2025 NHL DRAFT

[Porter Stoutheart]

I think just to add to that, I've seen spreadsheets of draft success rates by position, I've even reproduced them here in the past, although I haven't gone looking for the source I used to quote in this post.

But the bottom line is you are going from about 30% to about 20% odds of hitting in the last 10 spots of the 1st round and early 2nd round. So you are talking about a 10% difference in odds. Think about that statistically...

1) say you pick #25, #30, #35...
Odds = 27% + 23% + 20% of getting a player = 70%

2) say you package #25+#35 to move up to #20...
Odds = 33% + 23% = 56%

There are lots of papers and studies of draft pick valuation these days, but I don't think there is any statistical argument which says trading up makes sense. It never makes sense statistically. All you can do is think you are smarter than everybody else and will beat the draft odds by getting a 17-18 year old player who in that part of the draft is probably 4-5 years from being able to play in the NHL, and thinking you are going to get the right guy, develop him right, he's not going to get hurt, all that. Which based on my experience is usually hubris. All you are going to succeed in doing is giving yourself a short-term dopamine hit for "getting your guy". In the long run, however, it is not a sound strategy.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

I think just to add to that, I've seen spreadsheets of draft success rates by position, I've even reproduced them here in the past, although I haven't gone looking for the source I used to quote in this post.

But the bottom line is you are going from about 30% to about 20% odds of hitting in the last 10 spots of the 1st round and early 2nd round. So you are talking about a 10% difference in odds. Think about that statistically...

1) say you pick #25, #30, #35...
Odds = 27% + 23% + 20% of getting a player = 70%

2) say you package #25+#35 to move up to #20...
Odds = 33% + 23% = 56%

There are lots of papers and studies of draft pick valuation these days, but I don't think there is any statistical argument which says trading up makes sense. It never makes sense statistically. All you can do is think you are smarter than everybody else and will beat the draft odds by getting a 17-18 year old player who in that part of the draft is probably 4-5 years from being able to play in the NHL, and thinking you are going to get the right guy, develop him right, he's not going to get hurt, all that. Which based on my experience is usually hubris. All you are going to succeed in doing is giving yourself a short-term dopamine hit for "getting your guy". In the long run, however, it is not a sound strategy.

I'm terrible with statistics, but that's not how it works. You don't just add the percent. To illustrate, if you added a few more picks, it would be over 100%. I have no idea how it's done, but when looking up the first scenario, it came to 55%.

 

[Bringer of Jollity]

The higher theoretical upside of the player being traded up for often isn't worth the risk of reducing your two kicks at the can down to just one. If we're talking about trading up to top 10 or something that's a bit different, but how often do teams trade out of those spots?

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I'm terrible with statistics, but that's not how it works. You don't just add the percent. To illustrate, if you added a few more picks, it would be over 100%. I have no idea how it's done, but when looking up the first scenario, it came to 55%.

They are completely independent outcomes. If you were asking what the probability of one or the other happening (but not both) in dependent cases you could do P(A OR B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A & B) which would lower the sum. But that's not what we're asking here. There is no overlap whatsoever in these events?

If you have 5 late 1st picks... I see where you are coming from. Obviously there is a chance you f**k it up and get nobody.

Maybe .27 + .23 + .20 - (.27*.23*.20) is right? But then you are still at 68.758% instead of 70%. So it's not much different. It keeps you from going over 100%. But it doesn't change the argument. (In fact, it kind of strengthens it, since if you apply that to the 2nd case, you are at .33 + .23 - (.33*.23) = 48.41%, so you are just making things even worse than what I posted!)

 

[Flgatorguy87]

I think just to add to that, I've seen spreadsheets of draft success rates by position, I've even reproduced them here in the past, although I haven't gone looking for the source I used to quote in this post.

But the bottom line is you are going from about 30% to about 20% odds of hitting in the last 10 spots of the 1st round and early 2nd round. So you are talking about a 10% difference in odds. Think about that statistically...

1) say you pick #25, #30, #35...
Odds = 27% + 23% + 20% of getting a player = 70%

2) say you package #25+#35 to move up to #20...
Odds = 33% + 23% = 56%

There are lots of papers and studies of draft pick valuation these days, but I don't think there is any statistical argument which says trading up makes sense. It never makes sense statistically. All you can do is think you are smarter than everybody else and will beat the draft odds by getting a 17-18 year old player who in that part of the draft is probably 4-5 years from being able to play in the NHL, and thinking you are going to get the right guy, develop him right, he's not going to get hurt, all that. Which based on my experience is usually hubris. All you are going to succeed in doing is giving yourself a short-term dopamine hit for "getting your guy". In the long run, however, it is not a sound strategy.

Based on the hit rate, the chances of us NOT getting at least 1 "hit" would be 45% for 3 picks ( .73*.77*.80) and would be 51% (.67*.77) for two picks. So 55% chance of success with 3 picks and 49% chance for 2 picks.

The caveat to all of this is what is a "hit". Coin flips are easy for probabilities, but calculating what defines a success that may take 4-6 years to determine is muddy.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Based on the hit rate, the chances of us NOT getting at least 1 "hit" would be 45% for 3 picks ( .73*.77*.80) and would be 51% (.67*.77) for two picks. So 55% chance of success with 3 picks and 49% chance for 2 picks.

The caveat to all of this is what is a "hit". Coin flips are easy for probabilities, but calculating what defines a success that may take 4-6 years to determine is muddy.

Another good way to look at it.

There is definitely a range of "hit" outcomes between Austin Watson and Tanner Molendyk ( )

Anyway, if you really think you are that smart, go for the trade-up, I guess. I just have 40 years of having figured out that I'm not that smart behind my preference to keep all the picks.

 

[braindead]

I always think the trade down a few spots is the right move for this general reason.

And having spent time observing and being obsessed over drafts I would pick largely on skating speed and VO2 max results above all else.

 

[Weber to Josi]

If we somehow manage to leave this draft with Misa I will be absolutely ecstatic. I also think he is the most NHL ready of the top prospects in this draft.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

I always think the trade down a few spots is the right move for this general reason.

And having spent time observing and being obsessed over drafts I would pick largely on skating speed and VO2 max results above all else.

I won't pretend to know a ton about the prospects, but apparently, there's a huge dropoff after 4 or 5. With that in mind, I'd rather keep the pick. I'd actually like to package and try to move up, honestly

 

[herzausstein]

Time to begin the mantra:
Schaefer won't drop to us.

 

[PredsV82]

Time to begin the mantra:
Schaefer won't drop to us.

I mean, the last time we were in this situation, everyone assumed Jones would go 1 or 2 and we know how that turned out. Teams may not be able to resist a center even if Schafer is BPA.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

U18s start today. So a chance to see at least a few options for our later picks?

Fiddler a Stars guy?

IIHF - Blake Fiddler, the pride of Frisco

Big d-man the only Texan in Texas

www.iihf.com

 

[Flgatorguy87]

I am really feeling good about this draft to be honest. I have done the internet GM scouting things and have to say if we can stay top 4 I am completely satisfied with any of our choices. I have preferences, but top 4 really keeps me happy. If we somehow drop to 5 it's honestly not the end of the world because that is probably Martone at the worst-case scenario. I am very comfortable with Misa, Frondell, or Hagens (my current preference order). Scheafer, I have done less research on as I assume we will go towards a center, but again I am completely fine with him as well.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I am really feeling good about this draft to be honest. I have done the internet GM scouting things and have to say if we can stay top 4 I am completely satisfied with any of our choices. I have preferences, but top 4 really keeps me happy. If we somehow drop to 5 it's honestly not the end of the world because that is probably Martone at the worst-case scenario. I am very comfortable with Misa, Frondell, or Hagens (my current preference order). Scheafer, I have done less research on as I assume we will go towards a center, but again I am completely fine with him as well.

My order is probably atm Misa-Hagens-Frondell, but as you say if we pick #5, then either Martone or Desnoyers will likely be players too. We'll get a player. Probably not a franchise-level star player with any of these picks, but that's never a sure thing in any draft regardless.

I guess maybe it helps to illustrate to the Tank Brigade fans that just picking near the top of the draft is no universal panacea? You get a good player, probably. But not really a better player than you could get any year on the UFA market. Which is still good. Just nothing that puts any overall dent into franchise fortunes. You have to stack up multiples PLUS get the draft unicorn in order for tanking to eventually-maybe pan out after a decade.

 

[Scoresberg]

There's apparently at least some momentum building that Frondell will be the second CENTER picked behind Misa. Scouts apparently love Martone A LOT so he might even go top-three, given the team's needs drafting there. Desnoyers will undoubtedly rise going into the draft, as he's doing some real damage in the Q playoffs and is one of the only top prospects still playing this late in the year. Those things MATTER.

 

[Flgatorguy87]

There's apparently at least some momentum building that Frondell will be the second CENTER picked behind Misa. Scouts apparently love Martone A LOT so he might even go top-three, given the team's needs drafting there. Desnoyers will undoubtedly rise going into the draft, as he's doing some real damage in the Q playoffs and is one of the only top prospects still playing this late in the year. Those things MATTER.

I really like Frondell. I think guys that are more physically mature sometimes skew the board because they are playing with traits others don't have yet. Frondell falls into that category. His production after coming back from injury down the stretch this year was very impressive though. The comps for Frondell are alllll over the place though. Lindholm to Forsberg at Center. I think his size has given him the edge over Hagens for me, but again I am really happy with any of the top 4 and I wouldn't be tore up about Martone who I have 5th.

 

[Scoresberg]

I really like Frondell. I think guys that are more physically mature sometimes skew the board because they are playing with traits others don't have yet. Frondell falls into that category. His production after coming back from injury down the stretch this year was very impressive though. The comps for Frondell are alllll over the place though. Lindholm to Forsberg at Center. I think his size has given him the edge over Hagens for me, but again I am really happy with any of the top 4 and I wouldn't be tore up about Martone who I have 5th.

I still think Frondell's biggest strength is his shot. It's NHL-caliber already and will only get better. I don't think his playmaking is at the level of Hagens, though. But with a bigger-body and as a good skater, it's very easy to project him as a center in the NHL, maybe even as a 1C. His production in Allsvenskan rivals the likes of Elias Pettersson and David Pastrnak.

 

[herzausstein]

I still think Frondell's biggest strength is his shot. It's NHL-caliber already and will only get better. I don't think his playmaking is at the level of Hagens, though. But with a bigger-body and as a good skater, it's very easy to project him as a center in the NHL, maybe even as a 1C. His production in Allsvenskan rivals the likes of Elias Pettersson and David Pastrnak.

Hagens is the better playmaker. There isn't a terrible height difference between Hagens and Frondell either but i think Frondell has the more NHL ready physique. I prefer Misa but I'd be happy with either of these picks as well.

I think the only player projected to go top 5 that i wouldn't be entirely excited about getting would be Martone. He would still be a good player/pick but wing isn't where we need the most help in our pipeline.

 

[Flgatorguy87]

Hagens is the better playmaker. There isn't a terrible height difference between Hagens and Frondell either but i think Frondell has the more NHL ready physique. I prefer Misa but I'd be happy with either of these picks as well.

I think the only player projected to go top 5 that i wouldn't be entirely excited about getting would be Martone. He would still be a good player/pick but wing isn't where we need the most help in our pipeline.

Pretty well summarizes my thoughts. Frondell has the physique now, but also has the potential to continue growing into a really be a big body center. I don't think Hagens is done growing, but his frame doesn't seem like the type that will ever be considered big body. Hagens will be more Hughes type which is still more than fine with me, but I like that big body when it gets late in the year.

 

[Flgatorguy87]

Take Frondell then if Eklund falls use our draft capital or some of our extra prospects to trade up and take him as well. I don't think this really happens, but it's kinda fun to think about. They seem to have something together.

Edit: It's funny, all I have to do is look at zone entries and potential to then think how complimentary Hagens could be to our existing team.

I don't make a good GM. I want all the guys.

 

[Kat Predator]

Now that we're locked into a top 5 pick, the question is: how can we pipe it up?

Do we trade down? Do we "swing for the fences" and take a wild flier on someone no one has ranked that high?

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I have no clue. This is not the days when I watched all the players, so all I go by today is hearsay. But it's fun to get onboard even going by that. Just nobody should ever think I'm saying I know anything or that my opinion means anything, because I sure don't think it does. That's the drawback of this forum, people think just because you say something you really believe it... heck no, I'm just shooting the breeze here, and if I'm wrong, I want you all to correct me and give me some better info!

Did Frondell not just get pressboxed because his coach didn't like his performances in the playoffs? I mean, it's nice he's producing in a men's league (albeit Tier 2), but even the argument about his physical development is a bit worrisome to me... he's only 6'0" so there's not a lot more filling out you can do, not a lot of room to go for him? Maybe the Combine will say something. I don't watch him play, but I haven't read a lot that makes me think there is "swing for the fences" upside with him? Even Lindholm might be stretching things? (Lindholm has been a very solid NHL player).

Sometimes "too much information" hurts things. I just think I like the way Hagens CRUSHED last year's U18 and was really good at this year's WJC as signs of a bigger upside? He's a really young kid for the NCAA, so I'm not holding that as much against him vs. how he stood out within his peer group. I see his upside as being higher than the current "hype" seems to be allowing?

 

[Gnashville]

Misa-Martone- Hagens-Frondell for forwards for me

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

U18s started today. US games are on NHL network. We beat Czechs in tight game. Several guys who could potentially be there for our late 1sts/early 2nd in action in this game. Some first day impressions:

Potter really wowed today. He is a brilliant skater who looked like most dangerous player on ice, although his goal was called back. Fiddler showed flashes, but he looks like he is still getting comfortable with how his feet work at times. McKinney looks like potential middle 6 center.

There are a few interesting Swedes, but just saw highlights of their game. Sweden-US on Friday should be interesting. Swedes are perhaps favorite to win this tourney.