.

    There would be no MacKenzie’s list to compare to, if each scout didn’t have their own list.

    MacKenzie’s concensus list is an after-the-fact analysis, based on each scouting organization doing an independent analysis of their own in the first place.

    If each scouting organization didn’t make their own independent analysis, there would be no MacKenzie’s list. MacKenzie’s list is NOT original information. It is DERIVATiVE informationi, whose quality would diminish if the original information and work was not done.

    i.e. A “walkabout” analysis like this can only be used in hindsight.

    MacKenzie’s list ends up being “superior” to ISS or Redline or any individual list, because it is a derived list from N>>1 source.

    But is is a “derived” list, and not an “original” list.

  75. supernova says:

    Romulus Apotheosis,

    I could be wrong but my understanding of BM’s list is he consults 10 or more team scouts and then compiles his list. My understanding is also that other scouting services listed are just there for reference but not used in compilation.

    Why I stated this is most lists for the top 3 or 5 or ?? Are going to be fairly close every year, but there is going to be massive variation as you work your way further down the list.

    One of the 10 scouts could see a player and say he would have him say 5th but if his team is drafting at 25 that really isn’t a fair comparison. So if Bob only polls 10 scouts from different teams all over the order it gives a good idea of the top players but then to compare that to players 20 to 100 it could be quite skewed.

  76. supernova says:

    godot10,

    Well written this is exactly what I was trying to write but you are a much better writer than I.

    If only I could articulate on paper what my thoughts are I feel I could add significantly to this blog and have some excellent conversations with some of the very gifted writers and thinkers on this blog and others. I am very impressed with the depth of knowledge and thoughts that come from a lot of the people on this blog,

  77. RickDeckard says:

    godot10,

    The draft isn’t about taking the best player at each pick but taking the best player as late as possible. Let’s say you “know” there are 6 NHLers and a HoFer past the first round. You could take the HoFer with your second round pick but if he’s not widely known then you might only end up with one of the NHLers. Instead you should take the one most likely to be taken highest and work your way down the list. This could land you the HoFer and two NHLers.

    The Oilers did this with Gernat. They felt he was a top 35 player but waited until the 5th round to take him. Why? Because that there was no way Musil would be available in the 5th round.

    That means that Bob MacKenzie’s list is useful in identifying what other teams were thinking going into the draft. Drafting a player a full round higher than expected means that you left value on the table, no matter how good that player ends up.

  78. Lowetide says:

    godot10:
    The problem with this “walkabout” analysis is that it is a circular analysis.

    MacKenzie’s list is based on a poll of scout’s lists.

    There would be no MacKenzie’s list to compare to, if each scoutdidn’t have their own list.

    MacKenzie’s concensus list is an after-the-fact analysis, based on each scouting organization doing an independent analysis of their own in the first place.

    If each scouting organization didn’t make their own independent analysis, there would be no MacKenzie’s list.MacKenzie’s list is NOT original information.It is DERIVATiVE informationi, whose quality would diminish if the original information and work was not done.

    i.e. A “walkabout” analysis like this can only be used in hindsight.

    MacKenzie’s list ends up being “superior” to ISS or Redline or any individual list, because it is a derived list from N>>1 source.

    But is is a “derived” list, and not an “original” list.

    The McKenzie list works because it\s the best “value” list. If you look at that 2007 list Plante and Nash are in the 30s and they took Plante #15. In a way, the Moroz is a modern (although less painful-15 versus 32) version of the Plante selection.

    If you’re going to add a player with a lesser skill range, who is ALSO listed as being a lesser asset, you better be right.

    I’m unsure (after all these posts) about how to proceed, but am more certain (after all these posts) that the McKenzie list weighs the gold properly.

  79. Bruce McCurdy says:

    theres oil in virginia:
    Romulus Apotheosis,

    Don’t know if you are still in need of this, but here’s a link to the 2008 rankings:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20080915175735/http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?fid=11437

    Unfortunately, it’s 10 per page and not nice format.

    I’m looking to see if there’s evidence of beyond-Top30 for previous years.

    Name this player:

    ” The hard-rock defenceman, who draws comparisons to Shea Weber and Adam Foote, is as competitive and feisty a player as there is in this draft. What he lacks in offensive upside, he makes up for with his ferocity and defensive prowess. He relishes the opportunity to go head-to-head with the other teams’ top players.”

  80. Lowetide says:

    Bruce: Quit picking on Teubert (I assume).

  81. RickDeckard says:

    Bruce McCurdy,

    Figured it was Teubert and checked to be sure. Got to love the NHL’s irrational love of drafting big defensive defencemen in the first round.

  82. Bruce McCurdy says:

    Lowetide:
    Bruce: Quit picking on Teubert (I assume).

    They were right about the “lacking offensive upside” part, The rest? A bit of a stretch.

  83. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    godot10,

    I’m not sure what your argument is.

    what is the relevance of this “derived” vs. “original” distinction you are making?

    the premise of using the BM list is that it is a kind of aggregate of lists. No one is posing it as an “original” list or whathaveyou.

    The assumed benefit of the BM list is the same as the assumed benefit of Nate Silver, Realclearpolitics, CNN, etc. when they offer an aggregate (I know Silver offers a “projection” and uses other data and not merely a poll of polls, but the analogy stands).

    To complain that Nate Silver can’t offer his projections without Gallup (which happens) misses the point.

    Or, maybe you can re-state your objection. I’m not sure I’ve grasped it.

    Do you object to

    1. comparing picks against a list (like BM’s)

    2. BM’s list itself (for any reason)

    3. both

  84. theres oil in virginia says:

    Bruce McCurdy,

    Wow, LT, good instincts.

    C’mon, Bruce. He could still be compared to Shea Weber:
    “He’s the Shea Weber of the AHL!”
    …Oh, wait a minute, no.

  85. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Bruce McCurdy: The hard-rock defenceman, who draws comparisons to Shea Weber and Adam Foote

    I’m curious about this other comparison of Weber and Foote, what’s going on there?

    my memory suggests Foote was far more “stay at home” then Weber

  86. Bruce McCurdy says:

    Romulus Apotheosis,

    All three of them shoot right?

  87. Lowetide says:

    Adam Foote inherited Ted Harris’ nose, that’s all I know.

  88. sliderule says:

    Lowetide,

    If they trade down further than were they can pick Horvat they will regret it

    Horvat is so much more of what the oil want it’s a joke

    Good at face-offs ,heavy player does not get knocked off his feet,very good acceleration and speed.

    The last part of season ,playoffs(MVP) and m cup showed a great scoring touch.

    After watching video high lites of Barkov (he is a ponderous skater) I like Horvat over even him

    MacT has seen Lazar, Horvat and Barkov and I trust him to see what I see.

  89. godot10 says:

    My point is MacKenzie’s list is based on each team actually doing their own scouting and creating their own list.

    It tells the order that players are likely to be picked in the draft, but it is NOT a list a team can use to pick players, because the team’s provide the data to create the list. If the team’s stop creating the data, stop their own scouting, stop producing their own lists, then MacKenzie’s list becomes useless.

    MacKenzie’s list is only good at predicting the order player’s get picked because each team has their own independent list. If 30 teams start a feedback loop, and change their list base on MacKenzie’s list, then the sample data for MacKenzie’s list becomes contaminated, and its quality will degrade.

    MacKenzie’s list predicts draft order. It doesn’t tell you which player is better than another player.

    It would be useful in addition to the list if MacKenzie published the standard deviation of the poll as a function of draft position, which is what Lowetide would actually need to do this post facto walkabout analysis. i.e. sigma(pick#)

  90. sliderule says:

    I don’t there is any problem with going walkabout as long as you are damn well right.

    The oilers walkabout picks like Abney and Hasketh seem to be along the lines of Stu’s comment that third or fourth round doesn’t really matter.That comment says that oiler scouts don’t really value these picks because just maybe they don’t have a clue after first overall picks.

    MacT has challenged them to find players in all rounds.

    Interesting draft coming up.

  91. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    godot10:
    My point is MacKenzie’s list is based on each team actually doing their own scouting and creating their own list.

    It tells the order that players are likely to be picked in the draft, but it is NOT a list a team can use to pick players, because the team’s provide the data to create the list.If the team’s stop creating the data, stop their own scouting, stop producing their own lists, then MacKenzie’s list becomes useless.

    MacKenzie’s list is only good at predicting the order player’s get picked because each team has their own independent list.If 30 teams start a feedback loop, and change their list base on MacKenzie’s list, then the sample data for MacKenzie’s list becomes contaminated, and its quality will degrade.

    MacKenzie’s list predicts draft order.It doesn’t tell you which player is better than another player.

    It would be useful in addition to the list if MacKenzie published the standard deviation of the poll as a function of draft position, which is what Lowetide would actually need to do this post facto walkabout analysis.i.e. sigma(pick#)

    There’s some assumptions here that I’m not sure about.

    Does BM predict draft order? He doesn’t claim to. He doesn’t look at team needs or specific team ranking lists (if he even has access to them).

    He aggregates rankings to try and suggest a consensus about rank.

    Does BM’s list contaminate team lists?

    No more I would suggest than any other publicly available list? Does ISS, or CS or Pronman affect a team’s sense of rankings? I would assume so.

    Why would this be a concern? Ranking doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

    Are BM’s sources “team lists”? I think that is a huge assumption. He always says he “talks to scouts”… presumably a lot of them work for teams, but some probably work for ISS or CS or other independent outfits. And, even if they do work for a team… is it the list of that individual scout or the team’s official list?

    I highly doubt a team is going to leak there official list to BM, even if they trust him not to publish it.

    And, even if they did… how would that disqualify BM?

    Again, your argument sounds like those saying because Nate Silver exists, Gallup is irrelevant, but because Nate Silver only exists because of the raw data provided by Gallup and others Nate Silver doesn’t add any value or is some circular firing squad.

    I’m not won-over by this argument.

    The point of BM’s list isn’t to supplant the various team lists.

    It functions in a different way.

    It takes a variety of data and offers a consensus against which we can compare individual lists. NHLnumbers does the same (but not for as far back).

  92. G Money says:

    godot10:
    My point is MacKenzie’s list is based on each team actually doing their own scouting and creating their own list.

    It tells the order that players are likely to be picked in the draft, but it is NOT a list a team can use to pick players, because the team’s provide the data to create the list.If the team’s stop creating the data, stop their own scouting, stop producing their own lists, then MacKenzie’s list becomes useless.

    MacKenzie’s list is only good at predicting the order player’s get picked because each team has their own independent list.If 30 teams start a feedback loop, and change their list base on MacKenzie’s list, then the sample data for MacKenzie’s list becomes contaminated, and its quality will degrade.

    MacKenzie’s list predicts draft order.It doesn’t tell you which player is better than another player.

    It would be useful in addition to the list if MacKenzie published the standard deviation of the poll as a function of draft position, which is what Lowetide would actually need to do this post facto walkabout analysis.i.e. sigma(pick#)

    You are absolutely correct – as an aggregated list, BM’s list depends on the quality of individual team scouting. If teams decide they don’t need to pay their own scouts and just want to use the list, the list will rapidly become useless. That said, it definitely *is* possible that some teams do in fact just use the list as a primary source. In economics, it’s called ‘free rider’ syndrome, and it works as long as *most* teams (in economic terms, buyers or taxpayers) are willing to foot the bill for the scouting (in economic terms, the public good or service) .

    Additionally, intelligent teams will use BM and the other central aggregated lists as a checkpoint. If our scouts peg a guy at #10, and the average of the other 29 teams has him at #100, it may indeed be possible that you are the smartest guy in the room and see something in that guy that no-one else does – but most likely you’re about to go walkabout on that pick and f*ck up real bad.

  93. vishcosity says:

    The BM list is an average of individual analysis by individual teams. Data contamination happens when BM shows his list, teams adjust their lists, and BM re enters their adjusted assessment.

    Real issue to me is that the Oilers will devalue RW and accentuate C. Which is why deviation from the average of ten teams > deviation from one (biased) team.

    Button tries to weigh team need into the equation and unlike BM (BPA list) Button creates draft probability list.

    To measure deviation from consensus the BM list seems the gold standard, while Button through hindsight just looks like he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

    I think the Ricki decoder ring brings up the question of final results as measured by future games played. Interesting OT, granted, and likely worthy of its own rhread.

    the question of walkabout to me circles around team deviation from average (BM) and is totally measurable through 2012 for all 30 teams and further is best measured via the system Rom pitched around 9 am.

  94. RexLibris says:

    Any thoughts on whether the Oilers could trade down with CLB, select Horvat, and somehow sneak Tyutin out in the deal? That would be a nice day’s work.

  95. supernova says:

    Romulus Apotheosis: There’s some assumptions here that I’m not sure about.

    Does BM predict draft order? He doesn’t claim to. He doesn’t look at team needs or specific team ranking lists (if he even has access to them).

    He aggregates rankings to try and suggest a consensus about rank.

    Does BM’s list contaminate team lists?

    No more I would suggest than any other publicly available list? Does ISS, or CS or Pronman affect a team’s sense of rankings? I would assume so.

    Why would this be a concern? Ranking doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

    Are BM’s sources “team lists”? I think that is a huge assumption. He always says he “talks to scouts”… presumably a lot of them work for teams, but some probably work for ISS or CS or other independent outfits. And, even if they do work for a team… is it the list of that individual scout or the team’s official list?

    I highly doubt a team is going to leak there official list to BM, even if they trust him not to publish it.

    And, even if they did… how would that disqualify BM?

    Again, your argument sounds like those saying because Nate Silver exists, Gallup is irrelevant, but because Nate Silver only exists because of the raw data provided by Gallup and others Nate Silver doesn’t add any value or is some circular firing squad.

    I’m not won-over by this argument.

    The point of BM’s list isn’t to supplant the various team lists.

    It functions in a different way.

    It takes a variety of data and offers a consensus against which we can compare individual lists. NHLnumbers does the same (but not for as far back).

    I am in complete agreement with godot10.

    I think we need to know more information about exactly how it is collected.

    I too believe it is the gold standard for pre-draft but for the purposes of the walkabout don’t think it is sufficient in comparing the top 100.

    It would be interesting to see a aggregate of ISS, CS, Pronman, Button, and redline and then compare these to Bob Mckenzie.

    I view Bob’s list as more of the sample of what a consensus of certain scouts are thinking. I just don’t think it gives us a big enough sample size. When you get to pick 100, there is going to be a big variation between say a list compiled while speaking to 10 teams and a list of 5 aggregate scouting services.

  96. sliderule says:

    RexLibris,

    I would love that but he will be gone before 10.

    If the sabers have any brains he will be gone at eight

  97. vishcosity says:

    supernova:

    It would be interesting to see a aggregate of ISS, CS, Pronman, Button, and redline and then compare these to Bob Mckenzie.

    It would need to be weighted against either the average or measured by history. = can of worms.

    I think the BM list sufficiently averages team bias and would effectively measure each team against the norm. It’s not quantized physics here, I don’t think we need to get too caught up in the sophistry of integration and Fourier transforms.

    I think it’s an interesting assessment of team tendencies and would do it myself if I were anywhere near a computer and internets.

  98. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    supernova: I am in complete agreement with godot10.

    I think we need to know more information about exactly how it is collected.

    I too believe it is the gold standard for pre-draft but for the purposes of the walkabout don’t think it is sufficient in comparing the top 100.

    It would be interesting to see a aggregate of ISS, CS, Pronman, Button, and redline and then compare these to Bob Mckenzie.

    I view Bob’s list as more of the sample of what a consensus of certain scouts are thinking. I just don’t think it gives us a big enough sample size. When you get to pick 100, there is going to be a big variation between say a list compiled while speaking to 10 teams and a list of 5 aggregate scouting services.

    I could have misread Godot, but I think his objection is different.

    There are two questions here:

    1) is something like an aggregate list as a baseline for comparison of value?

    2) does BM represent the best possible (certainly not), or at least, the best available version of an aggregate list?

    It seems to me that Godot’s concerns fall in the former camp (again I could be misreading him here). He seems to disregard the value of any aggregation as not “original” and prone to “contaminating” data.

    Your concern seems to be that there is a better version of an aggregate list out there waiting to be compiled, ie., one that takes in more information.

    IMO, I think BM could be a lot more upfront about his method and that a better aggregate list could be compiled.

    As RickDeckard mentioned earlier, NHLnumbers has an alternative that seems to have a broader base of information… but they only go back two years. so we are stuck with BM until someone provides a better baseline.

    Unless, of course, you reject the exercise altogether.

  99. Joel Pepin says:

    LT: this is a bit long, but if you’ll bear with my post, I think it adds value to the conversation. Also, this has taken me all afternoon, so my apologies if many others have already touched on these items.

    The last few posts have made me think more about drafting success. I realize it’s probably best to look at each draft on its own, and probably 5+ years after the fact. However, if we look at the cluster of drafts from 2008-2012 as a whole, there are some good indicators:

    Total Players Drafted:
    Overall: 1052
    Defense: 366 (35% of players drafted)
    Forward: 578 (55% of players drafted)
    Goalies: 108 (10% of players drafted)

    Total NHL Games Played by all players drafted:
    Overall: 16,238 (15.44 GP per drafted player)
    Defense: 6216 GP (16.98 GP per drafted player)
    Forwards: 9768 GP (16.90 GP per drafted player)
    Goalies: 254 GP (2.35 GP per drafted player)

    Total Players Drafted who have played at least 1 game:
    Overall: 225 (21.38%)
    Defense: 73 (19.95%)
    Forwards: 138 (23.88%)
    Goalies: 14 (12.96%)

    Overall, what we see is that drafting defensemen and forwards seems like good value based on GP. However, drafting goalies seems risky at best.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Next, I wanted to normalize the data, so I determined the maximum amount of games that a player could have played, and using all of the draft data from 2008-2012, calculated the % of games played per position (F, D, G) per round drafted:

    Drafting Defencement:
    Round (% of GP)
    1 (26.0%)
    2 (5.2%)
    3 (1.6%)
    4 (0.8%)
    5 (0.6%)
    6 (1.5%)
    7 (1.1%)

    Drafting Forwards:
    Round (% of GP)
    1 (27.6%)
    2 (4.9%)
    3 (2.2%)
    4 (2.2%)
    5 (4.2%)
    6 (1.4%)
    7 (0.5%)

    Drafting Goalies:
    Round (% of GP)
    1 (0.0%)
    2 (1.7%)
    3 (0.3%)
    4 (1.5%)
    5 (0.5%)
    6 (0.1%)
    7 (0.9%)

    So overall, a forward drafted in the 1st round of 2008 would have been expected to play 97.8 games by now, whereas a defenseman drafted in the 3rd round of 2010 should be expected to play 4.6 games.

    There honestly seems to be no trend regarding drafting goalies by round. If I were GM, I would honestly try to load up on bunches of cheap late round picks and draft buckets of goalies.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    For the Oilers, they have drafted as follows:
    2008: 1F, 4D, 5F, 6F, 7D
    2009: 1F, 2F, 3D, 3F, 4D, 4F, 5G
    2010: 1F, 2F, 2D, 2F, 3F, 4D, 5G, 6D, 6F, 7F, 7F
    2011: 1F, 1D, 2D, 3G, 3F, 4D, 4F, 5D, 7G
    2012: 1F, 2F, 3F, 3F, 4D, 5D, 6F

    To keep up with the average of all 30 teams during that period, we should have had the following games played:
    Defense – 73 GP
    Forwards – 384 GP
    Goalies – 3 GP

    We had the following GP
    Defense – 1 GP
    Forwards – 800 GP
    Goalies – 0 GP

    Now yes, obviously picking 3 consecutive overall #1 forwards clearly bumped up the total # of games (Hall, RNH and Yakupov account for 321 GP of the 800). But, if we ignore the the Hall, RNH and Yakupov picks, we should have expected 276.4 GP, but still got 479 GP. I also think the Oilers really DID pick the best players overall, which is another feather in the cap of MBS.

    So can we definitely agree that the Oiler’s staff has really done well drafting forwards (if GP is your line in the sand)?

    The problem really appears to be drafting D. Wew should have expected 73 GP by defensemen by now, but we’ve only had 1 GP by a drafted D since 2008. This is on an Oilers D which is really really bad.

    I pulled all of the data off of Hockey DB. I hope this is accurate. Any thoughts from others?

    LT: if this looks good, I could run these numbers against the teams you look at tomorrow.

  100. Lowetide says:

    Joel: This is excellent work. I think defensemen take a little longer than forwards, but your photo appears to compensate for it. Fascinating stuff! I’ll be doing the LA Kings tomorrow, so go for it! Very interesting read.

  101. Joel Pepin says:

    Lowetide,

    Thanks a lot for the kind comments. I’ll run the LA Kings tonight.

  102. Lowetide says:

    Joel Pepin:
    Lowetide,

    Thanks a lot for the kind comments.I’ll run the LA Kings tonight.

    Joel, I thought it was a double post Sorry man.

  103. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Joel Pepin,

    wow….
    really interesting approach.

    by isolating on position and ignoring draft position and team, you get some interesting results.

    as a general piece of information I think this is pretty helpful.

    ultimately, one is going to want a more nuanced approach… but this sets a good baseline for expectations.

  104. Captain Happy says:

    @ Joel

    That’s a pretty impressive amount of work but it has a fatal flaw.

    While averages indicate some overall tendencies, it doesn’t account for the comparative strengths or weaknesses of the drafting teams or their development philosophies.

    For example, the Red Wings are known for allowing their draft picks to mature in the minors and, of course they have been avery successful team so cracking the their roster and accumulating games played is an entirely different proposition than a team like the Oilers who have been slamming their draft picks into the NHL roster allowing them to accumulate GP’s no matter how well they are or are not performing.

    While your averaging ameliorates that to some degree, your suggestion that the Oilers have done very well in relation to the average is tainted by the Oilers development philosophy of sink or swim.

    As another example, the Los Angeles Kings have been so successful at drafting that they have been losing quality players who, because of the team’s NHL roster strength, have moved to other leagues. and thus have not accumulated significant NHL GP.

    An example of this is Bud Hollway, who was drafted in the 3rd round after putting up more than a PPG in the WHL, 62 PTS in his final AHL season before moving to the SEL where he scored 71 points in 55 games to lead the SEL in scoring this past season. (the next highest scorer in the SEL was Carl Soderberg with 60 points. Soderberg, after being drafted in 2004 by STL, is currently on the Bruins playoff roster)

    I’m quite sure if Holloway and/or Soderberg had been drafted by the Oilers or other teams near the bottom of the standings that they would likely have significant NHL GP on their resumes.

  105. Lowetide says:

    That assumes Holloway and Sodeberg can’t play in the NHL.

  106. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Captain Happy,

    your exceptions are fine caveats, but they are really misplaced.

    they add information, rather than discount the “overall tendencies” you yourself admit.

    no piece of information should be held hostage to some other piece of information they never claim to account for.

    whether Joel’s analysis — the Oil have drafted well — is sound is a a completely separate question from whether the data he has drawn out is interesting and useful.

    also, as a general rule we should be able to decide whether a player has to make the NHL within a given time frame to count as covering their draft bet.

    Or, a player making the NHL nearly a decade after being drafted…. well… draw your own conclusions… that suggests more randomness to me than superabundant team strength.

  107. Captain Happy says:

    Romulus Apotheosis:
    Captain Happy,

    your exceptions are fine caveats, but they are really misplaced.

    they add information, rather than discount the “overall tendencies” you yourself admit.

    no piece of information should be held hostage to some other piece of information they never claim to account for.

    whether Joel’s analysis — the Oil have drafted well — is sound is a a completely separate question from whether the data he has drawn out is interesting and useful.

    also, as a general rule we should be able to decide whether a player has to make the NHL within a given time frame to count as covering their draft bet.

    Or, a player making the NHL nearly a decade after being drafted…. well… draw your own conclusions… that suggests more randomness to me than superabundant team strength.

    The data he has drawn out is interesting but it’s not very useful.

    Using GP in the NHL has all sorts of cavets attached to it.

    For example, if Paajarvi had been drafted by a top 5 team, I expect his NHL GP would be close to zero but he has 163 NHL GP on his resume.

    That’s a huge variance.

    Anton Lander has 67 GP to his credit and I can guarantee you, on a good team like Detroit, that his NHL GP would be zero.

    Colten Teubert has 24 GP on his resume…all with the Oilers.

    With the team that drafted him…zero.

    That is not insignificant.

  108. Captain Happy says:

    Lowetide:
    That assumes Holloway and Sodeberg can’t play in the NHL.

    I would think the 1-2 scorers in the SEL would be worth a look.

    Holloway is a 6’0″ 200 winger whose rights are still held by the Kings.

    As stated earlier, Boston has called up Soderburg for the playoffs but, as far as I can tell, he hasn’t seen any action.

    One interesting note about the Bruins…Dougie Hamilton was a healthy scratch tonight while undrafted Torey Krug played 15:09 and has 4 goals and 5 points in 6 playoff games.

    Throws things for a loop doesn’t it?

  109. Lowetide says:

    That’s my point. These guys are probably NHL players.

  110. Captain Happy says:

    Lowetide:
    That’s my point. These guys are probably NHL players.

    Yeah, I expect they are but they’re being blocked by excellent players on excellent teams so their NHL GP are zero.

    And that affects the apparent “draft success” of the teams that drafted them.

    A smart GM would be trying to acquire these players since the cost would likely be very reasonable.

    (see Damien Brunner for reference)

  111. Lowetide says:

    I think 5 years is the right line in the sand. Colin McDonald may emerge as an NHL player, but he did it outside the window.

  112. commonfan14 says:

    Captain Happy:
    For example, the Red Wings are known for allowing their draft picks to mature in the minors and, of course they have been avery successful team so cracking the their roster and accumulating games played is an entirely different proposition than a team like the Oilers who have been slamming their draft picks into the NHL roster allowing them to accumulate GP’s no matter how well they are or are not performing.

    I don’t know, the Bruins being a good team didn’t stop Seguin from racking up GPs as soon as he was drafted. Dougie Hamilton only took a year to start. I suspect the same would be true even if it had been the Red Wings who traded for those picks. Top of the draft talent plays quickly if they’re any good, whether it’s on the Oilers or elite teams.

    And it’s not like the Oilers have been rushing all their first rounders. Klefbom has 0 GPs. Plante wasn’t thrown in or given any rope when he got his cup of coffee. Riley Nash stayed in school. Eberle isn’t in the top-15 in GPs for his draft class.

    I think the development philosophies we talk so much about for teams aren’t as different as we make them out to be. They just operate under different circumstances.

  113. Captain Happy says:

    commonfan14,

    Sam Gagner has played 414 NHL games.

    Logan Couture has played 232 NHL games.

    Does that make Gagner a better player and better pick than Couture?

    No, it doesn’t.

    What it means is that Couture, due to the relative strength of the SJS roster, had a tougher time cracking the lineup.

    I would wager there is not ONE NHL GM who would trade Couture for Gagner straight up.

    Would you disagree?

  114. speeds says:

    I think Holloway is a group VI UFA this summer, while I believe Moller is still an RFA for the Kings. That said, if a team signed Moller to a one year, one way offer sheet worth 1 mil, I’m not sure if LA would match, and if they didn’t that would be in the zero compensation band (using last year’s RFA compensation schedule)

  115. VOR says:

    Captain Happy’s entire argument is fatally flawed. Carl Soderberg was drafted in 2004 so the first season he could have played for St. Louis was 2005-2006. In that year St. Louis had the worst record in hockey. So he was drafted by a very bad team with a pitiful offence and still has zero games on his resume.

    Holloway is a bit better. He was drafted in 2006. The first year he could have played was 2006-2007. Los Angeles was 3rd last in the NHL. So again a very bad team drafted him but he has 0 games on his NHL resume.

    These two guys paths weren’t thwarted by being drafted by good teams. There may well be examples of this pattern out there but these two players actually are good players taken by bad teams who for one reason or another haven’t gotten games in the NHL.

  116. Joel Pepin says:

    Hey guys,

    Thanks for all of the comments. I was hanging around in the shopping line-up, and I too started to think about the issue of the Detroits. I think it’s extremely valid. However, another caveat I forgot when running the analysis was that the GP from Hockey DB would also include the playoff games.

    On the one hand, poor teams would likely have weaker players in more GP during the regular season; however poor teams also would miss the playoffs, reducing the GP of their weaker players.

    One very cool thing though… I re-did my spreadsheet from scratch to double-check the numbers, and I set it up a bit nicer where we can compare ALL TEAMS very easily. I want to check Detroit in particular because of our assumptions.

    Finally, I obviously determined the average % of GP, per player type (D, F, G), per draft round. We assume that defensemen take longer to develop, so in theory, a player from 2008 should have a higher GP% than a player drafted in 2012. My numbers do show this, but they also show that defensemen take longer to develop:

    Data Based on All Rounds of the Draft:

    Defense:
    Year % Games Played (includes Rounds 1 through 7)
    2008 13.6%
    2009 7.3%
    2010 3.4%
    2011 2.3%
    2012 0.0%
    ’08-’12 5.4% Overall

    Forwards:
    Year % Games Played (includes Rounds 1 through 7)
    2008 9.8%
    2009 10.0%
    2010 5.6%
    2011 4.3%
    2012 2.8%
    ’08-’12 6.5% Overall

    Goalies:
    Year % Games Played (includes Rounds 1 through 7)
    2008 2.3%
    2009 0.8%
    2010 0.1%
    2011 0.0%
    2012 0.0%
    ’08-’12 0.7% Overall

    This shows us a few important things (I believe):
    - Over the entire period of time from 2008-2012, the drafted forwards played more (6.5% of all possible GP) than the drafted defensemen (5.4%).
    - However, the defensemen drafted in 2008 (after having more time to develop) played 13.6% of all possible games, compared to 9.8% for the forwards. This appears to show that drafting forwards in the short term pays off more, but drafting defensemen pays off in the longer term.
    - I plotted the Defense vs. Forwards… the average 2008 drafted defenseman has played ~ the same %GP as the 2009 drafted forward, during the 2009 year. In other words, 4 years after being drafted, a defenseman should be expected to play ~ the same amount of games as a forward drafter only 3 years earlier.
    - Good grief, drafting goalies looks terrible.

    I can break down the above numbers for any round you guys like.

  117. Joel Pepin says:

    Ok… here’s the data (and I’ll re-post tomorrow after I wake up)…

    I included Edmonton, Calgary (poor team division rival), Vancouver (good team division rival), Detroit (known for dragging out player development), and LA:

    Calgary (Actual GP) (Expected GP)
    D 153 99
    F 94 249
    G 0 1

    Detroit (Actual GP) (Expected GP)
    D 0 37
    F 69 173
    G 3 1

    Edmonton (Actual GP) (Expected GP)
    D 1 73
    F 800 382
    F* 479 276 *Data after removing actual & expected GP from Hall/RNH/Yak
    G 0 4

    Los Angeles (Actual GP) (Expected GP)
    D 490 285
    F 482 200
    G 0 9

    Vancouver (Actual GP) (Expected GP)
    D 8 36
    F 172 288
    G 0 4

    So, in summary:
    - none of these teams seem to be getting good value drafting goalies
    - LA and Oilers both got great value drafting forwards
    - LA also got great value drafting D; Calgary got pretty good value drafting D
    - Calgary, Vancouver & Detroit did not get great value (in the short term) drafting forwards… I assume this is mostly because Vancouver and Detroit are good teams with lots of good forwards keeping prospects down, and because Calgary is no good at drafting forwards
    - Even with a poor defensive core, Edmonton still did very poorly drafting and using young D

    LA absolutely blew things away by drafting their D in 2008 (490 GP vs. 221 GP expected) and forwards in 2009 (385 GP vs. 113 expected). LA must have used a lot of good quality draft picks in those years, but to their credit, they got excellent value with those picks.

    BTW, I re-ran the Detroit data over several years, and they are simply not getting an average # of GP out of their drafted players. The ONLY instance where Detroit outperformed the average was with forwards drafted in 2008, and not by a wide margin (40 GP vs. 31 expected). It also looks like Detroit doesn’t have a lot of draft picks at their disposal though, so this could be skewing the data.

  118. Joel Pepin says:

    And finally, based on the differential of actual GP vs. expected GP, we have the following best 5 teams in terms of drafting:

    Goaltending Differential (GP vs. Expected GP):
    1) Nashville: +54
    2) Washington: +48
    3) Minnesota: +17
    4) Florida: +16
    5) Ottawa & NY Islanders: +15

    20) Edmonton: -4

    Defensemen Differential (GP vs. Expected GP):
    1) LA: +205
    2) NY Islanders: +197
    3) Atlanta: +187
    4) Florida: +181
    5) Toronto: +180

    28) Edmonton: -72

    Forwards Differential (GP vs. Expected GP):
    1) NY Islanders: +570
    2) Colorado: +477
    3) Edmonton: +418
    4) LA: +282
    5) NY Rangers: +250

    Forwards Differential (GP vs. Expected GP):
    * In this case, I remove the effect of Hall/RNH/YAkupov, but DID NOT remove Stamkos or Tavares from Tampa or NYI respectively
    1) NY Islanders: +570
    2) Colorado: +477
    3) LA: +282
    4) NY Rangers: +250
    5) Tampa Bay: +240
    6) Edmonton: +203

    I think we can rest easy that MBS has done a fantastic job drafting forwards, but we are having a rough time drafting blueliners. To put things in perspective, a differential of -70 isn’t even 1 full season of 1 D-man, so maybe the Oilers simply aren’t dedicating enough good draft picks to d-men? I don’t know.

    I think the only way to draft goalies is to draft lots and lots of them.

  119. Joel Pepin says:

    ooh… and I just saw Captain Happy’s comment about Colten Teubert playing for the Oilers… that actually benefitted LA… my analysis only cares about how many GP by a player per team that drafted him.

    Maybe we should take away those 24 GP and drop LA’s D-man differential down to +180 (still excellent, mind you) ;)

    LT: sorry for typing so much. I hope it’s interesting to you (and if not, feel free to purge)

  120. supernova says:

    Joel Pepin,

    Wow Joel this is tremendous stuff.

    LT is there anyway you can have Joel do a guest post on this.

    These are interesting findings I wonder what it would look like if that line in the sand was 6 or 7 years just for comparisons sake.

    Also if I am reading this correctly 1st rounders have approx. a 20 ish percent of succeeding?

    Where as 2nd rounders drop down to around 5 % and then after that the rest of the rounds are approximately 1 percent.

    Forgive me if I am wrong, I had a long day and cycled 75km, but thought this was compelling.

  121. supernova says:

    Romulus Apotheosis,

    I was agreeing with Godot10 and his sentiment and then adding to it.

    Sorry for the confusion.

    I tend to look at BM list as the best pre-draft indicator, but don’t think it is fair to use it as the best evaluator of how successful any team is.

    I definitely don’t reject the information, and I have only been to NHL numbers a couple of times. I wish I had more time to do so, but I really enjoy the conversations and tend to find with people like yourself on here and lowetide, speeds, rondo that this is the one I frequent the most.

    I prefer the more in depth conversation rather than just pure information.

    I am a believer to a point in advance stats but feel advanced stats leave the intangibles out to a certain degree. ( heart, and physicality are very hard to measure)

    I am huge and long time fan of the draft and love the in depth of analysis on drafts more than on individual players and their season.

    Sorry to give you a little biography, but wanted to give you some context as I am fairly new to this blog as a poster.

    I would love it to keep this post going and open to many and all angles of draft analysis and I am also game to add something if I can.

  122. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    Captain Happy: The data he has drawn out is interesting but it’s not very useful.

    Using GP in the NHL has all sorts of cavets attached to it.

    For example, if Paajarvi had been drafted by a top 5 team, I expect his NHL GP would be close to zero but he has 163 NHL GP on his resume.

    That’s a huge variance.

    Anton Lander has 67 GP to his credit and I can guarantee you, on a good team like Detroit, that his NHL GP would be zero.

    Colten Teubert has 24 GP on his resume…all with the Oilers.

    With the team that drafted him…zero.

    That is not insignificant.

    But this is all of matter of upending the general via the particular.

    That’s always going to be easy.

    When looking to an individual player this data is only going to suggest so much. Let’s not impune it for not fulfilling a task it doesn’t claim to fulfil.

    The import here is that in any given draft year, at any given position, all teams fall within or outside the average GPs.

    It is useful to know that a team is falling outside (above or below) that average IMO.

    What it doesn’t show, and what demands more analysis (the kind that you are trying to offer) is why and how a team came to be within or outside the average.

    This data is just a starting point for asking those kinds of questions.

    It should complement, not supplant, further analysis about team strength, development paths, player talent, etc.

  123. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    supernova: I tend to look at BM list as the best pre-draft indicator, but don’t think it is fair to use it as the best evaluator of how successful any team is.

    Maybe that is the thorn here.

    The issue isn’t (yet) to determine if a team is successful. This is more a preliminary question, like: is a team deviating from the consensus in their picks?

    The follow-up question is going to be: are teams successful and how is their success/failure correlated to their deviation from the consensus?

    supernova: but I really enjoy the conversations and tend to find with people like yourself on here

    ha! I’m about as “noob” as you can get around here.

    But I completely agree… best place to gab about the Oil!

  124. Lowetide says:

    A note on ‘noob’: at one time or another, everyone was a noob. I understand in talking to some people over the years there is hesitation to post on here because of the quality posters. I’m proud of the people who have posted on here, long ago and now, for me it’s like a meeting place for folks who are finding out about stats and want to test drive ideas.

    The life blood of this place is the old and new. We’ve lost some posters over the years and that’s fine, I would never assume people are going to stay in the same spot. However, the delight for me is that we all find our way in our own time and that we never become a place where Rom or Joel or Super Nova feel unwelcome.

    Your ideas will be challenged–God knows people have no problem ripping up my ideas :-) but that’s part of it too. It’s like a coffee shop that turns into the rum division later in the day.

    But there’s a chair for everyone.

  125. supernova says:

    Lowetide,

    Well thanks for the coffee shop to rum division. Personally I love rum and scotch for that matter and that’s when people feel free to share their opinion.

    Rom, I only started posting here recently as well even though I have been reading here for years.

    Not really sure what finally got me to post (maybe it was the rum) but I have really enjoyed it as well, I especially love the drafts, because I believe it is one of the biggest mysteries in sports.

    If I owned the team I would probably invest an extraordinary amount in the draft and then development. I think if anything the oilers should have at least 2 more scouts, the more viewings the better.

  126. supernova says:

    Romulus Apotheosis,

    Maybe I am jumping the gun here on the issue because I believe all teams deviate from the consensus.

    Some more than others and I really think it tends to happen where they are success wise with the NHL team.

    I personally feel the oilers will deviate less next year when they are closer or in the playoffs. The job becomes simpler.

    Now that they have 4 of the top 6 they don’t have to stretch for talent. If they can plug the gaping hole on the back end through a trade ( don’t think free agency will help) and they have a reputable top 4. The if they can get say 4 of a bottom 6. The demand on the draft falls significantly.

    I actually think Pittsburgh is a organization to study. They have quality in the top 6, quality in the D, a fairly decent bottom 6. They also won 4 years ago and stayed very competitive.

    If we want an example of a team to study I believe it is Pittsburgh.

    I think LA is a great case to study as well but as more players graduate the system their draft tendencies will change.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca