2024 27th Overall Marek Vanacker

[Malaka]

Carolina is ran by a genius and they trade back more than anyone. I doubt it’s because the math doesn’t say it’s right.

“As you can see from here, the success rate drops massively from pick 25 to pick 31, and then it stays at a similar level for the entire second round. I’m not sure what’s the reason for that drop-off but it’s clear as day.”

NHL Draft Pick Probabilities – DobberProspects

Oh god you’ve drank the Jaeger koolaid. Well that’s okay, you can root for Carolina to clumsily fail in the playoffs over and over with their juggernaut team built by an analytical genius

I’m not rooting for anyone and this isn’t hockey analytics. It’s literally math and probability.

Just want to point out real quick for the sake of nerd shit and high interest on the topic that Carolina’s new GM obviously might have a hand in drafting and trade decisions but I think his specialty is more toward using his knowledge of science and applying research methods as well as using technology/tools to capture and analyze data sets of dynamic systems that relate to on ice/in game performance of pro’s against competition.

To be clear yeah he’s wicked smart as a chemical engineer, and certainly he’s very quant oriented, the most recent hire as a data scientist did something around mechanical engineering at McGill, they have a really interesting paper together recently published I’ve been trying to get my hands on here.

How much that relates to his ability to evaluate prospects or use those tools to capture the same kind of data in lower amateur leagues currently versus what’s more standardized or available at the NHL level like with the edge tracking stats is probably night and day.

Based on that — yeah, he probably knows exactly what he’s doing managing draft pick value & optimizing risk/reward probability of picks versus position(and has way better draft performance models I’d expect than that of dobber & anything public or maybe even private from other orgs in the league), but the actual responsibilities of drafting however are probably deferred to the amateur scouting department. I can’t fathom he’s such a talented jack of all trades where he could specialize in understanding development and prospect technical ability in addition to everything else. Then again I don’t know actually as I’m not a part of the org, but from what I’ve read some of his old articles off of 538 and they would probably back that up too

 

[Bubba88]

Just Look at the last few years and how many picks we made. It was the right time to package some and move up. Same will happen next year. After that we will either trade those picks for NHL help or just keep them. Some Times you have to go with quality picks.

 

[hawksrule]

Carolina is ran by a genius and they trade back more than anyone. I doubt it’s because the math doesn’t say it’s right.

“As you can see from here, the success rate drops massively from pick 25 to pick 31, and then it stays at a similar level for the entire second round. I’m not sure what’s the reason for that drop-off but it’s clear as day.”

NHL Draft Pick Probabilities – DobberProspects

That’s aligning with what Pez and said. Huge dropoff after 25, so trade for 1sts.

That analysis is pretty basic, though, as it measures success by 100 games played, yet plenty of scrubs play 100 games. It also doesn’t distinguish success between a Hall of Famer and a fourth liner. It’s all lumped together. It’s also data that’s 20 years old.

 

[hawksrule]

In theory, I agree.

In practice you wind up with guys ranked in the 20s that become available in the 2nd round, and that makes trading up less necessary.

But pick 18-22 has a much higher hit rate than pick 40-50, which indicates these public rankings aren’t the end all be all.

 

[TLEH]

That’s aligning with what Pez and said. Huge dropoff after 25, so trade for 1sts.

That analysis is pretty basic, though, as it measures success by 100 games played, yet plenty of scrubs play 100 games. It also doesn’t distinguish success between a Hall of Famer and a fourth liner. It’s all lumped together. It’s also data that’s 20 years old.

Well we had pick 27, not 25, which would align with the “rest of the 2nd round” value portion. They make a lot of assumptions, but it’s more work than gut feelings.

 

[WarriorofTime]

That’s aligning with what Pez and said. Huge dropoff after 25, so trade for 1sts.

That analysis is pretty basic, though, as it measures success by 100 games played, yet plenty of scrubs play 100 games. It also doesn’t distinguish success between a Hall of Famer and a fourth liner. It’s all lumped together. It’s also data that’s 20 years old.

Yeah issue with GP analysis is that high first round picks can get 100, sometimes 200 games even when they’re absolutely useless just because they’re trying to see what they can get out of them.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Who cares

 

[hawksrule]

Well we had pick 27, not 25, which would align with the “rest of the 2nd round” value portion. They make a lot of assumptions, but it’s more work than gut feelings.

Like I said, that link is a non-statistician having fun on excel with an admittedly flawed analysis using twenty year old data. It’s not the kind of research to put any stock in.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I'm not sure I agree with this. The probability of finding a regular NHLer drops off massively after 25. The overwhelming majority of NHL players are found in the top 25 of the draft.

34.2 % of NHLers last season were former first round picks (including picks after 25), which is a lot but does also indicate that almost 2/3 of the league weren’t.

 

[TLEH]

Like I said, that link is a non-statistician having fun on excel with an admittedly flawed analysis using twenty year old data. It’s not the kind of research to put any stock in.

it’s elementary stats work but it’s more analysis than “I feel like”

 

[hawksrule]

34.2 % of NHLers last season were former first round picks (including picks after 25), which is a lot but does also indicate that almost 2/3 of the league weren’t.

But finding impact players is the key. By definition, half of the league is below average, and a big percentage is slightly to moderately above average.

it’s elementary stats work but it’s more analysis than “I feel like”

This analysis would have McDavid and Reese Johnson as equal successes. I personally don’t find that to be an interesting take.

 

[TLEH]

This analysis would have McDavid and Reese Johnson as equal successes. I personally don’t find that to be an interesting take.

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

Here is another analysis that uses 200 games and comes to a similar conclusion. When the alternatives are a bunch of people that never play, Reese Johnson is a success and using McDavid as some sort of comparison is more flawed than anything in this conversation.

 

[bwanajamba]

It should also be said that the Reese Johnsons who play significant amounts of games are few and far between. Most guys who hit triple digits in the league can legitimately play.

I don't think throwing away some picks when you have a billion of them is a huge deal though. The isles trade was a bad gamble that didn't pay off, but I have no problem with going up and getting Vanacker even if it's objectively bad asset management. The pool is full of depth, what we really need now is impact players. If they think Vanacker can be that then so be it

 

[hawksrule]

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

Here is another analysis that uses 200 games and comes to a similar conclusion. When the alternatives are a bunch of people that never play, Reese Johnson is a success and using McDavid as some sort of comparison is more flawed than anything in this conversation.

You’re making my point for me. This is the problem with defining success by GP isolated from other metrics. Reese Johnson and Entwistle are far more successful than guys who never make the league. Great, who cares, they’re garbage. To consider them successes in the same way that actually good NHL players are considered successes is both specious and senseless. It’s just not interesting data.

 

[dj Mahoney]

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

We had 5 second round picks the prior two years, on top of 5 first round picks. Oh and 5 third round picks.

I think we’ll be fine.

At some point it’s okay to try to trade up for higher value picks, if that’s what they think they’re going to get. We may disagree, but they feel that way, and I’m fine with the decision.

 

[Giovi]

Its a pretty valuable pick. You can hit gold there. Once you get to around 60 theres a significant drop-off in talent. Picks 25-60 are all minimally different in value. It all depends on how good your scouts are

So now we've gone from "premium" to "pretty valuable".

 

[pvr]

Watching the highlight and scouting videos, love the way Vanacker backchecks and steals the puck. Reminds me of Hossa, especially with the long stick. He’s a puck hound. Also reminds me of Hagel.

I like the pick.

 

[Castle8130]

Lardis then Vanacker then.... O'brien? O'brien might be out of the leafs pick range next season, but that kid might be better than both these 2 guys. Wouldn't mind grabbing him myself. Elite Playmaking Center hovering around 6'0", likely to be 6'1"-6'2" after this season.

 

[TLEH]

You’re making my point for me. This is the problem with defining success by GP isolated from other metrics. Reese Johnson and Entwistle are far more successful than guys who never make the league. Great, who cares, they’re garbage. To consider them successes in the same way that actually good NHL players are considered successes is both specious and senseless. It’s just not interesting data.

When a massive amount of the 230+ picks don’t play, McDavid isn’t the ruler.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Very solid pick for the Blackhawks here. Vanacker produced very well for Brantford, his shot is underrated. More room to grow for him, likely a 2025 and/or 2026 World Junior player for Hockey Canada.

 

[hawksrule]

When a massive amount of the 230+ picks don’t play, McDavid isn’t the ruler.

I’m not sure why we’re talking past each other. McDavid isn’t the ruler. The point was how farcical it is for any data set to lump Reese Johnson and McDavid together as if they’re equal successes. 100 gp as a metric for successful draft picks is worthless. You can easily acquire 100 gp guys off the waiver wire. What matters are IMPACT draft picks — guys who actually make a difference. Good players. If you can show that pick #58-60 has equal IMPACT as pick 26-28, go ahead. That hasn’t been demonstrated in the slightest.

 

[TLEH]

I’m not sure why we’re talking past each other. McDavid isn’t the ruler. The point was how farcical it is for any data set to lump Reese Johnson and McDavid together as if they’re equal successes. 100 gp as a metric for successful draft picks is worthless. You can easily acquire 100 gp guys off the waiver wire. What matters are IMPACT draft picks — guys who actually make a difference. Good players. If you can show that pick #58-60 has equal IMPACT as pick 26-28, go ahead. That hasn’t been demonstrated in the slightest.

Games played is the ruler because a lot of players don’t play any games. And my argument is that 34 and 27 have similar odds not 27 and 50 isn’t the difference.

 

[hawksrule]

Games played is the ruler because a lot of players don’t play any games. And my argument is that 34 and 27 have similar odds not 27 and 50 isn’t the difference.

There are a lot of milestones that most drafted players don’t reach. Most don’t score 100 goals. Most don’t make 5 million a year. 100 gp in a vacuum is worthless. I’ll put it another way. No one would want any of the players we just drafted to be the next entwistle or Reese Johnson, because they stink, despite having over 100 gp. And if the guys we just drafted do turn into the next entwistle/johnson, they will not have been good picks, because that means they will also stink.

You’re moving the goal posts. Before you said 25 to 60 are all the same. Now you’re saying 34 and 27. That’s more likely to be true, but we still haven’t seen any evidence of it.

 

[TLEH]

There are a lot of milestones that most drafted players don’t reach. Most don’t score 100 goals. Most don’t make 5 million a year. 100 gp in a vacuum is worthless. I’ll put it another way. No one would want any of the players we just drafted to be the next entwistle or Reese Johnson, because they stink, despite having over 100 gp. And if the guys we just drafted do turn into the next entwistle/johnson, they will not have been good picks, because that means they will also stink.

You’re moving the goal posts. Before you said 25 to 60 are all the same. Now you’re saying 34 and 27. That’s more likely to be true, but we still haven’t seen any evidence of it.

When did I say that 25 and 60 are the same?