GETTING BETTER?

On the day Stu MacGregor took over as Scouting Director (story here), I looked at Kevin Prendergast’s top five selections in the seven years he was head man. I then compared those names to Barry Fraser’s final seven seasons, and here’s what I got.

BARRY FRASER’S FINAL YEARS (1994-2000)

  1. Ryan Smyth (1994)
  2. Shawn Horcoff (1998)
  3. Tom Poti (1996)
  4. Mike Comrie (1999)
  5. Fernando Pisani (1996)

That’s a really nice list. The GP total for the five is 3,996 games. Now, the disadvantage of looking back over different eras is that we’re quickly going to reach a point where careers are too short (in KP and MBS’ case) to compare. However, I think it’s fair to suggest that Fraser grabbed one top quality NHL player (Smyth) and four solid regulars in the group of five. Fair?

KEVIN PRENDERGAST’S SEVEN YEARS (2001-2007)

  1. Ales Hemsky (2001)
  2. Jarrett Stoll (2002)
  3. Sam Gagner (2007)
  4. Andrew Cogliano (2005)
  5. Kyle Brodziak (2003)

I changed things a little here (Brodziak is added) and the GP (as predicted) has run up a less impressive total (2,906) but in fewer seasons. I’d say we can credit KP with one top quality player (Hemsky) and four solid regulars. Fair? I like Horcoff more as a player than Stoll, but they seem similar as value, and I’d argue Gagner-Comrie and Pisani-Brodziak are comparable, leaving Cogliano and Poti to discuss.

Who did better? Smyth was a high pick, and of course Bonsignore was a wasted selection but we’re not discussing that right now. KP will get a push when Jeff Petry arrives at 500 games too, so the story isn’t over. Thoughts?

STU MACGREGOR (2008-2014)

  1. Jordan Eberle (2008)
  2. Magnus Paajarvi (2009)
  3. Martin Marincin (2010)
  4. Anton Lander (2009)
  5. Oscar Klefbom (2011)

A couple of items here: I have not included the #1 overalls in the group, as you’ve suggested to me several times a scouting group should receive no extra credit for choosing a number one overall correctly. This hobbles the MBS group in that there are only thee first round selections in this look (KP had seven, including a #6 overall; Fraser had eight, including a #4 overall and three #6 overall selections), but it’s a difficult conversation to have if we include the number one overall picks. I should also add that men like Nurse haven’t played in the NHL and MacGregor has one more year to go before his seven-season window closes.

So, how are things tracking? Does Eberle have a chance to equal Hemsky? If Marincin and Klefbom work out, does that equal (say) Horcoff and Pisani? It’s interesting to look at these things, although it’ll be the rest of this decade before the 2014 draft begins to reveal its true value.

written by

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

58 Responses to "GETTING BETTER?"

  1. D says:

    Not sure LT. Maybe Stu doesn’t look so magnificent once you factor out the three number ones?

    Edit.

    On the other hand, three of those on the list above could possibly explode into something nice.

  2. Lowetide says:

    D:
    Not sure LT.Maybe Stu doesn’t look so magnificent once you factor out the three number ones?

    Edit.

    On the other hand, three of those on the list above could possibly explode into something nice.

    Yeah, I think it’s early. Probably too early to discuss (Nurse isn’t in the NHL, and we can credit MacGregor for that) so we’re going to have to look at it again in a couple of seasons. The reason I wrote this was to showcase how quickly things can change, how the emergence of Marincin added to Pitlick and Klefbom making their debuts this season perhaps casts a new light on the MBS drafting team.

    But it’s a very difficult thing to do fairly.

  3. gvblackhawk says:

    Lowetide: Yeah, I think it’s early. Probably too early to discuss (Nurse isn’t in the NHL, and we can credit MacGregor for that) so we’re going to have to look at it again in a couple of seasons. The reason I wrote this was to showcase how quickly things can change, how the emergence of Marincin added to Pitlick and Klefbom making their debuts this season perhaps casts a new light on the MBS drafting team.

    But it’s a very difficult thing to do fairly.

    This analysis doesn’t factor in development, either. If the development process had been consistent over the years, we would have a better idea of drafting success. Additionally, player injury is not considered, but can be a significant detriment to a player’s ‘success’ or ‘failure’.

  4. Marcus Oilerius says:

    Completely off-topic, but I thought relevant to the Oilers:

    NSH vs CHI, NSH forward gets boarded hard in the Chicago end by a defender. Eric Nystrom flies in, grabs the Blackhawk, drops his gloves and starts feeding him rights.

    The world did not end.

    For the love of God, can we get some fast skaters to pin Kassian in a corner and unleash SMac on him? I don’t care if Kassian doesn’t want to fight. I want him to suffer a broken jaw.

