Around the NHL 10 - 2022/23

[KingBogo]

I remember reading that an NHL team needs to pull 2 players out of the draft to be above average, which ostensibly includes 1st round picks. You can't expect to hit on everything, but you need to pull _someone_ out to maintain a healthy pipeline. No one drafted after 2016 has played a significant amount of time for the Jets. Gus may be the first one. Let's look at each team, starting with 2016-2020 (no one played more than 100 games from 2021). To make this easier, I'm just looking at drafted players by team, and not tracking trades. It's imperfect, but they're still NHL players regardless of where they were developed.

Player draft hits per team (min 100 games played):
ANA: 1.2
ARI: 0.6
BOS: 0.6
BUF: 1.2
CAR: 1.2
CBJ: 0.8
CAL: 0.6
CHI: 1.0
AVS: 0.4
DAL: 0.4
DET: 1.0 (technically one player in 2017 is at 99 games played, so I counted it anyways)
EDM: 0.6
FLA: 0.6
LAK: 0.4
MIN: 0.2
MTL: 0.8
NJD: 1.8 (Dawson Mercer needs 9 more games to hit 100GP, and was drafted in 2020, so I counted him)
NSH: 0.6
NYI: 0.2
NYR: 1.0 (that 2016 draft lol)
OTT: 0.8
PHI: 0.6
PIT: 0.0
SJS: 0.4
STL: 0.6
TBL: 0.6 (2016 technically only has 2 players, but 2 more are playing games this season that will have them break the criteria, bringing TBL up to 1.0 if they hit)
TML: 0.6 (0.8 if Sean Durzi plays 27 more games this season)
VAN: 0.6
VGK: 0.6 (0.8 if Glass plays 18 more games this year)
WPG: 0.2
WSH: 0.0 (Fehervary needs 6 more games to hit 0.2; McMichael needs 30 more to bring it to 0.4)

So, there are _far_ more teams below the 1 player hit, which tells me that I may have bit a bit stringent on the cutoff. Still, there is some useful data to pull out of this. The teams who made the playoffs the most in those 5 years have the fewest hits on average, but there are a few standouts amongst the rest. Carolina made the playoffs in 3/5 years, and have a 1.2 hit rate. NAS made the playoffs in 5/5 years and have a 0.6. TBL have won the Stanley cup twice, made the playoffs in all 5 years, and are tantalizingly close to a 1.0 hit rate. NJD have the highest hit rate, and only made the playoffs one of those years. Conversely, BUF missed every year and owns a 1.2 hit rate. Jets made the playoffs 4/5 years, and have a 0.2 rate. TML made the playoffs all 5 years, and have 3x the amount of hit players.

I think you skewed your results by making the 5 year block ending so recently. The 2020 draft has only 3 players over 100 games. You would have needed to be a full time NHLer as an 18 y/o which is extremely unlikely except for the very highest picks. So in a discussion on drafting and developing it doesn't add anything to the argument. Your last season needed to be a year where it was reasonable that a player would have had the development time to get into a 100 NHL games. Even 2019 leaves off guys that are now true NHLers like Seider in Detroit. At the very least 2018 should be the cutoff year as that is long enough out to give at least a balanced comparison. Personally I'd go to 2017 as my end point as in the vast majority of situations you have now weeded out players who haven't made it past the ELC contracts.

 

[CorgisPer60]

I think you skewed your results by making the 5 year block ending so recently. The 2020 draft has only 3 players over 100 games. You would have needed to be a full time NHLer as an 18 y/o which is extremely unlikely except for the very highest picks. So in a discussion on drafting and developing it doesn't add anything to the argument. Your last season needed to be a year where it was reasonable that a player would have had the development time to get into a 100 NHL games. Even 2019 leaves off guys that are now true NHLers like Seider in Detroit. At the very least 2018 should be the cutoff year as that is long enough out to give at least a balanced comparison. Personally I'd go to 2017 as my end point as in the vast majority of situations you have now weeded out players who haven't made it past the ELC contracts.

I did it that way though to show that even with that time frame, there are a some serious drafting teams out there. There were players that hit the 100 games played that were drafted in 2020, so it made it a viable ending. I also removed the 2015 draft, because most of the Jets' success stems from that one year. Comeau also retired that year, making Hillier the director of amateur scouting. I thought it was a good bifurcation of drafting philosophies.

 

[KingBogo]

I did it that way though to show that even with that time frame, there are a some serious drafting teams out there. There were players that hit the 100 games played that were drafted in 2020, so it made it a viable ending. I also removed the 2015 draft, because most of the Jets' success stems from that one year. Comeau also retired that year, making Hillier the director of amateur scouting. I thought it was a good bifurcation of drafting philosophies.

But if you want to get a clear picture on drafting you can't just count 3 top 10 picks from a single year. 2018 is the year you see the majority of the top drafted players go over 100 games. You would still miss a large amount of depth players who will end careers above 100 games, but at least it games close to a fair end point if the intent is to have an accurate representation. So by having your end point past that you are excluding large swath of players that will most certainly be NHL players. It is an interesting exercise, it just should be done to give a fair representation. Counting years 2013-2017 gives the Jets 11 players with 100 games or more, about what you should hope for.

 

[bumblebeeman]

I counted both of them. I counted each and every drafted player between 2016 and 2020 that played at least a hundred games, and divided them by five to arrive at the numbers. Laine and Stan are the only hits for the Jets in that time frame, so that equaled a mean score of 0.2.

2 / 5 = 0.4

 

[surixon]

The Preds look bad. I don't usually cheer for the Oil but I hope they pump the Preds tonight.

 

[CorgisPer60]

But if you want to get a clear picture on drafting you can't just count 3 top 10 picks from a single year. 2018 is the year you see the majority of the top drafted players go over 100 games. You would still miss a large amount of depth players who will end careers above 100 games, but at least it games close to a fair end point if the intent is to have an accurate representation. So by having your end point past that you are excluding large swath of players that will most certainly be NHL players. It is an interesting exercise, it just should be done to give a fair representation. Counting years 2013-2017 gives the Jets 11 players with 100 games or more, about what you should hope for.

Alright then. Let's see what 2013-2017 says instead.

Player draft hits per team (min 100 games played):

ANA: 2.0
ARI: 2.0
BOS: 2.0
BUF: 2.2
CAR: 2.8
CBJ: 2.6
CAL: 1.6
CHI: 1.2
DAL: 1.6
DET: 2.0
EDM: 1.8
FLA: 2.0
LAK: 1.6
MIN: 1.2
MTL: 1.4
NJD: 2.4
NSH: 1.8
NYI: 1.2
NYR: 1.2
OTT: 1.2
PHI: 1.6
PIT: 1.2
SJS: 1.8
STL: 1.6
TBL: 1.6
TML: 1.8
VAN: 1.8
VGK: 3.0 (lol)
WPG: 2.2
WSH: 1.0

Ok, some conclusions to be drawn here. The team averages are much higher, so looks like we're looking at 2 being the average number instead of 1. Doesn't change the weighting much. Arizona has the same draft hit success as Anaheim and Boston, but have never made the playoffs in that 5 year strip. Buffalo is better, but again, never made the playoffs in that time. CBJ actually shows pretty strong here, which helps to propel them to the playoffs for 4 years straight (also made the playoffs 2/5 years here). Carolina's draft hit here is insane, but they also missed the playoffs all 5 years. 2017 was Vegas' first year of existence, and had 3 hits in that draft. I included them because it's funny to skew the results. Islanders, Rangers, and Ottawa all stink here. Rangers were perennial playoff contenders, so that's to be expected. The other two have no excuse but poor asset management.

So, the conclusions you can draw from this are such: Teams with less than 1.4 per draft are either perennial playoff performers, or _really_ bad at drafting. The ones that are bad at drafting are still bad today. When you get closer to the 2.0 line, you start becoming a playoff performer. I find it interesting that the Pens and Caps both have the worst draft record, but also had the most playoff success in that time (fueled by Ovechkin and Crosby). Boston is just nuts. Even with the amazing 2015 f*** up, they still pulled 3 players out of that draft. The major outlier here is Arizona, which has a well above average hit rate, but still stinks. That's straight up development failure.

 

[Jet]

Alright then. Let's see what 2013-2017 says instead.

Player draft hits per team (min 100 games played):

ANA: 2.0
ARI: 2.0
BOS: 2.0
BUF: 2.2
CAR: 2.8
CBJ: 2.6
CAL: 1.6
CHI: 1.2
DAL: 1.6
DET: 2.0
EDM: 1.8
FLA: 2.0
LAK: 1.6
MIN: 1.2
MTL: 1.4
NJD: 2.4
NSH: 1.8
NYI: 1.2
NYR: 1.2
OTT: 1.2
PHI: 1.6
PIT: 1.2
SJS: 1.8
STL: 1.6
TBL: 1.6
TML: 1.8
VAN: 1.8
VGK: 3.0 (lol)
WPG: 2.2
WSH: 1.0

Ok, some conclusions to be drawn here. The team averages are much higher, so looks like we're looking at 2 being the average number instead of 1. Doesn't change the weighting much. Arizona has the same draft hit success as Anaheim and Boston, but have never made the playoffs in that 5 year strip. Buffalo is better, but again, never made the playoffs in that time. CBJ actually shows pretty strong here, which helps to propel them to the playoffs for 4 years straight (also made the playoffs 2/5 years here). Carolina's draft hit here is insane, but they also missed the playoffs all 5 years. 2017 was Vegas' first year of existence, and had 3 hits in that draft. I included them because it's funny to skew the results. Islanders, Rangers, and Ottawa all stink here. Rangers were perennial playoff contenders, so that's to be expected. The other two have no excuse but poor asset management.

So, the conclusions you can draw from this are such: Teams with less than 1.4 per draft are either perennial playoff performers, or _really_ bad at drafting. The ones that are bad at drafting are still bad today. When you get closer to the 2.0 line, you start becoming a playoff performer. I find it interesting that the Pens and Caps both have the worst draft record, but also had the most playoff success in that time (fueled by Ovechkin and Crosby). Boston is just nuts. Even with the amazing 2015 f*** up, they still pulled 3 players out of that draft. The major outlier here is Arizona, which has a well above average hit rate, but still stinks. That's straight up development failure.

Its still a very inaccurate representation of draft success as weaker teams would promote players more than those with strong rosters.

 

[surixon]

Alright then. Let's see what 2013-2017 says instead.

Player draft hits per team (min 100 games played):

ANA: 2.0
ARI: 2.0
BOS: 2.0
BUF: 2.2
CAR: 2.8
CBJ: 2.6
CAL: 1.6
CHI: 1.2
DAL: 1.6
DET: 2.0
EDM: 1.8
FLA: 2.0
LAK: 1.6
MIN: 1.2
MTL: 1.4
NJD: 2.4
NSH: 1.8
NYI: 1.2
NYR: 1.2
OTT: 1.2
PHI: 1.6
PIT: 1.2
SJS: 1.8
STL: 1.6
TBL: 1.6
TML: 1.8
VAN: 1.8
VGK: 3.0 (lol)
WPG: 2.2
WSH: 1.0

Ok, some conclusions to be drawn here. The team averages are much higher, so looks like we're looking at 2 being the average number instead of 1. Doesn't change the weighting much. Arizona has the same draft hit success as Anaheim and Boston, but have never made the playoffs in that 5 year strip. Buffalo is better, but again, never made the playoffs in that time. CBJ actually shows pretty strong here, which helps to propel them to the playoffs for 4 years straight (also made the playoffs 2/5 years here). Carolina's draft hit here is insane, but they also missed the playoffs all 5 years. 2017 was Vegas' first year of existence, and had 3 hits in that draft. I included them because it's funny to skew the results. Islanders, Rangers, and Ottawa all stink here. Rangers were perennial playoff contenders, so that's to be expected. The other two have no excuse but poor asset management.

So, the conclusions you can draw from this are such: Teams with less than 1.4 per draft are either perennial playoff performers, or _really_ bad at drafting. The ones that are bad at drafting are still bad today. When you get closer to the 2.0 line, you start becoming a playoff performer. I find it interesting that the Pens and Caps both have the worst draft record, but also had the most playoff success in that time (fueled by Ovechkin and Crosby). Boston is just nuts. Even with the amazing 2015 f*** up, they still pulled 3 players out of that draft. The major outlier here is Arizona, which has a well above average hit rate, but still stinks. That's straight up development failure.

Well Pittsburgh wasn't shy to sell off 1st round picks to add mid and long term complimentary pieces. It's much easier to do that whe you hit your lottery picks out of the park and had a two generational centers and a Norris caliber dmen already set as your core.

 

[CorgisPer60]

Its still a very inaccurate representation of draft success as weaker teams would promote players more than those with strong rosters.

True, but that's where the development part of the equation comes in. How many of those teams with high draft hits are currently still bad? How many are now good? That would weigh into how effectively the team was able to develop their prospects.

 

[DeepFrickinValue]

Alright then. Let's see what 2013-2017 says instead.

Player draft hits per team (min 100 games played):

ANA: 2.0
ARI: 2.0
BOS: 2.0
BUF: 2.2
CAR: 2.8
CBJ: 2.6
CAL: 1.6
CHI: 1.2
DAL: 1.6
DET: 2.0
EDM: 1.8
FLA: 2.0
LAK: 1.6
MIN: 1.2
MTL: 1.4
NJD: 2.4
NSH: 1.8
NYI: 1.2
NYR: 1.2
OTT: 1.2
PHI: 1.6
PIT: 1.2
SJS: 1.8
STL: 1.6
TBL: 1.6
TML: 1.8
VAN: 1.8
VGK: 3.0 (lol)
WPG: 2.2
WSH: 1.0

Ok, some conclusions to be drawn here. The team averages are much higher, so looks like we're looking at 2 being the average number instead of 1. Doesn't change the weighting much. Arizona has the same draft hit success as Anaheim and Boston, but have never made the playoffs in that 5 year strip. Buffalo is better, but again, never made the playoffs in that time. CBJ actually shows pretty strong here, which helps to propel them to the playoffs for 4 years straight (also made the playoffs 2/5 years here). Carolina's draft hit here is insane, but they also missed the playoffs all 5 years. 2017 was Vegas' first year of existence, and had 3 hits in that draft. I included them because it's funny to skew the results. Islanders, Rangers, and Ottawa all stink here. Rangers were perennial playoff contenders, so that's to be expected. The other two have no excuse but poor asset management.

So, the conclusions you can draw from this are such: Teams with less than 1.4 per draft are either perennial playoff performers, or _really_ bad at drafting. The ones that are bad at drafting are still bad today. When you get closer to the 2.0 line, you start becoming a playoff performer. I find it interesting that the Pens and Caps both have the worst draft record, but also had the most playoff success in that time (fueled by Ovechkin and Crosby). Boston is just nuts. Even with the amazing 2015 f*** up, they still pulled 3 players out of that draft. The major outlier here is Arizona, which has a well above average hit rate, but still stinks. That's straight up development failure.

Gonna make this simple. As this username clearly stats

If you drafted 5 corgis per year for 12 years then divided by 60 corgis how many corgis would you have?

 

[CorgisPer60]

Gonna make this simple.

If you drafted 5 corgis per year for 12 years then divided by 60 corgis how many corgis would you have?

 

[DeepFrickinValue]

View attachment 601920

2015 was a very good year for corgis.

 

[gojetsgo]

well the canucks turn around lasted about 2 games...

 

[bustamente]

That's a lot of empty seats in San Jose for so early in the season, and Boo Boo gets into a fight

 

[DRW204]

Njd seems to be trending really strongly this year.

well the canucks turn around lasted about 2 games...

 

[tbcwpg]

Njd seems to be trending really strongly this year.

When their goaltending remembers they're able to stop the puck they've looked very dangerous.

 

[gojetsgo]

the coyotes just beat the flourishing panthers

 

[antiqueslivers]

Florida's TOI stats looking eerily familiar

 

[gojetsgo]

erik karlsson has 9 goals already... wow

 

[raideralex99]

Hmmm ... Maurice's Panthers special teams looks familiar ... the 30th PP at 9.1 % and their PK is 27th at 71.8.
Maurice's top 2 players played 23+ mins against the Coyotes and lost ... ouch.
Maurice also has a very good Panthers team playing around the .500 mark too with a 5-4-1 record out of a playoff spot with more goals scored against than for.

 

[CorgisPer60]

We knew that defense was going to be an issue with them, and it's even more apparent now that Mackenzie Weegar is no longer there.

 

[JetsFan815]

Panthers #3 in the league in Corsi and #2 in xGoals. PP generating a lot but sh% is bad. PK 3'rd best in the league in xGA/60. Seems like some poor shooting luck. Not worried about the Panthers at all, they should be contenders in the East as long as the goaltending doesn't shit the bed.

If these number hold up, it should be an eye opener for Jets fans. Maurice suddenly went from one of the worst teams in the league in chances against on the PK to one of the best, literally the opposite for Bowness and to a lesser extent Arniel. If the numbers stay in the same range, it would really point the finger exclusively at the GM and the roster constructed and not at the coaches past or present.

 

[Buffdog]

Panthers #3 in the league in Corsi and #2 in xGoals. PP generating a lot but sh% is bad. PK 3'rd best in the league in xGA/60. Seems like some poor shooting luck. Not worried about the Panthers at all, they should be contenders in the East as long as the goaltending doesn't shit the bed.

If these number hold up, it should be an eye opener for Jets fans. Maurice suddenly went from one of the worst teams in the league in chances against on the PK to one of the best, literally the opposite for Bowness and to a lesser extent Arniel. If the numbers stay in the same range, it would really point the finger exclusively at the GM and the roster constructed and not at the coaches past or present.

Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance are real things for the PoMo haters.

Florida could have gone 82-0 and they'd still find obscure fancy stats to prove their narrative that he's a bum

 

[snowkiddin]

Maurice is an average coach that lost the room here. He’s not gonna run Florida into the ground, he’ll do alright for at least a couple of seasons.

 

[Jet]

True, he was better in TC this year. Doesn't seem to be doing much with the Moose this year, according to most reports here.

Its early but if that's the case it's very troublesome. People can say you can't blame him, no opportunity, yadda yadda, but the fact of the matter is he's not being held back in any sense.

The counter argument is that when we had plugs playing or when we were out of the race that was an opportunity to get him some nhl playing time but you really have to be sure that doing something like that will be beneficial to the player.

If the org thinks that a player is not ready and putting them in that position could damage his progress, then they shouldn't do that.

Ville needs to take it upon himself to excel at the AHL level because that is going to show the org that he's ready. He has to work on the things that are preventing him from moving up, which in my mind is standing up to pressure in his own zone and making appropriate decisions with the puck. Obviously his offensive game and instincts are there.

It might just be that Ville is a one dimensional player who can push the offensive play and has good exit passes when unpressured. That's fine, I think there's still a role for him in the NHL in that case as we see a lot of smaller, offensive d in the league today that aren't great under heavy forecheck. Hell, there's big guys like that too (hello Tyler Myers)

I'm guessing the Jets see the potential to develop the other side of Heinolas game and mage him a more well rounded guy which he will need if he's going to be a top 4 D which is why the Jets drafted him.

It's much harder to get a player to change their game after they've been promoted full time for a variety of reasons. You see it all the time with defensemen. Bogosian, Myers are just a couple examples.