Best Drafting Teams in the NHL

[bsu]

Thanks for doing that. Interesting!

 

[Hale The Villain]

The best drafting teams changed depending on the years you look at.

I have the Sens dominating from 08-11 but not so good from 12-16 (for example).

I'd be looking at primarily the last 5 years, or since there was a significant change in the scouting staff.

Using the Sens as an example, Murray overhauled the scouting department after the 2007 draft. Dorion basically managed the draft until 2014 when Bob Lowes became head scout, who then left after the 2016 draft and now Trent Mann is running the show.

So the 2017-2021 period should obviously be given more weight than previous years.

 

[outoftune]

I like the work done, the only two comments I would provide are:
1) Potentially using the points/game metric in your scoring formula as higher scoring players should have a higher impact on the rating as opposed to 4th liners picking up a lot of games but not really contributing; and
2) differentiating between forward and defensemen picks as point expectations would be very different (i.e. .5 ppg d-man is much different than a .5 ppg forward)

Those are just potential improvements, otherwise very interesting and great effort

 

[Habs Halifax]

I'd be looking at primarily the last 5 years, or since there was a significant change in the scouting staff.

Using the Sens as an example, Murray overhauled the scouting department after the 2007 draft. Dorion basically managed the draft until 2014 when Bob Lowes became head scout, who then left after the 2016 draft and now Trent Mann is running the show.

So the 2017-2021 period should obviously be given more weight than previous years.

I have the Sens with the 4th highest draft power and they do have a good history of good drafting when they do have good draft power. Looks good right not in terms of projection but the 17-21 years are subjective until they actually start playing in the NHL full time.

 

[Pavels Dog]

The last ten years are not impressive since they were routinely trading first round picks and drafting in the low 1st if they held on to them from 2011 through the 2016 draft. Not a bad job during that period in the 7th round with Kubalik and Roy.

You basically explained why the Wings weren't more impressive pre-2013 (the last 1st round pick they traded was 2012).

 

[BigKing]

You basically explained why the Wings weren't more impressive pre-2013 (the last 1st round pick they traded was 2012).

Sure. Just like the Kings, anything impressive at the moment about Detroit is based on the last 5-6 drafts with the biggest contributors to said impressiveness being guys that zero NHL games to their credit.

So what's the question? Best drafting team of the last 10 years or best drafting team now? Since this isn't the NBA, anybody trying to gauge "right now" is basing it off of potential from the past couple of drafts or so. Pundits are high on the teams that have been drafting high in the draft for the last few years but none of it is proven yet.

That said, is LA or Detroit a better drafting team than Tampa Bay just because they've put together way better prospect pools because they've had the ammo to do so? How do you gauge "best drafting team" v. "Best prospect pool" because a lot of the answers here seem to be one in the same.

 

[Reinhart]

I like this. Some guy was saying that under no metric could one prove that Treliving is good at drafting in the Coleman thread.

Well he got the job in 2015...

I think the Flames have been an increasingly better drafting team ever since the 2007 or so draft. The last few drafts are up in the air still, and not every draft under Treliving has been great - but there have been some really great drafts from Sutter through Feaster and now into Treliving. Lots of late round gems. Lots of players drafted who play for the organization, or have since been traded/walked away. My only criticism of the Flames is that they decided to 'win now' instead of allowing themselves to build up a bit more through the draft, and since then, having traded away too many picks.

Their drafting is by far one of their organizational strengths, and they should be focusing on that still.

 

[Trojans86]

3 years in a row the Canucks had a Calder winner/finalist on the team. A feat that hadnt been done since the 70s.


Without a top 3 pick the Canucks were able to draft a Franchise C and D and have them surrounded by All-Star level drafted talent.


Pettersson
Hughes
Boeser
Horvat
Demko


Promising young players:

Hoglander, Podkolzon, Rathbone

Yeah that is really good

 

[Trojans86]

I wouldn’t say the best. They’re very good at finding defensemen and goalies they just can’t hit on forwards for whatever reason. IMO sens and canes have really been killing it recently, in the past 15 years the lightning and sharks have also done pretty well. I like the kings forward prospects a lot but the lack of a true potential #1 goalie and lack of depth in defensemen stops me from rating them higher

We just got zegras at 9. Thats huge forward value at 9oa. Its hard to find elite forward talent late in the first where they were drafting for a long time.

 

[howkie]

Drafting hits when you have consistent top 10/15 selection isn't that difficult. After round one it looks about average?

Look at all the duds drafted around Jets when we drafted between 10-15. We got a major player evrytime, that is also quality drafting.

2011: Scheifele, a reach, but still talked about a top 3, but I think Hamilton and Hub should compete for a top 3 spot
2012: We got Trouba, more then most got, (yeah Forsberg would have been a better pick)
2013: Josh Morrissey, only player I would choose over between 10-15 is Pulock, what did Dallas get?
2014: Ehlers, look at all those misses from pick 4-15....
2015: Connor, tnx Dallas and Boston......
We got great value everytime, Dallas did draft around Jets everytime and got nearly nothing. High pick is not worth much if you miss everytime...

 

[405Entrance]

We just got zegras at 9. Thats huge forward value at 9oa. Its hard to find elite forward talent late in the first where they were drafting for a long time.

The issue is the amount of players who haven’t panned out in the first 3 rounds since 2010, there was a post on the ducks board that had a graph showing how bad they were at finding talented forwards in the first 3 rounds

 

[Goose of Reason]

The issue is the amount of players who haven’t panned out in the first 3 rounds since 2010, there was a post on the ducks board that had a graph showing how bad they were at finding talented forwards in the first 3 rounds

Are we really worse than average though?

2010 - Etem and DSP. Etem played 173 games, DSP 395. Getting 395 games out of a second rounder was good, and Etem showed promise early but never recovered from getting his knee taken out in preseason
2011 - Rakell, W. Karlsson, Cramarossa. All 3 played, 2 are pretty good players.
2012 - Nic Kerdiles, whose career got derailed by concussions
2013 - Nick Sorensen, no much there
2014 - Ritchie, who while is disappointing for a top 10 pick is still a serviceable NHLer. We also got Kase in the 7th round who was awesome until concussions completely derailed him.
2015 - Nattinen, Gates, Siederoff. Nattinen has been a goal scoring machine in Europe as of late but none of these guys panned out in the NHL. Most 2nd and 3rd rounders don't make it anyhow, but we also got Terry in the 5th.
2016 - Steel and Jones. Jury is still out on those two, Steel has yet to put things together, Jones is looking like a solid depth piece if his injury troubles hold off.
2017 - Comtois, Morand, Badini. 1 for 3 but the one is absolutely a hit. Comtois led us in scoring this year and looks like a legitimate top 6 goal scorer. Morand's play took a step forward in San Diego this year, not sure how he did in Syracuse but I think he could still make it as a depth player.
2018 - Lundestrom has been solid, Groulx is tracking very well, McLaughlin hasn't made it yet.
2019 - Zegras looks to be an outstanding selection, Tracey people are down on but it's still too early to write him off

Not going any further than that as it's still too early to say anything about the guys drafted since then. But that's 10/21 to play over 50 games since then (if my counting is correct), 7/21 have played over 100 and that's not including Comtois and Lundestrom who will get there this year. Considering most of these guys are late firsts/second/third rounders 48% doesn't seem like a bad hit rate, and that's not including hitting on Terry, Kase, and Wagner in the rounds past that.

 

[405Entrance]

Are we really worse than average though?

2010 - Etem and DSP. Etem played 173 games, DSP 395. Getting 395 games out of a second rounder was good, and Etem showed promise early but never recovered from getting his knee taken out in preseason
2011 - Rakell, W. Karlsson, Cramarossa. All 3 played, 2 are pretty good players.
2012 - Nic Kerdiles, whose career got derailed by concussions
2013 - Nick Sorensen, no much there
2014 - Ritchie, who while is disappointing for a top 10 pick is still a serviceable NHLer. We also got Kase in the 7th round who was awesome until concussions completely derailed him.
2015 - Nattinen, Gates, Siederoff. Nattinen has been a goal scoring machine in Europe as of late but none of these guys panned out in the NHL. Most 2nd and 3rd rounders don't make it anyhow, but we also got Terry in the 5th.
2016 - Steel and Jones. Jury is still out on those two, Steel has yet to put things together, Jones is looking like a solid depth piece if his injury troubles hold off.
2017 - Comtois, Morand, Badini. 1 for 3 but the one is absolutely a hit. Comtois led us in scoring this year and looks like a legitimate top 6 goal scorer. Morand's play took a step forward in San Diego this year, not sure how he did in Syracuse but I think he could still make it as a depth player.
2018 - Lundestrom has been solid, Groulx is tracking very well, McLaughlin hasn't made it yet.
2019 - Zegras looks to be an outstanding selection, Tracey people are down on but it's still too early to write him off

Not going any further than that as it's still too early to say anything about the guys drafted since then. But that's 10/21 to play over 50 games since then (if my counting is correct), 7/21 have played over 100 and that's not including Comtois and Lundestrom who will get there this year. Considering most of these guys are late firsts/second/third rounders 48% doesn't seem like a bad hit rate, and that's not including hitting on Terry, Kase, and Wagner in the rounds past that.

Outside of rakell there hasn’t been a 30 goal scorer and outside of comtois and kase no one has come close to 20 goals. Idk about you but that’s pretty bad, especially when you compare it to other teams

 

[Goose of Reason]

Outside of rakell there hasn’t been a 30 goal scorer and outside of comtois and kase no one has come close to 20 goals. Idk about you but that’s pretty bad, especially when you compare it to other teams

How many teams in that range had a multiple 30 goal scorer? Do you think Comtois' year was the best he'll ever have?

 

[TopC0rner]

I did take a look at the data and there are a few problems in "calculating" the best drafting teams.

First, I started by comparing the data sets for each draft year. In general, around 110 drafted players get to play games in the NHL. However, there is a good portion that never get to be NHL regulars. The data sets show that between 60 and 70 players each year will get to play over 100 games in the NHL. While the top-round players usually get to the NHL sooner, the later picks take a different development path and can take longer to become "regulars" (over 100 games in the NHL). As soon as 2013, the number of players having achieved the 100 GP number starts to dwindle. The cut off to get to 60 players considered as "regulars" falls to 90 GP for 2013, 60 GP for 2014 (although this may be caused by a weak draft), 60 GP for 2015 and then way too low for 2016 (under 25 GP) to be significantly comparable to the other drafts. With that in mind, any comparison of results that includes years 2008-2015 and 2016+ will be unfavorable in the later years for teams that draft well in the later rounds or spend more time developing prospects before giving them NHL ice-time.

Second, the value of draft picks should be considered based on their draft rank. I know that the initial poster did this somehow. However, the curve is steep at the top, and according to the draft data from 2008 to 2015, drafting an all-star at #1 is far less impressive than drafting one at #5. At the same time, drafting anything but an all-star at #1 should be penalized, even if the player puts average numbers at the top level. I have mapped the average GP/y and PTS/y per draft rank over that time. The best function that maps the correlation between draft rank and those measures is a logarithmic one. Here are the graphs for GP/y and for PTS/y:

Using these equations, it is possible to calculate a handicap per draft rank. Teams that can beat the handicap with a draft selection can be deemed to have drafted better than the odds, while those that get beat have had poorer results than the odds. The handicap method also counters the variable number of picks per team to make all results comparable. However, to use the points/y measure, another adjustment is required. The points/y reflects the average output for all players. Forwards, defensemen and goalies should be expected to have different outputs. For comparison sakes, I did calculate an adjustment factor for each of those. Forwards see their points multiplied by 0,9, while defensemen have theirs multiplied by 1,3. This lets them reach the average. Goalies get their GP multiplied by the average points production to simulate an average points/game effect.

In order to compare each team's result, the value of each draft pick has been calculated from 2008 to 2015. For each draft pick, the number of GP divided by the potential number of seasons (in 2008, divided by 13) provides a GP/y comparable to the handicap produced by the chart above. Same for the Points/y with the adjustment (for F, D, G). The equation used for value was GP/y - GP Handicap for the draft rank + 50% * Pts/y - Pts Handicap for the draft rank. Points were used at a 50% value because it is not as good a measure due to the required adjustments and the lower R2 of the function.

After doing that, adding up the value for each year by team gives us a picture of how the teams have done:

 

[TopC0rner]

Just noticed that the 2013-2015 years are a bit penalized due to a lower number of games played (considering that most players take a couple of years to get to the NHL, this plays into their average).

Here are the results with the correction applied:

Doesn't have a significant impact other than granting a better valuation to the later years compared to the first few ones.

 

[405Entrance]

How many teams in that range had a multiple 30 goal scorer? Do you think Comtois' year was the best he'll ever have?

The ducks have only had 1 (that they’ve drafted with the last 11 years) 30 goal scorer, I’m not sure what the rate is for other teams but I can guarantee you the ducks are near the bottom, I’m sure comtois is gonna be the 2nd this upcoming season but Jesus that’s one of the reasons why the ducks didn’t win in 2014, 2015, and 2017. There’s no shame in that some of the guys they’ve been drafting within the last 2 years have some real potential to score goals

 

[Habs Halifax]

New Data is in and I altered things a bit due to some of the ideas posted in previous threads. This includes Goalies and I will post again to show the same format but without goalies factored in.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

New Data is in and I altered things a bit due to some of the ideas posted in previous threads. This includes Goalies and I will post again to show the same format but without goalies factored in.

Great data. I love how you show "draft power" rankings on the side. St. Louis and San Jose are both top-10, despite low draft power. On the other hand, almost every team in the top-10 of draft power is middle in the pack of the overall rankings.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Great data. I love how you show "draft power" rankings on the side. St. Louis and San Jose are both top-10, despite low draft power. On the other hand, almost every team in the top-10 of draft power is middle in the pack of the overall rankings.

I been tinkering with it for a while now and I'm a big fan of looking at results but how they got there. Teams with high draft power should be drafting well. Teams with middle or back of the bus draft power and end up with results? That's where good drafting comes in.

The formulas on how I got there are below. If anybody wants different "weights" factored in, I can add that in and re-post. I can also re-post different spans of years but I think the ones I posted accomplishes what we are after and there are a fair amount of ranges each fan base can review

I've tried to be as accurate as possible. If anybody sees errors, let me know and I will review and adjust

 

[The don godfather]

Bruins pasta mcavoy carlo debrusk grezlyk swayman. That's a impressive bunch all homegrown .

 

[Habs Halifax]

Bruins pasta mcavoy carlo debrusk grezlyk swayman. That's a impressive bunch all homegrown .

Pasternak and McAvoy are the impressive ones based on where the Bruins got them. Rest of the guys you mentioned are decent hits but a lot of teams have hits like that. The 1st two are the real hits

 

[Habs Halifax]

Worth noting that the canucks go from last from 08-16 but so far as 1st from 17-21. Early but good signs they are on a better track. I'd be curious to see if they changed scouts in 2017?

Habs last from 08-21, 2nd last from 08-16 but 17th in 17-21. Like the Canucks, they are on a better track but it's early.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Thanks for doing that. Interesting!

I like the work done, the only two comments I would provide are:
1) Potentially using the points/game metric in your scoring formula as higher scoring players should have a higher impact on the rating as opposed to 4th liners picking up a lot of games but not really contributing; and
2) differentiating between forward and defensemen picks as point expectations would be very different (i.e. .5 ppg d-man is much different than a .5 ppg forward)

Those are just potential improvements, otherwise very interesting and great effort

Check out the new data... post 143. New data just in and a few adjustments based on some comments you and others have made

 

[Favin]

I think the "draft power" is too heavily weighted...and makes teams like Buffalo, Edmonton, NY Rangers, New Jersey appear too poorly and teams like Pittsburgh and Washington appear too strong.

Also, model favors offensive d-man.