  5. sliderule says:

    KP record is forever marred by the 2003 draft were he traded down and missed on Parise and Getzlaf.He then passed on Kesler,Richards and Perry to pick MAP.
    Fraser was doing most of his picking from Mexico so I can’t blame or praise.
    Stu outside of the first overalls has not done well when you compare his record to the Ducks or Kings.
    His recent picks look like they may be better but it’s too early to tell.The 2009 draft were he took Hesketh and Abney in third round was a very poor beginning.
    Their list of scouts seems to show they don’t cover the Q ,OHL or USHL as well as they do the WhL or even the BCJL.
    In the salary cap nhl it is extremely difficult to improve your team other than by drafting.I wish the oilers would show more imagination considering all the video and statistics available for scouting.

  6. justDOit says:

    Follow

    Official CIS – SIC
    ‏@CIS_SIC
    The University of Alberta Golden Bears are the 2014 @UniversityCupSK Champions. Record setting 14th national title pic.twitter.com/Wj32njfsC9

  7. Melman says:

    Isn’t looking for 5 regulars out of 7 years setting the bar awfully low? Doesn’t that establish “slightly below average” as the threshold. How many of those NHL players fall into the guys that help you win category vs. he’s an interchangeable NHL regular: Smyth, Horc, Hemsky and… This organization history of failure for the last 10 years or so is lock step with NYI, Cleveland Browns ineptitude.

    If upper mgmt. stays the same “Trade me right fucking now” phone calls from key players are sure to begin in th summer. If they haven’t already

  8. oliveoilers says:

    When I brought up the website, I thought it was Rob Ford for a second. It would explain a lot…..

  9. PaperDesigner says:

    I don’t know if either presents a very high bar to clear. But I see one problem–Fraser was notorious for blowing high picks. Granted, he didn’t have first overalls, but is it fair to compare Fraser’s one decent top ten pick with Macgregor’s comparative success near the top of the draft?

  10. Lowetide says:

    Marcus Oilerius:
    Completely off-topic, but I thought relevant to the Oilers:

    NSH vs CHI, NSH forward gets boarded hard in the Chicago end by a defender.Eric Nystrom flies in, grabs the Blackhawk, drops his gloves and starts feeding him rights.

    The world did not end.

    For the love of God, can we get some fast skaters to pin Kassian in a corner and unleash SMac on him?I don’t care if Kassian doesn’t want to fight.I want him to suffer a broken jaw.

    I understand how you feel, when a younger man I felt the same way. I don’t begrudge you the right to feel that way, but would argue that the actual value of caving in Kassian’s face is less than zero. And again, I say this as someone who at one time would have driven to Philadelphia in order to off Billy Barber.

  11. Marcus Oilerius says:

    Lowetide: I understand how you feel, when a younger man I felt the same way. I don’t begrudge you the right to feel that way, but would argue that the actual value of caving in Kassian’s face is less than zero. And again, I say this as someone who at one time would have driven to Philadelphia in order to off Billy Barber.

    Can you explain the less than zero value part, though?

    I see a lot of value. The Oilers feeling like they can stand up for each other, Gagner feeling like someone cares, other teams learning there are limits to the liberties they can take.

  12. DeadmanWaking says:

    It’s only fair to black-out the first overall selections if the scouting staff downloaded McKenzie’s final list the day before the draft and never gave it another thought.

    How we all love putting in twenty-hours a week on tasks for which no accolade is possible because even a monkey could do it right.

  13. oliveoilers says:

    DeadmanWaking:
    It’s only fair to black-out the first overall selections if the scouting staff downloaded McKenzie’s final list the day before the draft and never gave it another thought.

    How we all love putting in twenty-hours a week on tasks for which no accolade is possible because even a monkey could do it right.

    Hey! I enjoy 4H meetings!

  14. gcw_rocks says:

    Marcus Oilerius,

    If your going to have retribution, it has to be right away. Pounding Kassian now would mean nothing.

  15. cc says:

    LT,

    Barry Fraser’s 1st round draft success in those specific years did him in. He was always good for finding those late round gems Here’s who he drafted:

    1- 5 Range: Bonsignore (79)
    6 -15 Range: S. Kelly (149), B. Devereaux(627), Riesen (12), Henrich, Rita (66), Smyth
    16-30 Range: A. Mikhnov (2)

    The 1-5 Range you typically get an 85% success rate of the player drafted going to play 500 games.
    The 6-15 range you typically get a 70-75% success rate on those players playing 400 games.
    16 – 30 Range you typically get a 50% success rate those players playing 300 games.

    The Oilers should have had 5-6 players from those drafts. They had two and one of those two played less than 200 games and there was no return when he left town.

  16. RexLibris says:

    Great piece and a nice segue into the draft. Also, thanks for taking our minds off of…you know.

    Take a look at the decade-averages in that spreadsheet I sent you.

    The 80s delivered diminishing returns on the draft starting in ’80 (really, though, how in the world can you top the ’79 and ’80 draft classes?) but still fed some considerable elite talent into the league.

    The 90s drafts were almost a reflection of how the markets skewed everything in favour of the successful teams – high-end talent was harder to find and drafting 20th wasn’t nearly as precipitous a drop from 5th as it is was years before.

    Looking at the eras in which both men drafted puts both Fraser and Prendergast into perspective, not that the end result is going to be different from what you’ve written here, I just think it adds another layer for understanding.

    When I was looking over the 90s drafts, and the first in 2000, the thing that struck me was that for many of the teams trying to do things “right” and build through the draft, it was like someone trying to save for retirement during the post-2008 financial markets. The circumstances heavily favoured those who were already established, and left those trying to enter the game on the ground level with pathetic returns.

    If you had a core group established by the late 80s, and had pockets deep enough to retain it, the 90s provided a plethora of support players to continually feed into the bottom of the roster. If, however, you were looking for stud, franchise players, unless you had the wherewithal to shop European, the deck was stacked against you.

    I am frustrated that Sather left Fraser in his position for so long after what were clearly bad returns – 1990 should have been the final nail in his coffin. And Prendergast made some very serious errors in the first round leading to the Oilers’ historically league-worst draft record in the 1st round.

    Both of these situations need to be kept in mind with MacGregor, in my opinion. Scouting directors are like good goaltenders, incredibly difficult to find, under intense pressure, and often poorly understood by both managers and observers alike.

  17. oliveoilers says:

    Pro Scout’s mantra: Let history judge me!

  18. theres oil in virginia says:

    I don’t think you should remove any of the draft picks from any of the three candidates. You’ve just got to find a way to weight them by draft position. Personally, I think each of the picks should be measured against the several players drafted just after them. This removes the variation from year to year, as well as the variation from round to round.

  19. Lowetide says:

    theres oil in virginia:
    I don’t think you should remove any of the draft picks from any of the three candidates.You’ve just got to find a way to weight them by draft position.Personally, I think each of the picks should be measured against the several players drafted just after them.This removes the variation from year to year, as well as the variation from round to round.

    Hmm. Interesting. A very specific criteria designed to house the pick inside their original space.

  20. delooper says:

    Greetings from Banff. I’m in Alberta for the week. Hope to see some Oilers games on the tee vee!

    Left the Kamloops Earls when Calgary went up 5-1 last night.

    Is there any shrine to Ryan Smyth in town that I can pray at. Perhaps to help his chances of beating the Anderson record?

  21. delooper says:

    oliveoilers:
    Pro Scout’s mantra:Let history judge me!

    That’s for history to decide!

  22. theres oil in virginia says:

    Lowetide: Hmm. Interesting. A very specific criteria designed to house the pick inside their original space.

    The trouble comes when you try to compare different positions. Games played is probably a good place to start, with some allowance for goalies, and perhaps some allowance for defensemen needing a bit more time. If you can develop a scale for each position (say a grade from 0-100), which incorporates each of the elements that you think are important, then you grade each one and compare them against their draft peers (just the later picks). The possibility for bias is immense, but so what. You bias up the elements that you think provide draft value. (Forwards: games%*A + goals/gm*B + assists/gm*C + CF%*D… where A,B,C,D are weighting factors) You can add a bonus for playing in the first year post-draft if you think that increases value. It’s like an EA sports grading scheme. If the grades don’t reflect what you know about players, then they’re no good. Hell, you can just be subjective and decide for yourself whether player A was a better pick than (or at least as good as) the several who came after. Anyway, just thinking out loud, so to speak.

  23. Kitchener says:

    Islanders win!

    Flames – 65 pts, 71 GP
    Isles – 63, 71
    Luongo – 60, 71
    Oilers – 59, 72
    Sabres – 48, 70

  24. oliveoilers says:

    theres oil in virginia: The trouble comes when you try to compare different positions.Games played is probably a good place to start, with some allowance for goalies, and perhaps some allowance for defensemen needing a bit more time.If you can develop a scale for each position (say a grade from 0-100), which incorporates each of the elements that you think are important, then you grade each one and compare them against their draft peers (just the later picks).The possibility for bias is immense, but so what.You bias up the elements that you think provide draft value.(Forwards: games%*A + goals/gm*B + assists/gm*C + CF%*D… where A,B,C,D are weighting factors)You can add a bonus for playing in the first year post-draft if you think that increases value.It’s like an EA sports grading scheme.If the grades don’t reflect what you know about players, then they’re no good.Hell, you can just be subjective and decide for yourself whether player A was a better pick than (or at least as good as) the several who came after.Anyway, just thinking out loud, so to speak.

    How about looking at players of the same position, but from previous drafts in roughly the same draft position. Then we could add the weighting. Of course this doesn’t cover changes to the way the game is played, new training regimes and so forth. My, what a can of worms! Anyways, I think Detroit win the drafting top trumps!

  25. Romulus Apotheosis says:

    I’m not sure about ranking things for a variety of reasons, but it is certainly interesting to look back at picks gone by.

    Somewhat off topic… I was looking at the 1996 draft the other day because Stauff was ribbing Button about Dick Jacks:

    http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl1996e.html

    That doesn’t look to me like an especially prestigious draft class.

    Not really anything to say about it though.

    ————
    Toronto lost tonight. That’s amazing. Detroit is tied at the moment in the 3rd vs. Minn. This is a pretty interesting storyline. The Big Stupid is about to somehow get louder and dumber.

    ———–
    Anyone see the game today?

    http://www.whl.ca/schedule/show/game/67020

    Looks like PA held their own shots wise, that’s pretty impressive on the road against a far superior team. Goaltending looks like the difference… often is. I hope you EDM folk are enjoying your other hockey teams.

  26. Ryan says:

    Just a thought, but what about turning things upside down?

    I.e. Blown first, second, and third round pics?

    2003 draft. 2007 draft.

    After all, it’s not just what you win, it’s you leave on the table.

  27. RexLibris says:

    theres oil in virginia:
    I don’t think you should remove any of the draft picks from any of the three candidates.You’ve just got to find a way to weight them by draft position.Personally, I think each of the picks should be measured against the several players drafted just after them.This removes the variation from year to year, as well as the variation from round to round.

    The problem there is that you’d also need to add injury history, depth of organization, developmental resources, and then somehow factor in plain luck against the norm. It is a very trick equation.

    Take the typical outlier used today in the 2003 draft: Shea Weber. He was a 2nd round pick. Does that mean that 30 teams blew it on him, some twice? He was also the 3rd defenseman that Nashville took that year. Does that mean that their own scouting staff whiffed on him twice before (okay, once. I guess they got that Ryan Suter one right at #7)?

    As Ken Holland said about the Red Wings’ luck at drafting late, if they were as smart as everyone makes them out to be, would they really have waited until the 7th round to take Datsyuk?

    There are just so many factors to take in. Rating a draft the way you describe is a good idea, but it would have to be factored into a larger equation the same way we look at stats like PDO, Fenwick, CorsiRel and others. It is one colour on the palate that, when used in conjunction with the rest of those available, gives a picture of the whole.

  28. RexLibris says:

    Romulus Apotheosis:

    Toronto lost tonight. That’s amazing. Detroit is tied at the moment in the 3rd vs. Minn. This is a pretty interesting storyline. The Big Stupid is about to somehow get louder and dumber.

    Yeah, but I bet if Hall learned to play on the defensive side of the puck and Yakupov wasn’t such an enigmatic prima donna Russkie those Leafs would’ve made the post-season and done some serious damage.

    At least that’s how I predict Glenn Healy will see it.

  29. RexLibris says:

    Ryan:
    Just a thought, but what about turning things upside down?

    I.e. Blown first, second, and third round pics?

    2003 draft.2007 draft.

    After all, it’s not just what you win, it’s you leave on the table.

    This is why I eventually settled on draft efficiency. Over the long haul finding players who can eke out a decent NHL career should turn up a few gems. Provided your management group isn’t fishing from the cognitive shallow end you ought to be able to recognize the talent and incorporate it or transfer some of its value for other pieces that complete your roster puzzle.

    Efficiency is the goal teams should aim for, finding at minimum two NHL players in each draft (average seven rounds) and then trying for three. At that rate you should be able to let expensive free-agent supporting cast players go and replace them internally as well as eventually replace your core group as occasional late-bloomers or longshots pay off.

    Surprisingly, very few teams are able to find this balance. Detroit has a middling draft record but has hit enough home runs that the low batting average doesn’t stand out. Those that have shown tremendous ability in this are either have made poor decisions in other areas or have been hamstrung by the NHL Economic Imbalance (ie: here’s your end of the stick, wipe it off and give it back to us when you’re done).

  30. VanOil says:

    Marcus Oilerius,

    I am sure you will be thrilled to hear Mr. Kassian is having a career night tonight. 4 points and counting against Buffalo. The only price Vancouver had to pay for this was Hendrick leaving with a knee injury.

    Edit: Update Kassian has left the game with a broken face (puck)

  31. theres oil in virginia says:

    RexLibris,

    Yep. It quickly gets nasty. That’s where the bias comes in. Gotta start somewhere.

    Here’s just a sample:
    Crosby – 99.25
    games% (games played divided by total possible games since draft) – 0.77
    goals/gm (goals divided by games played) – 0.5
    assists/gm (assists divided by games played) – 0.9
    games multiplier – 25
    goals multiplier – 70
    assists multiplier – 50

    If those are the multipliers you use, they have to stay the same for all forwards (or centers or all players, or however you group them). I haven’t checked against another player to see if anyone else gets this ranking undeservedly. Starting out simple, but I imagine you’d want to add faceoff%, etc for centers and adjust the multipliers down accordingly.

  32. danny says:

    I think if you really wanted a draft performance rating system, it would focus on players available after said pick/position.

    Essentially, you would be rating a teams ability to select the best available player based on whoever is left when they pick.

    The math would factor GP / PPG (anythig else?) and establish a percentile. Player X selected 16th overall would rank 75% of the best player chosen (according to stats) at 16th or later.

    Then a GM could be rated with a cumulative score reflective of his ability to draft the best player available, at any posiion in any round. Round by round breakdowns would show valuable info too over the course of a GM career.

    Probably would need a two tier rating system for Fwds and D, or some sort of equivalency calculation.

    edit: ok i see someone already touched on this above

  33. flyfish1168 says:

    A draft pick may look good, but if we can’t develop them properly that pick is all for not. Juniors play one way and Professionals needs to learn systems. So a good development team and patience’s are needed. Look at the red wing, Blackhawk or the kings. They all need to really go to the minors.

    1st overalls tend to be the exceptions but they can’t be placed into a position to carry the team instantly. This is unfortunate since often they have nothing to prove going back to junior.

  34. theres oil in virginia says:

    danny,

    It’s nice to have confirmation that I’m not completely off the wall. It’s getting late – I get loopy. I think you might just restrict the analysis to focus on games played, but then factor in other things to add weight. You’d need to decide what you value most: games, goals, assists, etc. My sample above weights goals highest.

  35. Hammers says:

    Lowetide: Yeah, I think it’s early. Probably too early to discuss (Nurse isn’t in the NHL, and we can credit MacGregor for that) so we’re going to have to look at it again in a couple of seasons. The reason I wrote this was to showcase how quickly things can change, how the emergence of Marincin added to Pitlick and Klefbom making their debuts this season perhaps casts a new light on the MBS drafting team.

    But it’s a very difficult thing to do fairly.

    Especially when he is hampered by not having 3 picks as they are #1 picks . Maybe give him half points but its not his fault Tambo gave him 3 #1 guys .

  36. Henry says:

    Lowetide: I understand how you feel, when a younger man I felt the same way. I don’t begrudge you the right to feel that way, but would argue that the actual value of caving in Kassian’s face is less than zero. And again, I say this as someone who at one time would have driven to Philadelphia in order to off Billy Barber.

    I tried to drive pretty much to Philly from Edmonton in a 70′s car. Didn’t work out well. Barbour and Kassian can live with themselves.

    As far as scouts go, Fraser’s record was atrocious for so long it is possible his early career with Kurri, Messier, Moog and Anderson coming in the 3rd round and later was luck or other scout’s input in spite of him. KP looks pretty average and was hobbled some by a poor development scene for his picks. The MB looks above average to me despite the madness of recent years on the big squad.

  37. jfry says:

    here is a couple of different artic’es on rating draft efficiency in the nfl and nba. some interesting ideas about comparing league development norms.

    https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/nfl/2013-nfl-draft-efficiency/
    https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/ncaa-basketball/nba-draft-efficiency-study/

  38. teddyturnbuckle says:

    At the end of the day the Oilers have been so bad because they don’t draft good players. The draft is what makes the backbone of every good team in the NHL. Not trades or free agents. Its too early for Stu but if the Oilers are still terrible in 3 years they need to over haul the scouting staff and bring in a different approach.

  39. hunter1909 says:

    My theory was always that Gretzky made the original dynasty by virtue of having the ability of an angel sent from heaven. Even Messier might have busted without Wayne providing intangibles. hahahahahahahaha

    I remember Katz promising world class everything. Scouting being just one aspect that would be taken care of immediately in this brave new Oiler universe. Too bad Kevin Lowe and MacT are the sharpest knives in the foundry.

    Dallas Eakins might well be on thinner ice than anyone realises; because he is capable of making Lowe/MacT/Katz look terrible.

  40. G Money says:

    Aside from gvblackhawk‘s absolutely spot on point about the importance of the development pipeline, and how that makes comparing draft records inherently hard, the other difficulty you get is these are still extremely small sample sizes given the variability of what you’re looking at.

    Seven years x seven rounds will give you an average of 49 picks to compare between each of them. Fewer when you start dropping those top picks (I think teams/scouts *should* get some credit for not making the wrong pick).

    For the second through seventh rounds, the odds of picking an NHLer are 25% or lower.

    So for comparing how these three guys did on those 42(ish) picks, you’re basically letting three guys roll a dice 30 times, and then saying that the guy who came up with five sixes must be more skilled at rolling the dice than the guy who came up with four or three (or perhaps the winner has loaded dice).

    Maybe the dice *are* loaded and one guy is rolling more sixes than the other guys, but these are such low odds events that you’d need hundreds more rolls each to be confident of that.

  41. Ryan says:

    Henry: I tried to drive pretty much to Philly from Edmonton in a 70′s car.Didn’t work out well.Barbour and Kassian can live with themselves.

    As far as scouts go, Fraser’s record was atrocious for so long it is possible his early career with Kurri, Messier, Moog and Anderson coming in the 3rd round and later was luck or other scout’s input in spite of him.KP looks pretty average and was hobbled some by a poor development scene for his picks.The MB looks above average to me despite the madness of recent years on the big squad.

    Well, i can provide some criticism of Smb

    1. Hartkinen is his only pick outside of the second round to play more than 5 games in the NHL.
    2. Sort the 2009 NHL draft by NHL points and considering he was taken 40th overall (and all of the Oilers picks in 2009 are complete busts), there’s already 26 players drafted after him who’re eating his lunch. Or to put it in other terms, nearly 2/3 of NHL teams found a better player than lander and drafted their player after him.
    3. So far, Marincin’s his only pick outside of the first round who has a pulse.

  42. Thinker says:

    I think he has done an alright job. Essentially, you can treat his picks outside the first overalls as cup winner picks. By that I mean they are the crappiest firsts (31). The big thing for me is the change in ideology. They still go off the board from time to time, but hamilton, pitlick, martin dale were all reasonable bets.
    I don’t put much pressure on MBS, as scouting is a team thing. I also think a lot of decisions have been pushed by the higher-ups who watch oil kings games. It’s also hard to grade, considering the nhl oilers are such hard team to have a young player stick with, as they would make Lindstrom look like Steve MacIntyre.

  43. TheOtherJohn says:

    Ryan: Well, i can provide some criticism of Smb

    1. Hartkinen is his only pick outside of the second round to play more than 5 games in the NHL.
    2. Sort the 2009 NHL draft by NHL points and considering he was taken 40th overall (and all of the Oilers picks in 2009 are complete busts), there’s already 26 players drafted after him who’re eating his lunch.Or to put it in other terms, nearly 2/3 of NHL teams found a better player than lander and drafted their player after him.
    3. So far, Marincin’s his only pick outside of the first round who has a pulse.

    This

  44. rickithebear says:

    Jordan Eberle (2008) #22 32.4% success rate
    Magnus Paajarvi (2009) #10 56.5%
    Martin Marincin (2010) #46 18.9%
    Anton Lander (2009) #40 20.8%
    Oscar Klefbom (2011) #19 36.4%
    average is 1.65 players from these picks.

    These % are from Schuckers Draft pick success rate presented @ Sloan sport conference!

    2008
    #10-3 Motin 10.3%;
    #103 Cornet 8.4%
    #163 harti 7.6%
    #193 bendfeld 6.0%
    32.3% for the group.

    2009
    #40 Lander 20.8
    #71 hesketh 17.1%
    #82 Abney 15.1%
    #99 bigos 10.9%
    #101 Rajalas 10.6%
    #133 roy 8.4%
    82.9% for the group. Lander ?

    2010
    #31 pitlick 25.5%
    #46 Marincin 18.9%
    #48 Hamilton 18.6%
    #61 Martindale 17.5%
    #91 Blain 12.8%
    #121 Bunz 8.8%
    #162 Davidson 7.6%
    #166 Czerwonka 7.5%
    #181 pelss 6.7%
    #202 Jones 5.5%
    129.4% for the group Pilick, Marincin

    2011
    #19 Klefbom 36.4%
    #31 Musil 25.5%
    #62 Perhonen 17.6%
    #74 Ewanyk 16.5%
    #92 Simpson 12.5%
    #114 Reider 8.9%
    #122 Gernat 8.8%
    #182 Tuohimaa 6.6%
    132.8% Klefbom, Simpson? Gernat?

    2012
    #32 Moroz 24.6%
    #63 Khaira 17.6%
    #91 Zarkhov 12.8%
    #93 Gustafsson 12.2%
    #123 Laleggia 8.7%
    #153 McCarron 7.9%
    83.8% Moroz? Khaira? McCarron?

    2013
    #56 MO Roy 17.6%
    #83 Yakimov 14.9%
    #88 Slepyshov 13.7%
    #94 Houck 11.9%
    #113 Muir 9.0%
    #128 Campbell 8.5%
    #158 Betker 7.7%
    #188 Chase 6.3%
    89.6% Yakimov? Chase?

    Fact versus Fiction.
    Less than 50% chance pick #13 or less.

    Currently
    2008 +67.8%
    2009 -82.9% Lander? then +17.1%
    2010 -29.4% Pitlick+70.6%
    2011 -32.8% Musil, +67.2% Simpson +167.2% Gernat + 262.7%
    2012 -83.8% moroz +17.2%; Khaira +117.2% McCarron +217.2%
    2013 -89.6% Yakimov +10.4%; Slepyshev 110.4%; Chase +210.4%

    Agenda driven drafts in 09 and 10?

  45. rickithebear says:

    Kassians Face!
    That is silly!
    One of his thumbs!
    That is his Career!

  46. Bank Shot says:

    RexLibris: . Detroit has a middling draft record but has hit enough home runs that the low batting average doesn’t stand out. Those that have shown tremendous ability in this are either have made poor decisions in other areas or have been hamstrung by the NHL Economic Imbalance (ie: here’s your end of the stick, wipe it off and give it back to us when you’re done).

    Detroit really doesn’t have a middling draft record. They are knocking it out of the park consistently.

    Edmonton had 10 first rounders between 2000-2007. Detroit had 3. Two of them were basically second rounders at 27 and 29. Detroit never missed on a first rounder. Edmonton had more picks and higher picks in those 7 years by a fair margin as well.

    Edmonton’s haul(active players):
    Hemsky
    Stoll
    Greene
    Brodziak
    Cogliano
    Petry
    Gagner
    Nash

    Detroit:
    Kronwall
    Hudler
    Fleischmann
    Filpulla
    Howard
    Quincey
    Franzen
    Kindl
    Abdelkader
    Helm
    Matthias
    Smith
    Andersson

    Detroit not only did more with less, but they drafted the best forward, the best defenceman, and the best goalie in that 7 year period.

    I don’t see how that can be just the randomnes of dice rattling. Edmonton has been bad at the draft table for 20 years. I know there is randomness involved, but like any game of chance that involves decision making, the smart players always seem to win more than their share.

    Macgregor has been part of the Oilers scouting staff for 14 years now, joining in 2000 and must have been a pretty big voice at the table in at least the last 2-3 years of Prendergast’s reign. In that time period it looks like more of the same from the Oilers. Which is average at best.

    The Oilers need to be well above average to be able to compete with cities that offer more then Edmonton can to free agents. I didn’t hear about too many changes in personell besides Prendergast leaving. Maybe its time for an overhaul.

  47. nelson88 says:

    Encouraging that Nurse was ranked #3 for hardest shot (self proclaimed weakness) and suprising he did not show up on the best defensive defenceman list.

    http://www.ontariohockeyleague.com/article/2013-14-ohl-coaches-poll-winners/160823

  48. oliveoilers says:

    http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2013/04/26/unfortunate-publishing-layouts-of-our-time/

    Happy Monday morning, everyone. Just a little something to put a smile on your face before work!

  49. magisterrex says:

    Bank Shot: Detroit really doesn’t have a middling draft record. They are knocking it out of the park consistently.

    Edmonton had 10 first rounders between 2000-2007. Detroit had 3. Two of them were basically second rounders at 27 and 29. Detroit never missed on a first rounder. Edmonton had more picks and higher picks in those 7 years by a fair margin as well.

    Edmonton’s haul(active players):
    Hemsky
    Stoll
    Greene
    Brodziak
    Cogliano
    Petry
    Gagner
    Nash

    Detroit:
    Kronwall
    Hudler
    Fleischmann
    Filpulla
    Howard
    Quincey
    Franzen
    Kindl
    Abdelkader
    Helm
    Matthias
    Smith
    Andersson

    Detroit not only did more with less, but they drafted the best forward, the best defenceman, and the best goalie in that 7 year period.

    I don’t see how that can bejust the randomnes of dice rattling. Edmonton has been bad at the draft table for 20years. I know there is randomness involved, but like any game of chance that involves decision making, the smart players always seem to win more than their share.

    Macgregor has been part of the Oilers scouting staff for 14 years now, joining in 2000 and must have been a pretty big voice at the table in at least the last 2-3 years of Prendergast’s reign. In that time period it looks like more of the same from the Oilers. Which is average at best.

    The Oilers need to be well above average to be able to compete with cities that offer more then Edmonton can to free agents. I didn’t hear about too many changes in personell besides Prendergast leaving. Maybe its time for an overhaul.

    I would suggest Detroit’s development model is and was far superior to Edmonton’s. Hardly am indictment of Magnificent Stu.

  50. stevezie says:

    My favourite unlikely rumour is Eric Staal to Edmonton in the offseason. He suits our needs nicely, but I can’t see Carlonia moving him. Haven’t they gone all in on a Staal reunion? Isn’t giving Ward away, even paying the Islanders to take him a better move for them? Aren’t they already a bad team, and probably in no mood to lose their all-star franchise player?

    It makes no sense to me, but boy it would be neat to get Eric Staal.

  51. slopitch says:

    Its very hard to compare scouts. I think the calibre of team is a factor in addition to the obvious fact that a poorer team gets a better pick. The Oilers haven’t been great in 20 years but KP actually had the best team while he was scouting. This gets him worse picks and more competition for his picks. Stu has so many bullets and such a bad team that his picks should look better IMO. That being said, if the #1 picks all succeed, he deserves some slack. Its such a big decision that it would warrant more attention.

  52. sliderule says:

    There seems to be a perception by some that drafting is like throwing dice.There are certain odds and if you beat them you were just lucky.
    Sixty five per cent of first rounders play over 200 games.If you have 3 first picks and they all make it ,eureka you are at 100 percent and have beat the odds.
    If this were true the whole league could just buy a dart board and take turns throwing darts.That is ridiculous of course and luck is not the reason certain teams draft better.
    The teams like Ducks ,Kings and others have the best scouts and treat each pick even after the second round as important.When you hear comments from Stu like “third or fourth it doesn’t matter “it makes you think that he has some feeling that it’s all luck.

  53. theres oil in virginia says:

    oliveoilers:
    http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2013/04/26/unfortunate-publishing-layouts-of-our-time/

    Happy Monday morning, everyone.Just a little something to put a smile on your face before work!

    I’m pretty sure Winnie the Pooh’s got a record (ask Rabbit) and the Snow Monster has a violent past.

  54. Oilanderp says:

    I’m still of the mind that it is all about games played. Weighting various desirable things like goals, points, CF%, or whatever may seem like a good idea but I feel that it is opening up a hornets nest at the point of diminishing returns. The risk of bias and overcomplicating is much too great when compared to how little the ranking would change with a weighted list versus a ‘games played’ list.

    I do propose, however, to rate head scouts on not just NHL GP, but all leagues GP. In the same way that there is a well established NHLE for points, it would not be difficult to create an NHLE weight for games played in different leagues around the world.

    The job of a scout is to find hockey players. Picking a guy who plays 10 years in the SEL is better than picking a guy who plays 1 year in the ECHL. With our current scope we would see that they both ended up with 0 NHL GP and we would think they are equal when clearly they are not.

    Go with GP (games played) but weight all the leagues in the world. That’s a start.

  55. Bank Shot says:

    Oilanderp:
    I’m still of the mind that it is all about games played.Weighting various desirable things like goals, points, CF%, or whatever may seem like a good idea but I feel that it is opening up a hornets nest at the point of diminishing returns.The risk of bias and overcomplicating is much too great when compared to how little the ranking would change with a weighted list versus a ‘games played’ list.

    I do propose, however, to rate head scouts on not just NHL GP, but all leagues GP.In the same way that there is a well established NHLE for points, it would not be difficult to create an NHLE weight for games played in different leagues around the world.

    The job of a scout is to find hockey players.Picking a guy who plays 10 years in the SEL is better than picking a guy who plays 1 year in the ECHL.With our current scope we would see that they both ended up with 0 NHL GP and we would think they are equal when clearly they are not.

    Go with GP (games played) but weight all the leagues in the world.That’s a start.

    The problem with games played though is when you have a team like Edmonton that is terrible and a guy gets 200 NHL games with them and then 8 with another team before disappearing from the league, that kind of skews the stats in Edmonton’s favour.

  56. Oilanderp says:

    Bank Shot,

    True Enough. Still, I highly doubt bottom-feeding teams are trying to skew scouting performance. All bad teams do what you describe, not just Edmonton, and so it’s a wash. Also, players who are kept in the AHL longer due to the NHL team’s depth do eventually force themselves onto an NHL roster. Players who don’t belong in the NHL and are rushed into the league because their NHL team has no one better eventually play themselves out of the league. In the end it all evens out, or at least it washes out enough to not be worried about it.

    If a player gets games in any league, it is because the scout has seen something and that something is confirmed by the GM and coach and everyone in between. We have to assume that something was there. Players don’t get extended looks due to a mirage. It’s not a trick.

    Using games played defers to the expertise of the pros: the GMs, the scouts, the coaches, etc. Do they make mistakes? Sure. But they are better at judging talent than you or I, and they are all competing in their respective leagues. It’s a wash.

    This problem you outline above is not enough for me to open the stinky crock of horse manure of value judgements that, for instance, goals are more important than assists, or that CF% is a good way to judge defensemen. Keep it simple, man. If you can play you can play.

    My main point was that we should keep track of GP in all leagues, not just NHL.

  57. theres oil in virginia says:

    It’s also worth noting that sometimes a guy gets rushed into the league and it bumps up his games played in the short term, but derails his career and that bumps down his games played long term. If a guy ain’t cut out for the league, it doesn’t matter whether you rush him or not, he won’t stick.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca