Toggle sidebar

NHL Entry Draft 2024 NHL Draft Talk

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Sens of Anarchy said:
As mentioned in the draft thread I've been tracking draft rankings in a spreadsheet since 2013 and was trying to figure out a way to evaluate how the various experts have performed. This is what I've come up with.

1. Evaluating from 2013-2019 as I started recording rankings in 2013 and anything past 2019 seems premature (do we really know what Quinton Byfield or Alexis Lafreniere is yet?)
2. Using the first round players (so 30 or 31 players depending on the year) from each list as some rankings I don't have further than that and we mostly care about the top of the draft
3. Evaluating based on the actual results of the players in the NHL - not where they were drafted as these lists aren't meant to be mock drafts but rather are how the expert thinks the player will perform. To achieve this I decided to use the career Point Share calculation from HockeyReference.com as it allows comparison across positions. This also means that players with similar results will have similar values.
4. Weight the results based on where the player was ranked - getting a good player in your ranking at #25 is fine, but if the player you put #2 was a bust that should count against you pretty heavily. I decided the simplest way to weight the rankings was by multiplying the point shares by the inverse of the slot - so for a year where the first round had 30 picks for the #1 ranked player's point shares are multiplied by 30, the #2 player by 29, etc. I'm not convinced that the top players in the ranking shouldn't be weighted even more heavily but this is at least a start.
5. For a baseline I then calculated the same value based on the actual draft positions for the year
6. To allow comparison across years I then took each list's score as a percentage of the baseline. So if the score for the actual draft was 9279 (the 2017 score) and Bob McKenzie's list scored 9204 he would end up with 9204/9279*100 = 99.2 as his score for that year. Above 100 means the list outperformed the actual draft, below 100 is worse.

My assumption going is was that Bob McKenzie would be right around the actual GM results as his list is an average of NHL scouts. I figured Craig Button and Corey Pronman would probably vary quite a bit from year to year as they tend to go against the consensus more than most. So, how did the various evaluators do?

Code:
View attachment 877206

As expected, McKenzie is generally right around 100. Future Considerations had a few very good years. Button had a terrible 2013 and excellent 2014 and 2016 rankings. Pronman was awful in 2017 and 2018. ISS is not good. Wheeler didn't do well, but it was only a 2 draft sample for him. Overall the NHL GMs get better results than the expert rankings.

Evaluating Past Draft Rankings - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Evaluating Past Draft Rankings Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum
forum.calgarypuck.com forum.calgarypuck.com
Click to expand...
Cool stuff, I'm not a fan of the hockey ref point share model (it's a bit dated and imo favours players on good teams over equal players on bad teams) but every all in one model will have its flaws and this one is readily available which is always a big plus..

Button is a bit surprising to see so high, I always found his lists to have some head scratchers but credit where it's due.

I've always liked FC and McKeens, this seems to validate that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrEasy and Sens of Anarchy
Micklebot said:
Cool stuff, I'm not a fan of the hockey ref point share model (it's a bit dated and imo favours players on good teams over equal players on bad teams) but every all in one model will have its flaws and this one is readily available which is always a big plus..

Button is a bit surprising to see so high, I always found his lists to have some head scratchers but credit where it's due.

I've always liked FC and McKeens, this seems to validate that.
Click to expand...
I just ran across it.. did zero evaluation lol... I was looking for something on how the draft guys ... do compared to actual. I remember seeing something on it before but I think the guy doing the article .. is right that the draft evaluators are projecting not doing a mock draft so comparing where the actually go misses the mark a bit because that's not what the lists are actually saying ... they are projecting who will be the best not where they are picked. As far as validity of the actual model... no idea ... but I know its better than mine lol

I agree with 2/3 of McKeens top D and I think Buium is too low. Both FC and McKeens have Levshunov out of the top 6 picks ...not what the NHL scouts have been saying.

Looking forward to HockeyProspect.com's rankings. They are my favorite scouting service. Apparently a fair number of changes from the mid term.
https://x.com/i/web/status/1792957151687651668
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DrEasy
Micklebot said:
It's funny, because Buium I believe has the record for pts by an NCAA Dman at 18 yrs of age, he's ahead of Adam fox, Luke Hughes, Wierenski,

Not bad for a guy that lacks a game breaking ceiling....
Click to expand...
I'm going mostly by the eye test based on armchair youtube scouting.

I just think Parekh has a more dynamic offense to his game and better wheels. He can "dance" a bit out there like karl/stu.

Buium will be a very good NHL dman, for sure, and seems to have a very complete game.

I just think Parekh's ceiling is higher because of those raw tools. I wanna draft a very flashy player, even if it comes with a few more flaws.
 
dumbdick said:
I'm going mostly by the eye test based on armchair youtube scouting.

I just think Parekh has a more dynamic offense to his game and better wheels. He can "dance" a bit out there like karl/stu.

Buium will be a very good NHL dman, for sure, and seems to have a very complete game.

I just think Parekh's ceiling is higher because of those raw tools. I wanna draft a very flashy player, even if it comes with a few more flaws.
Click to expand...
Parekh is highly entertaining. Great/Bad whatever .he is fun to watch, he can bring you out of your seat and he would sell tickets..
I get the hesitation on him though
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrEasy and Sensators
Sens of Anarchy said:
I just ran across it.. did zero evaluation lol... I was looking for something on how the draft guys ... do compared to actual. I remember seeing something on it before but I think the guy doing the article .. is right that the draft evaluators are projecting not doing a mock draft so comparing where the actually go misses the mark a bit because that's not what the lists are actually saying ... they are projecting who will be the best not where they are picked. As far as validity of the actual model... no idea ... but I know its better than mine lol

I agree with 2/3 of McKeens top D and I think Buium is too low. Both FC and McKeens have Levshunov out of the top 6 picks ...not what the NHL scouts have been saying.
Click to expand...
I like using salary as a measure of player value since it lets you put defensive dmen beside offensive forwards, etc., and lets you take account of all the intangibles. You have to go a bit further out though to give guys time to get past their ELCs.
 
Sens of Anarchy said:
As mentioned in the draft thread I've been tracking draft rankings in a spreadsheet since 2013 and was trying to figure out a way to evaluate how the various experts have performed. This is what I've come up with.

1. Evaluating from 2013-2019 as I started recording rankings in 2013 and anything past 2019 seems premature (do we really know what Quinton Byfield or Alexis Lafreniere is yet?)
2. Using the first round players (so 30 or 31 players depending on the year) from each list as some rankings I don't have further than that and we mostly care about the top of the draft
3. Evaluating based on the actual results of the players in the NHL - not where they were drafted as these lists aren't meant to be mock drafts but rather are how the expert thinks the player will perform. To achieve this I decided to use the career Point Share calculation from HockeyReference.com as it allows comparison across positions. This also means that players with similar results will have similar values.
4. Weight the results based on where the player was ranked - getting a good player in your ranking at #25 is fine, but if the player you put #2 was a bust that should count against you pretty heavily. I decided the simplest way to weight the rankings was by multiplying the point shares by the inverse of the slot - so for a year where the first round had 30 picks for the #1 ranked player's point shares are multiplied by 30, the #2 player by 29, etc. I'm not convinced that the top players in the ranking shouldn't be weighted even more heavily but this is at least a start.
5. For a baseline I then calculated the same value based on the actual draft positions for the year
6. To allow comparison across years I then took each list's score as a percentage of the baseline. So if the score for the actual draft was 9279 (the 2017 score) and Bob McKenzie's list scored 9204 he would end up with 9204/9279*100 = 99.2 as his score for that year. Above 100 means the list outperformed the actual draft, below 100 is worse.

My assumption going is was that Bob McKenzie would be right around the actual GM results as his list is an average of NHL scouts. I figured Craig Button and Corey Pronman would probably vary quite a bit from year to year as they tend to go against the consensus more than most. So, how did the various evaluators do?

Code:
View attachment 877206

As expected, McKenzie is generally right around 100. Future Considerations had a few very good years. Button had a terrible 2013 and excellent 2014 and 2016 rankings. Pronman was awful in 2017 and 2018. ISS is not good. Wheeler didn't do well, but it was only a 2 draft sample for him. Overall the NHL GMs get better results than the expert rankings.

Evaluating Past Draft Rankings - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Evaluating Past Draft Rankings Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum
forum.calgarypuck.com forum.calgarypuck.com

After reading this I was curious what FC has as their 2024 Rankings.
nhlentrydraft.com

NHL Draft Rankings - FC Hockey

nhlentrydraft.com nhlentrydraft.com
The D are ranked
3. Silayev
6. Dickinson
8. Buium
9. Levshunov
11. Parekh
15. Yakemchuk

The 3 LDs are ranked above the RDs. Thats what I have been saying.. hmmm The order is pretty bang on in my view as well. At least someone agrees with me lol. I would have Parekh in the top 10 as well but that is pretty close to a nit pick. Looking at their 1st couple of rounds I have to say there is lots I don't agree with but the D ranking I do... And.. I certainly don't have a document history of success like they do.
Click to expand...
This is great - thanks for sharing. An interesting idea may be to do an average for each year at the bottom, so you can see how an individual's ranking compared to the average for that class.
 
Micklebot said:
It's funny, because Buium I believe has the record for pts by an NCAA Dman at 18 yrs of age, he's ahead of Adam fox, Luke Hughes, Wierenski,

Not bad for a guy that lacks a game breaking ceiling....
Click to expand...

I see a poor man’s Cale Makar in Buium
 
Micklebot said:
It's funny, because Buium I believe has the record for pts by an NCAA Dman at 18 yrs of age, he's ahead of Adam fox, Luke Hughes, Wierenski,

Not bad for a guy that lacks a game breaking ceiling....
Click to expand...

The point production of top offensive defensemen in any league is decently higher than it has been historically.

Not long ago putting up about a PPG as a defensemen in the CHL at 17 or the NCAA at 18/19 was the gold standard. Not anymore.

With the new PP set-up QBs can rack up easy assists passing to the shooters on the wings, and obviously scoring as a whole has gone up as well.

Buium could develop into a gamebreaker but it's worth keeping his production in context. Same goes for all the other top D in this draft for that matter.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DrEasy, Senator Stanley and Sens in Process
PlayOn said:
Guess we’re looking for size and speed?

ottawacitizen.com

Ottawa Senators chief scout Don Boyd is confident in this year's draft class

The Ottawa Senators scouting staff has made its list. Now, they're checking it twice.
ottawacitizen.com ottawacitizen.com
Click to expand...

"Size, speed and character" doesn't sound like much of a change from what we've been doing the last 5 years.

And I wouldn't be surprised if by "character" they mean toughness, intensity, willing to get dirty, etc...

Tools and toughness were the overwhelming focus the past 3 drafts, and we saw how that has worked out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrEasy and Senator Stanley
RE: Mem Cup
Parekh and Dickinson had fairly poor games, although the former was better.

Parekh had some nice moments, both offensively and defensively , in transition. He looked dangerous at times and even made a beautiful defensive play when he closed in on guy, and used his body to strip the puck and turn up ice.

The bad though was really bad. He turned over a ton of pucks with missed passes, errant icings; on several occasions, he was stripped of the puck or simply just lost control of it. He loses about 90% of all puck battles, is rarely first on puck and struggles to keep pucks in when holding the line(although he got an assist on such a play when he was successful) . He is simply afraid of getting hit. On the double minor , he pinched up the wall, lost the puck, and then cross checks the defender to avoid contact, drawing blood.

Simon St-Laurent, as mentioned on the main board, shows Parekh getting hit a lot in his scouting report. With that being said, somehow, I feel a little better about him. I saw some flashes.

Dickinson was mostly a non-factor. I think Pronman really hit the nail on the head. Dickinson has below average hockey sense. First, he really doesn't get any power play time(at least in this tournament). For somebody that has an NHL level shot, I find that kind of strange. His passing is not particularly great. He slap passed a stretch pass from his own end and missed the open guy by several feet. With London playing with such good defensive structure, and everyone seemingly having bought in, it can be hard to evaluate Dickason as an individual unit. Saginaw was able to have considerable zone time when he was on the ice at times, but it is junior hockey and it can be a cluster F .

It is going to be fascinating to see how this draft unfolds. I think the top six defensemen all have issues with their game. Levshunov probably has the most complete game, but I hate his shot and people have a range of opinions on his hockey sense. Buium is unathletic, lacks robustness and size. He is deceptive, but will his dipsy doo edges work at the NHL level? Hughes doesn't even try that stuff in the playoffs and he is the better skater. My boy Yak is polarizing. Does he have adequate hockey sense? Does he slow down the game or does he have a slow processor?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Senator Stanley
As far as size goes, the biggest guys(by height anyways) who could be available around our pick would be:

Silayev(6'7)
Lindstrom(6'4)
Dickinson(6'3)
Yakemchuk(6'3)
 
Last edited:
So maybe we take a forward with 7 and take a solid but more defensive defender with 25?

That Senneke (sp) guys looks like a player you fall in love with….

We might actually be able to get some solid D with the 25th and our second.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JaredCowen4Norris
I don't think it's a surprise to hear Don Boyd say the Sens are interested in size. You just need to look at how they've drafted in recent years and it's obvious. I don't even think this puts them at a disadvantage - any keen observer of the draft would already know that a lot of the players ranked near #7 don't really fit with how Ottawa have approached the draft recently. It would be very 'against type' for the Sens to take somebody like Parekh, Catton, or Helenius.

In particular, look at the guys they've taken out of OHL and QMJHL - the areas Boyd has been responsible for as a crossover scout...

Thomas Chabot [6'2", 200]
Gabriel Gagne [6'5", 214]
Filip Chlapik [6'2", 195]
Logan Brown [6'6", 230]
Alex Formenton [6'3", 195]
Drake Batherson [6'3", 205]
Max Guenette [6'3", 208]
Egor Sokolov [6'3", 225]
Phil Daoust [6'0, 170]
Ben Roger [6'4", 195]
Chandler Romeo [6'6", 205]
Jorian Donovan [6'2", 195]
Matt Andonovski [6'2", 200]

That's a strong preference for size, and he's now the guy who'll be making the final call on the selections. Carter Yakemchuk really fits the bill as a big, toolsy, rangy, kind of player.

Parekh-bros, I feel like you're going to be disappointed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OttawaSenators11, bicboi64 and BigRig4
Ouroboros said:
I don't think it's a surprise to hear Don Boyd say the Sens are interested in size. You just need to look at how they've drafted in recent years and it's obvious. I don't even think this puts them at a disadvantage - any keen observer of the draft would already know that a lot of the players ranked near #7 don't really fit with how Ottawa have approached the draft recently. It would be very 'against type' for the Sens to take somebody like Parekh, Catton, or Helenius.

In particular, look at the guys they've taken out of OHL and QMJHL - the areas Boyd has been responsible for as a crossover scout...

Thomas Chabot [6'2", 200]
Gabriel Gagne [6'5", 214]
Filip Chlapik [6'2", 195]
Logan Brown [6'6", 230]
Alex Formenton [6'3", 195]
Drake Batherson [6'3", 205]
Max Guenette [6'3", 208]
Egor Sokolov [6'3", 225]
Phil Daoust [6'0, 170]
Ben Roger [6'4", 195]
Chandler Romeo [6'6", 205]
Jorian Donovan [6'2", 195]
Matt Andonovski [6'2", 200]

That's a strong preference for size, and he's now the guy who'll be making the final call on the selections. Carter Yakemchuk really fits the bill as a big, toolsy, rangy, kind of player.

Parekh-bros, I feel like you're going to be disappointed.
Click to expand...
I would think Staios and the front office would be the ones determining which characteristics they want in draft picks and the scouts just executing on that.

What’s interesting is we have now heard the following in terms of what they’re looking for:

Poulin - character and hockey sense
Staios - character and hockey sense
Boyd - character, size and speed

At least we know we will have character.

In all seriousness though, Boyd was specifically talking about the 7th overall whereas Poulin/Staios spoke more generally about what they’re looking for in the draft. Maybe they just happen to like the bigger/faster guys available around there. Guess we’ll have a better idea soon.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: LiseL
PlayOn said:
I would think Staios and the front office would be the ones determining which characteristics they want in draft picks and the scouts just executing on that.

What’s interesting is we have now heard the following in terms of what they’re looking for:

Poulin - character and hockey sense
Staios - character and hockey sense
Boyd - character, size and speed

At least we know we will have character.

In all seriousness though, Boyd was specifically talking about the 7th overall whereas Poulin/Staios spoke more generally about what they’re looking for in the draft. Maybe they just happen to like the bigger/faster guys available around there. Guess we’ll have a better idea soon.
Click to expand...
Drafting for character yet the current team has none.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrEasy
dumbdick said:
Draft for skill skating and full-speed hockey IQ. We can fix everything else but you cant teach this stuff.

Catton or Parehk or Lindstrom or even Eiserman.

Buium, dickinson, iginla, silayev and Yakemchuk all lack that dynamism.

"safe" players aren't safe. They bust as much as the skill guys. Draft a f***ing wizard.
Click to expand...

Skill, IQ, skating....and work ethic.

You want kids who have the passion to always want to get better, and learn. Guys who won't be satisfied at getting X goals or Y points or Z hits. A kid who goes to every practice, and sticks around after practice to get some extra work in with the vets, or spending more time in the video room working on their game. A kid who won't say "good enough" once they get their post-ELC bigger money contract.
 
Twitter gets annoying around this time. People are just furious at the prospect of drafting “safe, reliable, Carter yakemchuk..Sens should take a swing!!”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Senator Stanley
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom