Prospect Info: 6th Overall Pick: Pavel Zacha

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Just for some added perspective, I looked back at the history of #5 and #7 picks:

#5 knocked it out of the park:
Jaromir Jagr, Rob Niedermayer, Jeff O'Neill, Daymond Langkow, Tim Connolly, Raffi Torres, Stanislav Chistov, Thomas Vanek, Blake Wheeler, Phil Kessel, Brayden Schenn, Nino Niederreiter, Ryan Strome, Elias Lindholm, Michael Dal Colle.

First Liners (4): Jaromir Jagr, Thomas Vanek, Blake Wheeler, Phil Kessel
Second Liners (7): Jeff O'Neill, Daymond Langkow, Tim Connolly, Brayden Schenn, Nino Niederreiter, Ryan Strome, Elias Lindholm
Third Liners (2): Rob Niedermayer, Raffi Torres
Busts (1): Stanislav Chistov
Too Early (1): Michael Dal Colle

#7 was decent, but had quite a few busts.
First Liners (2): Jason Arnott, Jakub Voracek
Second Liners (7): Shane Doan, Joffrey Lupul, Kyle Okposo, Colin Wilson, Nazem Kadri, Jeff Skinner, Mark Scheifele
Third/Fourth Liners (2): Erik Rasmussen, Manny Malhotra
Busts (5): Alek Stojanov, Ryan Sittler, Kris Beech, Rostislav Olesz, Jack Skille

So looking at picks 5 and 7 makes things look a bit brighter, but even then, out of 48 forwards drafted from #5-7 over the last 25 years, the ratios look like this:

1st liners: 9 (19%)
2nd liners: 21 (44%)
3rd/4th liners: 6 (13%)
Busts: 12 (25%)

If you are expecting Zacha to be sure fire first liner, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. If you are expecting a good 2nd line player who might have some years like a 1st line guy, a la Michalek, Kozlov, Hartnell, or Lupul, you might be on track.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

By that standard we really shouldn't be excited about anyone unless they're picked #1, geez louise pumping the brakes on over the top hype is one thing but why go the complete opposite way and mealy-mouth his chances before the kid's ever played a game?

What are you talking about?

All I'm doing is providing historical perspective for how players drafted around Zacha's position have performed.

I'm excited about Zacha, however I don't expect him to be a surefire first liner.

 

[NJDevs26]

Nobody has a problem extolling the value of realism with a guy like Quenneville, but because Zacha was picked 6th a little suspension of disbelief is okay?

You expect more from a #6 overall than from a #30 overall, the same odds that tell you #6 picks only develop into second-liners on average tell you those odds are much less for #30 picks.

It's okay to expect Zacha to be a top-line player down the road, that is what you hope for from a top pick in a deep draft. Whether it happens or not is another story but I don't see the point of injecting 'realism' for the guy's career chances now. Especially since if you're not going to get a top line player from the #6 overall, where are you getting it from? Free agency where guys will either re-sign for the extra year or go to some specific destination (i.e. Stamkos with Toronto maybe)? Trade, without dealing off Cory/Severson/Larsson? A lower draft pick?

 

[Jersey Fresh]

You expect more from a #6 overall than from a #30 overall, the same odds that tell you #6 picks only develop into second-liners on average tell you those odds are much less for #30 picks.

It's okay to expect Zacha to be a top-line player down the road, that is what you expect from a top pick in a deep draft. Whether it happens or not is another story but I don't see the point of injecting 'realism' for the guy's career chances now.

I guess, we just think differently.

Seems weird to knowingly "expect" something exceedingly uncommon. To me being excited about the potential and expecting that potential to come to fruition are two totally different things.

 

[Techno Devil*]

What are you talking about?

All I'm doing is providing historical perspective for how players drafted around Zacha's position have performed.

I'm excited about Zacha, however I don't expect him to be a surefire first liner.

Ill agree with you on the stance that people should allow some reasonable doubt in order to prevent some of the in-patrient grade treatment they are setting themselves up for; however, I can't really side with you based on that evidence. Not only are some of those guys misplaced on the basis of their caliber/team structure, but I think evaluating people in this manner is unfair to ourselves as well as individual players.

The only thing I would take from this draft history is that highly touted imports have essentially been coin flips in the last decade or so. I think most of us knew that already.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

You expect more from a #6 overall than from a #30 overall, the same odds that tell you #6 picks only develop into second-liners on average tell you those odds are much less for #30 picks.

It's okay to expect Zacha to be a top-line player down the road, that is what you expect from a top pick in a deep draft. Whether it happens or not is another story but I don't see the point of injecting 'realism' for the guy's career chances now. Especially since if you're not going to get a top line player from the #6 overall, where are you getting it from? Free agency where guys will either re-sign for the extra year or go to some specific destination (i.e. Stamkos with Toronto maybe)? Trade, without dealing off Cory/Severson/Larsson? A lower draft pick?

Typically teams need multiple high first round draft picks to land a surefire first liner. Take the Chicago Blackhawks for instance, with forwards drafted in the top 16 since 1997:

1997: Daniel Cleary (3rd liner) and Ty Jones (bust)
1998: Mark Bell (2nd liner turned bust)
2000: Mikhail Yakupov and Pavel Vorobiev (busts)
2001: Tuomo Ruutu (2nd to 3rd liner)
2005: Jack Skille (bust)
2006: Jonathan Toews (1st liner)
2007: Patrick Kane (1st liner)
2008: Kyle Beach (bust)

Out of ten picks, only two yielded 1st liners, and they were the #1 and #3 overall picks. Six busts, and two 2nd/3rd liners.

If you have three #6 picks, you'll likely get a surefire first liner.

We can always get lucky and garner a top line player from another draft pick or from a trade, but the reality is that a singular #6 gives you probably a 1/4 chance of getting that player. You could very well end up with a good player, which I think Zacha can be, but expecting someone who puts up 70 point consistently and reaches 80-90 in some seasons is not supported by history.

Because our forward prospect pool is so thin with top level talent, Zacha probably has undue expectations on him.

 

[MadDevil]

There's nothing wrong with comparing Zacha to where #6 picks have historically ended up. We all want to hit it out of the park with him, but expecting him to be the next Getzlaf or Eric Staal is probably setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

[Cheddabombs]

There's nothing wrong with comparing Zacha to where #6 picks have historically ended up. We all want to hit it out of the park with him, but expecting him to be the next Getzlaf or Eric Staal is probably setting yourself up for disappointment.

I disagree personally.

I don't see the point in it at all. Each player's circumstance is different. Their style of play, attitude, the players/management they're surrounded by, their path to the NHL, etc... Worrying about what past players did at #6 just seems meaningless to me. What I do know is that Zacha is a very skilled player, he really wants to be part of the Devils organization, and he's our best forward prospect by a mile and will be given every chance to succeed as such.

I guess looking back at past picks is a fun filler for the off-season, but I put absolutely 0 stock in it.

 

[Techno Devil*]

I disagree personally.

I don't see the point in it at all. Each player's circumstance is different. Their style of play, attitude, the players/management they're surrounded by, their path to the NHL, etc... Worrying about what past players did at #6 just seems meaningless to me. What I do know is that Zacha is a very skilled player, he really wants to be part of the Devils organization, and he's our best forward prospect by a mile and will be given every chance to succeed as such.

I guess looking back at past picks is a fun filler for the off-season, but I put absolutely 0 stock in it.

Muchos Gracias. Theres only two pieces of evidence needed to show how ludicrous it is to compare picks by their selection order.

Exhibit A: the 2002 draft
Exhibit B: the 2003 draft

 

[MadDevil]

I disagree personally.

I don't see the point in it at all. Each player's circumstance is different. Their style of play, attitude, the players/management they're surrounded by, their path to the NHL, etc... Worrying about what past players did at #6 just seems meaningless to me. What I do know is that Zacha is a very skilled player, he really wants to be part of the Devils organization, and he's our best forward prospect by a mile and will be given every chance to succeed as such.

I guess looking back at past picks is a fun filler for the off-season, but I put absolutely 0 stock in it.

I'm not saying you can draw any real conclusions from it, but it does give you a general idea of how successful those picks have been in the past. Zacha could be anything from a #1 center to a top six winger to a third liner to a complete bust.

 

[ForeverJerseyGirl]

Bottom line for me is that I think Zacha was drafted with the expectation that he could be a good first liner for the Devils. That's what he expects of himself and I believe that's what coaching and management ultimately expect of him. Same with the fans. Whether or not it's fair, that isn't going to change how disappointed everyone would be if that didn't happen. Zacha has a lot of opportunity going to a team as offensively starved as the Devils, but he also gets a lot of expectations because of how desperate everybody is for some offense.

 

[Emperoreddy]

I'm not saying you can draw any real conclusions from it, but it does give you a general idea of how successful those picks have been in the past. Zacha could be anything from a #1 center to a top six winger to a third liner to a complete bust.

To me you just explained why this is sort of a fruitless exercise. What he ends up has is wildly varied.

I think the only place to look is on the ice, and we need more data before conclusions can be made. We can only guess from what he did in the Czech leagues and the little we got from Sarnia.

Furthermore this way of looking at things assumes all drafts are equal, which is definitely not true. Especially since this draft was considered special and deeper then most draft classes in years.

 

[Tretyak 20]

One thing I see a lot of posters here not giving much consideration too with historical comparisons is just how damn deep this year's top 10 was. It's highly unlikely to have a legit generational talent player in a draft - 2015 had two. Beyond that there's the fact that the "2nd tier" guys would all have been 1st overall picks in weaker drafts.

Hanifin was dominating the NCAA at age 18 - that never happens, especially not for a D. Strome and Marner had 129 and 126 pts respectively. In there respective draft years Taylor Hall had106 pts, Ryan Nugent Hopkins 106 pts and Stamkos had 105 pts. Those facts make a very strong case that if they had been part of the 2015 draft class, any of RNH, Hall or Stamkos would likely have gone 6th overall.

Of course, I'm not trying to say Zacha will be as good as Stamkos. What I'm saying is that he is not your average 6th overall pick due to the quality of those ahead of him. In many drafts Zacha would likely have gone 3rd or 4th. In a weaker draft he might have even gone 1st himself. I will gladly agree he's the least "proven" of this year's top 10 picks, but to assume that just because he went 6th overall limits his upside fails to take into account just which 5 players were chosen before him.

 

[Emperoreddy]

One thing I see a lot of posters here not giving much consideration too with historical comparisons is just how damn deep this year's top 10 was. It's highly unlikely to have a legit generational talent player in a draft - 2015 had two. Beyond that there's the fact that the "2nd tier" guys would all have been 1st overall picks in weaker drafts.

Hanifin was dominating the NCAA at age 18 - that never happens, especially not for a D. Strome and Marner had 129 and 126 pts respectively. In there respective draft years Taylor Hall had106 pts, Ryan Nugent Hopkins 106 pts and Stamkos had 105 pts. Those facts make a very strong case that if they had been part of the 2015 draft class, any of RNH, Hall or Stamkos would likely have gone 6th overall.

Of course, I'm not trying to say Zacha will be as good as Stamkos. What I'm saying is that he is not your average 6th overall pick due to the quality of those ahead of him. In many drafts Zacha would likely have gone 3rd or 4th. In a weaker draft he might have even gone 1st himself. I will gladly agree he's the least "proven" of this year's top 10 picks, but to assume that just because he went 6th overall limits his upside fails to take into account just which 5 players were chosen before him.

Agree with all your points.

On your last bit about him not being proven. You are right he isn't, but we know the context on why his junior numbers weren't so stellar, and it shows why he can be an exception to the rule that prospects that have bad draft years end up doing nothing.

Next year will tell us a lot more, whether it is back at Sarnia, Albany (if that loophole is true) or the NHL.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

The posters who are saying "the past doesn't matter" are missing the point. Obviously every player and draft is different, but getting a sense of the the type of players that come out of the draft at certain positions ivs very helpful in determining expectations. I would agree that it would better to look at a bigger pick range, maybe 4 to 8.

Whether people like to admit it or not, there is a distinct possibility Zacha busts, or that he doesn't perform at a top line level. Fans of the teams that drafted Daniel Tkazcuk and Stanislav Chistov were just as excited as everyone here about Zacha. He wouldn't be the first prospect with "size" and "tools" to impress in development camp and then to disappoint as an nhler.

And I saw him play on Saturday. I liked what I saw. I'm just not so blinded by it that I forget what nhl history and zachas history says about his odds to be a top line player.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

One thing I see a lot of posters here not giving much consideration too with historical comparisons is just how damn deep this year's top 10 was. It's highly unlikely to have a legit generational talent player in a draft - 2015 had two. Beyond that there's the fact that the "2nd tier" guys would all have been 1st overall picks in weaker drafts.

Hanifin was dominating the NCAA at age 18 - that never happens, especially not for a D. Strome and Marner had 129 and 126 pts respectively. In there respective draft years Taylor Hall had106 pts, Ryan Nugent Hopkins 106 pts and Stamkos had 105 pts. Those facts make a very strong case that if they had been part of the 2015 draft class, any of RNH, Hall or Stamkos would likely have gone 6th overall.

Of course, I'm not trying to say Zacha will be as good as Stamkos. What I'm saying is that he is not your average 6th overall pick due to the quality of those ahead of him. In many drafts Zacha would likely have gone 3rd or 4th. In a weaker draft he might have even gone 1st himself. I will gladly agree he's the least "proven" of this year's top 10 picks, but to assume that just because he went 6th overall limits his upside fails to take into account just which 5 players were chosen before him.

How many players with a sub ppg in juniors have gone in the top five? Johansen and Staal are the only two I can think of. Zacha is not going 3-4 in most drafts.

Zacha likely would have been a 6th in the 2014 draft too, right beside Virtanen.

 

[Emperoreddy]

The posters who are saying "the past doesn't matter" are missing the point. Obviously every player and draft is different, but getting a sense of the the type of players that come out of the draft at certain positions ivs very helpful in determining expectations. I would agree that it would better to look at a bigger pick range, maybe 4 to 8.

Whether people like to admit it or not, there is a distinct possibility Zacha busts, or that he doesn't perform at a top line level. Fans of the teams that drafted Daniel Tkazcuk and Stanislav Chistov were just as excited as everyone here about Zacha. He wouldn't be the first prospect with "size" and "tools" to impress in development camp and then to disappoint as an nhler.

And I saw him play on Saturday. I liked what I saw. I'm just not so blinded by it that I forget what nhl history and zachas history says about his odds to be a top line player.

Zacha busting will have more to do with him as a player and far less to do with who was taken at 6th overall over the years.

 

[Hockey Sports Fan]

Zacha busting will have more to do with him as a player and far less to do with who was taken at 6th overall over the years.

That's kinda what he's saying I think... When you're looking at players taken outside the top 1 or 2, no how matter how hyped and talented they may appear, there is a chance they just don't have the ability to put it all together. The point of looking back at past drafts is to help illustrate how highly touted players can bust despite what seems like surefire signs of NHL talent.

 

[Marshal Rochambeau]

Using past drafts to gauge Zacha is like using probability to determine which numbers to pick in roulette.

And it's highly likely that if Zacha had played more than 37 games he would have had at least a few hot streaks and a way better point-per-game average.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Using past drafts to gauge Zacha is like using probability to determine which numbers to pick in roulette.

And it's highly likely that if Zacha had played more than 37 games he would have had at least a few hot streaks and a way better point-per-game average.

Lol, so you're essentially saying that where players get drafted has no predictable relationship with how they end up as nhl players. That's an outright false assertion.

http://www2.tsn.ca/fantasy_news/story/?id=455673

Running a regression on draft slot and TSN's average rating yields a 68% R2, which means that 68% of a player's NHL quality is explained by his draft slot. Here's the data visualized on a graph: http://s23.postimg.org/83l7vao6z/Capture.jpg

Not anything like roulette.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Zacha busting will have more to do with him as a player and far less to do with who was taken at 6th overall over the years.

Obviously it has everything to do with Zacha as a player. But you don't have any clue about Zacha as a player, and nor do I.

But we can get a potential clue as to how Zacha might progress by looking at how 50 other forwards drafted in the same range over 25 years progressed. No one player was exactly like Zacha, but they were all high upside forwards who had a lot of skill. The TSN link in my previous post does a great job of summarizing things.

Until we know more about Zacha, he doesn't have great odds at being a sure fire top line player. If he goes to Albany and puts up 60 points, then the odds climb a lot.

 

[Marshal Rochambeau]

If you're trying to make a good guess, looking at past drafts helps but it is absolutely not a correlated probability.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

That's kinda what he's saying I think... When you're looking at players taken outside the top 1 or 2, no how matter how hyped and talented they may appear, there is a chance they just don't have the ability to put it all together. The point of looking back at past drafts is to help illustrate how highly touted players can bust despite what seems like surefire signs of NHL talent.

Thank you for eloquently stating this.

Looking back at past drafts is a matter of gaining perspective. It's about not being completely duped by the excitement of our first good forward prospect in a while. Knowing that there were plenty of players who were thought to have just as much skill as Zacha who busted, or didn't turn out to be first liners. Perhaps some would like to ignore this reality though.

Now, I think the historical news is pretty good. Zacha has high odds of being an NHL player, and probably a top six player. Obviously we'll know more after a year or two. That's nothing to turn your noses at.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

If you're trying to make a good guess, looking at past drafts helps but it is absolutely not a correlated probability.

It is highly correlated, in fact it's highly causal. That's what regression analysis measures.

If there was no high correlation between draft slot and NHL performance, every scouting department would be fired and we'd just pick names out of a hat in the draft.

 

[Edmonton East]

Just out of general curiosity: Is there a comparable first line player to Zacha in terms of severe under production heading into the draft and turned out to be a stud? Most bonafide top liners tore it up (in NA leagues) heading into the draft point wise.

Obviously his point totals have been scrutinized and I don't care about the injury, suspension, poor team, adjust to NA ice, etc excuses (while valid points). Just want some comparables.

Note: I do not consider Hertl a comparable.