OILERS DRAFTS 2007-12

Recently, we discussed drafts and evaluating draft performance and the merits of using “Games Played” as a measuring stick. It was suggested that total points might offer a better reflection of performance, and despite some misgivings (goaltenders will clearly suffer, as will defensemen) I thought we’d see how things are progressing for the Oiler picks 2007-12 compared to the rest of the graduates from their respective draft years.

2007

  1. Sam Gagner (selected 7th) currently 2nd overall in points (258)
  2. Linus Omark (selected 97th) currently 26th overall in points (30)
  3. Riley Nash (selected 21st) currently 51st overall in points (10)
  4. Alex Plante (selected 15th) currently 75th overall in points (2)

2008

  1. Jordan Eberle (selected 22nd) currently 4th overall in points (156)
  2. Teemu Hartikainen (selected 163rd) currently 48th overall in points (13)
  3. Phil Cornet (selected 133rd) currently 66th overall in points (1)

2009

  1. Magnus Paajarvi (selected 10th) currently 11th overall in points (58)
  2. Anton Lander (selected 40th) currently 45th overall in points (7)

2010

  1. Taylor Hall (selected 1st) currently 1st overall in points (145)

2011

  1. Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (selected 1st) currently 1st overall in points (76)

2012

  1. Nail Yakupov (selected 1st) currently 1st overall in points (31)

I’m not absolutely certain this way of measuring draft success is the best available, but it does show that since 2007 the Oilers have delivered on their lottery picks in terms of point production, and that Magnus Paajarvi is holding his own against the 2008 competition. The big first round jump is Eberle, with Omark the highest riser outside round one.

written by

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

19 Responses to "OILERS DRAFTS 2007-12"

  1. Hammers says:

    Sorry doesn’t make sense to do points . If anything shows loosing Magnus a 3rd line player was dumb or so I think . Players offer more than just points or they should do . Wait 4 years and check points by other 1st rounders to Gags .

  2. Hammers says:

    Hammers:
    Sorry doesn’t make sense to do points . If anything shows loosing Magnus a 3rd line player was dumb or so I think . Players offer more than just points or they should do . Wait 4 years and check points by other 1st rounders to Gags .

    Remember $ 6mil to $1.2 mil . will come back & bite us in the ass . Loved the kid even though we got Perron .

  3. Lowetide says:

    Hammers: I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying. You think trading Paajarvi for Perron was a bad deal?

  4. jp says:

    Hammers:
    Sorry doesn’t make sense to do points . If anything shows loosing Magnus a 3rd line player was dumb or so I think . Players offer more than just points or they should do . Wait 4 years and check points by other 1st rounders to Gags .

    I’m not sure what you’re saying either.

    Re: Gagner – what other 1st rounders do you see passing him in the next 4 yrs? Voracek is currently #3 and is a possibility, but the others who have a good chance of outscoring Gagner going forward (Couture and Pacioretty) are ~100 pts back (currently #5 and #6 in scoring from the 07 draft). David Perron is #4, 60 pts back of Gagner, I don’t see him picking up a bunch of points on Gagner playing on his wing.

  5. Dead Cat Bounce says:

    jp: I’m not sure what you’re saying either.

    Re: Gagner – what other 1st rounders do you see passing him in the next 4 yrs? Voracek is currently #3 and is a possibility, but the others who have a good chance of outscoring Gagner going forward (Couture and Pacioretty) are ~100 pts back (currently #5 and #6 in scoring from the 07 draft). David Perron is #4, 60 pts back of Gagner, I don’t see him picking up a bunch of points on Gagner playing on his wing.

    Gagner’s stats are very deceptive.

    Due to the sorry state of the Oilers at the time, Gagner was gifted huge minutes early in his career that other players, drafted by better teams, are beginning to make up the gap.

    PPG:

    Kane – .951

    Couture – .719

    Voracek – .623

    Gagner – .623

    Pacioretty – .622

    Perron – .582

    JVR – .536

    Turris – .444

    There’s an excellent chance all those players will be ahead of Gagner soon.

  6. Lowetide says:

    DSF: I think that your way of looking at it is in fact superior, but points was suggested in the previous thread. As an aside, if Gagner ends up being caught by all of those players, so what? That’s a helluva list.

  7. stevezie says:

    Lowetide,

    It really is. I remember at the time it was described as a weak year, but at a glance the first round seems solidly above average. Imagine if we had three picks in that round? Man we would have been set…

  8. Lowetide says:

    stevezie:
    Lowetide,

    It really is. I remember at the time it was described as a weak year, but at a glance the first round seems solidly above average. Imagine if we had three picks in that round? Man we would have been set…

    lol. I remember the exact moment when Guy Flaming said “I think they take Alex Plante at #15″ and then my mind racing trying to remember where he was ranked. I left Schanks after the Gagner pick and heard the Plante selection as I pulled in the driveway of my house.

    I still think of Guy and Alex Plante sometimes when I pull in the driveway.

  9. Hammers says:

    Lowetide:
    Hammers: I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying. You think trading Paajarvi for Perron was a bad deal?

    I’m saying it will become a bad deal and probably in 2014-2015 . We get a 1 year benefit at 3 times the cost . St Louis will reap the benefit especially after there coaches get him . Hope I’m wrong but don’t think so . Perron is a good player but when you consider how our Swedes have been mentored (not) we have wasted the talent that they showed . This includes Lander & Omark . So yea it was a bad deal especially when i think of the article Woodguy did a few months ago . McT has gambled that Magnus won’t improve that quickly . This doesn’t mean Perron isn’t a good player just that we lost the 3rd liner we needed and was on our own team . McT will improve this team over the next 3 years but face it his best moves are letting Horc go for cap space , adding Gordon & Ference PLUS dumping about 8 guys . p.s. AlsoI forgot ,adding Eakins maybe his best move .

  10. Hammers says:

    jp: I’m not sure what you’re saying either.

    Re: Gagner – what other 1st rounders do you see passing him in the next 4 yrs? Voracek is currently #3 and is a possibility, but the others who have a good chance of outscoring Gagner going forward (Couture and Pacioretty) are ~100 pts back (currently #5 and #6 in scoring from the 07 draft). David Perron is #4, 60 pts back of Gagner, I don’t see him picking up a bunch of points on Gagner playing on his wing.

    Actully I was reffering more to Magnus but to answer your question on Gags all of Hall Eberle Yak & RNH will pas him with there 4 year totals to his 4 year production .. My real point is that actuall points don’t evaluate players any better than games played . For me its a combination of games played , position played ,points and COST per player . What you get for the allmighty buck needs to be included in value . Right now Hall at $6 is a bargain or will be seen to be damn soon if not allready .

  11. jp says:

    Dead Cat Bounce: Gagner’s stats are very deceptive.

    Due to the sorry state of the Oilers at the time, Gagner was gifted huge minutes early in his career that other players, drafted by better teams, are beginning to make up the gap.

    PPG:

    Kane – .951

    Couture – .719

    Voracek – .623

    Gagner – .623

    Pacioretty – .622

    Perron – .582

    JVR – .536

    Turris – .444

    There’s an excellent chance all those players will be ahead of Gagner soon.

    So Gagner is basically in a 3-way tie for 3rd in PPG from his draft year. He was the 4th forward taken, so I don’t see where the issue is. Essentially no one is trying to claim him being the 2nd best player in the draft based on him currently being #2 in points. Drafted 6th overall and being ~ the 6th best player sounds about right to me.

    Also, Gagner being “gifted huge minutes” at 18 certainly gave him more GP and TP than he might have gotten on a better team. I have a hard time seeing how those 18-19 yo minutes would push his PPG relative to the others though. Seems to me like the teenage years ought to drag down a players PPG rate. I just don’t see how Gagner scoring in the NHL as a teenager while the others were in college or Jr is a strike against Gagner.

    In terms of the “excellent chance” that everyone on your list will be ahead of Gagner in PPG “soon” – I don’t know. I don’t disagree that Couture, Voracek and Pacioretty might well stay/pull ahead. As for the others (Perron, JVR and Turris), Gagner outscored all of them this past year in their draft +5 season. There’s room for an argument that some of those guys could be “better” players than Gagner, but it’s pretty difficult to argue that they’re better players by the PPG metric.

    Can we agree that Gagner was at least an average pick at #6 in 2007?

  12. stevezie says:

    Lowetide,

    Alex Plante always makes me think of Guatamala (where I was screaming for Esposito or Cheraponov- full disclosure). What an evocative draft.

  13. Hockeyman 99 says:

    stevezie,

    It was a humbling draft, I thought NYR and PIT(I’m not sure) got great deals. Turns out pure tragedy and disappointment.

  14. justDOit says:

    Where’s Hunter?

    *checks watch*

    Hmmm – four hours too soon…

  15. Marc says:

    LT

    I’m really glad that you revisited this point. I didn’t have internet access the last time round and wanted to weigh in.

    I really don’t think points is a good metric for measuring draft success. In my mind a good metric should be relatively simple and easy to use and should help cut through the ‘noise’ to allow th user to draw useful conclusions. Points as a metric for measuring draft success does neither of these things.

    It is not simple and easy to use because you really need to separate out F and D to avoid penalising the drafting of teams that go for D instead of F (and even doing that would still penalise teams that draft G – a totally different metric is needed for them). For example, I think just about any team in the league would say that Petry was a better pick than Mason Raymond, but under this metric Vancouver will look like it made the better pick and will continue to do so for years to come, even if Petry turns into a good top pairing D. This can only be avoided by separating out the D.

    And far from cutting through noise, this metric actually amplifies it. This is supposed to help us assess a team’s drafting, but Boston’s total points for second round picks for example will continue to increase substantially for the next decade thanks to Bergeron and Lucic, regardless of whether or not any of their other second round picks over the next decade score any points at all. Boston could fail to find a single player in the second round for a decade and this metric would tell us that they are the best team in the league at drafting second round picks. That can’t be right. Once we know that a team has made a good pick, as we undoubtedly do with guys like Bergeron and Lucic, why are continuing to use them to assess that team’s drafting for years and years afterwards?

    Ultimately the purpose of the draft is to produce NHL players, so judging teams’ drafting by simply counting the number of players that play a certain number of NHL games makes sense. You don’t need a different test for different positions (though I can see the value of using a lower number for goalies, as a backup goalie is as successful a draft pick as a 4th liner, but it will take one years to get to 200 games). It doesn’t amplify noise in the way that points do, because once a player hits the relevant number of games he’s simply counted as a successful pick and that’s the end of it. And we can easily compare one team’s performance both with other teams’ performance over the same period, and the historical success rate of players drafted in that round, which helps put the number in context.

    The main criticism of using NHL games played is that it doesn’t differentiate between the quality of the player – it’s clearly better to draft a first line player instead of a fourth line grinder. Introducing a qualitative, subjective element to the metric is fraught with difficulty though – in deciding how what ‘goodness’ is in this context, in deciding how to measure it and in coming up with workable metric that incorporates it.

    I am not all convinced that anything we come up with would be be superior to simply counting the number of draft picks that get to a specified number of NHL games played.

  16. Safetyguy says:

    First time post,

    Just a thought
    What about a weighted approach that is based on reaching a set milestone of games played (with Marc’s caviet about goalies)
    Instead of getting a mark for every player that hits that milestone, what about weighting them based on line importance/value. For instance if a player averaged 1st line in their play in those initial games they get a full mark, if they averaged second line play they get .75 or something like that. You could weight them based on their average trade value, if on average a first line player is worth three fourth line players (just an example, I could be totally out to lunch) then a fourth line player should be worth 1/3 of the mark of a first line player.
    This would give you a total for the team that is weighted based on level of players that reached the set milestone.

    Keep up the good work LT, making a long summer tolerable.
    Go Oilers Go!

  17. Lowetide says:

    Safetyguy:
    First time post,

    Just a thought
    What about a weighted approach that is based on reaching a set milestone of games played (with Marc’s caviet about goalies)
    Instead of getting a mark for every player that hits that milestone, what about weighting them based on line importance/value. For instance if a player averaged 1st line in their play in those initial games they get a full mark, if they averaged second line play they get .75 or something like that. You could weight them based on their average trade value, if on average a first line player is worth three fourth line players (just an example, I could be totally out to lunch) then a fourth line player should be worth 1/3 of the mark of a first line player.
    This would give you a total for the team that is weighted based on level of players that reached the set milestone.

    Keep up the good work LT, making a long summer tolerable.
    Go Oilers Go!

    These are all good points, but I badly want to avoid anything that can bring bias into the discussion.

  18. Gino says:

    Marc,

    I have to agree a defined amount of games played is a most common measuring stick for success of a draft pick. I’m sure after games played one will need to use ppg to evaluate against the draft competition for further ranking. Hockey DB has listed at the end of each draft the average amount of played games, goals, assists and points of the selected drafted players. I remember someone here accessing the success of the L.A Kings in drafting of players. Just with the Kings at first glance, their success by means of using Hockey DB is excellent without the benefit of high first round picks. The Oilers have been very good also but so would any team having the first pick overall or high first round picks they’ve had.

  19. Dead Oiler walking says:

    There may never be a stat that is fair for all positions. I seem to recall that a coaches only currency is ice time. Average Ice time per game tells the coaches opinion. Total Ice time balances consistency, longevity, injury risk etc.

    Excluding overtime and penalty time the average ice time is:

    Forwards 15 minutes a game
    Defense 20 minutes a game
    Goalie 60 minutes a game but probably only total minutes played of value for goalies

    Relative to Position Average

    Above average- 1st liner Good pick first rounder?
    Close to average – 2nd /3rd liner Good Pick Second or third rounder
    Below average – 3rd/4th liner

    Gagner Total Time: 7046:31 Avg – 17.02/gm
    Couture Total Time: 844:58 Avg – 17.24/gm

    Looks like Couture took a lot longer to arrive. Both Above forward average of 15 . Both 1st/2nd liners and both good picks

    Its a good thing that there is not just one difinitive method of valuing players and draft picks. It would sure be boring to know the answer and have nothing to debate.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca